Category: The Internet

Posted on

Learnings from Gawker

Nick Denton who has been on the forefront of blogging and online publishing for the past decade is shaking things up again. He’s redesigning the Gawker websites (Gizmodo, Deadspin, Gawker, Defamer, etc.) to be able to better showcase top stories, making video more prominent, and making articles easier to scan. It’s also interesting to hear what he’s learned over the years. His main point – scoops and exclusives dictate the winners. He writes in a statement he released on Gawker:

One law of media competition applies as strongly to web properties as it did to their predecessors: scoops drive audience growth. Gawker Media experienced that rule, painfully, as Harvey Levin’s TMZ eclipsed our overly bloggy Hollywood site, Defamer. TMZ’s growth was built upon three gigantic stories: Mel Gibson’s meltdown; Michael Richards’ racist outburst; and Michael Jackson’s death.

He goes on to argue that simply reposting stories that are elsewhere on the web is a broken strategy:

For that, let’s look at the biggest exclusive of all — early shots of the iPhone 4 — which made Gizmodo into a household name. That episode more than any other demonstrated the bankruptcy of the classic blog column. In order to keep video of the iPhone prototype at the top of the reverse chronological flow, Gizmodo actually stopped publishing for several hours. How ridiculous!

Another interesting move they are making is moving to more video. In the past, he explained, is that video is twice as hard to produce without twice the payoff. Also, they felt that this was the differentiated skill of TV networks/ However, it’s now changed for them as making videos are easier and they are finding that TV companies are just as entrenched in legacy formats and methods with video as they have been for text. As he says, “Gawker bloggers, once they’re as familiar with iMovie as with cut-and-paste, can beat them.”

The new site looks more like ESPN Sportscenter and PTI than a typical blog like Techcrunch.  And that’s the point.  Put the big story front and center and the rest to the side.  It remains to be seen though that whether catering to the scoop and the new non-familiar user will alienate the daily reader, which is their bread and butter.   Personally, I like the move.  Even if it doesn’t work, I admire companies that are trying new tactics and innovating.  Denton’s been right in the past and if anyone knows online publishing and readership behaviors it’s him – so I’d guess that this is the correct move.

Posted on

My Own Personal Newspaper

I’ve long thought about how the newspaper industry is changing (especially because my new startup is targeted towards the publishing industry) and this past week i found something really amazing interesting.

Let me start by saying that i find my feeds (both Facebook and Twitter) way more interesting than any website I read.  I typically get all my news from Google Reader where i’ve imported  all the sites and feeds that i’m interested in.  This is a great way to quickly process information but it doesn’t give me any information from other sites (obviously). The great part of Twitter and Facebook is that my friends provide links from all around the web.

So, while at BlogWorld last week i learned about Paper.li which creates a personal newspaper based on your Twitter feed.  My personal paper is here.  It looks at all the links submitted by your Twitter friends, see what those stories are and creates a paper of those stories.  It also knows the categories of those links so it creates a Sports and Technology section for you.  For instance, this morning my Paper.li has this Business section:

This is similar to what the company Flipboard is doing – although that’s only an iPad app.  The beauty of this is that it’s taking my feed, which has all the information i want, and placing it in the format that i want – as a nice webpage where i don’t have to click through each link to consume them.  It’s eliminating links and making my life prettier and easier.  What a great way to start a morning

Posted on

The Social Network Movie

I saw the new film The Social Network this weekend and loved it.  This was an interesting film for me.  It was the first film where i knew or met many of the major characters.

  • I’ve spent a good deal of time with Sean Parker.  We’ve worked together (briefly at AOL).  We’ve partied together when we both spent a week crashing at Spencer’s place in Hermosa. We’ve collaborated on a company together- my dad and I angel invested in Plaxo
  • I’ve met with the Winklevoss twins.   They came down to look at Ruckus in 2006 when they were still doing ConnectU
  • Others i’ve only met once or seen indirectly, such as Dustin and Peter Thiel.

But, it’s safe to say that i know the cast of characters which made the film incredibly satisfying.   Fincher and Sorkin nailed it as the characters in real life are very much how they are depicted.

The fact that this is a good movie can be attributed directly to Fincher and Sorkin.  The writing and directing is phenomenal.  Fincher takes his modern, slick style with awesome music and combines it with smart, quick dialogue.  You’re forced to keep up.  The result is great storytelling.  A mediocre plot become fascinating because of them.

The interesting parts to me are:

The ethical scale. In the web industry, there’s a huge hacker culture where technology grit and talent is valued over rules.  There are no rules.  Zuckerberg completely embraces this and the Winklevoss twins are on the other end of the spectrum.  Every other character is somewhere in the middle of this scale.   I see this every day when i see and talk to programmers who are trying to do something unique and innovative.  This is how Napster came to be.  This is how Skype happened.  It’s part of the web culture and i thought the film did a good job of showing the two types of people converging into the web business.

Sean Parker. He’s quite a character and I’ve had the pleasure of hanging with him a few times.  He is just as the movie describes as he’s very charismatic and love parties, high fashion, models and going to trendy spots.  But the film doesn’t do him justice in a couple of areas.  First, he’s a social software genius. He understands better than others how to make a site social and gain millions of users.  The movie makes him look like he totally mooched off Facebook.  It should be noted that he’s responsible for some huge contributions such as the News Feed.   In addition to the Peter Thiel money, he also helped with the Accel $10 million investment.  These are huge things.

There’s also a class system matrix here. You have old money (Eduardo and Winklevoss), you have no money (Zuckerberg) and you have new money (Sean Parker and Peter Thiel).    You have a kid with a chip on his shoulder making something extremely valuable.  Those with old money and traditional business models in their head (Eduardo and The Twins) want it and want to fit this round peg into their square hole.  The new money characters (Parker and Theil) know the true potential of Facebook, what it can accomplish, and that growing it now is the better strategy.  This was a very real dynamic and in fact i wrote about it 18 months ago when everyone in the media was writing about how Facebook pageviews are worthless and how they won’t be able to monetize and the social network business as we know it isn’t nearly as valuable as we thought.  It was all crap and it was because this is new unchartered waters.

The product is king. In the consumer internet business, the product on the page is the single most important thing.  Making the user experience tight, fast, and easy is the difference between a successful site and one that nobody uses.   This is why you can have two websites that do the exact same thing but one is a huge success and the other goes out of business (see the example between Mint and Wesebe).  This is especially true with social networks where it’s a winner take all game.  Network effects cause there to be one big site and lots of losers.  Zuckerberg knows this.  He intuitively understands the user experience.  Facebook is a great experience.  This is also why he discounts The Twins and their ambition.  Just having an idea is only a small part of making a site and a business.  He knows this, I know it and The Twins probably know this.

History of social networks and Exclusivity. For the casual viewer, i think the film might seem like Zuckerberg invented the modern day social network.  This just isn’t true.  Before Facebook there was Friendster, MySpace and half a dozen other social networks that had profiles and friend linkage.  Facebook’s defining characteristic was it’s default privacy settings – it’s exclusivity.  There’s an important scene in the film when Zuckerberg realizes that this is the idea behind the Harvard Connection and this idea makes social networks fun and more realistic.  This exclusivity was Facebook’s major point of distinction for the first few years of its existence and it’s interesting that this one point was not his idea.  Granted, he may have a better product sense than others and built a great site, but it was all founded on shady ground.  Putting in the work and developing the actual product is 99% of a web business, but if the main difference between Facebook and every other social network is not something you came up with, then that’s a problem.  And apparently that problem equals $65 million dollars.  Seems like more than a fair trade

Startup Culture. I thought the film did a great job of displaying web and startup culture.  Sure, it’s a group of people who don’t sleep but more importantly it’s a group of people who believe what they’re doing is the single most important thing on the planet.  They dream of kingdoms and a world domination.  Every feature they implement is a step in that direction which is why it’s ok to sacrifice social lives, money and sleep.  You saw that allure in this film.  That house in Palo Alto reminded me of the Fincher’s Fight Club house where another, different kind of cult was brewing only the one about Facebook was and is real.  It happens every day in the valley and across the world with startups.

All in all, I thought it was a great film and found myself thinking and talking about it for days afterwards.  You should check it out.

Posted on

Foursquare vs. Facebook Places

I am a huge Foursquare users. I registered the day that it launched at SXSW, I’m mayor of sixteen places and have checked in over 450 days. Whenever i go to a place, i immediately think of checking in. I’ve also tried out all of the competitors, such as Loopt and Gowalla. While those are ok, Foursquare was the best for me.

So, when Facebook launcehd “Places” i was curious to give it a shot. And after just a few days, I think it’s going to be a viable competitor and will keep many mainstream users from ever using Foursquare. Here’s why:

There are three reasons why people use Foursquare:

  1. Socially. To tell their friends where they are so they can join them.
  2. As a game. To become “mayor” of a place and to check in more than other people
  3. MyWare. To log where in the world you’ve been

The first reason – to connect with your friends – is the most powerful and is the reason most people use a service like this. The main issue with Foursquare is that not many of their friends are on it, so this didn’t happen for most. It only worked this way for power users and early adopters who have other power users and early adopters as friends (people like me). This is where FB Places shine. The first day of using it, i had more friends on it than on Foursquare and it was immediately more useful for me. I could actually see where many of my friends were. Foursquare never did this well.

The second reason – to play as a game and to become a mayor – doesn’t work for FB Places. There is no game in Facebook. It’s just to connect. I can see rewards happening in the future the same way that some restaurants or shops post messages on their FB pages for free coffee or cupcakes. I actually do miss this on FB. I found myself not checking into a place this weekend for a second time because i asked myself, “what’s the point?” I knew it would annoy my friends and i was leaving soon anyway. I checked on Foursquare but not FB.

The third reason will never happen on Facebook but will on Foursquare. You can see my stats page here. It’s great to see and view all the places i’ve been. Will most users like this? Not at all. I’m a rare breed in my love of tracking myself.

To sum up, i really think FB Places is going to crush it. Despite Friday being the biggest day in Foursquare history and their claim that the rising tide will raise all ships, I think that unless Foursquare can continue to out innovate Facebook, I think FB will leave Foursquare behind in the dust. Once again, Facebook proves taht although it’s large and has an amazingly large userbase, they aren’t afraid to make big changes and innovate. This is why they are the internet king right now. Did anyone think that Yahoo! if they couldn’t buy Foursquare would actually build something. Yeah right.

Posted on

Gearbox is Rolling

The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.   – William Gibson

I did see the future this summer – just in bits and pieces.  Let me explain….

As many of you know, i had an amazing experience at Techstars this summer. Not only did we evolve our company Kapost in a new and better direction, but we got to meet and interact with some incredible mentors and entrepreneurs.

There’s a company i worked right next to this summer called Gearbox.  This is two guys who are hard core robotics nerds – and i mean that in the best way.  They have the only desk i’ve ever seen at a startup that has soldering irons and wrenches.

When they first arrived to Techstars, it was clear that they didn’t really know the best direction to take their company.  They weren’t alone, lots of us had unclear paths.  But they had a passion for robots, gaming and mobile devices and were looking for how best to apply this. As the months passed, they decided on a direction that was well aligned with this passion – which resulted in the Orbbott or the “Gearbox Ball.”

What is it? This is a robotic ball that is controlled by your iPhone or Android device.  Not only is controlled but there are apps on your phone that you can use with the ball.  Apps like Sumo (where you play against another ball) or Golf or, my favorite, “follow me” app. This is an application where you put the phone in your pocket and the Ball just follows you around the room.  It speeds up when you’re far away and backs up if you approach it.  I don’t know why, but i love this idea.  It’s the best version of a robotic dog or cat i’ve heard of.

You can see a video below of them demo’ing their ball.  It’s a great idea. They’ve invented a whole category of toys called “Smart Toys” and i think i’ve just seen the future.  Thankfully, i was lucky enough to see it emerge from the very beginning.

Posted on

Facebook’s Fundamental Problem

I read a great post that opened my eyes to something interesting going on about Facebook’s privacy issue.   The issue has to do with how they position themselves in regard to being either a communications platform or a content platform – and how this impacts how they treat privacy.  If you look at this chart:

You see there are two sections: Communication and Content.  Both are directions that a company can focus on.  What’s interesting is the relationship between virality and revenue potential.   The more focused an application is on Communication, the easier and more quickly it spreads – but it can’t easily sell ads or monetize.  The more Content-centric an application is, the easier it is to monetize (ads are more relevant with higher CTR) but it’s hard to get the app to spread and grow.

Facebook started, of course, as a closed network for college students where they could “connect” and communicate.  As the statement above would suggest, this caused it to spread very quickly.  And it did.  However the site wasn’t making much  money.  Now, they find themselves with a slew (if you can call 500 million people that) of users and a desire to monetize.  It then makes sense for it to move up the scale and become more of a content company.  Thus, you see lots of Like buttons all over the place, a payment platform, and an ad platform to make this as effective as possible

The problem is with privacy.  Users were led to Facebook thinking it was on the Communication side of the fence.  However, it’s ambition is to be more in the middle because that is where it can both spread quickly and make money.  The privacy rules of a Communication web application and Facebook now are longer in agreement .  You can’t ask people to “Friend” and communicate with work people, parents, and close personal acquaintances and then also ask them to make that information public as if it is Content.  That there is a fundamental problem.

Posted on

Fred’s 10 Golden Web-App Rules

This past weekend i watched this video from Fred Wilson about what are the 10 Golden Principles of a Web application. Fred has been an investor for over 20 years and is on the board of some of this decade’s premier companies such as Twitter, FourSquare, Tumblr, Etsy, Delicous, and more.

The 10 Golden Principles of Successful Web Apps from Carsonified on Vimeo.

  1. Speed.  Fred sees speed more than a feature. Speed is the most important feature and he argues that this is more important with mainstream users an early-adopters who are more forgiving.  Everyday users have no tolerance for slugish apps.  I heard the same thing from Google when they presented at Techstars.  They measure everything and if it’s slow, they fix it.  Fred mentioned pingom as something they use to measure every portfolio company.
  2. Instant Utility.  If a user has to spend too long to configure the service – it won’t catch on.  YouTube is a great example of how it won by providing instant feedback rather than delaying the gratification.
  3. Voice.  Consumer software is media today.  Consumers approach in the same way the approach magazines, tv shows, etc.. Software has to have a personality and if it has no attitude, then it won’t catch on.
  4. Simplicity.  Just one main feature at launch.  Fred points to Delicious as a perfect example of this.  Make the app super simple and then go from there.  There are lots of good posts on how to focus on this.
  5. Programmability.   Make your app accessible from other developers.  This means read+write API’s and if’s not “write” it’s not an API and might as well be RSS.   Allow other developers to add energy, data and richness.  In Fred’s mind this is absolutely essential and he’s hesitant to invest in anything that isn’t programmable.
  6. Personalizable.  You want make your app infused with your user’s energy.
  7. REST URLs.  Make your app easy to navigate – give everything a URL. This also makes is discoverable from Google.
  8. Discoverable.  There are millions of web pages and web applications.   This point means SEO but it also means that your app itself should be self-promoting.  This means social media and branding.
  9. Clean.  This is UI requirement.  You need to be able to come to the page and be able to immediately determine what to do and what’s going on.   It has to be inviting and simple.
  10. Playful.  An app should be fun to use and it’s use should encourage future use.  Weigh Watchers is a good example as it establishes points and goals and getting the points and acheiving goals is something that should be embedded in each application

There one more interesting point he spits out at the end about the name and brand of a company.  He talks about how important it is to him that the company purchases the actual name of the company.  For example, Foursquare was playfoursquare.com and they insisted that they change.  He also insisted that del.icio.us become delicious.com.

The 10 principles are interesting to think about and a good checklist for any startup to have.  I’ve definitely been guilty of ignoring some of these in my past work.   Interesting stuff

Posted on

The Daily Beast Recognizes Dartmouth as a Top Producer of Tech Talent

This month, The Daily Beast pointed out in “Tech’s 29 Most Powerful Colleges” and it had Dartmouth at the top. As The Beast says,

Our goal was to identify which colleges, compared student-for-student, have turned out the most undergraduates destined for high-tech greatness. While our results included many prestigious names, the rankings produced surprises as well. At the top of the list is a spot nearly 3,000 miles away from Silicon Valley.

That right baby! These results don’t surprise me. Making my way through the tech entrepreneurial world, I’ve encountered lots of Dartmouth alums as both entrepreneurs and VC’s. Dartmouth also has a long history in pioneering technology. Some key notes:

  • In 1956, a Dartmouth math professor coined the phrase “artificial intelligence” and “AI” (link)
  • In the 60’s, The Dartmouth Time-Sharing System, was the first large-scale time-sharing system to be implemented successfully – setting the stage for the large server farms we see today at large companies such as Google.
  • 1964, Dartmouth created the BASIC programming language which became a extremely popular language in the 70’s and 80’s.  In 1975, Bill Gates and Paul Allen developed a version of BASIC as their initial plan for Microsoft and today’s MS Visual Basic is still a derivative of that initial creation.
  • Since 1991, computers have been mandatory for all students and in 1988 had campus-wide email working (before AOL!)
  • In 1999, Wired magazine named Dartmouth the #1 most wired College in the country and in 2001, it became the first school in the country to be completely wireless (link)

It’s clear the Dartmouth is doing something right.  It’s nice to get the recognition.

Posted on

Last.fm Will Be a Charts Site

There was an announcement today from Last.fm that read:

CBS-owned (NYSE: CBS) social music discovery and radio service Last.fm announced on Tuesday that it is discontinuing the on-demand song streaming service on its website, which had been available for the past two years in the U.S., U.K. and Germany, and will no longer host music videos.

What, Last.fm didn’t like paying tons of cash to have people play music for free? That’s amazing! Of course they cancelled this. They were offering free services which grew traffic but not monetizing those users at all. Not surprisingly someone asked why their offered the freebies. The release continued to read:

The company also said a number of new digital music services will now support “scrobbling” of tracks to users’ Last.fm charts. They include Spotify, The Hype Machine, MOG, We7 and Vevo.

This is the only reason i know of that people use Last.fm. People want to know what their most popular track is and it’s interesting to see what are the most played tracks. Where does this lead? It leads to last.fm being the Neilsons or Comscore or Billboard of the future. This site will tell us what’s popular and by who. In my mind, this is the future they have.  I wonder if CBS is regretting paying $280 million in cash for them.

Posted on

The Deck: A Fascinating Ad Platform

There’s an intersting advertising network that i learned about at SXSW this week called The Deck. They do one thing differently and it substantially impacts everything else: they get rid of the CPM. Selling ads by the 1000 holdover from the days of print media and TV where companies wanted to align ads to circulation and ratings. Deck does things differenly.

If you look at the three constituents of ad sales: publishers (the web site), readers, and the advertisers. The CPM is beneficial only to the advertiser. With CPM, publishers optimize their site for page views. This results in chopping stories into 3 pages, making photo galleries, lack of ajax, or other gimicks that result in more page views at the expense of user enjoyment. Typically when sites begin to focus on monetizing, they get worse for the reader, not better.

The Deck is an ad network. They represent both publishers (Twitteriffic, Daring Fireball, etc.) and advertisers (Rackspace, Gowalla, KickApps, etc.). They subjectively vet both of them.  The also have the following rules:

  1. They will only represent websites of a certain type. In this case it’s sites focused on design or technology
  2. They will only place ads of products they like or endorse
  3. They then will place only one ad per page of one size and of one format. They charge the advertiser a monthly rate and sign yearly contracts wht the publishers.
  4. Their ads have up to 80 characters and one image

Does it work? Definitely. They are way oversubscribed for both advertisers and publishers. Even though advertisers get less impressions, they are more effective. Thus, 7 out of 10 advertisers return month after month. Publishers have more attractive, less cluttered sites and no longer have to worry about chasing pages. Sure they want an audience and the bigger the better but whether it’s 3 page views per user or 10, it doesn’t matter

The author of Daring Fireball has a story of when he was using Google Ads instead of Deck. For a while his most successful, in revenue terms, article was one where he compared a certain design to a man’s toupee. What he found was all the Google Ads next to his article had to do with men’s hairpieces.  He also found that men’s hairpiece keywords are very highly priced and he earned 7x the amount of money on that page than other pages. This was troubling for him because he then started thinking about what words are valuable to Google when writing articles rather than what he readers want. His revenue (and interests) were properly aligned with advertisers nor readers.

Deck is an interesting example of someone innovating around ad networks. I find it fascinating as i really don’t like the CPM either. But, does it scale to other, non design/technology sectors? Maybe. I think it requires the readers to be intelligent and (somewhat)affluent. So i could see Travel or Cars having a similar ad network. But it gets harder after that.