Cisco, IBM, Walmart, Wholefoods, Starbucks and others invest millions in their social web presence. The investment is more on the human resource side than on systems. They don’t advertise what they are doing but they are moving fast.

The Social Media Academy provides some insight in this week’s complimentary webinar http://www.socialmedia-academy.com/html/introwebinar.cfm

– The impact of social media on businesses across all industries

– Identifying the largest pool of business opportunities

– Assessment of a company’s social ecosystem http://xeeurl.com/A0848

– Developing a comprehensive social media strategy

– Creating a social media plan

– Reporting and analytics in social media – over 100 reporting tools

– ROI, resources and budget considerations

– Social media as a cross functional business accelerator

– Competing for mind, – and market share

– Building a successful social media practice

This Friday 4/24 – 9:00AM (PDT) Online conference (no charge)

http://www.socialmedia-academy.com/html/introwebinar.cfm


As sad as it is, industrial media killed itself. It is NOT the Internet or technology for that matter that killed publishers it is the change of their business model from independent content circulation to advertising distribution.

A publisher used to make money by providing a given audience latest news, well researched and easy to consume. Readers paid for the news and publishers made a profit by balancing cost of news gathering and distribution with newspaper revenue. Rather simple model.

I explaind the shift in process here a few weeks ago:

http://www.customerthink.com/blog/what_publishers_killed_may_kill_blogger_too

@AxelS
About Newspapers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

We started a new Facebook page for Social Media Academy. Introducing webinars and educational events. Please join the groups and become fan.

The social networking company is looking for money – lots of money. How many do they really need and what then?

2007 estimated headcount 450

2008 estimated headcount 800
2008 estimated cash flow negative $150MM
Above numbers reported by TechCrunch

2009 estimated headcount 1,200
That translates to a cost structure of roughly $200,000,000 (200MM)
With revenues (I don’t see more than 100MM) this is $100MM under.
Now add the enormous cost of data centers that need to stream the videos, the photos and the rest of the application.

The clock is ticking. So what options has Facebook?
1) Cut Cost / Layoff
Either cut staff in half to get to break even
That’s possible but hard to do. But better saving 50% than losing all.
It would also mean the company is getting profitable and may do an IPO in a year or two.
2) Double revenue
But with advertising? That’s so much harder when even advertising machine Google admits that ad revenue is flat – meaning it’s probably going down. After all, the world is beginning to realize that the advertising model is not a business model after all.
3) Additional Funding
Get $500 Million to survive 5 more years, freeze hiring and use the time to develop a product/service value based business model – probably the hardest but still possible. In MHO the only way to keep current investors happy. Remember Jack Walsh: “Shareholder value is the dumbest thing in the world:”
4) Sell
OK then there is the option to sell the whole package – better now than never. Maybe for a billion or two – again remember Jack Welsh.

Then there is competition (possible acquirer):
1) Google with $16B cash in the bank has some nice little wiggle room
2) Less aggressive but more stable LinkedIn could weak up (I know hard to believe) and with just a few smart tactical moves get really dangerous.
3) MySpace – don’t underestimate those guys. They are less strategic more like a news paper driven network – but they have 3 things: a) Huge momentum, b) Financial backing c) the option to break into business (they are just a bid sleepy in that regard)
4) Microsoft? Not really. No vision, totally a-social DNA, no momentum… just money and then we could list any other company with money.
5) The SAP / Oracle world. Hmm interesting. Unlike Microsoft, they haven’t burned their name in social media yet. Just two massive companies but may become an interesting contender in the game in the next two years.

Disclosure: The above numbers are just rough estimates.
But you get the idea

@AxelS

After focusing my blogging on Xeequa and lately on Social Media Academy I decided to to do some personal blogging once in a while. And as such I revitalize this blog here at Blogger.

Y is after X – it’s that simple. But Y is very different!!!!

97% own a Personal Computer
94% own a cell phone
75% of the college students have a social network account

About 76 Million are entering the job space right now.
Businesses better get ready to know about the power and connectivity of that generation. If you are not connected you are out.

Social media has been an interesting ride. Unlike technology that was pushed into the market and a lot of ad dollars made it well known – it was the opposite. The market picked it up and then many asked – what happened?

Every once in a while things change at speed of light and many still didn’t even know. Why? Because 1 billion of the 6 billion people on earth communicate amongst each other (like the 15 – 25 year old) without letting the rest participate in the conversation. Then once we all know it we lokk back and just wonder ;-)

This is my personal observation on our current economic situation. (2007)

We call an economic melt down “Recession”, when we don’t know the origin of the situation.

We call a Recession a ”Depression” if we failed to find the reason and continue the way we did in the past

We don’t know what we don’t know
The oil crisis or energy crisis had a name because we knew what the issues are. The Internet bubble had a name because we knew the cause and could deal with it. The current “recessive behavior of economy” seems unknown to many and have a real vague reason for some. It is pretty easy to point to the financial institutes who in turn point to politicians, and argue about interest rate definitions, manipulation of a free economy etc. But what do we say about the automobile industry and their issues? What do we say why HighTech consumption is declining? Why even consumer goods are declining before the “Financial hammer” was hitting? The list is as long as our Industry SIC codes.

Businesses around the glob will suffer 10% – 20% decrease in revenue. This causes layoffs and a dramatic increase in unemployment rate. Now this will really accelerate recessive revenues and a decrease in consumption and the spiral goes further down.

We don’t know the real origin of the revenue recessiveness
Why the layoffs in the first place? Because all we know is that consumption is going down. But too many don’t know why or have false assumptions. And hence a stimulus package would only absorb additional liquidity without helping “reform” our macro economic landscape.

Analyzing the details of recessive revenue
Try to buy a car. What is happening? You feel ripped off by that car dealer which probably has the worst reputation in the sales guild. A friend of ours found the perfect car. But the sales guy was so pushy and so aggressive that she left the store. It took another month until she found the equivalent car and be prepared through online research so she exactly knew what to buy, where to buy and what to pay. As a result she bought much later than she planned to. And so many of us have seen this same behavior with friends and with ourselves.

I tried to add an additional cable TV connection at another place. Not only that the customer unfriendly voice recognition system and out sourced call centers are rather incompetent, the available plans are so complicated and vary every day that I hung up and it took me two more month until I finally ordered it because I really had to. Just forget about some cool extras – many of us just buy what you absolutely need. And this is not because we have no money – but because we just don’t want to deal with those companies. Again you buy less and much later.

Try by a cell phone. The sales information, the plans and the sales methods are like 25 years old. Buy an Apple iPhone and you need to stand in artificially created lines to activate the phone to make it look more attractive. How can just a few weeks later people download millions of gadgets when only a few 20 per store can get activated? Better wait until the artificial hype is over and be treated as a welcome customer. Purchase delayed by 2-3 month.

Want to book a vacation. Ohhh what a drama. You wait until you know it is really about time because all those offers are so complicated and since there is no such thing called travel agency who has some friendly local representatives, you order online – cheap – late.

Buy some new clothes. You only can get what the industry is producing right now, dependent of the season, dependent on surveyed fashion trends and based on regional aspects of their purchasing departments. So the selection is highly limited, optimized, maximized in accordance to some business process automation suggestion. You simply buy less.

Now buy food. Grocery store consolidation has reduced the product variety, quality has shrunk and with less consumption the personal is now less and cheaper. You buy what you find and many get fancy by going to WholeFoods and Trader Joe’s despite the higher price. But isn’t it interesting that the super expensive Whole Food is very successful?

I can go on and on and see one interesting pattern across the board – purchases are made later by approximately one or two month at least. A delay of 2 month or 1/6th of a year translates to 16% reduction in revenue. But that is only for the goods and services we HAVE TO HAVE – or believe so. Now add the other little things that we buy or not buy and never buy just because we are sick of the bad service that is provided. An over all revenue reduction of 20% for an economy that is used to think in 3 or more percent growth – that is RECESSIVE and if we don’t wake up it will get DEPRESSIVE!

Now think about the initial customer contacts:
Call a business and you will need to dial 2 – dial 6 – dial 7 – dial 1 then land at an  outsourced call center that hardly speaks English and only has a repertoire of some 20 – 30 questions. As a customer or prospect I just feel how much I’m worth to the company I try to contact. THAT CAN BE CHANGED – RIGHT?

Business Process Automation
BPI is one of the main topics of most companies. Business processes are so deeply optimized that as a customer or prospect I’m hardly playing any role. It’s all about the internal processes. The focus then includes quickly compliance issues, information flow, disclaimers and who can provide what information. At the end nobody can say anything. Corporations became so closed that again a business relationship is hardly possible. I’ve seen user groups collecting contact information from a vendors sales people to get in touch with them. It sounds unbelievable but even the customers can’t talk to sales people to buy updates (A still multi B$ telecommunication company). THAT CAN BE CHANGED – RIGHT?

Information Flow
While businesses make it much harder to get to relevant information, users are forced to dig through forums, blogs, communities to find information. The only information flow is mass emails, advertising, sponsored link with all the same – excuse me – bullshit nobody really want’s to read. I asked participants in an event “who trusts or even just cares about advertising?” all I got as an answer was a laughter. Still approximately 1 Trillion Dollar is spend in advertising and advertising related initiatives – unfortunately it’s no longer bringing any results. In general business simply lost the sense for their most precious good – customers. THAT CAN BE CHANGED – RIGHT?

Product Design, Production, Marketing, Sales, Support
We build products that are neither verified nor wanted by the market. And while customers scream about their needs in forums and user groups, producers are not even aware what they say. Businesses spend 3-5% on advertising that nobody cares anymore, they loose 3-5% of their profit right here. Sales is purely trained, and under such pressure to sell that it scares customers away. If purchase is delayed about a month translating to 8.33% reduction in revenue it often represents another loss of 4% profitability. Support is so underpowered and the leverage from knowledgeable users is simply ignored which cost another 2-5% profitability. And if we add all up our business in some cases looses even more than the average 5-10 but more like 20% soon. People get laid off to keep the company going – keep the status quo – which drives the company further down.

What on earth has all that to do with the “financial crisis”?
When businesses around the world loose their customers because the customers loose interest in those products and services, what has that to do with the prime rate? NOTHING. Why are a few companies thriving? Sheer luck? Absolutely NO. Can companies produce, market and sell products in a crisis? Yes, as long as we live, eat, move, search for new opportunities, create new opportunities, build more attractive products, provide better service, spend less on advertising nobody cares about and do what customers really are interested in.

For Even if you think – this is stupid, this is too easy, this is superficial, and I have absolutely no clue. Wouldn’t it make sense to improve your business anyway?

1) First off all re-architect your first impression:
– Stop the outsourced call centers and put less but well trained customer focused people on the phone
– Move your advertising budget towards customer relevant initiatives like blogs, communities, forums
– Seriously redefine your information policy – your shareholders rather have results than an over compliant closed company.

2) Rethink your product / service / pricing model:
– Work with product management on more transparent pricing models – the old customer rip off didn’t fly
– Listen to your customers and simply build what they ask for – if you don’t do it someone else will
– Take green and social serious. It’s not a hype it’s what the majority of customers care about.

3) Redefine your corporate values (if you have any)
– Make the ones who pay you (customers) not silly Kings but seriously valued Advisors and Advocates
– Measure, manage and control customer reflection on you not by anonymous endless surveys but by tangible activities in your ecosystem
– As CEO erase “Shareholder value” from your list of priorities. Shareholder value comes automatically and for free if your customers are happy and buy more products. Instead make market relevance the one and only goal for your business. Market relevance is when more people consider you important, trustful and buy your products, services and buy into your vision.

I’ve never been in a real recession before, so I can’t tell if this one is different or if our tools and information flow is so much better that we can analyze the issues. But it is very obvious to me that if people are less motivated to buy, mostly disappointed with the resources and services the seller provides them, that consumption goes down.

Plausibility Check:
1) Personal Experience
look at the last 6 months where you as a consumer bought things whether it was a new or used car, stereo, TV, video games, phone services, homes, food, clothes, booked a vacation… what ever, how happy where you with the service, hoe easy was it to buy it, how compelling was the offer.
2) Influence
Now check: what or who were the influencing factors for said purchases, how important was advertising for any of them, how important were past experience, suggestions from friends or what kind of other influences would you name as important
3) Behavior
Try to remember what would you have purchased either faster or more of in the last 12 month if the offer would have been more compelling, if the producer or reseller would have been more trustful and if the whole business experience would have been more attractive. Whatever dollar amount you come up with from the last 12 month multiply it by 300 Million (US population) and you get the “Recession value”. For instance if you would have purchased stuff worth of $1,000 in the last 12 month as an average citizen – The “Recession Value” for the US economy would be 3 Trillion Dollar. A lot of tax dollars our country is loosing too.

Well – this is just a short and superficial glimpse into our super complex economic network. But hopefully enough to get you thinking “What can I do to create a better business experience for my customers, prospects and partners”.

 

I came across an interesting white paper put together by SaaS-Capital and ThinkStrategies: Understanding the Financial Implications of the SaaS Business Model.” It doesn’t need to be always Venture Capital.

Also I set down with a fellow CEO this morning discussing the implications of his highly engaged and emotional investors. Three investors own 52% of the company and have 3 different opinion what the strategy of the company should be. What’s left for the CEO and management team? Leaving the company.

Fortunately the market is shifting rapidly… alternatives grow equally fast.

Venture capital is out. The financial world is evolving and so are investment strategies. In a recent post Guy Kawasaki pledged for focusing on inexperienced entrepreneurs. About a week ago I was on a panel with Henry Wong from Garage Ventures inviting everybody who want to start a company to grab his business card. His pitch: “Don’t worry about valuation – think what you can do with all the money”.

An experienced entrepreneur would just roll his eyes and walk away. The ROI on Sandhill Road is no better than Wall Street. So why take the risk? VCs are in trouble and the latest post “In search of inexperience shows it”.

The 7 reasons why entrepreneurs avoid Venture Capital today:

1) Ownership
Creating a company and following the entrepreneurial instinct is more than just fulfilling a dream to be one’s own boss. It is creating something that is better than what we have today, a journey to find people who help shape the idea, will buy it because it is better and a journey of evolution, improvement success and failure. Entrepreneurs need partners and not a financial owner that takes 50% of a company for a hand full of dollars and make it their own.

2) Passion
Entrepreneurs are extremely passionate about their idea and need to go their way with no interruption and constant “help” from an investor. Passion is not a guarantee for success but a key ingredient that once broken, breaks the business

3) Founding Leadership
A recent report from Morgan Stanly compared the world leading innovators such as Microsoft, Google, Cisco and others. One of the metrics was passionate founders in the executive bench. 9 out of ten got a check. VCs typically replace the leadership team within 3-5 years and bring “experienced” executives to the team, making the founder a second degree player.

4) Business Objectives
VCs are in the business’ business. Making money from shoving around companies. Butting less and less money in the first place to invest in more and degrade to 1:10 ration of a winning deal to a 1:20 ration. It’s also called risk management. Entrepreneurs aren’t players who like to play in that category. Business objectives of both groups have departed to far from each other.

5) Disruption
True entrepreneurs come up with disruptive ideas and try to make a difference. VCs are not really looking for such ideas – even so they say so. When Google was founded, it was Andreas Bechtolsheimer, one of the founding members of Sun Microsystems who gave Google money not a VC – Jee who would invest in this where we have Yahoo. Since Google went public VCs invested in over 50 search engines. Very disrupting. VCs didn’t invest in MySpace or YouTube in the first place but now invest in 100ds of social networks or video sites – very disrupting.

6) Investment Profile
True Entrepreneurs ceased building their business plan to match a best practices list of people like Guy Kawasaki hoping that it matches the trend. The opposite is the case, true entrepreneurs have counterintuitive ideas, don’t follow mean stream and create businesses in very different ways. entrepreneurship is no longer matching the idea of a VC to invest in.

7) Venture Capital Success
Entrepreneurs became very critical when it comes to the success of a VC. While some entrepreneurs don’t really care as long as they get the money – true entrepreneurs do care. Today’s ROI of an average VC firm is lousy. They are under huge pressure to deliver results to their investors in order to maintain their management fees of several hundred thousand dollars per head and keep their Aston Martins and Ferraries. That pressure makes them irrational. And the downfall continues.

At the same time very attractive alternatives raised from that downfall. Healthy individual investors are much more likely to invest in disruptive technologies and true entrepreneurs. Large successful companies all have investment arms and seek people with new ideas and the ability to make the idea a successful reality. Even banks, which kind of evaporated from the entrepreneur’s scene, are back with very creative offers. And as Garage Ventures strategy is just a representation of what other VCs doing, seeking inexperienced entrepreneurs at all cost – the success rate will further decline until Venture Capital may completely reinvent itself sometimes in the very distant future.

Clearly people like me know that they are “unfundable” after stating their opinion. But that’s the point, we don’t care. Venture capital is just no longer of any interest – we are going after true investors who have only one goal: using their money to make more money – instead of expressing their opinions on tactical measures at board meetings.


Our society is experiencing one of the greatest evolutionary steps in human history

Society_1~3,000 BC. About 5,000 years ago for the first time mankind evolved into a society. Egypt was the birthplace of a society never seen before. Cities were built, trade was created and business developed like never before.

Society_2~ 1,800 AD. About 200 years ago mankind went through yet another dramatic change bigger and faster than any change before: Industrialization. Technology came into our everyday lives, transportation of goods and people around the world was all of a sudden possible. Financial wealth of an average worker was as great as a kings rich several hundred years ago. We doubled average live expectancy and cut work load in half. We created technology that wasn’t even part of the most remote fictions. In just 200 years we changed the face of earth more than in the 50,000 years before that.

Society_3~ 2010 AD. We already see early signs for yet another dramatic change. This time it is not trade development or technology but a major social shift. In the next 2-5 years our economy will be affected by that change more than through technology in the past. “Democratization of influence” accessibility to nearly “Omnipresent connectedness” and “Direct Access to Experience” (not only expertise) is providing our modern society a tectonic shift that, in my opinion, has an equal magnitude than our technology development a few hundred years ago. Almost everybody can gain “connections” that just a few years ago was a privilege of  the top educated people or best connected business executives just 5 years ago. We already experience that business negotiation on all levels change faster than many people realize. Our society is on the verge to yet another major change. This third major step in our new and emerging society is yet another major evolutionary development of mankind – we will recognize the magnitude in maybe only 10 or maybe 20 years from now.

 

With the beginning of the new year and changes in the blog software I’m experimenting with a new Blog for Xeequa and updating this blog. The new software for Blogger is pretty cool – B U T as I converted it to the new format I guess I lost a lot of the old customizations such as the Technorati Links, Feedburner Links etc. Oh well…

Please visit also my new blog which is http://Xeequa.blogspot.com

And of course – in the typical spirit of Silicon Valley – here are some more predictions:

YouTube will have much more users then MySpace
Web 2.0 will enter the business world
LinkedIn will go public
Investments in traditional software will be next to nothing end of 07
– The number of Internet users: 1 Billion
will become the “number of the year” for all marketers
– World of Warcraft may be another IPO candidate
but may be purchased by Sony and runs on the “cell”
Xeequa will have more customers by end of 2007 than SFDC
(just kidding – but you get the ambition)
Second Life will become the leading virtual business party spot
– TV and print adds will further plunge to total none importance
– Relevance as measured by Technorati, Alexa and others
will become the market cap index for private companies

Let me know what you predict :-)

An interesting conference – somewhat competing with Saascon in San Francisco. While Saascon was directed to SaaS End Consumer and bringing SaaS closer to the broader public, “OnDemand” was a conference for industry leaders discussing the future of SaaS.

The first few presentations reflected the clear trends and expectations that SaaS is going mainstream and many speakers and panelists predicted that SaaS will replace many on premise applications in the next few years. However some on premise applications like global large scale ERP implementations will remain behind the firewall for quite some years. An analogy was drawn to the 80’s when PCs replaced terminals – yet today – 25 years later – mainframes and even terminals are still in business. The SaaS future seems to be in the hands of the new generation software companies who are built for SaaS from ground up. Discussions made obvious that companies who need to change from a license product business to an on-demand model will have a very hard time. While some predict that most license software companies will fail to make the move, others put the example of Concur up, who successfully made that transition in a two year effort.

An interestingly large portion of the conversation on the podium and on the floor was around indirect channels. While sales organizations are not large enough and marketing budgets are limited, SaaS vendors need to find ways to attract partners to spread the word and help implement their solutions. Some companies present their successes with channels.

Wow – 2 month through the US from coast to coast. Yes, this was a very educational, interesting and relaxing tour. Never in my live I had 2 month off – and yes it is hard to get back into business mode. On the other hand this was so helpful to better understand the country, the diverse cultures, peoples, challenges and opportunities. We came back thinking “California is an island”.

Software as a Service is big – in California. But in the rest of the US? We talked probably to more than 100 different folks in Bed & Breakfasts, Hotels, Motels, Restaurants, Gas Stations, Supermarkets, in Parks or elsewhere – not a single person had an idea what Software as a Service is. Hmmm – so how are we doing in terms of SaaS marketing?

We visited computer stores: “What is hot these days?” “Multimedia in any way or shape.” Videos, photos, MP3… Any business around Internet? Cable Modems, better screens, faster machines, a laptop for grandpa. On software? Antivirus programs. Microsoft? Hmm don’t know nothing hot.

Now we are back and totally recharged

I interviewed several channel thought leaders from within the SaaS industry and share the details in my other blog “Channel-Excellence“.

The essence so far:
The SaaS Channel is finally coming into existence. It is not so much the traditional VAR and Reseller now moving to SaaS, but much more completely new companies that form a business specifically to fill the gaps of the SaaS industry. These catalysts do basically 3 things right – that truly enhances the value of the SaaS vendors:

1) They connect (integrate) multiple SaaS applications to a complete information infrastructure (Implementation Services).
2) They provide additional ongoing services including content creation, modification or improvement in very many shapes (Recurring Services Model) .
3) They help smaller local businesses to overhaul and improve their very individual business processes and leverage the fast to implement SaaS application to provide tools to actually service those improved processes (Consultative Services).

The SaaS channels are true catalysts to the SaaS industry. They work in a very different way than traditional VARs and resellers did – and exactly that is the value they provide. SaaS Catalysts accelerate the SaaS industry and will become a true cornerstone to our future.