Archive for the ‘Discutii’ Category
Facebook a introdus unlike-ul automat
joi, martie 27th, 2014Am citit la Cristi un post despre reach-ul organic al Facebook-ului care a scazut sub nivelul inflatiei anuale a lui Mugur Isarescu. Lucru vizibil de altfel, in ultimul an, pentru oricine are cat de cat activitate pe Facebook. Bineinteles ca au aparut si comentariile, stai putin, ca e vorba de continut, ca trebuie sa evoluam, ca trebuie sa miscam muntii, sa generam engagement, sa generam like-uri si comentarii cu ceea ce postam noi, ca branduri, pe Facebook.
Domnilor, nu e chiar asa, eu cand am dat like paginii Jaeger-LeCoultre sau colegei Diana Marcu de la gandul.info, am dat like constient, treaz si in deplinatatea facultatilor mintale, am dat like in cunostinta de cauza si stiind ce as putea sa primesc la schimb. Daca Diana Marcu se apuca sa posteze foto cu pisici, iar Jaeger-LeCoultre semneaza contract de imagine cu Justin Bieber am oricand posibilitatea de a da unlike. Simplu. La fel de simplu cum am dat like. Userii au dat like unor branduri pentru ca le plac acele branduri, pentru ca le consuma, le utilizeaza, sunt atasati de ele, nu pentru contentul pe care-l posteaza si nici pentru numarul de like-uri si comentarii pe care-l genereaza. Cel putin eu asa am inteles notiunea de like, vreau sa vad/primesc/citesc mesajele acelui brand/nume/pagina/personaj caruia i-am dat like. Facebook a decis, prin algoritmii sai, ca postarile acestor branduri/pagini/personaje/vedete nu mai merita sa intre in feed-ul/atentia mea. Sunt de acord ca poate decide ca, in cazul unui brand cu 8-10 postari pe zi, 1 din 2 sa fie piua, hai 1 din 3, hai 1 din 4. Dar nu sa-mi „ascunda” 98 din 100. Pentru ca asta inseamna un unlike pe care eu nu l-am dat.
Da, sigur, pot decide ce vor, pentru ca e sistemul lor si sunt regulile lor, dar nu inseamna acceptul nostru automat, nu inseamna ca trebuie sa fim de acord cu asa ceva si sa cautam explicatii gen „e contentul, domle, e engagementul”.
+1
luni, martie 24th, 2014The peacetime CEO sets big, hairy, audacious goals. The wartime CEO is too busy fighting the enemy to read management books written by consultants who have never managed a fruit stand.
Ben Horowitz
Cinci greseli ale vestului in Ucraina
luni, martie 3rd, 20141. L-au subestimat pe Putin, cea mai mare eroare, interesele Rusiei in Ucraina/Crimeea sunt mult mai mari decat interesele Rusiei in Siria si sunt mult mult mult mai mari decat interesele SUA/EU in Ucraina. Putin nu a „renuntat” la Siria, de ce ar renunta la Ucraina/Crimeea cu care are granita comuna si e mult mai aproape de Moscova? Cine isi inchipuie ca Putin va renunta la Crimeea e naiv.
2. Au mers in piata si au fraternizat cu demonstratii in timp ce negociau cu Ianukovici. Bun, rau, criminal, Ianukovici era presedintele ales al Ucrainei. Constitutional inca e presedintele ales al Ucrainei pentru ca nu si-a dat demisia.
3. Au amenintat Rusia in legatura cu actiunile din Crimeea desi Rusia are acorduri semnate cu Ucraina referitoare la baza navala si la stationarea trupelor din regiune. Adica Rusia are tot dreptul sa aiba trupe in Crimeea, au devenit agresivi dupa ce toata lumea s-a grabit sa condamne trimiterea de trupe in peninsula. Primul lucru pe care noul guvern ar fi trebuit sa-l faca era sa anunte ca va respecta interesele Rusiei in Crimeea si acordurile semnate. In felul acesta Rusia nu mai avea nici un argument pentru agitatia din Crimeea. In schimb noul guvern ce a facut:
4. Noul guvern a interzis drepturile minoritatilor (una din primele actiuni luate!), in conditiile in care in Crimeea spre 60% din populatie este rusa. Masura a fost luata INAINTE de a aparea miscarile de trupe ale Rusiei din Crimeea. Iar vestitii nu au avut nici o reactie la aceasta masura (remember Kosovo?)
5. Nu au nici un plan pentru salvarea economica a Ucrainei. Rusia a „trimis” mai multe miliarde de dolari catre Ucraina, Rusia trimite gaze in Ucraina, vestul nu a facut nimic desi noul guvern este unul pro european. Fara ajutor, adica fara bani, Ucraina e in faliment.
De ce valoreaza RCS-RDS spre 2 miliarde euro
miercuri, februarie 12th, 2014Later update: Precizare de la Moise Guran:
eu n-am spus asa si nici n-am stiut ca un redactor care ma suna va face un articol pornind de la raspunsul meu. m-a intrebat ce parere am de intrarea digi 24 in must carry si am spus ca am o parere buna. apoi intrebat de profitabilitatea digi 24 am spys ca nu se pune problema, atata timp cat nu are venituri si, am continuat, ca si digiworld si digisport a fost inventat ca sa poata face un pachet mai bun la un eventual exit. pe cati bani? nu stiu, zic, dar la ce credite are rcs sub 1 mld de euro nu ar fi profitabil sa-l dea.
Context:
Din cauza imprumuturilor, patronul RCS&RDS, Zoltan Teszari, cauta un cumparator pentru intregul sau business, pentru care cere un pret de peste 1 miliard de euro, potrivit lui Moise Guran.
“RCS&RDS este ok ca business, dar daca te imprumuti si iar te imprumuti va trebui sa faci un exit”, considera Moise Guran.
De aici
Da, e posibil ca Teszari si restul actionarilor sa vanda cu 1 miliard daca acest miliard e cash out pentru ei si cumparatorul isi asuma datoriile care sunt de +800 milioane euro. Pentru ca valoarea RCS-RDS este mai mare de 1 miliard euro, este spre 2 miliarde euro.
De ce?
Trecand peste clasicele capitalizare pe bursa, multiplu de venituri/ebitda, valoarea unei companii mai e data si de tranzactiile similare facute in domeniu, in piete din regiune. In cazul nostru, ultima tranzactie „prin zona” a fost cumpararea de catre KKR – atentie, fond de investitii, deci ei au cumparat ca sa creasca si sa vanda unui strategic in 3-5 ani – a celui mai mare cablist din Serbia, SBB.
Cand? Octombrie anul trecut.
Cati clienti are SBB? 1.5 milioane, Serbia + alte tari din fosta Yugoslavie.
Care a fost suma platita? 1 miliard euro.
Acum, luati RCS-RDS, luati pietele pe care activeaza, luati clientii pe fiecare piata si faceti regula de trei simpla cu valoarea tranzactie din Serbia si veti afla valoarea RCS-RDS. De fapt luati doar piata din .ro unde au +3 milioane clienti si sunt lideri de piata, ignorati Ungaria si Cehia, analizati doar pe .ro. Cat va da? :)
Doua despre munca
miercuri, ianuarie 22nd, 20141. Success at Work, Failure at Home
One of the stated values at IronPort was “work/life balance,” but I clearly wasn’t living it. I was rarely home. And when I was home, well, let’s just say I wasn’t particularly helpful or cheery. My perspective at the time was: I’m killing myself at work, so when I get home, I just want to kick back with a cocktail and watch some TV. All I do is talk to people all day long and so at home, I’d really prefer not to talk much, just relax.
If the benefits of working fewer hours are this clear, why has it been so hard for businesses to embrace the idea? Simple economics certainly plays a role: in some cases, such as law firms that bill by the hour, the system can reward you for working longer, not smarter. And even if a person pulling all-nighters is less productive than a well-rested substitute would be, it’s still cheaper to pay one person to work a hundred hours a week than two people to work fifty hours apiece. (In the case of medicine, residents work long hours not just because it’s good training but also because they’re a cheap source of labor.) On top of this, the productivity of most knowledge workers is much harder to quantify than that of, say, an assembly-line worker.
Intrebarea finalului de an
vineri, decembrie 13th, 2013Cand va intra Amazon in .ro? Pareri? :)
„Is building massive scale the only strategy?”
miercuri, noiembrie 13th, 20131.
“I think I can begin to discern the vague outlines of how digital publishing might eventually be able to deliver the kind of scale and impact that brand advertisers demand from TV and glossy magazines. I don’t know who the winner is going to be. But I do think that Blodget is right about one thing: whoever the winner is, they will have to have some very deep pockets. Winning this game won’t come cheap.”
2.
So massive scale is necessary because advertisers — especially those accustomed to TV — apparently require it (which is why Twitter has made the changes it has as well). In effect, we are rebuilding the mass media of the old days because advertisers can’t think of any other way to make money other than by accumulating billions of pageviews, and publishers are being dragged along for the ride. In order to play ball, and generate the kind of revenue their backers require, they apparently need to achieve global scale or die trying.
3.
Is this really the future we want for online media? Doesn’t it just mean that we wind up with one or two giant conglomerates whose only business model is based on pageview-driven clickbait content? That’s the model that Business Insider appears to be pursuing — one that involves producing more and more pageviews that bring in less and less revenue. Is this the only possible future? I honestly don’t know.
Pareri?
Probabil cea mai realista analiza despre retragerea lui Ballmer*
marți, august 27th, 2013What really causes a company to fail is disruption. The business model around which all products, customers and priorities are built; the culture, the skills and “DNA” of the company; is vulnerable. This vulnerability is why companies have considerably shorter lifespans than the people who work there. They are one of the most fragile of organisms: high infant mortality, with short, unpredictable lives.
Microsoft ascended because it disrupted an incumbent (or two) and is descending because it’s being disrupted by an entrant (or two). The Innovator’s Dilemma is very clear on the causes of failure: To succeed with a new business model, Microsoft would have had to destroy (by competition) its core business. Doing that would, of course, have gotten Ballmer fired even faster.
Steve Ballmer’s only failing was delivering sustaining growth (from $20 to over $70 billion in sales.) He did exactly what all managers are incentivized to do and avoided all the wasteful cannibalization for which they are punished.
Steve Ballmer will not be remembered as favorably as the man who created Microsoft. But at least he won’t be remembered as the fool who killed it. That epitaph is reserved for his successor.
E diferenta dintre a spune, „da, trebuie sa facem/sa fim in search/mobile” si „da, trebuie sa facem seach/mobile, punem cei mai buni oameni din companie/piata sa se ocupe de asta si le dam toate resursele de care au nevoie chiar daca afectam produsele care acum genereaza profitul”.
Altfel, as spune ca azi Microsoft pare ca se afla intr-o pozitie ceva mai buna decat Apple, dpdv al felului mai echilibrat in care si-a diversificat produsele/sursele de venit/zone de crestere, dar mult in urma Google (Microsoft opereaza pe cateva piete, Business division/Servers/chiar si Windows unde concurenta musca mai greu/deloc/ (sau piata scade mai greu) si intr-un ritm mai lent decat musca Android-ul/Samsung/restul din pietele iPhone/iPad, asta in timp ce Google nu are nici un fel de competitor pe zona de search/advertising si isi imparte mobile-ul/tableta cu Apple/Samsung chiar daca nu castiga direct). Mai pe scurt, daca nici una din companii nu schimba nimic, Microsoft cred ca ar avea parte de o „moarte” mai lenta decat ar putea avea parte Apple.
De aici Steve Ballmer and The Innovator’s Curse
* – probabil cea mai realista citita de mine, pana acum.
Declining Industries vs Growing Jobs
duminică, august 25th, 2013– Employment at newspapers is down about 5% over the past year.
– The number of help-wanted ads for “news analysts, reporters, and correspondents” is up 15% compared to a year ago.
– More people are telling the BLS that they are working as a news analyst, reporter, or correspondent compared to a year ago.
– Roughly half the want-ads for news analysts, reporters and correspondents contain the words ‘digital’, ‘internet’, ‘online’, or ‘mobile’.
Aha, deci se poate
marți, iunie 25th, 2013Two Hollywood studios have quietly begun testing a controversial business model in South Korea after years of failed efforts in the U.S.: renting movies via video on demand while they are still playing in theaters.
The experiments, by Walt Disney Co. Sony Pictures Entertainment, mark the first time major American studios have offered viewers anywhere the option of buying a ticket to see a movie or to rent it at home from a cable, Internet or satellite-television provider. Sony Pictures is owned by Japan’s Sony Corp.
Sony’s „Django Unchained” was available to rent online or via cable just three weeks after premiering in Korean theaters in April. Disney’s animated „Wreck-it Ralph” and „Brave” came five and four weeks, respectively, after launching at cinemas in December and September. In both cases the films were still playing broadly in theaters throughout South Korea, the world’s eighth-largest film market.
De aici
Mi se pare ca am castigat un pariu :)