gamedaypassion

I think the gamedaypassion site is a great idea and I really enjoyed hearing from an company that is already off the ground. i think one of the biggest challenges moving forward will be getting the buy-in at each campus and getting new students to participate in the community. tapping into the campus art programs is a great idea for overcoming the initial hurdle, and you could also use contests broadcast through social media to generate hype. I don't know how it would be perceived by the tech community if you opened up your service to rival schools, but I'd love to see something like this at UVA :)

prediction markets

Prediction markets are only effective if a lot of people participate.  What are the best ways to encourage more traders and trading within internal company prediction markets?

The results of a prediction market are correlated to the size of its network; therefore companies should encourage participation in order to see positive results. Companies have some of the options below:

• provide time during the work day/week for employees to trade
• use non-monetary rewards like prizes, public recognition, or coupons to act as incentives for active and accurate traders
• incorporate the trading platform into software that employees use daily (email?) so that it becomes part of their daily routine to use it
• educate employees on the benefits and use of prediction markets to overcome resistance

I found it interesting to learn that DARPA studied the use of prediction markets to enhance US Intelligence, though the research was pulled after congressional criticism accused it of being "terrorism betting parlors." At that time (2003) lot of issues had yet to be resolved, such as determining a threshold for action or under which circumstances should the general public be allowed to trade. the use of prediction markets still isn't widely used, but I wonder if some agencies would be more receptive to its use today.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/using-prediction-markets-to-enhance-us-intelligence-capabilities.html

Community driven vs. traditional product development

What are the similarities and differences between a community-driven product development process and a traditional product development process within a firm?


In honor of the fact that I recently installed Office 2011 on my laptop, I made a Venn diagram.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn recently hit 100M users. If you were in charge at LinkedIn, what would be your strategic goals for the next several years? How would you achieve them?


In a few short years after it was founded, LinkedIn has become a profitable networking site for professionals. Its ability to monetize its platform is especially impressive considering the fact that LinkedIn is competing in a concentrated market where a couple of large social sites are excelling due to their large user bases supporting strong network effects. At the same time though, its current strategy may not sustainable over the long-term given the competitive environment.


In order to protect the integrity of its content and the value it provides to its users, LinkedIn should continue to control its software applications and emphasis on professional services. However, LinkedIn needs to find new methods of growing its user base to compensate for its narrow focus. In order to grow its network, LinkedIn should direct its resources to recruiting corporate customers and building tools that better connect employees within their organization and industry in which it competes. By signing on more corporations, LinkedIn will have access to a larger pool of individual users that will be more inclined to register, thereby growing the network. In order to make its services more appealing, LinkedIn could integrate conferencing services and data management. This development would be costly, though it provides added value and incentives for corporate users to contract with LinkedIn.

Wikipedia

How do Wikipedia’s processes for creating and modifying articles ever lead to high-quality results? In other words, since anyone can easily edit Wikipedia, how is it that good (and usually accurate) content emerges?

I like Wikipedia because it presents several different perspectives and I feel like I’m getting “all sides” of a story when I’m reading an article. It’s hard to report on a topic without having it become biased by personal views and past experiences, so by having several people write and edit a post, it seems more objective. And because everything is meant to be referenced, users can check the sources and judge for themselves the level of credibility. If I don't know anything about a subject, Wikipedia is a good first place to check because its database is so comprehensive, and generally, you can quickly find a more than adequate overview of almost any topic.

Even though it is open source and encourages public collaboration, you can't put just anything on Wikipedia. It has clearly outlined its guiding principles, and it has empowered its users to moderate discussions and enforce the core values. I work for a small marketing company (representing other small companies) so we try to come up with creative ways of increasing our web relevance without spending a lot of money. At one point, we tried to post Wikipedia pages for our clients and their technologies, but almost immediately they'd be rejected unless we could reference published articles on the topic.

I found an interesting article/interview on the culture of Wikipedia. Joseph Reagle, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University, has written a book about Wikipedia and its collaborative climate. In the article, Reagle is interviewed about Wikipedia's processes, values, and bureaucracy.  The article, and the comments below it, echo a lot of what is said in the case, but from a more recent perspective.

http://opensource.com/business/10/9/inside-culture-wikipedia-qa-author-good-faith-collaboration

managing user-generated content

In general, how should organizations deal with issues posed by user-generated content and other information spread over social media?

As this week’s case helps illustrate, companies need to manage customer relations because the Internet has given consumers a very loud microphone to voice bad experiences. In the case of United, its stock dropped 10% and it lost $180 million after a customer posted a video on YouTube to illustrate his discontent with customer service at the airline, connecting him with more than 6 million people in less than a month.

Although the whole situation could have been avoided with better customer service from the beginning, I think United’s response to Carroll’s video and tweeting helped mitigate some of the bad PR it received. In the wake of its bankruptcy, it’s clear that United divested a lot from its human capital, and the employees that survived several rounds of layoffs were under trained and possibly overworked. United used the video as an opportunity to engage with its customers and employees, and start rebuilding its culture. 

at the same time, social media and user generated content provides an opportunity to identify and engage with loyal customers. This is a benefit because it allows company to build a relationship with their customers and better understand the factors and features that influence their purchase decisions.

in order to diffuse customer complaints and identify loyal, happy customers, companies should monitor and search social sites for mention of their name and become active participants and social peers on these sites. in order to prevent potential complaints from becoming large problems, companies should be proactive and constantly monitor online conversations and mediate when necessary. the United case shows that when a problem is unattended to or doesn't have an equitable resolution, it can be very costly. 

Hulu's Value Proposition

Hulu was formed as a Joint Venture between NBC and News Corp. (Fox), and later included Disney. Even though it began as an agreement between two conglomerates, Hulu has started its company and vision from scratch. Its culture emphasizes frugality, meritocracy, and ownership. In order to meet its goal of helping users find and enjoy the world’s premium and professionally produced content when, where, and how they want it, Hulu aggregates video content and facilitates distribution in order to make television shows more accessible than what is currently offered by cable operators. I’ve summarized the value proposition for each of its customers below:

Content owners: By 2009, Hulu has partnered with 170 content owners and 30 affiliated websites to acquire and distribute premium video content online. In exchange for its content, Hulu offers networks and equity partners the majority of the ad revenue generated by their content. Participating with Hulu and its affiliated websites is an advantage because in many cases, content owners and networks can grow their audience by making it widely accessible online. This increased audience means that the content owners will receive a premium on advertising during their shows. While this shift to online streaming affects the traditional distribution channels and the amount of revenue networks can receive from license fees, Hulu can potentially provide its content partners with increased revenue from advertising generated by its content.

Users: One of Hulu’s objectives is to bring the content to its audience by making it available through several channels rather than forcing them to come to its site. Rather than a passive experience with cable television, Hulu has created a social experience for its users by making it free, easy, and intuitive, as well as providing the option to review the content. Also unlike cable television, Hulu responds to user feedback and limits the amount of ads cluttering the site in addition to offering content with limited interruption. Hulu also allows options for embedding, which further enables content sharing and encourages new users to discover the content. While Hulu is trying to help the content owners monetize this larger user base, it does make it harder to own and control the content.

Advertisers: Hulu has taken advantage of online media to offer more targeted, interactive experiences for its viewers, allowing the advertisers to create more effective and relevant ads than what can be seen on cable television. Through it’s three ad options (standard, premium, and exclusive), Hulu provides a range of options that provide an advantage to advertisers because the ads integrated into a show can not be skipped or fast forwarded, unlike what happens on recorded shows on cable television. Furthermore, Hulu can collect demographic, geographical, and search behavior and sell ad space at a premium because the advertisements will be more relevant and effective.   

Google

Google has been successful because it provides great value to users and advertisers. Users like Google because its search results are thorough, accurate, and seem objective. The paid listings are not obtrusive and they are relevant to users’ search needs. Many of the services provided by Google, including search, email, and document management systems have been free to use and includes a high level of online storage.

Google subsidizes the free services by charging advertisers a premium to access Google’s millions of users with targeted advertising. Advertisers (most anyway) liked Google because the majority of their customers use Google and market research shows that search engine leads are more effective because these users are often searching for something they are looking to purchase soon and paid listings are therefore more relevant. Google has been successful because it has improved on CPC and considers relevance. Furthermore, Google’s products and services have attracted 2-3 times more advertisers than Yahoo; Google’s network offers more search traffic. Therefore, Google increases its value to advertisers by providing more space and more contextual/targeted ads.

Additionally, Google's culture and emphasis on innovation has helped it pursue many successful initiatives. It utilizes a mixture of small team work and individual time to pursue new projects outside of Google's current core business. Google's golden rules and philosophy help establish a framework for innovation and creative constraints, yet it still gives its employees the freedom and flexibility to pursue and try new ideas. The result is a plethora of projects and products that extend its core business and its online presence.

Google has been able to use the momentum from its early successes and has continued growth by expanding into several different industries. Moving forward though, Google needs to articulate a long-term strategy that supports this growth and yet is still consistent with its mission of making the world’s information accessible and useful.

challenges for Internet Start-ups

there are several challenges that internet companies must overcome when starting their business:

1. since the internet is a much larger market, e-commerce start-ups are challenged to understand a wider set of consumers

2. the larger market also means internet companies are open to global competition

3. e-commerce differentiators can quickly disappear due to rapid change in technology

We saw during the Taxi Magic presentation that the founders initially had a hard time understanding their customers' needs and how to provide a value added feature to their site. The Taxi Magic team had considered their market to consist of business travelers and tried to develop applications specific to their needs, though it wasn't until they understood a much larger market of consumers that they were able to successfully implement Taxi Magic. Although Taxi Magic doesn't currently face much competition, it recognizes that it is a constant threat. Consequently, I got the feeling that Taxi Magic worked to understand its current and potential market, and made adjustments to its business model in order to stay relevant in an ever changing industry.

Based on MusicJuice case, its owners never really tried to understand the US music market and their potential customers until after the site was launched. It doesn't seem like they tried to determine the market factors and attitude drivers relevant in Europe that made similar sites successful, and whether or not those factors were present in the states. Furthermore, the founders were so emotionally vested in the project that they weren't objective and flexible enough to stand back and adjust their original business model in order to make it more viable in the US market.

Netflix

Netflix needs to offer a wider selection for online streaming, However, this is a challenge because the movie studios do not want to cooperate with Netflix because online streaming would impact their revenue on DVD sales and digital downloads. The article below suggests that movie studios like Time Warner intend to make it more expensive for movie renters like Netflix to stream content, in addition to extending the amount of time before a movie is available on DVD.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/03/business/la-fi-ct-time-warner-20110203 

despite this challenge, the market is shifting away from DVD renting towards streaming. Netflix needs to offer its customers the same, varied selection but with the new convenience of streaming. if it is going to cost Netflix more money to acquire the rights to stream newer releases, it could subsidize the cost by selling advertising space similar to what Hulu offers.

Yelp needs help!

What do you think is the best way for Yelp to monetize the reviews and content they’ve generated, going forward? How scared should Yelp be of Google Hotpot and what should they do to maintain/grow their position?

Yelp is in a tough position. Its current model of charging for advertisements and sponsorships is not producing sustainable levels of revenue. Regardless of advertisements/sponsorships, users are going to review businesses based on their experiences, which could be good or bad, and businesses could in effect be paying for negative publicity. At the same time, Yelp's success depends on the quantity and quality of its user reviews, as well as the number of people that view their site for recommendations; for this reason, it can not afford to alienate its users by charging them excessive amounts to use the site

. 

While some businesses gain value (increased sales) out of Yelp, it seems to be the site's viewers and reviewers that gain the most out of the site; for this reason, Yelp should utilize a freemium strategy that charges a nominal subscriber fee after a certain amount of usage. For example, casual viewers can click through Yelp's site 15 times before they will be required to subscribe to Yelp, costing them a nominal charge of $2/month. In order to write a review or comment on a post, you have to subscribe. With 20 million visitors to the site in 2008, Yelp would only need a small percentage to subscribe in order to generate high levels of revenue.

I don't think that Yelp's community will be turned off by this nominal charge because they seem to get a wide range of returns from yelping. Some see it as a release, some seek acceptance, some value personal recommendations and write thoughtful reviews in the hopes of reading the same thoughtfulness in return. The case remarks that most Yelpers don't do drive by reviews; they are invested in the site because it provides them a sense of community. The casual Yelp visitor will not be willing to pay even $24/year to view the site, though the regular Yelper is already committed to the site and should buy in.  

I do think that Yelp should be worried about Google Hotpot because right now, Yelp's site simply aggregates information (maps, phone numbers, price range, reviews, etc) that could be available or replicated at several different sites. Yelp needs to offer a higher standard of reviews that would be harder to replicate by Google. Yelp has already created an upper echelon of Yelpers through its Elite Squad, but it can further encourage thoughtful and constructive reviews by offering coupons or other incentives to its subscribers. Users can already comment and "like" other posts, and Yelp can use this peer review to identify the users that are helping improve the credibility of their site and adequately reward them. This will help Yelp improve loyalty and retention (especially in the wake of competition from Google) and it will create incentives for Yelpers to write thoughtful responses that help build the site's reputation.  

Webvan

Why do you think Webvan failed so spectacularly?


Webvan failed because it over-relied on technology and automation. As I was reading the case, I questioned whether its technology was an asset or a liability because it was extremely expensive to maintain and wasn't generating enough value--Webvan couldn't even break even in its flagship store. Even though it was later acquired by Webvan, a less automated Homegrocer.com had been able to expand quickly at lower cost. Rather than depend on automation/technology, Homegrocer invested in its people, allowing it to set up facilities that cost 25% less than Webvan. Despite its reliance and investment in automated technology, Webvan could only fill about 35% of the order using its automated pods. With a large number of perishable goods and heavier items requiring labor intensive picking per order, an automated system was not creating enough value for Webvan. 


Since many online grocers struggled during this time, it seems to imply that the customers did not perceive a benefit from the online business model. Webvan assumed that it could create a more efficient model that offered convenience to its customers, though I'm not sure its customers found it valuable to order commodities over the internet, wait 24 hours to receive them, and schedule a 30 minute window for delivery. The online business model has been more successful for companies like Zappos and Amazon because they're not selling commodities (or perishable goods, complicating the storage/delivery process) and instead they're making it easy and convenient for customers to purchase hard-to-find items.