Polygraph Media Blog

SXSW Panel on OPD (Other Peoples' Data)

SXSW Interactive2013 approaches... it's the the fifth year in a row I'm attending and the sixth in the last eight for me.  The event continues to thrive and is the one "must-attend" event of the year in my book.

A few quick thoughts on the panel I was invited to join by Carter Rabasa of Twilio and Hung Truong of NewFoundry -- it's my first time speaking at SXSW.  I straddle marketing & technology professionally, and am speaking on the tech side in this session.

Discussion will center on mashups and/or "OPD" -- other peoples' data.  To me, the term "mashup" is a little antiquated in sense that today's developers are doing far more with data than when the term "mashup" originated.  I remember, for example, when plotting points on maps was relatively novel. We've come a long way in the last 5-7 years.

Take for example the developer marketing paradigm that was of most interest to us during my ~4 years at Microsoft, ending in 2008. We wanted developers to write apps for .NET and in some cases Microsoft software... to build custom applications and experiences on top of the Microsoft stack.  Interestingly, the next cycle of web/mobile innovation has come from not building apps on existing software produts but rather from building apps on top of the data that apps and the web platform has enabled.  The apps and web frameworks are reduced in that paradigm to an infrastructure role, and themselves are not where the action is once the infrastructure is in place and mature.  Data is the star, not the infrastructure.

Think of it in a more tangible context -- the interstate highway system is built in the USA in the 1950s and enables interstate commerce.  This creates a trucking industry, rest stops, Stuckey's restaurants, the need for more cars, faster travel, and so on.  Infrastructure was the enabler -- tons of businesses followed.

When I was at Microsoft, we incorrectly focused on the infrastructure as the "star".  We did not recognize that the data contained in the applications was much more exciting than the platforms upon which the data were entered.  For example, the world's most interesting repository of information is arguably Microsoft Outlook.  Liberating that data & creating new things from it was the play back in 2008 (and arguably may be the case today).

I think today's major tech players differ from yesterday's in the sense that they value data as much as the underlying infrastructure that allows its collection.  Developers and platform providers are currently engaged in a natural tension -- one wants innovation from modest to disruptive and the other wants to participate in the economic benefit of having its data used in new, compelling ways. Some, like Craigslist, choose to optimize for control. Twitter will let you do more or less whatever you want, if you pay them. I'd contend LinkedIn and Facebook are taking more of a "wait and see" approach, both allowing developers access but keeping a lot of goodies to themselves. There are no right/wrong answers in my opinion -- it's really up to each company's strategy.

But if the open source model has one lesson for us, it is that the increased velocity and use of data creates economic value -- typically for all the stakeholders. Developers play a key role in the ecosystem, bringing new use cases and creative ideas to bear.  Overall, I think that's a good thing.

SXSW Advice for Startups

Today, SXSW Interactive 2011 kicks off.  During a few meetings this week and after my presentation to Social Media Club Dallas a few nights ago, I was asked for advice -- people wanted to know how startups should act & what they should do at SXSW.  I am no expert, but here's what I told them:

• Enjoy yourself & pace yourself
• Spend time to really be thoughtful about your pitch.  Think back to your single days & you were trying to start a conversation with someone you were interested in.  If you aren't interesting in the first 15-20 seconds, you get blown off.  This is no different.
• Don't get worked up by what other people are doing.  Marketing BS flows like alcohol, and often times the real story does not match the hype.
• Control what you can control -- like going to everything you can and meeting as many people as you can.  Leave it all on the field.
• Spend time with customers, if you are in the business of selling anything to anyone.  It's a great time to understand needs, pain points, and opportunities.
• Don't be stubborn.  Be open to new ideas and approaches that can help your business succeed.  Most startups today are mashups of other technologies, companies, etc. and there really aren't many fundamentally *new* ideas after all.  So discern what you hear but be sure to learn as well.
• Eat all the BBQ & Tex-Mex you can
• Get out & enjoy the sunshine a little also

Have fun, everyone!

The Conversation with Cathy Brooks

I was on with Cathy Brooks yesterday -- it was an enjoyable conversation if you have an hour.  We talked social etiqutte, social media, disruption, hype, the book, and a variety of other topics.

2011: Social 2.0 for the Enterprise

Sometimes, it is a lonely road to see things too early.

Many of you loyal readers who keep up with this blog among others have been the internal champion for social media since LinkedIn came onto the scene in 2003.  You've probably endured a lot of questions, harassment over ROI, criticism from fellow employees, etc.  Lord knows that while I was preaching the good word at Microsoft in 2007, people probably thought I was a bit off my rocker.

If the previous paragraph describes you, you've probably had a pretty good 2010.  Social marketing (broadly) is probably at the forefront of many of your laggard colleagues' minds.  Budget is likely no longer an issue and you're probably no longer the crazy visionary guy/gal in your company.

In fact, your company/brand probably now has a presence across all the major social networks.

So we've entered a new phase for the enterprise -- one where the social concept has more or less been sold as an important part of the marketing mix.  When this happens in any maturing industry, problems go a level deeper -- beyond the basics of "should we do this?".  Opportunities exist because people put their heads together to think of how the concepts can make the enterprise more efficient and more profitable.  We're just at the beginning.

So are the elements of the next wave of social in the enterprise?

• rationalized - Management of disparate assets, once created by well-intentioned employees seeking to meet customer needs, must be rationalized.  Once distributed decisions about tactics must now be rolled up into a clear, rational strategy for how social fits into the marketing mix.
• "metric-ed" - "Soft" social benefits will increasingly be rolled into higher level metrics to indicate health, engagement, and ultimately profitability of marketing efforts.  I'd contend that executives have sought this for awhile (e.g. debates over the ROI of social) but this is the year some of those metrics can be collected and believed.
• integrated - Social has clearly been disconnected from other marketing programs in many companies, non-profits, etc.  As people fully realize the extent to which Facebook social plug-ins can help them, they''ll integrate campaigns more.  Social will be a part of the strategy, but not *the* strategy.  The same goes for mobile as well, but maybe in 2012.
• optimized - As sophistication increases in the enterprise, marketers will need to make sure their efforts get the most bang for the buck.  This applies to content marketing, social advertising, and any attempt to take a campaign cross-platform.  So this will be a year where marketers focus more on things like Edgerank and positive outcomes from Facebook advertising (which will need a much broader set of tools to allow for tracking and intelligence).
• de-risked - Marketers who seek more "engagement" with customers in the form of likes, comments, contest submissions, reviews, and other user-generated content will see more of the dirty side of user-generated content.  A "de-risking" of the system will be called for in 2011. Facebook has already added a rudimentary Spam filter to Facebook Pages, for example. Companies like Southwest Airlines, Chick-fil-A, and Ferrero Rocher among many others have endured regrettable incidents on their Facebook Pages.
• applied to new areas - Finally, I think you'll begin to see some examples of the use of social technologies and concepts to new parts of the enterprise:  finance, HR, operations, etc. Products like CubeDuel and Honestly are fascinating yet scary in the HR space.  Expect more in this area.

Overall, the maturation of social in the enterprise means that we're witnessing the birth of a cottage industry of social services/software for corporate marketing and operations.  I don't know how long these battles will be waged, but clearly times are changing an opportunity is being unlocked all around us.

Blog update

Howdy everyone - just a quick note to let you know that I am making a subtle change to this blog.  I am moving all posts on entrepreneurship and social media over to a new blog at Wordpress -- http://riskjunkie.wordpress.com.

This blog will focus on our work with Lasso and with local media companies.  As business picks up significantly, I thought it was appropriate and a good time to make this change to the blog.

Recap - Rice Alliance Monetizing Location Panel

A few quick thoughts on the location services monetization panel discussion I was fortunate to sit on last night at the Rice Alliance event.

First, it was great to see so many enthusiastic people in the audience.  The event looked to have around 200+ people in attendance.  Of course, Josh Williams (CEO of Gowalla) was the big draw -- I think that was one of his first appearances at an Austin community event.  It was the first time I had met him in person and likely the first meeting for a lot of folks as well.  The other panelists were great as well.  I love TabbedOut and think that Rick and his colleagues are on to a great idea and are executing well.  Blair Garrou of DFJ Mercury is as astute a VC as you'll meet when it comes to location services and how social media, game mechanics, and real-time technologies will shape the future of tech.  So it was an honor to be among such company.

I had a few interesting takeaways from last night:

• Josh is a realist when it comes to some challenges re: LBS -- like the inconvenience of "checking in", privacy, etc.
• I was surprised by the extent of Blair's enthusiasm for the future of location-based services.  If you substitute "LBS" for any other business, I think VCs would be a lot more cautious and perhaps tougher on the execs involved.  Not to mention, there is a nagging question of what Facebook, Google, & Apple may do with their mobile apps/devices and also what Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft may do to jump in.  But we're seeing a migration of folks to smartphones and computing is getting increasingly mobile.  I think those megatrends are outweighing a lot of questions that VCs would ordinarily have of LBS execs and their business model assumptions.
• The best marketing plays today for location services are definitely in the branding/corporate marketing area.  I'm talking about the Jimmy Choo foursquare example, things Gowalla has done with the New Jersey Nets, etc.  More on this in a guest post coming soon.
• Rick and his team have done a great job solving real problems for bars.  Our experience is similar -- it's hard to scale solutions to real problems, but that's also where a lot of value is created for local businesses.  The rubber has to hit the road & I think the guys at TabbedOut are learning a lot there.
• It was an interesting data point that the final question asked in Q&A was the first one re: actually monetizing location.  I think that would've been quite a conversation -- but I guess we'll have to talk specifics next time.  We'll all know a lot more. :-)

So if you were there, thanks a bunch for attending.  I will update this post when the video of the panel discussion is released.

Entrepreneur Traits

I caught up this past weekend with an old friend who is most certainly *not* an entrepreneur.  This friend is a corporate guy through and through.  He's so corporate, he just doesn't understand the life of a startup person or why someone would forsake a promising corporate job in exchange for long hours, a small salary (if you're lucky), and the trouble of the early-stage routine.

Anyway, he asked me to share with him the traits of someone who would be a good entrepreneur.  I'm not sure if it was a curiosity thing for him or if he really wanted to understand.  Anyway, here are some key traits that I've seen (in bullet form):

• An adventurous personality who is willing to look risk in the eye and not flinch,
• A founder who is willing to do whatever it takes,
• A person with a positive attitude and confidence about the vision,
• A realist who can evolve to where the best application of a product/technology actually is,
• A good communicator/evangelist for the business and its vision,
• Someone with a real chip on his/her shoulder -- i.e. a person who feels disrespected, neglected, ignored, or told that he/she can't do something one time too many,
• Someone who has faced real adversity in his/her life and perhaps most importantly, managed to overcome it.  And no, by adversity I don't mean "couldn't vacation in Aspen in 2004" or "didn't get the iPhone on the day it was released"

Now on top of this, entrepreneurs must see opportunity often well before other people see it.  They need to pull it all together, and probably do so with less money/resources than he/she really needs to get it done.  You have to admit -- it indeed does take a special type of person to do it.  Maybe my corporate friend is the smart one after all, and I'm just nuts. ;-)

"Qualified" Candidates

Once you advance beyond the point of being an individual contributor in business, you henceforth have to keep your eyes open to assess people who may be able to join/advance your team.  You should always have a pretty good idea of gaps in your team, and you should always be on the lookout for people who can fill those gaps.  Sometimes those gaps exist at a senior level -- executives, board members, etc.  Other times, those gaps are in specific operational areas.

What makes people "qualified" for roles in our business?  Here are some high level thoughts on how I generally assess whether someone is qualified and fits our team:

1. Converse, listen intently & ask questions -- formal interviews, pitches, etc. are a really terrible way to meet someone.  One party judges the other, which is probably on edge.  This isn't how you'd work together, yet many relationships start this way.  It's a bad idea.  Make it comfortable and as natural as you can.
2. Don't trust education, a resume', or someone's work history at face value -- the best institutions in the world have people who either snuck in or didn't belong.  Similarly, bright people can come from all backgrounds.  Such things tell you there is perhaps a higher/lower probability that the person has a good pedigree, but there are no guarantees.  Which leads me to #3...
3. Find the best in everyone -- just about everyone you will meet is capable of great things.  If you don't know where that is in someone after conversing over an hour, you missed out.  It isn't to say that there will be a match for your business, but I think you're cheating yourself if you spend time talking with someone and you write him/her off immediately because of something that is/is not on their resume' or in their past.
4. Seek insight and creativity -- No matter what you're seeking, creativity and insight will be important as you move forward.  Better candidates will just offer it in the course of a conversation because that's how they're wired.  Just don't expect accuracy -- very few people will know your business or market as much as you do.
5. Assess initiative and hustle -- nothing beats a hard worker who understands what a startup is all about and then is compelled to hustle naturally.  Bonus points here for the self-motivated people out there.

I've interviewed hundreds of people in previous lives and taken oodles of interviewer training.  So maybe it's gotten easier for me over time.  In my opinion, the most qualified people are consistent in these areas -- they can't help but operate at a high level most of the time.  So while it can probably be masked for an interview, it can't be faked for long.

The next step for you as you assess qualified candidates for your startup is to seek proof that "talk" is backed up with substance.  At the end of the day, that's where the rubber hits the road.  Skip this step at your own peril.  Make it part of your decision-making process, and you'll minimize costly hiring mistakes.

Are You Real?

As we progress with our business in 2010, I find myself more and more drawn to doing business with people who are genuine, sincere, and as honest as they can be.  Maybe I'm having a negative visceral reaction to all the examples of people acting "on behalf of their business," which we're told should excuse.  You know, because history is replete with cases of lying, cheating, and stealing to get ahead.  Some of the best business barons of the last several centuries have checkered pasts - so it's somehow OK to do whatever it takes to get ahead today, right?

I think our "outcome-oriented" culture is becoming extremely negative for our American society.  How many people do you regard as successful because of the outcomes of their businesses, not because he/she is intrinsically a good person?  Certainly, money is a very important scorecard in business and I'm not minimizing that.  But I think it's also important to do it "the right way."  It's not just important to succeed, it's important to succeed with class and dignity.  It's important to your legacy, your reputation, and the way people will treat you when you are inevitably down.  Because no matter who you are, it *will* happen.

Somewhere along the way in America, we adopted an extremist "do whatever it takes" and "me first" attitude about business.  I don't totally agree with that -- the how/when/why means more to me than the outcome.  I think it's ultimately good business to be genuine and true to your word insofar as you can be -- society *craves* it in a world of cleverly manipulated bailouts, mortgage bailouts, and "anything it takes."  Society is based on rules where we aren't out to screw each other or create a problem for someone else all for the sake of personal gain -- at least it used to be.  But those choices are up to you & me -- and we have to begin to do the right thing every now and then despite what the "rules" or the "structure" allows.  Otherwise, America will be pillaged until there is nothing more to take.

Entrepreneur Networking & the Scarcity of Time, Part II

A few days ago, I shared some thoughts on the scarcity of time for early-stage entrepreneurs.  Today, I'm going to share some brief thoughts on how this affects me specifically as an entrepreneur in Austin.  Now let me preface my comments by saying two things.  One, I love living here.  I wouldn't have moved back from Seattle if I didn't really love Austin.  Two, by no means is this blog post intended to insult anyone or any group.  Everything written in this blog post is my interpretation/reaction to the community after 18 months of operating a startup here.  It's one person's opinion, and if you want I'm happy to discuss at the next social gathering.  OK... caveat aside... here goes.

Austin has an amazing startup community that I first discovered in 1997 as part of Stratfor, an early-stage startup in 1997 that we moved from Louisiana to Austin.  When talking to people about Stratfor for the first time, I usually describe it as the Huffington Post of 1999 but with three key differences:

• it was subject matter specific -- international news and intelligence is Stratfor's game,
• there was no social media -- although we were doing live blogging/tweeting of major events back then, and
• as it was ten years earlier there was absolutely NO business model at the time.

Fortunately, George Friedman (my first mentor of sorts) and the rest of the team have built an interesting business over time.

The thing about Austin then (and now) is that the startup community is distinct and for the most part supportive.  You don't have to talk to too many people before you meet folks willing and able to offer help and advice.  Further, there is a lot of startup activity here -- a little less than 1999 but certainly the most I've seen here over the last decade.  The cycle is refreshing, and it's great to be in Austin for it.

All of that said, I'd almost say that the community can be too supportive at times.  Positive thoughts are great, but everything in moderation, right?  Austin reminds me of that kid we all know whose parents shower him/her with so much positive affirmation, he/she won't be able to process failure or criticism later in life.  Are you really doing people a service if you are light on constructive feedback and heavy on celebrating relatively minor achievements?

This dynamic in Austin is one reason why we don't do a lot of socializing -- at least in this stage of our business.  But perhaps more importantly, it's also about where we are as an early-stage startup seeking its way.  We get a lot of value out of "surgical" networking, where we find people or put feelers out for folks who should be interested in the things we do.  More often than not, those people are on the East Coast or the West Coast -- not so much in Austin -- although there are certainly a lot of really interesting people who are doing or have done big things here in town.

All told, one good, meaningful, action-oriented 1:1 conversation over 90 minutes is typically our strike zone for networking.  It's just the way it is for us in our specific situation today.  Do I miss out on some serendipity by not doing the cocktail party scene?  Probably.  But I also get back 10 hours a week that can be put to use elsewhere -- and it is all about the scarcity of time after all.  :-)

That said, there are some events that I hit with regularity if the schedule permits, primarily because there is a higher concentration of these folks.  Texchange is an excellent organization with some outstanding events.  SXSW obviously is a "must attend" event -- it's the one time every year when Austin becomes the center of the tech world.  The Capital Factory Demo Day was off the charts.  Events thrown by the Austin Technology Incubator tend to be high-quality as well.

I am extremely careful with time I spend on networking in Austin.  Generally, I lurk, go to an occasional party, and go about my business.  I value deeper, more meaningful interactions that might start at a cocktail party but are generally developed over time and not at the normal networking events.  That's just how I go about it.  How do you view networking in Austin?  Agree/disagree?  Looking forward to your thoughts.