Conveying Information Effectively
Here’s an interesting experiment to try. Get a friend. Think of a song (one that you would reasonably expect your friend to know as well). Tap along with your finger while you play the song to yourself in your head. Now ask your friend what song you were taping out. It turns out that the taper’s estimate of how easy it will be for someone to guess what song they are tapping is vastly greater than the success their friend will have in actually coming up with the correct song. The taper believes they are conveying much more information than they really are. (Apologies for not being able to find the actual study reference I was looking for – I couldn’t find it on Google Scholar and I’ve long since thrown out the psychology textbook I had that referenced the study.) …
February 22, 2005· 2 min read
What it takes to go public
I’ve sat through a few presentations by investment bankers recently on what it takes to go public (most recently at VC in the Rockies – see my post about the conference here). I thought I’d throw out some of my notes so you could see what I’m being told it takes to get public in the current market. The VCIR panel I sat through included some thoughts on the state of the m&a market, so I’ll include those notes as well. Company ‘Requirements’: – Revenue: ‘Bigger the better’; minimum of $60m/year annualized (so $15m/quarter at the time of the IPO; however 60% of 04’ IPO’s were < $100m in revenue (up from only 30% in the depths of the market); this has been a very consistent metric across all of the bankers I’ve talked with. – Profitability: Companies should be at or near profitability prior to IPO; there was some debate across the people I talked with about whether this was a requirement – some people thought companies absolutely needed to be profitable, others gave a little bit (but not much) of wiggle room. – Funding Needs: Company needs to be fully funded – the money raised in the IPO should be expansion capital, not core operating (get to profitability) capital- Team/Execution: Company probably needs to have been around for 4+ years; management teams are coming under much closer scrutiny by investors (was not the case in the bubble) …
February 17, 2005· 3 min read
Who vs. Where
I recently wrote a blog – The Power of Location – about Quova (one of the companies I work with) and the idea of “place” on the Internet. In response, Dimitar Vesselinov (who has a great blog) dropped a couple of comments to the post. My sense is that not everyone pays attention to the comments section of blogs, so I thought I’d post the links he suggests here. I also want to be sure I’m clear on the differences between digital identity (the subject of Dimitar’s comments) and geolocation (the subject of my post) as well as how the two ideas overlap. …
February 16, 2005· 3 min read
The 10 Minute Difference
When I graduated from college I worked on Wall Street for a couple of years as an analyst for Morgan Stanley. While a valuable experience, especially for someone such as myself who had never even considered taking a business or finance course (I was an econ and psychology major), the job pretty much sucked. While I enjoyed the finance aspect of it and, particularly in my second year, had great access to the CEOs and CFOs of the companies I worked with, a lot of my job involved staying up until all hours of the night (morning, technically) preparing analysis and putting together ‘pitch books’ for use in presentations the following day. Not particularly glamorous work. Nor was it generally mentally taxing (to be clear, we did plenty of extremely complicated analysis work, but much of the day to day analysis was more mundane and involved lots of data gathering in the Morgan Stanley library – this was pre the ubiquitous access to financial data on the internet – and less time actually crunching numbers. The job involved working about 90 hours a week (up to 120 on some weeks) and was akin to running a marathon – stamina counted for a lot.One of the things that’s true about investment banking – even at the analyst level – is that a pretty sizable portion of ones pay comes at the end of the year (actually February for most banks) in the form of a bonus. Bonuses are doled out at senior levels based on deals brought in and revenue generated for the firm, but at the lower levels they were directly tied to your performance review. Morgan Stanley had a rating system with a bunch of levels and the difference in bonus pay-out was pretty substantial. At the top of the pyramid was Outstanding followed by Very Good and so on. A pretty descent percentage of analysts were rated Very Good (probably over 50%), but a very small number (about 5%) were rated Outstanding. The difference in pay was tens of thousands of dollars (a pretty substantial portion of one’s pay as an analyst).So what’s the difference between Very Good and Outstanding? I’ve been asked this question a bunch of times and the answer to me is very clear. The difference is 10 minutes every day. At a job where one regularly worked 90 hours or more every week there was a huge incentive to cut out of work as soon as you could (at 2am you wanted to get home as soon as you could). But the difference between doing a very good job and an outstanding job was the last 10 minutes of every day when you had the chance to stop and consider the work you had just done and check it. Most times it was probably fine, but 1 out of10 times you found something that needed adjusting or correcting. …
January 31, 2005· 3 min read
The Power of Branding
Ross and Dave sent this link over to me today. Parody – a strong sign of flattery. Clearly Apple has marketing down – we could all take a lesson. . . https://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
January 14, 2005· 1 min read