For those who know me, they have probably heard of my web service known as appACT. When I initially built the application two years ago, I wanted a system that allowed users to tag their messages by data type, not data subject. To do this, I created a series of miniature web applications, cleverly nicknamed "web apps" on appACT, to solve this problem. You can now find the same concept on Facebook, where you are able to add specific link, video, and application data to a wall.
I am now looking to redefine the appACT idea to better align with evolving modes of modern communication. By applying new and exciting ideas from the Enterprise 2.0, I hope to leverage some exciting technology to make this possible. Unlike appACT, I hope this project becomes a group effort, and ultimately, a business.
I apologize if I am being overly broad and vague about my new idea. I'm still trying to grasp my head around the service's inner-workings and more research must be done; but as progress is made I'll surely provide more updates, if not questions, on this blog.
Showing posts with label business plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business plans. Show all posts
Monday, May 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Longevity of Facebook
After taking a few weeks off, I'm back to the blogging business.
Today, headlines are revealing the departure of Facebook CFO Gideon Yu, a previous top executive at both Yahoo and YouTube. This isn't the first time Facebook has seen top leadership moves. The entire company has been shifting for the past two years, including the exit of a few early Facebook co-founders. What does this all mean? Well, perhaps an upcoming IPO.
As suggested by the WSJ, Facebook may be looking to replace Yu with a CFO from an existing public company, one who may have experience with investment banks and tech IPOs. Facebook has been finding it difficult to raise additional cash at high valuations, most likely due to the current economic environment but perhaps also because of the company's extremely high valuation.
Overvalued? Microsoft really set the bar in 2007 when the software giant invested $250 million in the firm for any equity stake of only 1.6%, thus giving the company a $15 billion valuation. Most IPOs eventually drop from their issuance price after a period of stock price appreciation. For Facebook, the potential pull back in price may be fast and furious if the company seeks unrealistic valuations.
To make sense of this "IPO pull back effect" theory, take a look at J.Crew (JCG). Since it's initial offering in 2006 at $20 per share, the company has enjoyed a brief climb in price and subsequent drop well before the market crash in Q3 and Q4 2008. (During the time of the pull back in summer 2007, the DJIA was continuing to grow.)
Classic entrpreneurship lessons also teach us that firms flushed with VC cash sometimes avoid practicing good fiscal management. Amar Bhide of the HBR article Bootstrap Finance: The Art of Start-ups says firms that keep their growth prospects in-check are less likely to fail: "Start-ups that failed because they could not fund their growth are legion. Successful bootstrappers take special care to expand only at the rate they can afford and control."
This is especially true for Facebook. Can Facebook become the $15 billion dollar behemoth some investors claim it is? Previous attempts at introducing business models -- like Facebook Beacon -- have stirred controversy among the site's constituents. Therefore, has the company ironed out all the details of it's growth strategy? Startups with little cash usually focus hard on getting it right the first time considering the high costs of failure. For Facebook, the company has had a lot of breathing room to experiment and try out various business models.
But, despite this flexibility, Amar Bhide makes an excellent point: "Success, especially in new and growing industries, follows many detours and unanticipated setbacks; strategies may have to be altered radically as events unfold. Failure to meet initial goals is a poor guide to future prospects."
Today, headlines are revealing the departure of Facebook CFO Gideon Yu, a previous top executive at both Yahoo and YouTube. This isn't the first time Facebook has seen top leadership moves. The entire company has been shifting for the past two years, including the exit of a few early Facebook co-founders. What does this all mean? Well, perhaps an upcoming IPO.
As suggested by the WSJ, Facebook may be looking to replace Yu with a CFO from an existing public company, one who may have experience with investment banks and tech IPOs. Facebook has been finding it difficult to raise additional cash at high valuations, most likely due to the current economic environment but perhaps also because of the company's extremely high valuation.
Overvalued? Microsoft really set the bar in 2007 when the software giant invested $250 million in the firm for any equity stake of only 1.6%, thus giving the company a $15 billion valuation. Most IPOs eventually drop from their issuance price after a period of stock price appreciation. For Facebook, the potential pull back in price may be fast and furious if the company seeks unrealistic valuations.
To make sense of this "IPO pull back effect" theory, take a look at J.Crew (JCG). Since it's initial offering in 2006 at $20 per share, the company has enjoyed a brief climb in price and subsequent drop well before the market crash in Q3 and Q4 2008. (During the time of the pull back in summer 2007, the DJIA was continuing to grow.)
Classic entrpreneurship lessons also teach us that firms flushed with VC cash sometimes avoid practicing good fiscal management. Amar Bhide of the HBR article Bootstrap Finance: The Art of Start-ups says firms that keep their growth prospects in-check are less likely to fail: "Start-ups that failed because they could not fund their growth are legion. Successful bootstrappers take special care to expand only at the rate they can afford and control."
This is especially true for Facebook. Can Facebook become the $15 billion dollar behemoth some investors claim it is? Previous attempts at introducing business models -- like Facebook Beacon -- have stirred controversy among the site's constituents. Therefore, has the company ironed out all the details of it's growth strategy? Startups with little cash usually focus hard on getting it right the first time considering the high costs of failure. For Facebook, the company has had a lot of breathing room to experiment and try out various business models.
But, despite this flexibility, Amar Bhide makes an excellent point: "Success, especially in new and growing industries, follows many detours and unanticipated setbacks; strategies may have to be altered radically as events unfold. Failure to meet initial goals is a poor guide to future prospects."
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Is it time for Twitter to build a business plan? A recent article in Fast Company notes that Twitter may be reaching its "tipping point". Check out the unique user growth between January 2008 and January 2009 -- unprecedented!
There are several ideas out in the blogosphere suggesting ways for Twitter to turn this growth into cash. One of the more viable business models is allowing Twitter users the option of monetizing their tweets through textual advertising. Of course, Twitter would assume a fraction of this revenue so they could build up their own bottom line as well.
Others think Twitter could be the next alternative search engine. If you can't find something on Google, try Twitter Search. Regardless, Twitter must be sensitive to the fact that growth can slow or even reverse if they impose too many barriers on their broad user base. Charging users directly, including corporate entities, could certainly encourage substitutes and new entrants in the marketplace.
According to Dave Winer of Scripting News, Twitter should be careful about biting off more than they can chew when they do unravel a business plan. Comparing Twitter to Netscape, Winer's point is clear: narrow the focus on a niche that is valuable and defensible. Maybe this is why Twitter is holding off.
Investors are not in a hurry either. Fred Wilson, a VC from Union Square Ventures has this to say:
Others think Twitter could be the next alternative search engine. If you can't find something on Google, try Twitter Search. Regardless, Twitter must be sensitive to the fact that growth can slow or even reverse if they impose too many barriers on their broad user base. Charging users directly, including corporate entities, could certainly encourage substitutes and new entrants in the marketplace.
According to Dave Winer of Scripting News, Twitter should be careful about biting off more than they can chew when they do unravel a business plan. Comparing Twitter to Netscape, Winer's point is clear: narrow the focus on a niche that is valuable and defensible. Maybe this is why Twitter is holding off.
Investors are not in a hurry either. Fred Wilson, a VC from Union Square Ventures has this to say:
"Eventually Google was going to make money and they figured out how to do it and they figured out a great business, and I think the same thing is true with Twitter.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)