Innovation and Tactics Series: Netflix Bids for Original Programming.

Executive Summary: Netflix has been lauded for its ability to manage innovation, especially for its ability to translate innovation into real impact on its business. This post helps us think through some of the market possibilities it can target. From the Desk of "Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Its a... Jedi mind trick!"

The News, The Question

Netflix seems to be making interesting moves in content production:
1. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/netflix-plays-the-long-game/72611/
2. http://blogs.forbes.com/chunkamui/2011/03/17/how-netflix-innovates-and-wins/

The news reminded me of a curveball I recently threw to some very bright folks:
Will Netflix get into running movie theaters (or atleast renting them out temporarily)?

What Does The Question Mean?

The folks found the question interesting enough to pause to think it through. This is not because they did not have a (what may seem like an obvious) ready answer, but because it should, and apparently did, make you think about Netflix's context and how it is disrupting the context around it.
To rephrase:
1. Can Neflix groupon its at-home viewers into a high quality, custom generated "in theater" experience?
2. Can Netflix be vertically integrated in a niche market, while still serving what is currently its core market?

All in all, how do these ideas impact its profitability and its margins? At worst, can a capability to pursue the option posed in the question be a useful negotiation tool?

To dig a little bit deeper:
- What about Netflix's current position and capabilities (e.g. continued investment in innovation) provides it a competitive advantage?
- As Netflix get to know more of its customers better, how can it leverage it's information better?

Structure Around the Question

Here are a couple of paths to making sense of this question on Netflix:
- Content Development and Production -> Content Channels and Distribution -> Content Consumption
Or the reverse:
- Content Consumers and Markets -> Content Channels and Distribution -> Content Development and Production

Deep Dive Into The Market and The Consumer

Lets walk through the first way of looking through this process:
A. Who is Neflix's core consumer? What market is Netflix targeting?

1. Viewers of TV and movie dvd like content "experience" at home with access to a mailbox and to an internet ready device?
2. Viewers of video content "experience" at home with access to an internet ready device?
3. Viewers of an entertainment "experience" anywhere with access to an internet ready device?
4. Viewers of an entertainment "experience" with access to an internet ready device or with access to a specific location?

Now, you can define a spectrum of "experience" as well, from a streaming video "experience" on a small device while on the move, to a fixed location video "experience" of the IMAX or the "IFC Theater"/ "Indie Movies" sort. As for margins, isn't the IMAX share price hear its LTM high?

Now that you have some lightbulbs flashing in your mind, need I say more?


What do you think?
 

Innovation and Effective Healthcare for The Masses: An Oxymoron?

I tread carefully when it comes to discussions on optimizing healthcare solutions for the masses because Stephen Hawking's image crops up in my mind with this question: What if we designed a wonderful system that made it really difficult for Stephen Hawking to seek assistance at any point in his life? Replace Stephen Hawking with any person important to you, or who you believe is important to society, and you know what I mean.

Teams designing an effective healthcare system for the masses have challenges on sustaining innovation that are slightly different from those faced by mass market consumer products companies.

For a mass market beverage company, the challenge in supporting innovation may exemplified by the case of the Quaker Oats Company product portfolio acquisition. However, for regulators designing an effective healthcare system, the real challenge in societal optimization of healthcare lies in supporting innovation "pathways" through:
1> supporting basic research, and,
2> providing markets, processes and infrastructure for very expensive drugs to hit the market, and,
3> providing patients means to seek solutions outside the "mass" healthcare system.

For patients that have to pay out of pocket, then the government must make this process seamless, painless, and provide structures that help individuals extract some "economic rent" from (no apparent or direct attached economic benefit to) society. Depending on the context, you could call easy access to private, non profit foundations, to help fund your recovery, a form of economic rent.

In fact, the government may leverage experience with organ transplants for designing these "innovation pathways": http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/unos/

The three points listed above are examples of the way certain "types" of innovation may stop getting support once creating and sustaining a mass market healthcare system becomes a prime focus of the society. I realize I am effectively proposing an indirect subsidy for innovation. I am in favor of this sort of indirect subsidy, because my hypothesis is that this may have a multiplier effect on drug research. My perspective is that this indirect subsidy would be similar to the investment in national highways in the last century.

What do you think?


--

Find Clarity on the Healthcare Debate. Now. Here's How.

Based on the French Openesque rallies in Congress over Healthcare so far, most folks, including Peter Singer in an NYT article*, agree on some key points:
1> Private health insurance must remain available.
2> Consumers must pay less for healthcare.

So, why are we still debating? The "how" is keeping us busy! You, as the consumer and the raison d'etre of this battle, can seek the following from your representatives:

1> A baseline of the current healthcare costs, overt and covert, by consumer segments.

2> Projected costs for current and proposed healthcare plans.

3> Healthcare market structure definition and guidelines for market agent behavior, tied to measurable outcomes, that all entities- private and government- must adhere to.

In plain old straight talk, the answers to these questions help *you* decide.

Both Democrats and Republicans have leveraged the government as a market agent in the financial services industry. This learning could be transferred to the Healthcare industry. It may shed light on triggers for the government to become a service provider market player and also triggers for the government to exit the service provider value chain to return to just regulating the market.

In terms of cost, talk to any healthcare practitioner and he/ she will tell you its all about incentives. What would you change if an internist is not paid by an insurance company for taking steps that help prevent a more expensive medical condition later because it is not part of her job description? What would you change if you thought someone was recommending tests for sleep apnea when its a case of tonsilitis? This requires clarity on not just market structures, but also incentive processes.

To summarize: These questions with help each party in the debate develop a contextual, competitive positioning strategy to achieve recognizable differentiation in the market through both methods and outcomes.


If you are wondering how we can continue supporting broad innovation in healthcare, see here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/07/innovation-and-effective-healthcare.html
* Peter Singer's New York Times article on healthcare: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=5

What do you think?


--

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?

Conference Panel: Selling to the Indian Consumer

Amazing insights from consumer electronics and retail consulting. A consumer electronics company was focusing on the top 30 cities, despite indicates that the rural market had as much disposable income as the urban market. This raised a couple of questions from me during the panel.

What kind of innovations in distribution do we see in India in the next 5 years?

What do you think?

Can the Consumer Electronics companies contribute to more active usage of the cellphone screen? This query had an interesting response and an unexpected fact component- India uses only about a third of the spectrum that the US currently uses.

Does the Indian cellphone consumer need an industry association comprising of consumer electronics companies, software companies, infrastructure companies and investors to encourage more active usage of the cellphone screen?

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.

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?

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.

Conference Panel: Trends in Private Equity and Venture Capital Sectors in India

Given a trio of PE, VC and IB players in India, the panel met high expectations. Some facets talked about:
1. Debt market in India
2. Constraints in structuring transactions
3. Regulatory environment and red tape
4. Nature of targets (family driven enterprises), time horizons and deal flow networks

Given these factors, I wondered how the firms managed risks- not just financial risks. I queried the panel about their experience with a deal that did not meet experience.

What do you think?

The VC investor, who had significant experience in investing in India provided an interesting insight, that emphasized the efficiencies that the PE/ VC firms can find across funds and investments/ deals.

The response also threw light on the "transaction costs" that mutual fund like SPAC aggregators would face that would make them replicas of publicly traded PE firms.

The panel echoed some of the points made by Alan Patricof, Managing Director, Greycroft, at a conference keynote, with respect to his experience in Venture Capital in Africa.

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.