nextNY digital, the next generation of digital movers and shakers in NYC.

Archive for June, 2010

What’s up with the NYTM and NY tech? Interview with Rick Karr

During Internet Week, I spoke with Rick Karr about what’s going on in NY tech and with the NY Tech Meetup. Obviously it’s tough to get everything I think into a three minute interview, but I post this here because I think its about the most concise and articulate I’ve been on the subject, on film. So enjoy…

The New York Exit, The Soft Underbelly of NY Tech’s Ecosystem, and IAC’s Saving Grace

Last month, the idea that Foursquare could exit to Yahoo! for $120+ million had everyone abuzz.

“This means NY tech has come to its own!” people exclaimed. Finally, we had a major player in the social web space. It was a company born here and grown here. Now it was on the brink of being sold for big money. It was a proof point that NYC could breed a serious batch of startups post-Web 1.0.

But if anything, the “Fourhoo episode” was also a scary wake-up call for those of us invested in the future of the NY tech ecosystem. If Foursquare sold — to Yahoo!, to Facebook, or to anyone else in the space — they’d undoubtedly end up in the hands of a Silicon Valley company, and its IP and (probably) leadership would be shipped out of town, taking any future value creation with it. (Sure, they may keep the jobs here, but the profit and reinvestment? Future product integrations?)

As it turns out, this whole exit scenario is a sham for the local environment, and here I thought exits were a good thing. What’s the matter with New York?! Here we are producing a fleet of World Class startups, and an exit for our startup scene means depleting its resources?

This sounds bad. And it is.

Despite the massive amount of progress in the NY early stage scene, one sadness remains: the closest thing to a big local tech company which can acquire our startups is IAC — and IAC is decidedly an “Internet Media” company, not an Internet technology company.

And we need a big ol’ Internet Technology company here.

Does that mean its time, as a City, to embrace IAC and convince it to become a tech company? Perhaps.

Is there a snowball’s chance in hell that the right series of acquisitions and leaderships changes would turn IAC into a major tech (rather than media) player? Yes, there is — and I think this would be a good thing for the company and for the City.

While tech is not in Barry Diller’s wheelhouse, now is the time for him to invest in tech. Looking at his revenue sources, a whole lot is tied up in Ask.com Search revenue, a share of which I think we all know will decline in the long-run for him. After that, he has a sturdy position in Match.com, but this is an area I think is prime for major disruption.

So will IAC be NYC’s saving grace here? I don’t know. As I’ve said, they could be. But either way this problem must be solved. Undoubtedly, our startups need liquidity events, and undoubtedly those will come in the form of M&A 9 times out of 10. Right now it seems those M&A event only exist outside of the City, leaving us in a highly vulnerable place.

Does anyone have an idea how this is going to play out? If not IAC, who will save us?

UPDATE: My friend, and astute industry observer, Caroline McCarthy points out to me the obvious, that AOL could also the “savior” I’m looking for. That’s true, but I don’t see it. AOL has doubled down to BE media company even more than IAC IS a media company. I think they can turn themselves into a great company, but AOL is not going to be a tech company.

Help a millenial with experimental advertising!

Shelly Palmer provoked me to think about whether I am "too into technology to understand real business."  Yikes!

I'm sympathetic to the idea that many "social media" people live in a reality-exclusion zone where they only buy products from brands they can @message on Twitter.  On the other hand, the “real business” folks can probably wait it out, but more and more of them are starting to wonder.

I talked to a small outdoor advertising business owner who might not be ready…but he’s intrigued.  He gets online marketing and does aggressive SEM advertising. But social?

The shift to social marketing certainly made a splash but isn’t sustainable, really. In the early days of Twitter, most of the buzz about the promise of the service to transform marketing was being made by marketing people on Twitter.  Is the future of one-to-one, fragmented media a self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps.

That being said, we’re starting to see the ways in which pure awareness advertising shifts into engaging digital and offline experiences that aggregate attention rather than interrupting a piece of content. 

Advertising remains real and necessary, but it will increasingly be built around producing perceived value in and of itself. Pepsi’s PepsiCo10 strategy to take Refresh one step further and start funding new tech entrepreneurs is an bold example, and even if it’s on the wrong side of Wannamaker’s 50%, at least some millennials may get jobs.

Is Seth Godin Wrong?

Seth Godin's tiny book, The Dip, basically makes the same four points over and over.

  1. Something is only worth doing professionally if you can be the best in the world.
  2. Becoming the best in the world at something requires serious dedication and motivation to get through the inevitable "dip", which he defines as that difficult period between becoming proficient and becoming an expert.
  3. If you are not completely convinced you can get through the dip and become the best in your world, find a new world.
  4. Don't mistake a dip for a dead-end.

Godin argues it's much better to quit than to accept anything less than becoming the best. Obviously the premise is that everybody can become the best in the world at something worthwhile.

Seth Godin is hardly the only person who thinks this way. Just today, Keith Trivitt made a similar point for Business Insider, though his point was more about differentiating (also a frequent theme for Mr. Godin.)

Being the Best

Seth speaks of making your world smaller until you're the best in the world. However, is it true? Do you actually need to be the best or just very good? To me, it depends on what you do.

For companies that produce products or services at such a scale that they can fulfill any level of demand, this makes sense. However, for small agencies and other service providers that largely depend on man power, the aggregate demand is well in excess of what any individual firm can fulfill. So if your agency is "the best" in the world at search engine marketing, there is still only so much business you can take on at any given time. And if you try to take on too much, the quality of what you do suffers and you are no longer "the best".

If there are ten available good projects and you can only take on four of them, six other projects will go to firms that are not "the best". Presumably there are enough "very good" companies in your area to accommodate all demand (if not there is a heck of a business opportunity).

Narrowing Your World

Abstract Edge (my agency) has been contemplating this conventional wisdom for a long time. We have always had significant strength and talent in a number of different areas. We do a lot of things very well. But are we objectively "the best" at anything?

Actually, yes, if we define our world narrowly enough, there are things I feel confidently we do better than any other agency on the planet (like making really beautiful, sexy, highly-branded websites on the Plone CMS). Is that world too small though? What happens if you make your world so small and somebody better comes along? Does the small demand in that world suddenly go elsewhere? Then what happens to all of your investment?

The fact remains that the majority of opportunities we get have nothing to do with making beautiful Plone CMS websites. These opportunities take advantage of many of the things we do very well. Are we the best at them? In the entire world? Maybe, but it seems doubtful. I'm not sure that matters.

A Moment in Space and Time

If you're looking for a service provider, what is the cost to you of looking until you find the best one? Is the best one going to be too expensive? Is the best one not local, and having somebody local is important to you? How can we possibly agree on what constitutes "the best"?

So really, in a high-touch business like ours, it's not about being "the best in the world" per se but instead about being "the best match" for an individual case given a finite period of time to search.

Seth Godin is right, some of the time. But for a certain class of company, he is wrong.

The bottom line: differentiation is overrated (at least for high-touch service businesses), But you still need to be very good and make your customers happy to succeed.