Strangely enough, I've come across the term "long tail business" multiple times throughout the day. At first I merely noted the term, and went on with what I was doing. But the second time I paused, and it sunk in what was meant.
Google is a long tail business. Amazon is a long tail business. Netflix is a long tail business.
The Wired article, The Long Tail, headlines: "Forget squeezing millions from a few megahits at the top of the charts. The future of entertainment is in the millions of niche markets at the shallow end of the bitstream."
The place that caused me to pause and consider the merits of the concept of the 'long tail business' is this site, apparently the blog of one of the Excite founders. What impressed me was this writer's honesty about why Excite failed (and the fact that he openly shared it, and that I was able to gain insight from it is a good indicator of the value of this medium). He explained that Excite was unable to figure out how to leverage the vast majority of their traffic (97%) that was on myriad disparate topical searches, as opposed to their 3 or so percent of the popular searches, like "MP3", or "Brittany Spears".
more resources:
http://longtail.typepad.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
The Future of Work, MIT Video of Thomas Malone
Unedited notes here:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/229/
Thomas Malone, Video Notes from MIT Sloan School of Business
Change toward more human freedom in business. now possible to have economic benefits of large organizations, and same time, human benefits of small orgs - organization, innovation, freedom...
because: tech has reduced cost of communication. people even in large orgs can make informed decisions...
what will shape how the changes occur is: what we humans want...
examples:
Open Source Software, like linux. Mentioned wikipedia. "Open Content" encyclopedia. Wiki comes from hawaiian word for quick. started in 2000. Used often as a first stop to gather info...it has huge amounts of freedom...at same time, coupled with that freedom is global scale of contributors and audience as well...coupled with this freedom of a small store owner is global scale: a global audience...
talks of a common pattern in business, recalls common patterns of human societies' patterns...
ebay. global infrastructure for auctions. 2bil revenue. millions active buyers & sellers. 150k individuals make a full time living from ebay buying & selling. Like small store owners...
Talks about emergence of more decentralized agencies/organizations due to advances in communications & technologies.
He discusses the higher motivation, creativity, flexibility of individuals in smaller more independent situations...
critical factors for success are exactly the benefits of decentralization - creativity, motivation, flexibility...
more and more, technology and economic and human impreitives will make it much more possilbe to have decentralized decisions...
- loose heierarchies
- democracies
- markets: external markets (outsourcing) : 'elance economy'... meaning 'electronically connected freelancers'. the idea is that things done today in large corps can be done in groups of small independent contractors coming together for one project...like the way movies are currently done...thought to become more common in future...this thanks to technologies enabling such things...meintions elancers.com/elance.com
talks about the idea of companies where everyone is in control. airplane analogy...what would it be like to have an airplane where everyone in the plane was in control...showed amazing experiment of flight simulator controlled collectively by a large group of people each...they navigated the course successfully!!
important is the ability to move back and forth to highly centralized top down to highly decentralized bottom up...
what does all this mean? more choices for us. Adivce to consider what matters most...
Discusses how more and more investments and selecting orgs and businesses will include a consideration of their values...
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/229/
Thomas Malone, Video Notes from MIT Sloan School of Business
Change toward more human freedom in business. now possible to have economic benefits of large organizations, and same time, human benefits of small orgs - organization, innovation, freedom...
because: tech has reduced cost of communication. people even in large orgs can make informed decisions...
what will shape how the changes occur is: what we humans want...
examples:
Open Source Software, like linux. Mentioned wikipedia. "Open Content" encyclopedia. Wiki comes from hawaiian word for quick. started in 2000. Used often as a first stop to gather info...it has huge amounts of freedom...at same time, coupled with that freedom is global scale of contributors and audience as well...coupled with this freedom of a small store owner is global scale: a global audience...
talks of a common pattern in business, recalls common patterns of human societies' patterns...
ebay. global infrastructure for auctions. 2bil revenue. millions active buyers & sellers. 150k individuals make a full time living from ebay buying & selling. Like small store owners...
Talks about emergence of more decentralized agencies/organizations due to advances in communications & technologies.
He discusses the higher motivation, creativity, flexibility of individuals in smaller more independent situations...
critical factors for success are exactly the benefits of decentralization - creativity, motivation, flexibility...
more and more, technology and economic and human impreitives will make it much more possilbe to have decentralized decisions...
- loose heierarchies
- democracies
- markets: external markets (outsourcing) : 'elance economy'... meaning 'electronically connected freelancers'. the idea is that things done today in large corps can be done in groups of small independent contractors coming together for one project...like the way movies are currently done...thought to become more common in future...this thanks to technologies enabling such things...meintions elancers.com/elance.com
talks about the idea of companies where everyone is in control. airplane analogy...what would it be like to have an airplane where everyone in the plane was in control...showed amazing experiment of flight simulator controlled collectively by a large group of people each...they navigated the course successfully!!
important is the ability to move back and forth to highly centralized top down to highly decentralized bottom up...
what does all this mean? more choices for us. Adivce to consider what matters most...
Discusses how more and more investments and selecting orgs and businesses will include a consideration of their values...
Innovation and Disruptive Technology
The Innovation Economy: How Technology Is Transforming Existing Industries and Creating New Ones - Clayton Christensen, MIT Presentation
I've logged my unedited notes here:
The Innovation Economy: How Technology Is Transforming Existing Industries and Creating New Ones - CLAYTON CHRISTENSEN
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/108/
Transcription notes:
If I wanted to unseat a major player or create a new industry, how would i do it, how do I know a winning strategy when I see it?
talks about medeival aviators jumping off high places flapping their fabricated wings...mentions 12th century writer - bernuli (sp) - wrote discussing why humans can't fly like birds, because birds have hollow bones.
Laws of nature: as we continue to understand laws of nature, probablility of success in those areas are greater.
want to identify and understand those concepts that increase the probability of success.
Discuss some of those variables that contribute to the probability of success.
Disruptive Technologies. a driver of leadership failure and the source of new growth opportunities. trajectory of technological progress statistically outstrips the consumers opportunities/abilities to use it...ie, the technology offshoots the user's chances to use it...ex: intel has overshot what the average computer user can use with their big 2gigaherts boxes that the average word processor guy never has need for...
Why is it that leaders in an industry get killed? The paradigm has been that they just get big and slow through beauracracy, etc...but findings are that this is not necassarily true...
nearly100% of the time...the companies that adopted the new technologies were the old companies...
Disruptive Technologies, not because a dramatic breakthrough...not because it was a breakthroug but because......
discusses how all the mini computer companies like digital, et al, all fell apart at the same time...and this helped him to understand what was going on...
These companies were not technologically behind, they had continued their regular expected pattern of sustained innovation...
But the new microcomputers - apple II were disruptive technologies...and they were kids stuff, toys...apple ii was for kids, he says...
not a single one of digital's customers could use a personal computer...
talked about intel in late 80s.
Disruptive Technology should maybe be called trivial or straightforward technology that disrupts the business leaders...
Digital had a model that minicomputer was complex and had to have training and support, etc...
It is difficult for managment to move downmarket, because their manager sense wants them to move upmarket where profit margins are higher...but it is this tendancy that brings about the situation of losing focus on the downmarket, and opening up opportunity for disruptive markets to come to play...
If innovative company, seeks to introduce a better product that what is available in an existing market to their customers...probablity of success is low...
However, if you enter with a disruption that the business leaders find irrelivant, and that looks unnattractive financially, probability of success increases...about 6 times higher, because you have seized a territory that the leaders just don't want.
a worry about optical communications...problem is the inherent belief about the upmarket region (of the graph he is showing)...
two types of disruptive technologies. celecron disrupting pentium, an example of intel successfully disrupting itself - paying attention and satisfying both upmarket and downmarket ends of the scale...rather than providing an opening for others to do it...and thereby staying on top of things.
type 2 disruptions don't create new markets, but create a low cost market that enable...
disruptive technology enables a larger number of people to start using a technology than before...
Personal computer is type 1 disruption. Creative creation often goes on before creative destruction...
Litmus tests: are they targeting obvious established market, or are they targeting a new target of users? The latter has greater success. Example: Transistor vs. vacuum tubes. How the transistor came into disruptive use is that it was put into hearing aids (not targeting the tv/radio/etc consumers using vacuum tubes in tvs, etc)..then in 1955 sony put it in the pocket radio - good for low end customers (kind of crappy)...new market emerged (targeted to new customers - teenagers)...1959, portable tvs, competing against non-consumption...people were delighted for crummy project, because otherwise they had no product..
In 1960s, solid state revolution occured, vacuum tube companies dissapeared...
Voice Recognition. Innovators in the industry approach discussion. IBM Via Voice, targeting wrong customers (a secretary)...it isn't good for this customer,...needs to be better, faster, cheaper, etc...BUT where it is taking off is 'press or say 1' apps, or robots, or chat stuff...IM...blackberry/palm VII...
Therefore, Litmus Test: Does it target a large population who historically lacks the money or skill to participate in the market..
Early years of most industries, when product isn't good enough...to compete, you make better products...usually proprietary and interdependently designed...
You have to do everything in order to do anything...so when the product isn't good enough (early on) it is advantageous to have an interdependent proprietary design/model...
Once you've overshot, how do you compete to win business in the oversatisfied population? You change business...to be fast, flexible...and evolve to become more modular, open, and disintegrated, or independently...
Being integrated or not integrated at the appropriate time is very important...
Apple originally was closed most integrated...but as performance got better & better...proprietary architecture had to give way to open....but apple was unable, and market changed (when apple was in trouble)..
In beginning, to try to have modular industry standards is premature. Japanese company done the best is most proprietary...he suspects that this will filp however and they will open up...
MS .NET Strategy is probably a good one...
Suns is probably premature...
I've logged my unedited notes here:
The Innovation Economy: How Technology Is Transforming Existing Industries and Creating New Ones - CLAYTON CHRISTENSEN
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/108/
Transcription notes:
If I wanted to unseat a major player or create a new industry, how would i do it, how do I know a winning strategy when I see it?
talks about medeival aviators jumping off high places flapping their fabricated wings...mentions 12th century writer - bernuli (sp) - wrote discussing why humans can't fly like birds, because birds have hollow bones.
Laws of nature: as we continue to understand laws of nature, probablility of success in those areas are greater.
want to identify and understand those concepts that increase the probability of success.
Discuss some of those variables that contribute to the probability of success.
Disruptive Technologies. a driver of leadership failure and the source of new growth opportunities. trajectory of technological progress statistically outstrips the consumers opportunities/abilities to use it...ie, the technology offshoots the user's chances to use it...ex: intel has overshot what the average computer user can use with their big 2gigaherts boxes that the average word processor guy never has need for...
Why is it that leaders in an industry get killed? The paradigm has been that they just get big and slow through beauracracy, etc...but findings are that this is not necassarily true...
nearly100% of the time...the companies that adopted the new technologies were the old companies...
Disruptive Technologies, not because a dramatic breakthrough...not because it was a breakthroug but because......
discusses how all the mini computer companies like digital, et al, all fell apart at the same time...and this helped him to understand what was going on...
These companies were not technologically behind, they had continued their regular expected pattern of sustained innovation...
But the new microcomputers - apple II were disruptive technologies...and they were kids stuff, toys...apple ii was for kids, he says...
not a single one of digital's customers could use a personal computer...
talked about intel in late 80s.
Disruptive Technology should maybe be called trivial or straightforward technology that disrupts the business leaders...
Digital had a model that minicomputer was complex and had to have training and support, etc...
It is difficult for managment to move downmarket, because their manager sense wants them to move upmarket where profit margins are higher...but it is this tendancy that brings about the situation of losing focus on the downmarket, and opening up opportunity for disruptive markets to come to play...
If innovative company, seeks to introduce a better product that what is available in an existing market to their customers...probablity of success is low...
However, if you enter with a disruption that the business leaders find irrelivant, and that looks unnattractive financially, probability of success increases...about 6 times higher, because you have seized a territory that the leaders just don't want.
a worry about optical communications...problem is the inherent belief about the upmarket region (of the graph he is showing)...
two types of disruptive technologies. celecron disrupting pentium, an example of intel successfully disrupting itself - paying attention and satisfying both upmarket and downmarket ends of the scale...rather than providing an opening for others to do it...and thereby staying on top of things.
type 2 disruptions don't create new markets, but create a low cost market that enable...
disruptive technology enables a larger number of people to start using a technology than before...
Personal computer is type 1 disruption. Creative creation often goes on before creative destruction...
Litmus tests: are they targeting obvious established market, or are they targeting a new target of users? The latter has greater success. Example: Transistor vs. vacuum tubes. How the transistor came into disruptive use is that it was put into hearing aids (not targeting the tv/radio/etc consumers using vacuum tubes in tvs, etc)..then in 1955 sony put it in the pocket radio - good for low end customers (kind of crappy)...new market emerged (targeted to new customers - teenagers)...1959, portable tvs, competing against non-consumption...people were delighted for crummy project, because otherwise they had no product..
In 1960s, solid state revolution occured, vacuum tube companies dissapeared...
Voice Recognition. Innovators in the industry approach discussion. IBM Via Voice, targeting wrong customers (a secretary)...it isn't good for this customer,...needs to be better, faster, cheaper, etc...BUT where it is taking off is 'press or say 1' apps, or robots, or chat stuff...IM...blackberry/palm VII...
Therefore, Litmus Test: Does it target a large population who historically lacks the money or skill to participate in the market..
Early years of most industries, when product isn't good enough...to compete, you make better products...usually proprietary and interdependently designed...
You have to do everything in order to do anything...so when the product isn't good enough (early on) it is advantageous to have an interdependent proprietary design/model...
Once you've overshot, how do you compete to win business in the oversatisfied population? You change business...to be fast, flexible...and evolve to become more modular, open, and disintegrated, or independently...
Being integrated or not integrated at the appropriate time is very important...
Apple originally was closed most integrated...but as performance got better & better...proprietary architecture had to give way to open....but apple was unable, and market changed (when apple was in trouble)..
In beginning, to try to have modular industry standards is premature. Japanese company done the best is most proprietary...he suspects that this will filp however and they will open up...
MS .NET Strategy is probably a good one...
Suns is probably premature...
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Capturing Live Combat in Network Centric Warfare
Maj Ryan Patterson, USMC, gave this presentation at DARPATech 2005. This quote from his presentation sums up what I felt was the most interesting concept:
"Imagine if we had the battle for Fallujah recorded at the company, platoon, and squad levels; the sketches, actions, words of the commanders as they fought that fight. That record would revolutionize the way we train and prepare our military leaders to deal with similar combat situations in the future. Instead of reading a book about the Battle of Fallujah, military students of the future will learn interactively and at a truly immersive level of detail."
DARPA's Rapid Reaction Initiative
The Rapid Reaction Initiative Presentation at DarpaTech2005 discusses some very impressive products that have come out of the Rapid Reaction Initiative. The idea underlying the initiative is to contract, devise, test, and deploy product into a theater of conflict within 60-90 days.
A very interesting example given is the Boomerang. It senses gunfire and indicates to soldiers the direction of fire. This system was deployed in Iraq 66 days after the contract was signed. Other examples in the presentation are Gun Truck and Hard Wire.
A very interesting example given is the Boomerang. It senses gunfire and indicates to soldiers the direction of fire. This system was deployed in Iraq 66 days after the contract was signed. Other examples in the presentation are Gun Truck and Hard Wire.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)