The Nebulous Kingdom

More for Same

9/6/2013

Comments

 
I read this analysis on what makes for an exceptional company, driven by data on thousands of companies over 45 years:  http://dupress.com/articles/pulling-ahead-versus-catching-up-tradeoffs-and-the-quest-for-exceptional-profitability/?coll=3655

The short (and somewhat obvious) answer - better "performance." Not lower prices. Performance can be sustainably differentiated over time. Price is denominated in dollars, the ultimate commodity.  The only way to differentiate on price is to make it lower, and all that's required to overtake you is a tweak in the cost structure and a swipe of then pen.  I'm vastly oversimplifying to point of idiocy, but in essence, in the debate between "more for more" and "less for less", the answer seems to be "more at some price point that allows you to re-invest in even more."

What should that price point be?  In a networked world, holding revenue constant, more users at a lower price point is better than fewer users at a higher price point.  Unless it's a true luxury good whose few users include the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Kanye West and Barack Obama.  Because it's better to have more free-agent ambassadors and reference points - it enables free credible marketing and PR, and potentially an ecosystem of hackers, developers, spinoffs, and feedback providers that can make your offering more valuable over time.  As Brad Fitzpatrick, founder of LiveJournal once said, "Having users is the key to getting contributors. More users find more bugs and find more use cases."

I would posit that often the answer is "more for about the same".  "More for about the same" is a dominant position from a price standpoint.  It is net better than "more for less" and enables more network- and ecosystem-driven opportunities than "more for a lot more".

The critical questions become - "What can your cost structure support, and how much cash flow do you need to re-invest?"  "More for about the same" might be "more for slightly more", but it still comes down to the affordances of your cost structure (or what your cost structure could be).  Apple, for instance, has a shockingly better cost structure than its competitors, which enables it to make money from both ends - by charging higher prices as a luxury good and by constraining costs.  And even Apple is finally dropping the price on their iPhone:  http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/apple-cheaper-iphone-low-150045949.html

Perhaps, rather than a sign of weakness, it's a sign of greater dominance to come.  At the end of the day, it will depend on what they're going to do with their pile of cash.
Comments

A question: What makes "in-person" so different?

9/6/2013

Comments

 
I have a job where frequent travel is a prerequisite, yet travel is so astoundingly wasteful. You're constantly in hectic transit, standing in line, taking off jackets, spending money on planes and taxis - it's substantially expensive for you to be dramatically less productive. And god forbid something goes wrong - missed flight, bad weather, lost luggage etc. Then you're just screwed.

So I've been thinking a lot about why I have to travel, whether we take it for granted the value of "in-person", and if there's an opportunity to close the gap, push out the performance frontier.

I recently saw in my Facebook feed a debate on whether investors should hear pitches over Google Hangout or some other virtual means. One of the responses was super interesting - in essence, he said his team found out that the remote team thought the presenting startup founder was significantly more arrogant than the local team. He recommended virtual pitches only if you already knew the team.

Why? Why? What makes that difference? Why does it matter that you're in the room?

Is it that we don't catch the facial nuances so are left to interpret only the more dramatic gestures and expressions we do see?

Is it that we can't smell their pheromones and emotion indicators, and therefore are missing important data in our analysis?

Is it that we haven't shaken their hands and felt a sense of kinship from the ritual and biochemical stimuli resulting from skin touching skin? 

Is it that we can't see their faces at a scale that our brains interpret as human, and therefore feel less empathy?

I could go on and on. We know that trust is about information, and that it's very difficult to build trust without meeting someone at least once. There's something in that live interaction, that if we dissected it and understood it, maybe we could build technology that did more than just solved the problem of seeing the same slides and hearing the same voices - or even seeing the same faces and co-authoring the same document - to create an experience where I feel like I'm in the same room as you.  So I never have to get on a plane unless it's going somewhere with ocean and white sand.


Comments
    Picture

    Author

    I'm interested in uncertainty, time, trust, consistency, strategy, economics, empathy, philosophy, education, technology, story-telling, and fractals.
    Contact

    Archives

    May 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    June 2015
    January 2015
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009

    RSS Feed


    My Favorite Curators


    Email newsletters

    Edge.org
    John Mauldin
    STRATFOR
    Futurity.org
    BPS Research Digest
    Domain-B.com
    FORA.tv
    PopTech!
    PIMCO Investment Outlooks
    GMO Client Reports
    Big Think
    Commonwealth Club
    Someecards.com
    MRN Research Papers
    Chicago Booth eNewsletters
    McKinsey Quarterly
    Boldtype / Artkrush
    Singularity University
    Charlie Rose
    The Aspen Institute


    Feeds

    WNYC
    Radiolab

    This American Life
    Freakonomics Radio
    The Moth
    Chicago Booth Podcast
    The Atlantic Council
    The Memory Palace
    TED.com
    Foreign Affairs
    The Ideas Project
    Long Now Foundation
    The School of Life
    Letters of Note

    Periodicals

    The Economist
    The Wall Street Journal
    The New Yorker
    The New York Times
    Wired Magazine
    The Atlantic

    Other Websites

    Oaktree Capital Memos
    LSE Public Lectures
    Bubblegeneration
    Becker-Posner Blog
    Eric Von Hippel
    NetAge
    John Seely Brown
    Malcolm Gladwell
    John Hagel
    HBR – The Big Shift
    LookBook.nu
    Robert Shiller
    Paul Graham
    Frontline PBS
    Royal Society for the Arts
    Blake Masters

    Humor

    Best of Craigslist
    Texts from Last Night
    FMyLIfe
    MyLifeisAverage
    Lamebook
    The Onion


    Categories

    All