Is it a good idea to encourage ALL employees to trade in these markets? Should insiders and/or highly uninformed people be allowed to trade? Do they help or hurt the market?
In the case, Dolores Haze, a manager on a search quality team, gave the opinion that the Google Prediction Market (GPM) was not a lot of help to her or her team. She felt it was her job to know the status of all projects. When a project in her division was posted on GPM, she knew what the outcome would be because she was so close to the project. When the market agreed with her, she wasn’t surprised and felt GPM did not offer her any new advantage. Instead, it simply affirmed her intuition. While she agreed that the GPM created excitement about projects Google-wide, she did not believe the GPM should be considered a resource when it came to making company decisions.
While I believe the GPM is great in terms of motivating people to learn what’s going on company-wide, I found it interesting that some people used the GPM to make trades hoping they would intentionally mislead the market. They had the advantage because they were so close to the project and felt strongly about the overall outcome. Still, it appears that GPM is yet another example of the “long tail” effect in that 80% of the trades are made by 20% of the people. Most people trade only once or twice each quarter. Therefore, the frequent traders are really only competing with themselves. I believe Google should continue to encourage all employees to trade in the market in order to get more accurate market prediction results.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Threadless
In what other industries or areas would Threadless’ community-driven product development model work well? And not so well?
I loved this case because I think Threadless has such an intriguing business model. Loyal customers visit the website each week to order their own unique, custom t-shirt wardrobe. I spent an hour looking at designs instead of writing this blog. This type of community-driven product development model has worked well on other websites we have discussed this semester like Etsy.com where buyers can directly communicate with artists and commission customized product. Unlike Threadless, however, the buyer is the designer, not the seller. Threadless is unique in that website visitors vote on the designs printed each week. The beauty of Threadless is the community of designers, voters, bloggers, and consumers that has emerged from this simple screen t-shirt business. T-shirts are a very basic, inexpensive product. When you print a unique design on them, they transform from a plain tee to a work of art.
In one of the videos in the case, the founder compares the website to an art gallery and I think that is an extremely valid point. People are going to Threadless to look first and purchase second. People are interested in the art and then being able to wear their “t-shirt art” as an expression of their connection to the community or the design. Threadless has kept is simple, offering t-shirts for men, women, children, hoodies, and some kid’s clothing. They are not offering customized hats, socks, underwear, etc. They have stuck their core competency: design something that is perfect to print on a t-shirt. I am not sure this type of business model would work for any type of customized product such as art, crafts, furniture, because the end products might be too complex for quick mass production and turnaround. Threadless has kept it simple. The t-shirt is the perfect blank canvas on which to print a design quickly, efficiently, and then sell over a million t-shirts.
I loved this case because I think Threadless has such an intriguing business model. Loyal customers visit the website each week to order their own unique, custom t-shirt wardrobe. I spent an hour looking at designs instead of writing this blog. This type of community-driven product development model has worked well on other websites we have discussed this semester like Etsy.com where buyers can directly communicate with artists and commission customized product. Unlike Threadless, however, the buyer is the designer, not the seller. Threadless is unique in that website visitors vote on the designs printed each week. The beauty of Threadless is the community of designers, voters, bloggers, and consumers that has emerged from this simple screen t-shirt business. T-shirts are a very basic, inexpensive product. When you print a unique design on them, they transform from a plain tee to a work of art.
In one of the videos in the case, the founder compares the website to an art gallery and I think that is an extremely valid point. People are going to Threadless to look first and purchase second. People are interested in the art and then being able to wear their “t-shirt art” as an expression of their connection to the community or the design. Threadless has kept is simple, offering t-shirts for men, women, children, hoodies, and some kid’s clothing. They are not offering customized hats, socks, underwear, etc. They have stuck their core competency: design something that is perfect to print on a t-shirt. I am not sure this type of business model would work for any type of customized product such as art, crafts, furniture, because the end products might be too complex for quick mass production and turnaround. Threadless has kept it simple. The t-shirt is the perfect blank canvas on which to print a design quickly, efficiently, and then sell over a million t-shirts.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wikipedia
How do Wikipedia’s processes for creating and modifying articles ever lead to high-quality results?
Wikipedia's 12 million articles (2.8 million in the English Wikipedia) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. But does this collaboration lead to a high quality Internet reference tool? Wikipedia is a true “wiki” in that articles undergo a formal peer-review process and changes to articles are made available immediately to all readers. No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority. Except for a few vandalism-prone pages that can be edited only by established users or in extreme cases only by administrators, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account. Wikipedia has never claimed to guarantee its validity as a “high quality” reference but its success stems from the fact articles are often self-policed by users and frequent editors who have made it their mission to make this wiki as valid internet reference as possible. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis to look things up and even with its easy open source editing model, I have never looked at the history of an article to determine its quality, validity or look to see if the article I am reading was recently vandalized. Like millions of other students, I generally use Wikipedia as an informal reference tool. I understand that it is not acceptable to use as a scholarly or primary reference in academic work but I will continue to use it as a stepping stone to learn more about anything and everything. There are lots of well written articles on Wikipedia but user anonymity means author bias and bogus information will never be eliminated.
Wikipedia's 12 million articles (2.8 million in the English Wikipedia) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. But does this collaboration lead to a high quality Internet reference tool? Wikipedia is a true “wiki” in that articles undergo a formal peer-review process and changes to articles are made available immediately to all readers. No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority. Except for a few vandalism-prone pages that can be edited only by established users or in extreme cases only by administrators, every article may be edited anonymously or with a user account. Wikipedia has never claimed to guarantee its validity as a “high quality” reference but its success stems from the fact articles are often self-policed by users and frequent editors who have made it their mission to make this wiki as valid internet reference as possible. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis to look things up and even with its easy open source editing model, I have never looked at the history of an article to determine its quality, validity or look to see if the article I am reading was recently vandalized. Like millions of other students, I generally use Wikipedia as an informal reference tool. I understand that it is not acceptable to use as a scholarly or primary reference in academic work but I will continue to use it as a stepping stone to learn more about anything and everything. There are lots of well written articles on Wikipedia but user anonymity means author bias and bogus information will never be eliminated.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Advantages & Disadvanatages of Blogs
What are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing internal versus external employee blogs in a corporate setting? Are there certain industries where one of these strategies makes more sense?
Advantages of both Internal and External
Authors of blogs have the luxury of focusing on a single issue as long as they want to
Bloggers can supply a mix of supporting information such as background research, links to other online materials, copies of other documents, and photographs
No space restriction, can post or link to all relevant information
Ability to disseminate information even quicker than traditional publication channels
Technologies to support blogging are widespread and often free
Keeping up with blog posts made infinitely easier by RSS
External blogs can be a source of revenue with ads
Posts to external blogs often give a behind-the-scenes look at the company
Internal blogs create a loyal following; help raise awareness of issues that need to be addressed
“Blog Monitoring” helps companies mine for external blogs for customer sentiments about the company and its products
External blogs are a good marketing tool, can be used to advertise in a tone and language to match brand campaign of a new product
Internal blogs allow for collaboration across functions, increased cooperation and the ability to share information quickly and efficiently
Blogs, both internal and external, create a record of an organization’s thoughts and conversations; this record is then searchable and consultable
Blogging is a growing trend in communication around the world
Internal blogging helps with knowledge sharing
Blogging creates an aspect of self-gratification that can not be measured
Blogs increase transparency and ultimately benefit companies who can be quick to issue corrections
Disadvantages of both Internal and External
Blogs are unsupervised, unedited, and unpremeditated
May be a waste of time for employees, it can be tedious in terms of upkeep
External corporate bloggers do not have complete freedom, companies often provide guidelines
External blogs are risky because the author could reveal a company secret, violate client confidentiality, or attract unwanted attention from a regulator or enforcer
External blogs would have to be reviewed by some kind of internal media relations group
Legal and compliance officers were weary of external company blogs arguing that not everyone has the right “voice” or “skill set” to blog
Blogs can be used in any industry. Blogs are a place for a group of similar-minded people to discuss any topic. Bloggers can comment on reviews on new products. Bloggers can comment on new software or IT problems and solutions. Bloggers might want to discuss child-rearing, finance, or exercise. Bloggers can blog about their daily lives, be it boring and exciting, and still develop a loyal following. The extremely rapid growth in blogs as shown in Exhibit 2 indicates that people are blogging and they are blogging about anything and everything. The sky’s the limit.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Apple iPhone & Digital Music Market
Has the digital music market irreversibly tipped in Apple’s favor?
Mobile phone manufacturers’ worst nightmare came true when the iPhone was introduced in the U.S. on June 29, 2007. The iPhone’s international success was followed by the release of the iPhone 3G on July 11, 2008. Today, Apple is the third largest mobile phone manufacturer, after Nokia and Samsung. The digital music market and the mobile phone market have irreversibly tipped in Apple’s favor. The iPod is the kind of innovation that changes generations. People cannot live without their iPod and now some people can’t live without their iPhone. The only thing keeping me from getting an iPhone are switching costs. I would have to change from Verizon to AT&T/Cingular and that would mean losing my free mobile to mobile minutes with my husband and family because everyone else is on Verizon. I have an 80GB iPod so I don’t need it for digital music reasons so I can’t exactly justify the expense. But, a part of me still gets really jealous when someone whips out their brand new iPhone 3G. It was that same feeling that made me purchase my iPod in the first place. I guess I have just been brainwashed by Apple into feeling that false sense of need. As far as the digital music market is concerned, iTunes is still a loss leader for the iPod. It may have inadvertently created a price structure for subscription and non-subscription services but it still offers the most complete library. The sad thing is, illegal downloading is still a problem. When Apple reported in 2006 that its billionth song had been downloaded, consumers were still illegally downloading an estimated billion songs every month worldwide. This makes the digital music industry less and less attractive for handset manufacturers and carriers alike. Prices for subscription services may be going down but people are still finding free ways to trade music and I am not sure anyone can compete with that- not even Apple.
Mobile phone manufacturers’ worst nightmare came true when the iPhone was introduced in the U.S. on June 29, 2007. The iPhone’s international success was followed by the release of the iPhone 3G on July 11, 2008. Today, Apple is the third largest mobile phone manufacturer, after Nokia and Samsung. The digital music market and the mobile phone market have irreversibly tipped in Apple’s favor. The iPod is the kind of innovation that changes generations. People cannot live without their iPod and now some people can’t live without their iPhone. The only thing keeping me from getting an iPhone are switching costs. I would have to change from Verizon to AT&T/Cingular and that would mean losing my free mobile to mobile minutes with my husband and family because everyone else is on Verizon. I have an 80GB iPod so I don’t need it for digital music reasons so I can’t exactly justify the expense. But, a part of me still gets really jealous when someone whips out their brand new iPhone 3G. It was that same feeling that made me purchase my iPod in the first place. I guess I have just been brainwashed by Apple into feeling that false sense of need. As far as the digital music market is concerned, iTunes is still a loss leader for the iPod. It may have inadvertently created a price structure for subscription and non-subscription services but it still offers the most complete library. The sad thing is, illegal downloading is still a problem. When Apple reported in 2006 that its billionth song had been downloaded, consumers were still illegally downloading an estimated billion songs every month worldwide. This makes the digital music industry less and less attractive for handset manufacturers and carriers alike. Prices for subscription services may be going down but people are still finding free ways to trade music and I am not sure anyone can compete with that- not even Apple.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Brightcove
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Brightcove’s business model?
Strengths:
Turnkey software platform for creating & maintaining broadband video channels that was faster than anything else on the market
Early customers included big names like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal creating a roster of reference clients
Bundled software platform service with content delivery network (CDN) fees generated a lot of revenue
AdNet Select advertising strategy was great at tracking impressions and targeting specific consumer groups- a big selling point to advertisers
Truveo search engine gives consumers robust search capability
All tools are branded, like Google
Weakness:
Platform is strong, but not so strong that other engineers couldn’t recreate in 10 months
Customizing the platform for big name clients drained engineering resources
CDN prices were likely to fall and revenue service might dry up, sense of urgency to generate revenue from advertising might lead to bad business decisions
Attracting high quality publishers when shifting more of its customers to revenue sharing arrangement was difficult
Brightcove had trouble identifying their ideal customer or audience
Third party affiliates or niche publishers were leery to give control to Brightcove
Do you want to have to negotiate with one of your competitors for search capability?
Pitching online advertising to companies was difficult; Brightcove was not investing rapidly enough to expand ad sales team
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)