« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »

Weblogs Inc Getting Real

spent time with jason calcanis at gnomedex last week downloading the whole story on his weblogs business. jason has created a compelling model with 75 professional blogs served by 106 part time bloggers and over $1 mllion in revs. seems that with 65% of advertisers looking to get in on the blog world and such a small number of points of critical mass that jason is well positioned. and while he's done this on a shoestring (as he's a scrappy and super cheap brooklyn kid), it made me wonder what a larger company might do with the same model. seems like the major newspaper players are all thinking this direction with nytimes buying about.com and others announcing plans to launch blogging. seems that we're headed into a world where the majority of news content will be 'self-published' and the news orgs will act more as editors. in that world breadth of coverage at a low cost may beat out depth of creation at a high cost.

[aside...i had dinner last night with a good friend and old newspaper guy (who said he never reads my blog:(  he agreed that newspapers could be far more profitable without the newsrooms but worried what that meant for our democracy. it seems to me that it's only getting better when so many more voices can be heard and we have such a huge number of people vetting every story.]

anyway, i wonder how long it will be before jason's tight little operation gets scooped up by a big media company with bigger plans and what that will mean for the blog world...and democracy:)

June 30, 2005 in Entrepreneurs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Resposting My PeopleWeb Post

given yahoo's announcement today and the fact that my old blog posts dont show up here, i'm reposting this with comments...

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The PeopleWeb

i believe we are close to the point where people will start to be organized online into a 'peopleweb' where browsers will surf and search through people not pages. i will attempt to describe the what, how and why below.

what is the peopleweb? as more people take on 'open' identities online, that can be crawled, found and linked to with bits of semantically organized data like 'profile', 'about me' or 'my tribes or groups', there will soon be an ability for search engines to organize people into relevant groupings. the key relevance here will be based on two intersections; people's group affiliations so that i can quickly find experts in flying bonanzas in baja and people's credibility which may be estimated in a number of ways from how 'linked' you are to who you're linked to to slashdot type ratings if they evolve to work in an independent fashion.

how will the peopleweb happen? along with my vision of the revolution of the ants, the big portals will all succumb to their audience's desire for openness and transportability of online identities. people will no longer choose to invest in a profile that is locked into msn or friendster (or tribe). just like email had to be free and compuserve lost out to aol, so too will profiles. we already have this with blogs. my company, tribe.net, will soon be launching open profiles which will let people compine elements of their blogs with social and community networks. this will occur with virtually every site, where users will decide who has access to what, whether it's by degrees of separation or group affiliation. this wont be decided by my company, friendster, linkedin, yahoo's new thing etc...

what will the peopleweb enable? well, imagine a future where the network acts as one database. you will tell the web that you are single and what your dating criteria is. your dating profile will only be shown to those people (so no more daily humiliation of your sisters and friends snickering that you describe yourself as a tall dark handsome romantic). kinda unhappy with your job. no problem. tell the network you're available for jobs paying over $150k, vp level, and maybe you want to limit to a few companies or block them. wanna organize a poltical revolution without leaving your home? just tell the network you are into 'emergent democracy' and 'legal revolution' (possibly through group tags) and you will automagically be connected with all the other archair revoultionaries.

i find it exciting that google has no inherent advantages in organizing the world's people and groups. google's forte has been normalizing disparate information that didnt necessarily intend to be found. the peopleweb will be much more about people wanting to be found. if people choose to semantically organize, then the act of aggregating them and sorting relevance will be a trivial task, quickly commoditized and performed by any service.

beyond the peopleweb, the network becomes the marketplace...wanna sell your car? just tell the network make, mileage and price. no more worrying about which network and price will work out best. in a world where all information is free, database lockin and its proponents go away. in this world, the ante is aggregation and syndication, winning is about surfacing better relevance. interesting questions to me are what role does ebay, amazon (used merch) and google play. if i can readily find any new or used book from any online bookstore; if i can just as easily get bids on my car with joecars.com as ebay, where is the value? does the traffic value go away? and then what value is left? do the intermediaries and marketplaces get commoditized and wiped out? will this be similar to how ECN's wiped out the huge spreads and profits of wall street market makers? i wonder if one day ebay's value gets disaaggregated into ratings, payment processing and escrow?

what will the roadmap look like? my guesss is that in the next year we'll see the more enlightened big players realize that they are better off aggregating and syndicating than trying to stand alone defending their franchises and competing with the overall network. join it and extend. dont fight it and get left behind. AOL couldnt keep up with the overall network. i dont believe ebay will be able to either. (in fact, ebay announced today that they are launching an int'l competitor to craigslist. i think they will soon learn that the most powerful approach will be to aggregate everyone out there and syndicate back out. we'll see.)

dont ask dont tell stage...today we're at a point where officially the big players say no crawling, but unofficially they let it fly. indeed.com is quietly crawling everyone job service from career builder to craigslist. i hear that lycos has a dating service crawling all. makes sense. if i'm match.com and have the biggest db of single women, i should be in the pimping business. you can find my women everywhere but pay me if you want to meet them.

all for now. love to hear where any of you are seeing the peopleweb and one marketplace happen.

9 Comments:

fixer said...

"interesting questions to me are what role does ebay, amazon (used merch) and google play."Where's the value in a butcher shop? they all have the same products, so how do they survive? I know I pass 3 different butchers to get to the one I like, even if I'm not buying their smoked ham or hot links that the other guys' don't carry. We are still creatures of habit and convenience, so the "value-added services" will be the meat & potato of what the services will offer, not the core data. the tools you use will come down to a personal preference, and some people will pay more for their tools than others. Use a chef's knife, a Ginsu, a fancy mandolin slicer or a Quisinart, your food is still going to get chopped up and you'll eat it.

another thought on the value of the peopleweb is that WUM's (Wind-Up Merchant aka joke/spoof identity) will be easily caught out and reduced in value. Without a network wide profile of your life, a newly created WUM won't have the full background to make them seem real. The problems that this brings is that it limits the effect of pseudonym's like Publius or Alan Smithee, so it's not foolproof.

I love the thinking here Marc, it's the kind of stuff that gets me excited in the Network again.

4:17 AM
Randy Charles Morin said...

Quote: In the affluent, manic late ‘60s and late ‘90s, we really believed we had the power to reinvent ourselves. New ideas, new freedoms, or new technologies were going to bring forth the new, improved human at last. Then we woke up from that dream on recession’s morning after and found ourselves stuck with the same old, same old: greed, lust, wrath, envy, pride, gluttony and sloth. Almost as fast as Woodstock had turned to Altamont, the Internet turned into a huge hard-core peep show.

from here
http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2005/02/calling_all_spi.html

The problem is that we want to go from 0 to 100 mph in 6 seconds while towing a tank.

10:39 AM
Radha said...

For the above hypothesis to come true,one needs to consider the following aspects :
1. Need of Open Standards that will facilitate the movement towards peopleweb. Sites afterall have to exchange information. RSS standard is a classic example for the nascent blogging business

2. Businesses realizing the importance of adding value to the customer by adopting the open standards.(Having API's released to all, etc)

3. Since the information about the people is culled from the network, the authenticity of the info becomes prominent . Who vouches for the authenticity of the info?

4. Considering that commerce is an essential building block of peopleweb, Identity theft needs to be abated for peopleweb to move forward.

All 4 aspects will play a crucial role in deciding whether peopleweb will see the light of the day.

7:28 AM
Michael Parekh said...

Curious if you think the various social networking companies and portals will deploy peopleweb features around emerging open standards, OR, a new separate company is required that then interfaces with the various social networking companies and portals.

Potentially big difference...

3:12 AM
Arul Sundaram said...

Glad to see you're still espousing this idea, Mark!

I agree with the others that there are execution questions and problems, but the biggest driver of the coming change, IMO, is the value that is being created by all of these profiles on the web. As I go through my existence on the web, there are little bits of me at Tribe, Friendster, Linked In, AOL, BlackPlanet, Shaadi, etc. However, each of these profiles are directed inward toward the community. Even in cases where those profiles can be searched and found, their existence by themsleves is not nearly as valuable as seeing a collection of identities scattered through the web.

The reason that I believe that creating the collection will happen is that there is increasing opportunity for arbitrage here. Any one profile in itself is not so valuable to any specific community. In fact, getting people to view a profile is positive for that community. Having a directory that would help me navigate across communities and tie together the bits of information, therefore, could be seen as generating value for each individual community in the network. Therefore, the price to access profiles should be fairly low.

OTOH, the value in bringing together these profiles - from a user perspective - is significant. The creation of a more complete identity w/ its attendant directory becomes a valuable navigation tool.

The margin between the unlocked value and the price extracted by each individual community is what will fund the effort to integrate all of these communities. It hasn't happened yet because the opportunity in the arbitrage isn't quite there. However, as the value stored away in these profiles increases, it makes this sort of 'PeopleWeb' - IMO - inevitable.

9:44 AM
Marc Eisenstadt said...

The 'open profiles' concept is extremely exciting: congratulations to you and tribe.net for going down this route.

In a blog posting on 'Digital identity: FOAF vs swarm intelligence' that I made today before I had seen yours, I mentioned an oddity concerning central vs distributed profiles in the case of wikipedia entries, using the nicely-disambiguated entries for 13 different people named 'Michael Jackson' as the example: these entries simultaneously centralize (via common wikipedia URLs) and distribute (via the chaos of swarm intelligence authoring) the ownership of the 'profiles'. Moreover, these profiles represent a peculiar case of un-owned and often un-attributed (provenance-free) personal data, editable by anybody/everybody, yet demonstrably stable, sound, and scaleable!

I'm wondering if you think such a model has any role within what you're trying to achieve with tribe.net?

3:45 PM
Pete said...

It seems "open profile" is where the industry needs to go or risk being marginalized by companies like Yahoo. Essentially this is a means for Tribe, Linkedin, et al to very effectively compete. I also think it fits into the the future of identity management in that one "uber" about me, profile can be ported to other communities and the user can determine what information is presented to that community, or what can be syndicated.

My question is what role does identity verification by a trusted 3rd party play in enabling this to happen freely and securely. To be clear I mean identity verification beyond what is possbile/practical at one or maybe two degrees of seperation in a social network.

5:11 AM
Pete said...

You are definitely right on with this. It seems "open profile" is where the industry needs to go or risk being marginalized by companies like Yahoo. Essentially this is a means for Tribe, Linkedin, et al to very effectively compete. I also think it fits into the the future of identity management in that one "uber" about me, profile can be ported to other communities and the user can determine what information is presented to that community, or what can be syndicated.

My question is what role does identity verification by a trusted 3rd party play in enabling this to happen freely and securely. To be clear I mean identity verification beyond what is possbile/practical at one or maybe two degrees of seperation in a social network.

5:13 AM
Anonymous said...

LID aka Light-Weight Identity may come handy. It's a P2P way of publishing semantic information about yourself securely by NetMesh. It supports FOAF and any kind of schema.

http://lid.netmesh.org

June 29, 2005 in social software | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is the Valley Still Relevant?

interesting story in business 2.0 about how fred wilson is pursuing a new zone of venture investing (i call it new media while they call it web services), and that silicon valley is past it's prime. seems a bit ironic the day after google hits $300 a share and a valuation greater than time warner:) what's weird is that a prominent silicon valley lawyer just told me the same thing today. his perspective is at the end of the trough where he's not seeing a lot of IPOs right now.

i agree with fred, matt marshall and the reporter that new media represents a sea of new opportunities for entrepreneurs and venture backers. however, i believe that san francisco is also well positioned to go after this as the bay area remains home the highest concentration of web engineers as well as the armies of middle managers from yahoo, ebay and google that will spawn new ventures just like ex-aolers like my former partner sunil did a decade ago.

June 28, 2005 in Entrepreneurs, venture capital | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

What the VCs made on GOOG

bill burnham has a terrific post figuring out how much kleiner and sequoia and specifically doerr and moritz earned on their google deal. breathtaking at around $5B each and around $400m-$500m for the partners. agree with brad that they earned it.

June 28, 2005 in venture capital | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

View from the front: Board Meetings

allen morgan has an interesting post about how entrepreneur/ceo's should manage boards which i will excerpt below. (these are 10 commandments from a guy he knows named john kernan). i have to admit that these sound like very good advice but also have to admit that this is why i really dont like being a ceo and working for a board. (not sure we're supposed to admit this but most every entrepreneur i know would agree too.)

i know running companies isnt supposed to be about having fun, but i also know it's really hard to keep at a job if it isnt and doing all this political crap to 'manage' my board is almost a fulltime job in itself.  i have always approached board meetings as a time to help me do my job. i figure i should be using this collective wisdom to help me work on hard decisions, mostly around strategy, rarely around operations and people.  i've been idealistic about boards, imagining them as a group of partners sharing common goals to win which also entails a lot of these rules. however, i've almost always been dead wrong. politics do creep into it and ignoring them just means that you arent positioned well to sell the answer you know is best. net result, we entrepreneurs believe we're above the politics and we end up shooting ourselves in the foot (often the head too) by doing the 80% work to identify the bold winning path then failing to do the 20% (ok feels like 80% too:) to sell this into our boards.

in my perfect world...who am i kidding, in my perfect world i'm richard branson or rupert murdoch or better, larry or sergei, and i own a controlling share and dont waste any time buttering up board members! until then, i'll toil as a mere mortal.

allen's rules...

1. NEVER have the board meetng "at" the board meeting.  ALWAYS call every director a few days before the meeting and run every important issue by them to get their input, Also update them on company performance, especially the bad news, and let them "beat you up" privately. That way, the meeting can focus in a constructive fashion on problem-solving and building the Company for the future.

2. Maximum Powerpoint show is four slides from any presenter, especially yourself. This should be the limit of director interest in detail.

3. Provide complete access for the board to everyone and everything in the Company. They will rarely use it, but it's a great comfort to them to know you are not trying to hide anything.

4. Have your key team members do almost all the presentations. It gives them exposure and allows you to make sage comments along with the rest of the board. A perfect board meeting is when 10% of the talking is done by the CEO, 60% by the team, and 30% by the directors.

5. Carefully consider every director's input and take good notes at the meeting. These people have lots of experience and many great contacts. But you make the final decisions (and if you don't, they will start to look for someone who will).

6. Give the Directors projects in their areas of expertise. It's free consulting and they usually do a good job.

7. Get in front of the board on tough decisions like top management changes, including changes to your own role. If it's going to happen, make it your idea.

8. For VC directors, try to picture how they are describing your Company to their partners, and what questions their partners are asking. Your job is to make each director a hero to their partners (or corporate boss).

9. Remember it's Company first, team second, you last. You win when everybody wins, not when just you win.

10. Make a friend of every board member. Send them interesting deal ideas you turn up, learn about their interests, make the board a "look forward to" experience for everyone.

If you work hard, always act in good faith and in the best interest of the Company -- and if you follow these 10 rules -- most VC's will still be interested in financing your next deal, even if the Company tanks.

And if the Company is a success, they will be throwing money at you!

June 27, 2005 in Entrepreneurs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Love Gnomedex

i got to spend a day at gnomedex last week in seattle (thanks to chris pirillo). the hightlights for me were microsoft making an important announcement (supporting rss in longhorn) to a blogger only audience - cool to think that this would be first reported by bloggers with all media accounts based on blog posts when it's usually the opposite - and lee's bbq before, oh and driving a speedboat around lake washington and checking out the fat pads on the water. Z_at_lees_party_seattle

also loved this new piece of edimology that chris coined from the conference...Canterize /v/ - 1. To interrupt, enthusiastically; 2. The opposite of decanterize, wherein all social relevance is stripped from a Web site.

June 27, 2005 in social media | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Rigas's get life in prison

wsj reports today that the father who's 80 got 15 years while the son got 20 years. i'd love to know how these sentences compare to other white collar crimes over past 20 years. i believe milken served less than 2 years for a higher dollar figure crime. same with ivan boesky. while i am happy that there is govt interest in fighting corporate corruption (maybe they'll focus on the govt variety next) it is still troublesome to see them do so in such a political way. while i have no sympathy for the rigas's, i am deeply troubled by the inequity in this approach. how can gary winnick be lauded by the nytimes after taking $600m from investors in his fraudulent venture (global crossing) and john moores be the pillar of san diego, owning the padres, after taking a similar amount from his peregrine systems after that company filed for bankruptcy for faking $1 billion in profits. i dont mean to say that either of these guys had their hand in the cookie jar (moores was never accused of anything while winnick was exonerated), but the whole thing does strike me as bizarre and lopsided and not the way i would hope to see our justice system managed. shouldnt there be some test of consistency with past rulings? is this really a deterent or more of a sign that large corrupt acts will fare better if matched with large political donations? makes me wonder how long ken lay's donations to bush served in protecting him. and how can it be fair for the executives at haliburton (accused of multiple counts of fraud) get away scott free? guess it helps to be part of the ruling class.

June 21, 2005 in Robber Barrons, SEC Reform | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Burning some witches

i read in today's wsj that prosecutors are recommending life sentences for bernie ebers (worldcom) and the rigas family (adelphia).  this is the most clear indication that our justice system remains a largely politically motivated,  unfair and biased institution. our country is sinking down a slippery slope where it's now normal and common practice for politics to be a part of how justice is managed. the republicans are putting admittedly biased individuals into federal judgeships. our congress is bipassing the constitution to overrule judicial rulings to suit their political whims.

what sickens me is that we are not making anything better, but rather preserving a corrupt status quo. the govt appeases the masses by burning a few token ceo's at the stake while allowing hundreds of others to continue with their quarterly corruption. when 414 public companies restate earnings in a single year (2004) we have a systemic problem. when the SEC's board is comprised of the the heads of the very firms it regulates we have a systemic problem.

i have a few questions for you all...

  • why are corporations allowed to invest in political campaigns and lobbyists? does this really promote democracy?
  • how can we all sleep at night knowing that different people can be sentenced to 1 year or life based on the location and time of conviction?

we're not dealing with dangerous people. society will be no safer with bernie behind bars.  is a life sentence arbitrarily issued for political expediency really greater deterent than say a ten year sentence consistently given? no! is prison for a few token scapegoats going to stop corruption? no!

Change the Rules, Reform the System

the only way to fix the system is to change the rules. i've blogged before that there is a simple effective way to stop the 414 companies in their tracks and that's to go after the personal profits in the system. the SEC simpy needs to amend the 16B rule on insider sales (which today forces insiders to disgorge profits on short swing trades) to say that any profits on sales during periods of fraud or significant restatement must be disgorged (that is returned to injured investors).  this would have captured the enron guys, gary winnick's $600m from global crossing, john moores $600m from peregrine, schlushy's money on healthsouth, greenberg for AIG. if we really want to do something unprecedented, how about making this law retroactive? who says we cant do that? lets go after everyone back 10 years and force them to repay the money. what's ironic, is that while there is no outcry to save the couple of scapegoats from unjust life sentences, there would be bankers, ceo's and politicians in the streets fighting this proposal, as it would move billions.

and fuck sarbanes oxley. the dumbest law i've ever heard of. that's just another bullshit political move to keep us all sleeping. it makes about as much sense as asking a witness to pledge on the bible that they will tell the 'whole' truth. (guess clinton missed the 'whole' part when he said he didnt have any 'sexual relations'.)

June 20, 2005 in revolution of the ants, SEC Reform | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Fred's Always On

fred has a post that spoke to me (and my girlfriend mo) about being always on. i think i was always on even before the net (also called ADD) but was more always and lacked the on. mo can attest to how hard i find it to disconnect even though we all know it's valuable. she had to put me on restricted web time on our recent hawaii trip and i was annoyed when we had no connection for a day. Mark_vaca

i've seen this in friends too (where i find it more amusing). my friend greg recently got a crackberry and on our annual ski trip we found we lost our best talk time (chairlifts) to his new obsession. what's become so ironic is that we often have better attention via remote text interaction than live dialog. maybe some people's brains process this way easier anyway. we can all tell too when we're losing someone to their online world. the only time i know i can get someone's full live attention (or them mine) is car talk time. maybe the answer is we'll build 'phone booths' which are just destraction free zones. maybe areas of our homes will have to be no-net zones. i've often imagined how cool it would be if bars and restuarants had cones of silence that could drop down over patrons taking calls, protecting them and people around them.

anyway, thanks fred for letting prove to mo that i'm 'normal' for a certain race of human:)

June 19, 2005 in Entrepreneurs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tagtuesday

i recently stopped by tagtuesday, hosted by technorati and flickr. felt like the beginning of something new because there were so few people and i couldnt understand most of it. (zinga even got to participate.)   Z_at_tagtues

June 18, 2005 in social media | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack