Executive Summary: A review of "Page One: Inside the New York Times"- a documentary that provides an inside view of a market leader in publishing through some changes in the industry. From the desk of If-It-Sounds-Like-the-NYT-But-Reads-Like-Twitter, It-Really-Isn't-A-Documentary, It-Is-A-Reality-TV-Show.
Introduction
The last time I posted about a movie was the opening weekend of Iron Man, over 3 years ago. This one is about "Page One: Inside the New York Times", a "fly on the wall" account of a desk at the New York Times.
The Key Theme: Challenges
The movie gets three challenges facing the New York Times right:
1. A Market Leader's Core Differentiation in a Seemingly Fragmented Ecosystem:
Where does the paper, and in comparison, the rest world, stand on news accountability, quality, objectivity, and transparency? The movie touches upon the difference between Journalism and activism, in the Wikileaks context.
2. The Survival of Publishing as a Well Oiled "Machine", and Its Metamorphosis :
The documentary covers Der Spiegel, Guardian and NYT partnering with WikiLeaks, and alludes to the shifting sands of the publishing ecosystem where a publisher could be a source.
3. Funding to Sustain a News Enterprise:
It touches upon the launch of the metered paywall at NYT (in line with the FT, and the Economist).
Finally... The Opinion
As for the documentary experience, it stays true to the fly on the wall theme. Its like what reading Twitter is to reading the NYT. However, it does a great job of juxtaposing current changes in the industry impact the market leader, against its storied past.
If you are looking for more detail on the trends, you would be better served by visiting the Economist website (or reading this week's print edition) here:
http://www.economist.com/node/18904136. More on that to follow.
At worst, you may end up feeling like you watched some reality TV about a desk at the NYT, and even then, you will find a memorable line or two. "A textured life", for one.
What do you think? If you saw the movie, what did you think?
Showing posts with label business model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business model. Show all posts
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Thursday, August 06, 2009
The Startup Thought Process Series: Commuter Rants
Series Initation Note: This kicks off a series on my conversations with folks starting digital media companies with the objective of assisting the enterpreneurs.
The Startup: I met an owner close to rolling out a site for commuter rants. Simply put, the site is a forum for commuters to rant about their commute.
Our relatively brief conversation focused on helping him with the vision/ raison d’être for the site. Snippets of the conversation are listed below. These are really interconnected factors, however you need to be able to think through them linearly once, before you iterate through the options and interdependencies. As with a few startups, these answers may change with time, however, it helps to have concrete thoughts about these questions at the start of the journey.
I. Market Potential
The entrepreneur's first area of uncertainty was: how frequently would a commuter rant at his site? We broke that down into market sizing and frequency of usage.
i. Who is the target user of this site? What is the market size?
What kind of commuter? Someone who takes the NJ Transit or Metro North to and fro work? Or does it include someone stuck on the D.C. beltway on a Friday evening? The idea here is to understand an existing unmet need and customer behavior tied to this unmet need.
For sizing, there are several ways to generate the numbers- by geography, by demographics, etc.
ii. What would the growth and usage trends be like?
Would they be like that of Twitter (where 30% of the users tweet once never to return) or like that of Facebook?
II. Business Model and Market Strategy
We are really thinking about distribution channels, partners, customer relationships, core capabilities and revenue models here, all of which can be expressed pithily as:
Would you prefer a B2C model or would you modify the site for a B2B model?
Note: We explicitly kept aside market defensibility to assist in brainstorming.
A> B2C Model
i. How would you grow the B2C site?
Would you eventually develop features tied to hyperlocal search to enable customer stick? E.g. Regulars in a train compartment can connect with each other?
ii. How would you monetize the site?
Through Ads, and possibly, viral content (to help folks cool down, for starters)?
B> B2B Model
i. How would you grow the B2B site?
After an initial push to bring on site users, would you consider tying up with media companies who may leverage feed from this site? E.g. TV Weather and traffic update has a ticker running at the bottom which shows "selected"/ "near real time" commuter "rants"?
ii. How would you monetize the B2B site?
How many media companies would buy into this? What would such features be worth to the media companies?
III. Product Strategy
Would you roll this out as an independent site/ platform? Or,
Would you leverage existing platforms like the iPhone and/ or Facebook?
The questions for you:
1> How would you have looked at this differently?
2> Would you invest?
3> What changes, if any, would change your investment decision?
What do you think?
--
The Startup: I met an owner close to rolling out a site for commuter rants. Simply put, the site is a forum for commuters to rant about their commute.
Our relatively brief conversation focused on helping him with the vision/ raison d’être for the site. Snippets of the conversation are listed below. These are really interconnected factors, however you need to be able to think through them linearly once, before you iterate through the options and interdependencies. As with a few startups, these answers may change with time, however, it helps to have concrete thoughts about these questions at the start of the journey.
I. Market Potential
The entrepreneur's first area of uncertainty was: how frequently would a commuter rant at his site? We broke that down into market sizing and frequency of usage.
i. Who is the target user of this site? What is the market size?
What kind of commuter? Someone who takes the NJ Transit or Metro North to and fro work? Or does it include someone stuck on the D.C. beltway on a Friday evening? The idea here is to understand an existing unmet need and customer behavior tied to this unmet need.
For sizing, there are several ways to generate the numbers- by geography, by demographics, etc.
ii. What would the growth and usage trends be like?
Would they be like that of Twitter (where 30% of the users tweet once never to return) or like that of Facebook?
II. Business Model and Market Strategy
We are really thinking about distribution channels, partners, customer relationships, core capabilities and revenue models here, all of which can be expressed pithily as:
Would you prefer a B2C model or would you modify the site for a B2B model?
Note: We explicitly kept aside market defensibility to assist in brainstorming.
A> B2C Model
i. How would you grow the B2C site?
Would you eventually develop features tied to hyperlocal search to enable customer stick? E.g. Regulars in a train compartment can connect with each other?
ii. How would you monetize the site?
Through Ads, and possibly, viral content (to help folks cool down, for starters)?
B> B2B Model
i. How would you grow the B2B site?
After an initial push to bring on site users, would you consider tying up with media companies who may leverage feed from this site? E.g. TV Weather and traffic update has a ticker running at the bottom which shows "selected"/ "near real time" commuter "rants"?
ii. How would you monetize the B2B site?
How many media companies would buy into this? What would such features be worth to the media companies?
III. Product Strategy
Would you roll this out as an independent site/ platform? Or,
Would you leverage existing platforms like the iPhone and/ or Facebook?
The questions for you:
1> How would you have looked at this differently?
2> Would you invest?
3> What changes, if any, would change your investment decision?
What do you think?
--
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Conference Panel: Healthcare in India
Before stepping into the panel, I had a pretty linear approach to the Indian healthcare business:
1> Regulatory frameworks -> IP, constraints.
2> Industry-> market structures, services, and maturity of symbiotic players.
3> Consumers and Markets-> segmentation.
4> Companies-> Revenues-> Products and Services; Costs -> Manufacturing, Distribution, Licensing.
5> Distribution models.
Listening to the panelists from Pfizer, a healthcare company (Apollo Hospitals), a generic drugs company (Dr. Reddys) and Carlyle, I began to focus on 2 takeaways:
1> Healthcare Framework and Policy Innovation: The parallel here is the effort in the Indian Financial Services sector to develop frameworks given the results in the US financials "market". Another parallel is the U.S. music and film industry.
2> Business Model Innovation: Focused on access to healthcare services and drugs. Access equates not just to distribution, but also to price points. The parallel here is the U.S. (global?) music industry.
Healthcare Policy Framework Innovation
1> The "Access" Case for Policy Frameworks:
Amit Patel from Dr. Reddy's made an interesting point that bringing down price points in drugs, patented or otherwise, may bring about increases in revenues, due to increases in volumes of users. He carefully avoided talking about elasticity, but he was effectively driving at segmentation and managing the segments.
How is this thought process relevant in the Indian Healthcare context? Unlike in the U.S.- given the context of healthcare insurance in the US- the price of a drug effectively forms an access barrier to those who need it. Healthcare in India invariably involves a large out of pocket expense component.
These access issues roll up into a need for policy frameworks that develop multiple markets and multiple market entities that collaborate to serve unmet demand.
2> The IP Case for Healthcare Frameworks:
Again, the panelist from Dr.Reddy's pointed out that a patent regime is an outcome of a particular economic environment and necessity. The U.S. music industry is coming to grips with markets evolution driven by technology. Do the U.S. music and film industries need to rethink how they look at IP and its enforcement? Would they have to take another look in the future?
3> Policy Roadmaps:
How about applying an idea, similar to product roadmaps for agile development, that I suggested here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/03/conference-panel-infrastructure-in.html
Business Model Innovation
On distribution, the value chain, and operations, I find parallels between the music industry and the healthcare industry. Supply needs to innovate to stoke Demand.
More about this as I add to this blog.
1> Regulatory frameworks -> IP, constraints.
2> Industry-> market structures, services, and maturity of symbiotic players.
3> Consumers and Markets-> segmentation.
4> Companies-> Revenues-> Products and Services; Costs -> Manufacturing, Distribution, Licensing.
5> Distribution models.
Listening to the panelists from Pfizer, a healthcare company (Apollo Hospitals), a generic drugs company (Dr. Reddys) and Carlyle, I began to focus on 2 takeaways:
1> Healthcare Framework and Policy Innovation: The parallel here is the effort in the Indian Financial Services sector to develop frameworks given the results in the US financials "market". Another parallel is the U.S. music and film industry.
2> Business Model Innovation: Focused on access to healthcare services and drugs. Access equates not just to distribution, but also to price points. The parallel here is the U.S. (global?) music industry.
Healthcare Policy Framework Innovation
1> The "Access" Case for Policy Frameworks:
Amit Patel from Dr. Reddy's made an interesting point that bringing down price points in drugs, patented or otherwise, may bring about increases in revenues, due to increases in volumes of users. He carefully avoided talking about elasticity, but he was effectively driving at segmentation and managing the segments.
How is this thought process relevant in the Indian Healthcare context? Unlike in the U.S.- given the context of healthcare insurance in the US- the price of a drug effectively forms an access barrier to those who need it. Healthcare in India invariably involves a large out of pocket expense component.
These access issues roll up into a need for policy frameworks that develop multiple markets and multiple market entities that collaborate to serve unmet demand.
2> The IP Case for Healthcare Frameworks:
Again, the panelist from Dr.Reddy's pointed out that a patent regime is an outcome of a particular economic environment and necessity. The U.S. music industry is coming to grips with markets evolution driven by technology. Do the U.S. music and film industries need to rethink how they look at IP and its enforcement? Would they have to take another look in the future?
3> Policy Roadmaps:
How about applying an idea, similar to product roadmaps for agile development, that I suggested here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/03/conference-panel-infrastructure-in.html
Business Model Innovation
On distribution, the value chain, and operations, I find parallels between the music industry and the healthcare industry. Supply needs to innovate to stoke Demand.
More about this as I add to this blog.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Music Industry, Technology, IP and Piracy: Is there anything in common? Really?
Multiplicity of Approaches.
News articles on the music industry below, indicate a mutiplicity of approaches (could it be serendipity?) being followed by firms to deal with flagging "old media" revenues:
1> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/technology/04myspace.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=7e63eb66cebb344e&ex=1207454400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
2> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/cncarphone106.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
3> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/ccemi106.xml
The article, and my own experience in Technology Intellectual Property (IP), got me thinking again about the music industry's woes.
My contention is that any firm considering developing IP in emerging markets must think of the markets as hypercompetitive, where they compete with their own shadows. This might dovetail with the experience of some Venture Capital firms in Asia and Africa.
Allocate resources toward making money.
As some one who has created IP, in technology, in an emerging market, my generic stand (and I know this is likely to spark controversy) in that context is that protecting IP is subservient to growth- marketshare, ramping up revenues quickly, etc. Marketing muscle- either the company's own distribution strength, or the company's ability to create a network of stakeholders in its success- is critical towards finding a defensible niche where the company can build customer relationships/ stick. Allocate resources toward making money, instead of fighting a losing battle.
So What? How does this apply?
While the developed economy context is not the same, the first two articles seem to be a sign of parts of the value chain seeking to control the supply chain.
The third article seems to indicate a deepening of a pragmatic approach in the industry. An approach that focuses on developing models for making money off an economic reality, as opposed to fighting an (apparently) losing battle. For project management, I tend to advocate a multiplicity of approaches toward a more robust critical path. However, there are times when a multiplicity of approaches only serves to muddy waters.
Over the past few years, I have faced some flak for flatly advocating the pragmatic approach. What do you think?
News articles on the music industry below, indicate a mutiplicity of approaches (could it be serendipity?) being followed by firms to deal with flagging "old media" revenues:
1> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/technology/04myspace.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=7e63eb66cebb344e&ex=1207454400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
2> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/cncarphone106.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
3> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/ccemi106.xml
The article, and my own experience in Technology Intellectual Property (IP), got me thinking again about the music industry's woes.
My contention is that any firm considering developing IP in emerging markets must think of the markets as hypercompetitive, where they compete with their own shadows. This might dovetail with the experience of some Venture Capital firms in Asia and Africa.
Allocate resources toward making money.
As some one who has created IP, in technology, in an emerging market, my generic stand (and I know this is likely to spark controversy) in that context is that protecting IP is subservient to growth- marketshare, ramping up revenues quickly, etc. Marketing muscle- either the company's own distribution strength, or the company's ability to create a network of stakeholders in its success- is critical towards finding a defensible niche where the company can build customer relationships/ stick. Allocate resources toward making money, instead of fighting a losing battle.
So What? How does this apply?
While the developed economy context is not the same, the first two articles seem to be a sign of parts of the value chain seeking to control the supply chain.
The third article seems to indicate a deepening of a pragmatic approach in the industry. An approach that focuses on developing models for making money off an economic reality, as opposed to fighting an (apparently) losing battle. For project management, I tend to advocate a multiplicity of approaches toward a more robust critical path. However, there are times when a multiplicity of approaches only serves to muddy waters.
Over the past few years, I have faced some flak for flatly advocating the pragmatic approach. What do you think?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Conference Panel and Keynote: Managing Local vs Global
Ravi Venkatesan, Chairman, Microsoft India, talked about how the Indian market and how its challenges were different from those in the US.
How does the local leadership deal with a global company's priorities while "tending" to the local market? Does the company's DNA allow for a global/ local market trade-off based on the type of market (socio-politico-economic environment)?
What do you think?
How does the local leadership deal with a global company's priorities while "tending" to the local market? Does the company's DNA allow for a global/ local market trade-off based on the type of market (socio-politico-economic environment)?
What do you think?
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company
This case focuses highlighting, in sharp relief, how strategy and analytics, as tools to lay the groundwork for all that follows, can help in execution. For the tool savvy, I expect lightbulbs for strategy and analytics to flash every time we trigger a tripwire within the case.
The real skill here is in identifying all the tripwires you can trigger in a structured manner. i.e. Analytics backed solutions you can generate, and then rank them by impact.
Your inputs are welcome- have fun!
The usual case/ problem solving approach is top down:
Strategy-> Marketing-> Sales-> After Sales-> Customer Support
Here’s a case that will help you think recursively through this process!
The approach to this post is: Case -> (followed by) Key 1: Points to Discuss-> Key 2: Structure.
Note: This case is a Work in Progress. The keys will be published separately.
Case 1
The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company
You have a $450 CyberSleek AB1 camera from The Consumer Electronics Company- their first CyberSleek, released in 2002. It has served you well over the years. You moved recently and lost the little USB cord that connects the camera to your laptop.
You search for the cord at the website in vain, and finally call The Consumer Electronics Company's support number to request a USB cord for your camera. Over a 45+ minute call, the customer support person creates your profile on the The Consumer Electronics Company website, keeps you on hold while searching for the correct USB cord, and finally gets you free shipping for the $20 cord as per the promotion run at that point of time.
Unfortunately, when you receive the package, you find that you were shipped the wrong make of the USB cord.
Thinking that customer support may not have the right tools to help you, you look to give the website another try. You go back to the site, struggle for over and hour and finally find your cord this time by eliminating, as an option, the one you were mistakenly sent. You order the new cord and have to pay shipping charges this time around for a total of $30 in charges.
You call back to claim a refund because customer service shipped the wrong cord to you, and are asked to ship the first cord back, at your own expense, to claim a refund. You have already been charged for the new cord you bought from the website. Requesting customer support to check these details does not help your case.
Shipping the first cord back, where you pay the $20 charges for the customer service mistake, does not make sense to you. You have spent enough time on this task already. The cord is useless with you anyway. Finally you relent. You request that atleast the shipping charges be borne by The Consumer Electronics Company. If you thought that should be easy- the customer support person will now have to contact another department to ensure you don't pay shipping charges.
You receive a standardized email about this conversation with customer support which miscategorizes the request and are requested to call another number.
When you call the next number, you have to explain the situation from scratch. You are now beginning to get frustrated. You want to talk to a supervisor regarding the quality of support you have received. You are put on hold and the call drops.
You call back the next day, and explain the process from scratch. You are finally advised that The Consumer Electronics Company will pay the charges for shipping back the incorrect cord sent to you. You demand to speak with someone who can take some action to alleviate the misery of going through this process. You believe you should also be refunded the shipping charges for the cord you bought yourself, because, it was, after all, customer support’s fault that you lost out on the promotion.
You are transferred to customer relations, where you explain the situation from scratch. Again. You mention that any customer who goes through this process will talk, even blog about it, and create a lot of negative publicity for the firm. Customer relations responds that they can do nothing more that pay the shipping charges for receiving the incorrect cord.
You are transferred back to customer support, where someone commiserates. You mention that you want action not commiseration. The whole process so far does not make sense from your point of view. Customer support agrees.
You go to FedEx and ship the cord incorrectly sent to you. Shipping is free. You receive the new cord for $30. $20 is credited to your account in a few days.
You are left wondering that you are a consumer of a $450 product and The Consumer Electronics Company put you through a lot of hassle for a $20 accessory.
The process seems un-American and un-East Asian to you. What are the things you would like this company do, in its own interest?
--
The real skill here is in identifying all the tripwires you can trigger in a structured manner. i.e. Analytics backed solutions you can generate, and then rank them by impact.
Your inputs are welcome- have fun!
The usual case/ problem solving approach is top down:
Strategy-> Marketing-> Sales-> After Sales-> Customer Support
Here’s a case that will help you think recursively through this process!
The approach to this post is: Case -> (followed by) Key 1: Points to Discuss-> Key 2: Structure.
Note: This case is a Work in Progress. The keys will be published separately.
Case 1
The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company
You have a $450 CyberSleek AB1 camera from The Consumer Electronics Company- their first CyberSleek, released in 2002. It has served you well over the years. You moved recently and lost the little USB cord that connects the camera to your laptop.
You search for the cord at the website in vain, and finally call The Consumer Electronics Company's support number to request a USB cord for your camera. Over a 45+ minute call, the customer support person creates your profile on the The Consumer Electronics Company website, keeps you on hold while searching for the correct USB cord, and finally gets you free shipping for the $20 cord as per the promotion run at that point of time.
Unfortunately, when you receive the package, you find that you were shipped the wrong make of the USB cord.
Thinking that customer support may not have the right tools to help you, you look to give the website another try. You go back to the site, struggle for over and hour and finally find your cord this time by eliminating, as an option, the one you were mistakenly sent. You order the new cord and have to pay shipping charges this time around for a total of $30 in charges.
You call back to claim a refund because customer service shipped the wrong cord to you, and are asked to ship the first cord back, at your own expense, to claim a refund. You have already been charged for the new cord you bought from the website. Requesting customer support to check these details does not help your case.
Shipping the first cord back, where you pay the $20 charges for the customer service mistake, does not make sense to you. You have spent enough time on this task already. The cord is useless with you anyway. Finally you relent. You request that atleast the shipping charges be borne by The Consumer Electronics Company. If you thought that should be easy- the customer support person will now have to contact another department to ensure you don't pay shipping charges.
You receive a standardized email about this conversation with customer support which miscategorizes the request and are requested to call another number.
When you call the next number, you have to explain the situation from scratch. You are now beginning to get frustrated. You want to talk to a supervisor regarding the quality of support you have received. You are put on hold and the call drops.
You call back the next day, and explain the process from scratch. You are finally advised that The Consumer Electronics Company will pay the charges for shipping back the incorrect cord sent to you. You demand to speak with someone who can take some action to alleviate the misery of going through this process. You believe you should also be refunded the shipping charges for the cord you bought yourself, because, it was, after all, customer support’s fault that you lost out on the promotion.
You are transferred to customer relations, where you explain the situation from scratch. Again. You mention that any customer who goes through this process will talk, even blog about it, and create a lot of negative publicity for the firm. Customer relations responds that they can do nothing more that pay the shipping charges for receiving the incorrect cord.
You are transferred back to customer support, where someone commiserates. You mention that you want action not commiseration. The whole process so far does not make sense from your point of view. Customer support agrees.
You go to FedEx and ship the cord incorrectly sent to you. Shipping is free. You receive the new cord for $30. $20 is credited to your account in a few days.
You are left wondering that you are a consumer of a $450 product and The Consumer Electronics Company put you through a lot of hassle for a $20 accessory.
The process seems un-American and un-East Asian to you. What are the things you would like this company do, in its own interest?
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)