Quotable Phrase

If there’s one thing all entrepreneurs can agree on, it’s that running a start-up will throw you through a huge gamut of emotions in a relatively short period of time. I’ve been thinking about why that is after a couple months on a pretty serious emotional rollercoaster. I concluded that it’s because when you’re running a start-up, your future is uncertain. And when you’re future is uncertain, it’s natural to take things which are otherwise statistically insignificant and extrapolate them to the point that they result in your ultimate success or failure. Like..

• You start going after direct ad deals. You get two in the first week. Wow! Let’s see *math in head*, by February I should easily be sailing around the Bahamas in my new yacht.
• Two days later one of the deals dies because the advertiser doesn’t like the test data. What if all our deals fall through? Should I put together a resume? Do I know anyone at Wal-mart that can get me a job?

It’s never as good as it seems and it’s never as bad as it seems. True, but hard to remember.

When Google announced Wave in May 2009, it started a hizzy amongst techies the likes of which are rarely seen. Wave wasn’t just another product, but an entirely new form of communication. It was hailed as the next version of email, a brand new form of real-time collaboration that had literally thousands of potential use cases. In the beginning, invites were really difficult to come by and everyone couldn’t wait to get their hands on an account.

But that’s pretty much where everything crescendoed. Fast forward to today and Google has just announced they’re shuttering Wave. The product saw anemic growth and almost no traction amongst main stream users (and even those users who were previously hizzied up, myself included). I’m left with two general observations:

First, I’m surprised Google quit on Wave so quickly. They have piles of cash and have shown no hesitation in giving a very long leash to projects that they view as revolutionary. They treated it as the next step in the evolution of communication and collaboration on the Internet, and yet they didn’t have the fortitude to see it through and focus on the long-term. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Second, Google pitched Wave as more of a framework than a product. Even though the underpinnings of the product were undeniably impressive, most people had a difficult time actually understanding what it “was” and what it could be used for. This led to the infamous tutorial video created by a non-Googler that was finally able to provide a sliver of an adequate explanation.

Video aside, use cases for the product were few and far between. The most compelling use case I came across and attempted to participate in was a Wave created by the Seattle PD in an attempt to stage a coordinated manhunt. I say attempted because the Wave crashed all of my browsers before I could even do anything (performance was another big problem with Wave).

In the end, I believe Google was caught in something of a contradiction. They pitched Wave as a framework for changing the Internet, but treated it as a regular product that they expected to get lots of traction on right away. If it was immediate traction they were looking for, they should have focused on narrowing the product and actively building out specific use cases that people could understand. Product management, event planning, and any of the other thousands of hypothetical uses would’ve done just fine.

There has been a whole flurry of conversation around Google App Inventor this morning. App Inventor is Google’s new tool that allows anyone to create apps for the Android platform without any prior programming knowledge. For many this brings back memories of Geocities and the original WYSIWYG editors, which allowed users who didn’t know HTML to create webpages of all sorts (many of which offended even the most basic sensibilities). There are pros and cons to such an approach.

The biggest pro is volume. These type of editors enable a much wider base of people to create content. Google App Inventor will clearly increase the amount of apps available in the Android Market.

The biggest con is quality. Apps created with an editor like Google App Inventor are inherently limited in their capabilities. It may be a great editor (I haven’t had a chance to play with it yet), but the best apps will still be created by people with the programming skills necessary to add additional layers of customization and complexity.

The problem is, Android doesn’t need quantity, it needs quality. As someone who interacts with both Apple’s App Store and Android’s Market on a regular basis, I can say without a doubt that Apple is crushing Android. It’s not about the quantity of apps–Android has over 50,000 apps. It’s the fact that the vast majority of those apps are complete trash, which deters users like me from paying for apps, and further deters quality developers from developing for Android. It’s a vicious circle, and the only way to fix it is to bring some legitimacy to the Android Market that’s missing.

At this point Google’s best hope is to focus on improving the existing app experience for its users. Great apps needs to be curated and brought to the forefront while bad apps are filtered out of the system. Purchasing apps needs to be way easier, and the whole experience needs to feel safer. Until that happens, a giant influx of mediocre apps is going to hurt more than it helps.

I’ve been working my way through Tony Hsieh’s “Delivering Happiness” and happened upon an awesome analogy that I really like. He talks about learning to play poker and how as you learn you can’t help but see parallels between poker and being an entrepreneur (something I’ve found as well). One of the lessons he took from poker and applied to life is that in poker one of the most important factors that determines how much money you make is the table where you choose to play.

The beauty of poker, and the reason it’s beatable while other casino games are not, is that you’re playing against other players instead of against the house. Every time a player at your table makes a mistake in a hand, the other players in the hand who play more optimally make money.  It stands to reason then that if you want to make the most money possible, you should not only play well, but you should play at a table filled with the worst possible players (affectionately known as “donks”).

That’s a good idea in theory, but in reality it’s easy to get stuck at a bad table. It takes some time to settle in and figure out the table dynamics, and as the bad players go bust and good players take their spots, it’s really convenient to just stick around so you don’t have to rack up your chips and start the process over again at another table. It’s the easy thing to do, but it’s also one of the worst things you can do if you’re serious about making money.

The same thing happens in life all the time. It’s incredibly easy to get stuck in situations that aren’t optimal for us out of laziness or fear or stubbornness. The secret is remembering we can always change tables, as Tony discovered:

I’d realized that whether in poker, in business, or in life, it was easy to get caught up and engrossed in what I was currently doing, and that made it easy to forget that I always had the option to change tables. Psychologically, it’s hard because of all the inertia to overcome. Without conscious and deliberate efforts, inertia always wins.

Spot on. Be sure to check out Tony’s book when you have a chance. It’s an easy read and packed full of practical wisdom.

Bought my iPad more or less on a whim and, I must say, its been quite enjoyable. Its really made me rethink my anti-Apple fan boyness. Here are a few of my initial thoughts:

• Anyone who tells you its a replacement for the Kindle probably hasn’t used a Kindle. The eink on the Kindle really IS that important. Its just like reading a regular book, but easier. The iPad is bulky in comparison and its really not enjoyable to read on. I stare at a computer screen most of the day, reading a long book on one is the last thing I want to do.
• It is primarily a device designed for consuming media, but that’s ok. Ive read various people say its a step back because it doesn’t allow for much content creation (no camera, etc) but we have to consume all that content somehow right? The iPad does that very well.
• It is a bigger iPhone, but that’s the point. The size of the screen makes all the difference. No matter how sweet the phone, you’re constantly aware of the constraints brought on by the size of the device. While I would almost never go out of the way to watch video on my phone, I could see myself regularly watching movies on the iPad even over TV. Same goes for gaming and other applications. So while it is just a bigger iPhone, it has the potential to lead to huge changes in the way we consume media.
• It is a GORGEOUS device. Every time I pick it up and flip through the screens of icons I’m taken aback.
• I have an Xbox 360, a Wii, and a Nintendo DS. I can already tell my wife and I will be playing the majority of our games on the iPad. Its just that good at gaming. Were definitely casual gamers, so this wont be the case for everyone, but I think the iPad makes gaming accessible for an huge amount of people that wouldn’t otherwise play games.
• Its a super basic device, which is frustrating at times. Like while Im browsing the web or reading blogs, I want access to IM. To not have it just doesnt feel right. Its also infuriating that I cant easily save images from Safari or even set them as my background. Seriously?

All-in-all, a great purchase. Certainly an awesome device for the masses. Oh, and the on-screen keyword isn’t bad either. I typed this post using the Wordpress app.

One of the more ridiculous things I saw last week was the iPad, sporting iBooks, mimicking as closely as possible the process of reading a real book. Why is this ridiculous? Because it’s not a book, it’s a touchscreen electronic device. It may be pretty, but it’s certainly wasn’t designed with the ideal user experience in mind.

That cute app typifies exactly what’s going on with print. Everyone is asking if the iPad can save print, but that’s not even a valid question–once content is on the iPad, “print” ceases to exist. It doesn’t matter how much the experience of reading the New York Times on the iPad is like unto reading a hard copy, it’s still digital content. Maybe this is just semantics. Maybe by saving “print” people don’t actually mean saving the traditional form of newspapers and magazines, but of saving the publishing companies themselves.

If that’s the case, then the real question is whether or not the iPad and other digital devices can save the big publishers. The answer to that question is yes, of course, in the same way it can “save” and sustain the new publishing companies. Digital is the new medium for content consumption, and the big publishers are not-so-subtly conceding this by hailing the iPad. It’s ironic that the device they’re pinning their hopes on actually just further blurs the lines between their content and all the other content residing on the web.

Unfortunately the blurring of that distinction is something they can’t avoid. Digital content is the future, and the rules are different on the web. The vast majority of consumers are content with getting their news from sources that aren’t the newspapers or magazines–sources like any number of hugely popular and well-written blogs on the Internet. These new publishers developed low overhead models of doing business that actually work on the web, and in order to survive, traditional publishers will have to make similar changes.

All publishers need to start thinking of themselves as digital content companies. They need to start shuffling things within their organizations to make them viable in the digital economy. They need to take a good look at the business models of new content companies that are thriving to see how they should adapt. Salaries are going to have to be slashed and budgets are going to have to be re-evaluated. It won’t be pretty, and it may very well have a net-negative affect on the quality of journalism available, but such are the demands of the market.

Just finished Gary Vee’s book. For those of you who don’t know, Gary is famous for starting Wine Library TV and bringing excitement, enthusiasm, and borderline insanity to the world of wine.

He has an inspiring success story, he loves “hustle” (i.e. hard work), and he decided to distill his philosophy on business into his 160 page book called Crush It!: Why Now Is the Time to Cash In On Your Passion.

Crush It! is pretty much a blue print for how he started Wine Library TV and is filled with useful advice for people who are looking to take their own talents and transform them into cash on the Internet. It goes over the process of selecting your topic, building your online presence, and cultivating the grit necessary to succeed.

Let me tell you my favorite thing about this book: it emphasizes work and is geared towards people who are new to Internet marketing. That makes it the perfect book to hand out to friends, family, and the odd stranger when they ask you how to make money on the Internet.

Beyond that, I’d say the book is great for beginners, but is a little elementary for those with a decent amount of experience in online marketing, especially social media. The material is, in general, very basic.

That said, I believe Gary’s overall vision of where business is going on the Internet is right on. He preaches “conversational marketing” (my term), as opposed to purely transactional marketing. Nothing is one way–you engage your audience in a conversation instead of simply directly marketing to them. Why? Because genuine dialogue builds insane amounts of trust, loyalty, and credibility.

The Internet has introduced unparalleled levels of transparency in commerce. Companies use to get away with treating customers poorly because consumers essentially had no recourse; if they were really upset they might tell all of their friends about their bad experience, but little could be done beyond that.

Now, stories of relatively insignificant slights turning into global PR disasters are the norm. Consumers are connected on the Internet, and as technology advances, our ability to act as a group will continue to empower us.

Consumers will also increasingly look to one another to make purchasing decisions instead of relying solely on traditional forms of advertising. This is already happening in a very real way (I pretty much never buy a book, eat at restaurant, or try a recipe until I’ve read reviews). The very best way to cultivate a loyal customer base, then, is to engage them in a transparent and open manner–to leverage their voices into passion for your products.

Unfortunately Gary doesn’t go much into this, but I understand why. The purpose of the book is to serve as practical guide to those wanting to “cash in” on their passion, and, for the right person, I think it’s a pretty good start.

My pile of books remaining to be read:

• The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton M. Christensen
• Inside the Tornado by Geoffrey Moore
• Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky
• Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff
• Raising Venture Capital for the Serious Entrepreneur by Dermot Berkery
• Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts and Mergers & Acquisitions by Joshua Rosenbaum
• The Long Tail by Chris Anderson
• Crush It! by Gary Vaynerchuk
• Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston
• Spin Selling by Neil Rackham
• Solution Selling by Michael T. Bosworth
• It’s Ok to Be The Boss by Bruce Tulgan
• Secrets of Question Based Selling by Thomas A. Freese

I’ll pretty freely admit that I have a book addiction. I’d like to say I purchase a book, read it, then purchase another one, but that’s just not the case. What usually happens is I get interested in something, go to Amazon, and buy the top two or three books on the subject. As time goes on I collect more and more books until I have a huge stack of half-read books that I have to tackle. I usually get through them, but it’s a big mess.

To make matters worse, I got a Kindle for Christmas. That’s like putting a giant vodka vending machine in an alcoholic’s bedroom and taking away their anti-depressants. I can literally buy a book with a click of a button and have it in front of me within a couple of minutes. The results of my post-Christmas binge are starting to pile up (both in ebooks and real books), so I figured I’d challenge myself to finish all of them before I bought another book. After I finish a book from list the I’ll write up a short review and add some of my own thoughts, the check it off the list. Here she is:

• The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton M. Christensen
• Inside the Tornado by Geoffrey Moore
• Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky
• Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff
• Raising Venture Capital for the Serious Entrepreneur by Dermot Berkery
• Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts and Mergers & Acquisitions by Joshua Rosenbaum
• The Long Tail by Chris Anderson
• Crush It! by Gary Vaynerchuk
• Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston
• Spin Selling by Neil Rackham
• Solution Selling by Michael T. Bosworth
• Secrets of Question Based Selling by Thomas A. Freese

My blog’s namesake isn’t a clever play on viral marketing, or really anything Internet related. Instead it’s from this awesome / depressing emo song by Bright Eyes called Landlocked Blues..

Whether you’re a social media expert, or you just happen to pick up a business section every now and then, you’re probably well aware that social networking sites can’t seem to make any money. Facebook can’t do anything right, twitter hasn’t even bothered to develop a coherent revenue model, and even digg is losing millions of dollars. It’s almost a paradox–you can have all the traffic in the world, but it’s still possible lose a bunch of money despite trying really, really hard.

It’s a not-so-gentle reminder that revenue models are more important than ever. Creating a start-up built soley around high traffic volume can, at the very least, lead to wasted time. Incorporating a revenue model upfront and actually understanding how you’re going to make money is far more important than it use to be. Why? Because generic forms of advertising are not nearly as effective as they once were. Banners are dead, and Adsense is the new Banner ad.

Develop a focused, engaging ad model that adds real value to the visitors experience. As the average Internet user gets savvier, anything less will lead to lost revenue.