Sunday, 12 April 2015

Is Competition Really For Losers?

Apple Built A Watch, Zynga Recycles CEOs, And HBO Cuts The CordEditor’s note: Jonathan Friedman is a partner at LionBird, an early-stage fund investing in digital health, commerce, and enterprise software. He blogs at Venture Capital Point of View.
While declaring “competition is for losers” has become fashionable among unicorn-chasing VCs, most founders still reject this line of thinking. They know there is a gray area, and that large markets with multiple similar companies can produce multiple success stories.Nevertheless, any startup that can’t explain why they will be 10x better versus their competition on a meaningful, tangible, difficult-to-copy parameter will have a hard time fundraising. Below are a few common examples of how startups trip up when facing VC doubt about whether they are adequately differentiated and how they can improve.We will have more featuresAll startups have product roadmaps with plans to add features that put them ahead of what their competition is offering today. Of course, competition does not keep still, and even if it did, most product features are easy to copy.What’s more important if claiming this as a differentiator is whether this translates into something that the competition can’t do because it goes against something fundamental to it. For example, would copying you cannibalize the competition’s current profitable business line? Require a different go-to market strategy? Entail more focus versus their current approach?Tactically speaking, everyone agrees you need to focus on your customers and not your competitors. But strategically speaking, VCs want to know how your roadmap will make you truly different, not how it enables you to compete better in today’s paradigm.People hate using competitors‘ productsWhen speaking about competition, startups will usually start by claiming they have a better “user experience.” This is highly subjective and hard to evaluate without proof points such as user engagement metrics, speaking to target users, and benchmarking.So unless you are speaking to design driven investors that really “get it” or unless you have a radically different product versus the competition that’s obvious to anyone, you need to bring evidence of this makes you truly different in a way that matters.The market is large enough for several big playersThis is usually what startups resort to saying when their arguments about why they are different are falling flat. And while it’s true that not all markets are winner takes all, many markets that VCs like to invest in are “winner takes most.”This means those with the most market share also create the largest profits long-term. In fact, it’s been proven that market share to ROI is strongly correlated, meaning in many markets, most of the value is captured by the leaders.Since VCs rely on outliers to pay back their portfolios, they don’t get excited by startups that aim to be “among the leaders” in their industry. So be prepared to answer in credible terms why you will be the one to “take most.”Don’t be a loserFast-moving, tech-driven competitors that are similar to you and significantly ahead of you in the market can scare away even the best VCs. So if you are entering a crowded industry and trying to raise VC money, don’t underestimate the importance of questions about the competition. Be ready to articulate your unique angle and why it’s meaningful, tangible and difficult to copy. Or run the risk of being labeled a loser.Featured Image: wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock.

Aspiration’s Growth Shows The Appetite For More Financial Services

Is Competition Really For Losers?Defying its critics and building on the success of players like Wealthfront and Betterment, Aspiration, the new money management firm launched by Andrei Cherny, is off to a roaring start.
The company has 700 customers paying for its initial wealth management product, a portfolio of mutual funds operated by Emerald Asset Managment, a Pennsylvania-based asset management firm. In all, the company has received $2 million to manage for its clients.
That total is a fraction of Wealthfront’s $2 billion in assets, but not too shabby for a firm that’s a little less than two months into its money management.
“We basically disintermediate the financial industry and provide financial advisory products direct to the customer,” says Cherny.
Aspiration differentiates itself from other asset managers through its pay-what-you-will approach to fees, which Cherny sees as a way to bring in investors who mistrust the larger financial institutions thanks to their role in last decade’s financial crisis.
In addition to its laissez-faire approach to fees, Aspiration also includes a charitable component as part of its mission. The company gives away 10% of its revenue to charitable causes like micro-lending.
While fees are determined by the investor, there are other costs that are associated with fund management that Aspiration has to pass through to its customers. Roughly 1.72% of the company’s flagship fund assets are taken out as fees that are paid to the mutual funds that the firm has selected as part of its portfolio.
Cherny likes where Aspiration is headed. “We amassed more than 50,000 people on our waiting list and started sending out invites two months ago. We have more paying customers in our first two months, than either Wealthfront, Learnvest, or FutureAdvisor in their first year,” he says.
And the pay-what-you-wish model seems to be working, according to Cherny. “We’re actually finding that the majority of our customers are paying us the amount that is the suggested amount — or even more,” he says.
A typical Aspiration customer is under 35, making around $100,000 in annual salary, and for many of them, Aspiration is their first mutual fund. “Roughly 56% of our clients do not own a mutual fund other than the one they just purchased with Aspiration,” says Cherny.
Another 40% of them don’t even own a stock. Over 50% don’t own a mutual fund,” Cherny says. He cautions that it’s not necessarily the best idea for people and says that his company will be rolling out new products for investors to increase the diversification of their investments.
“We are bringing direct-consumer products from the best fund managers in the world to the customers who need those products,” says Cherny.

Microsoft Drops A New Windows 10 Build, Bringing The Love To Lots More Phones

Aspiration’s Growth Shows The Appetite For More Financial ServicesIt’s New Build Day for Microsoft kids, as the Redmond software shop dropped new code that will bring Windows 10 to a host of smartphones that were previously not able to handle to the beta operating system.
The build, number 10051, brings a host of new features to Windows 10 for phones, including refreshed core applications and the Project Spartan browser that has already cropped up for PCs running Windows 10.
Also in the mix is a new “universal” Maps application. Microsoft is working to bring all of computing under a single roof. That makes the Maps app important: Here is Microsoft showing off how apps will scale from small to large across various screen sizes.
According to the company, the new app “includes the best maps, aerial imagery, rich local search data, and voice-guided navigation experiences from both Bing Maps and HERE maps, integrated together for the first time into a single app for Windows.”
Below is a list of supported phones:
Lumia 1020
Lumia 1320
Lumia 1520
Lumia 520
Lumia 525
Lumia 526
Lumia 530
Lumia 530 Dual Sim
Lumia 535
Lumia 620
Lumia 625
Lumia 630
Lumia 630 Dual Sim
Lumia 635
Lumia 636
Lumia 638
Lumia 720
Lumia 730
Lumia 730 Dual SIM
Lumia 735
Lumia 810
Lumia 820
Lumia 822
Lumia 830
Lumia 920
Lumia 925
Lumia 928
Microsoft Lumia 430
Microsoft Lumia 435
Microsoft Lumia 435 Dual SIM
Microsoft Lumia 435 Dual SIM DTV
Microsoft Lumia 532
Microsoft Lumia 532 Dual SIM
Microsoft Lumia 640 Dual SIM
Microsoft Lumia 535 Dual SIM
If you want the new build, make sure that you are on the fast release ring. Otherwise, you will have to sit tight.
The development pace of Windows 10 remains rapid. It’s been notable to watch the enthusiasm gap between the current Windows 10 release cycle, and what took place with Windows 8. That’s to say that people seem to care more this time around.
An example of this is my new Twitter nemesis, Gabe Aul from the Windows 10 team, who regularly racks up oodles of favorites for his oracular drippings concerning when new code might, or might not, land:

Riveting. You can check shots of the new build here.

BuzzFeed Editor-In-Chief Ben Smith Says He “Blew It” By Removing Post Criticizing Dove

Microsoft Drops A New Windows 10 Build, Bringing The Love To Lots More PhonesYou might have heard about a BuzzFeed article criticizing a “condescending” Dove ad campaign (it asked women to walk through doors marked “beautiful” and “average”) — but in the past couple of days, you wouldn’t have been able to read it on BuzzFeed.
Well, now it’s back. The post was published Wednesday and taken down yesterday (replaced with the message, “We pulled this post because it is not consistent with the tone of BuzzFeed Life”), a move that looked particularly bad since Dove is a BuzzFeed advertiser.
Why the turnaround? BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith just tweeted an email he sent to BuzzFeed staff, which begins:
I blew it. Twice in the past couple of months, I’ve asked editors — over their better judgment and without any respect to our standards or process — to delete recently published posts from the site. Both involved the same thing: my overreaction to questions we’ve been wrestling with about the place of personal opinion pieces on our site. I reacted impulsively when I saw the posts and I was wrong to do that. We’ve reinstated both with a brief note.
Smith goes on to deny that advertiser pressure played a role in his decisions, and he emphasizes that the broader editorial discussion is ongoing: “We’d love your input.”
This is actually the second time BuzzFeed has taken flak for deleting posts; last year it deleted more than 4,000 older posts for not meeting its current editorial standards.
It does sound like Smith is still pushing for an editorial shift. As BuzzFeed Life editors put it in an email published by Gawker, “We need to show not tell,” rather than “using our own voices (and hence, BuzzFeed’s voice) to advance a personal opinion.”
Sorry to shove my own opinion in here, but I’m mystified by this sentiment. Yes, as the email says, criticizing the Dove campaign brings up “charged topics,” but having a thoughtful opinion on those topics seems more valuable than, say, this somewhat-less-opinionated summation of 13 Mall Smells That Will Haunt You Forever.

Exclusives Screw Music Fans

BuzzFeed Editor-In-Chief Ben Smith Says He “Blew It” By Removing Post Criticizing DoveAdvertisementListeners lose when music becomes fragmented.
You might like your new on-demand streaming better than CDs, but at least you could buy them in any store. At this rate, no matter who you choose to pay $10 a month, you might not get all the music you want. As each streaming app tries to differentiate itself, they’re signing exclusivity and windowing deals so you can only hear certain songs on their service, not their competitors’.
In February, I bet that Apple would try to throw its infinite money around by securing exclusives for its upcoming streaming version of iTunes that we hear will launch June 8th. Today Bloomberg Business reported Apple has approached over a dozen artists including Taylor Swift and Florence & The Machine about these exact kind of deals.
And a few weeks ago, Jay-Z locked up some of the biggest names in music for the streaming service Tidal he acquired. Kanye West, Daft Punk, Arcade Fire, Rihanna, Beyonce, Jack White, Madonna and more pledged to give exclusive or at least early access to their new releases, plus bonus content like videos and curated playlists.

I get that artists want to make more money. And I get that the tech companies have no problem spending it on exclusives if they think it could cement them as the way people listen for the foreseeable future.
But the fans lose.
To stream their favorite artists, ever or at least when their albums drops, they’ll have to buy the right $10 a month subscription. But if those artists choose different sides of the streaming war, though, the fans get incomplete catalogues and sad ears.
Fans getting screwed by exclusives isn’t new:
MTV got exclusive access to videos, cutting out viewers in regions where it didn’t operate.Big box retailers like Walmart and Target would each secure exclusives so high-profile albums they sold came with bonus songs unavailable elsewhere. Hardcore fans would have to buy multiple copies from different retailers to get all the tracks.Apple had the money to pay The Beatles enough to get them on iTunes when they weren’t sold digitally elsewhere.Spotify paid off Led Zeppelin, Metallica, and AC/DC for streaming rights that its competitors couldn’t afford, and its reportedly raising $400 million more.
But it’s getting worse. Now with Apple, Google, YouTube, Spotify, Tidal and more competing for listeners, yet unable to build good enough products to differentiate themselves, they’re leaning on exclusives.
As the lucid Bob Lefsetz wrote, if exclusives become fragmented, “you Balkanize the landscape and you hurt everybody in the ecosystem.”
$10 a month is already a lot more than most fans were spending on music in the CD era. Streaming the world’s history of music obviously provides a lot more value now than 8 albums, but still. No one but the most rabid fans will pay for multiple, redundant streaming subscriptions. Many won’t pay for any.
If you need proof that fans don’t like this situation, look what happened to the first legitimately attractive pieces of exclusive content to hit Tidal. Digital Music News headlined it perfectly: “BeyoncĂ© and Rihanna Premiere Exclusive Tracks on Tidal; Fans Promptly Put Them on YouTube”. Inaccessibility breeds piracy.

Some might argue that this happened in film with Netflix and Hulu and Amazon Instant Video, but music is different.
Movies come out in theaters first, and anyone can buy a ticket a la carte. What Apple and Tidal are trying to do is akin to saying only AMC theaters, not Loews theaters, can see the new Avengers movie. Plus films aren’t snackable. When you want to watch, you watch one for two hours. With music, you might jump between artists every four minutes, so holes in the catalogue are a persistent drag.
In TV, you see exclusives like Game Of Thrones on HBO and House Of Cards on Netflix because those studios produce the content themselves. Perhaps we’ll see streaming services trying to play more of a record label role, signing and developing new talent.

What I hope artists consider is where their money really comes from.
For many larger acts, that’s concert tickets and merchandise. The way you sell those is by creating as many serious fans as possible. Open, in-exclusive access promotes that.
Limiting reach in exchange for cash now might seem enticing, but long-term, will exclusives make them bigger stars? Maybe the zookeeper that caged them will give some extra promo when their album’s released, but then what?
When I can hear an artist’s name or single, and can then go enjoy their work on the streaming service of my choice, I become the kind of person willing to pay them $30 for a t-shirt or $50 for a concert ticket. And I love them for it.
Artists used to feel a sense of integrity that dissuaded them from putting their songs in commercials for crappy brands. But taking money to not allow fans to listen to your music. That’s selling out.

 

© 2013 Tech Support. All rights resevered. Designed by Templateism

Back To Top