January 2, 2008
05:42 pm | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
No matter how you modify it – call it light and sweet, or even crude – oil remains a problem that we just can’t seem to shake.
That became painfully clear today, as an historic benchmark was reached, when oil reached $100 a barrel. Although most market watchers thought was inevitable, it was still a shock to the system. The Dow ended up shedding 1.7% on the day, a fairly heady drop for the first day of trading in a new year, and was accompanied by the usual sturm and drang from broadcasters - Mexican weather, Nigerian inventories, assassinations - oh my! Oil settled at $99.62.
There are, of course, other things to worry about than just oil: The nasty credit crunch/ housing market, a weak dollar, and global unrest clearly among them. But bottom line, we’re all paying about 60% this year than we did last year for a product which is just as essential to our daily lives as it ever was.
I'm not picking on the marketplace, really. I turned my self into a financial writer by night while toiling at a brokerage firm by day, and I was a daily market reporter for a lot of years, mostly through the 1.0 bubble and beyond. And even though I preached moderation, and often made fun of the sports-like glitz of most market commentary, I really do understand the adrenaline charged atmosphere of rapidly moving markets. And I know how real world events – like assassinations – can make people very nervous. We really are connected to each other by these events, and ripple effects can be profound. But watching the oil drama unfold today, I felt more sad than nervous.
Thirty years after the oil shocks of the 1970s, which should have established the beginning of the end for the cheap, reliable oil sources, we have yet to have a viable energy alternative for a global economy that remains soaked in oil. I have to believe that this is not an innovation issue, but a leadership/political one. There have been so many lost opportunities – tax incentives, for example - but the one that always leaps to my mind was one of Ronald Reagan’s first great acts: Removing the solar panels on the White House roof which had been installed by the previous occupant, Jimmy Carter. The '90s were no better. One of the less obvious failures of the deelpy "distracted" Clinton administration, was their inability to address our crumbling infrastructure or affect our energy independence. It’s a legacy we live with today.
(BTW, thanks largely to the Park Service, some solar energy has been restored to the White House grounds.)
There is a new call for innovation on green tech coming from Silicon Valley, and perhaps concerns about global warming will actually fuel some interesting breakthroughs. But without true leadership and political sophistication at the highest levels, it’s hard to imagine the global economy being powered by anything but oil and the hot air of market watchers everywhere.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
November 14, 2007
12:06 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Former Vice President Al Gore has added another gig to his already jam-packed resume: venture capitalist.
Gore announced an alliance between his firm, Generation Investment Management and the legendary Silicon Valley venture firm, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers. From a statement issued by KPCB:
The partnership will provide funding and global business-building expertise to a range of businesses, both public and private, and to entrepreneurs. As a result of the collaboration, the chairman and co-founder of Generation, former Vice President of the United States Al Gore, will join KPCB as a Partner. KPCB will co-locate their European operations at Generation’s offices in London. John Doerr, Partner at KPCB, will join Generation’s Advisory Board.
Does the man not sleep?
This alliance seems to be the ultimate networking idea. (For more about the announcement– with some great behind-the-scenes stuff - I recommend a recent Fortune piece written by my good friend and former colleague Adam Lashinsky, and co-written by Marc Gunther.
Let's face it, Gore travels in some pretty heady circles. When I last interviewed the former Vice President for Fast Company Magazine, he told me that he and his wife, Tipper, had dipped a toe into angel investing. It was a tour de force of networking: Gore introduced two notable scientists – Danny Hillis of Applied Minds and David Agus, a renowned physician from UCLA – who were holding piece of a puzzle that would be instrumental or interesting to the other. Agus, had an information processing challenge related to his research with proteins, and Hillis who is famous for being instrumental in developing massively parallel processing, is always looking for ground breaking applications for his methodologies. “David had said to me in a conversation – if we could just process more data faster, we could do so many more things. And I said, ‘do you know Danny Hillis?’” Last summer, the Gores became early stage investors in a brand new venture between Agus and Hillis. “We’re lucky that we’re now in a position where we’re able to do things like this,” he told me.
I imagine that the Kleiner Perkins/Generation Alliance will be a networking effort on a much grander scale, since the analysts at Generation are clearly finding ideas, people, technologies and concepts in a variety of forms that they are not immediately able to exploit within their own narrow confines. (See Q&A below.) Kleiner Perkins have made greentech a priority since 1999. And, from all indications, KPCB will be able to make good use of Gore and Generation’s insights – their green portfolio has yet to enjoy any sort of liquidity event.
I spoke with a Generation representative this morning, who explained that he expected Generation's portfolio to change a bit going forward. "As you know, the portfolio consists of 30-50 mostly large cap public equities," says Richard Campbell. "I expect that to stretch a bit where in the future, Generation will be taking larger positions in smaller public companies." Campbell envisions a relationship where with pooled research and brain power, Kleiner invests in early stage technologies and entrepreneurs, and when appropriate, Generation steps in at the mid level. "Consider too, the geographical footprint," he told me. Kleiner has its reach in the US and China; Generation has a strong presence in the US and European marketplaces. "It immediately benefits both."
But it's important to remember that it's not really a "job" for Gore, simply that Gore joined the firm as a representative of Generation. (He's donating his salary to the Alliance for Climate Protection.) This is a collaboration on many levels, involving representatives of both firms - so the Veep is probably sleeping just fine. But still, his deal making is impressive, and the impact to the environment should prove profound.
This past summer, I enjoyed a lively e-mail interview with Colin le Duc, a Generation partner and head of research. He is the former director of research for Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), a Zurich-based sustainability investment firm. He was able to give me a bit of insight, but only a bit, into the Generation methodology:
Q: How have you been able to meld sustainability research with fundamental equity analysis?
Our integration of sustainability into a traditional equity research framework has been enabled by various things. Firstly, the fact we started with a blank sheet of paper in designing our investment process from scratch when we founded Generation in early 2004. That enabled us to take the best out of traditional processes and the best out of the sustainability research world and meld them into a new, single, integrated investment process. Secondly, our people. Our team is diverse and includes environmental economists next to traditional buy side equity analysts. Thirdly, by virtue of taking a long term horizon and a concentrated investment strategy, we have built a methodology that is designed to build high degrees of conviction in the investment idea. We would have designed a very different investment process if we were doing index type investing for example. Finally, our Chairman Al Gore and our Managing Partner David Blood. The "Blood and Gore" combination at the head of our firm has meant that we have two world experts in the areas we are integrating, namely
finance and sustainability.
Q: What specific lessons have you learned in your past job at SAM that prepared you for this role?
The main lesson has been to focus on materiality. At Generation we go deep on the most material sustainability issues that affect the long term success of businesses. This is in contrast to a methodology that takes a broad "tick box" approach to researching sustainability. Another lesson has been to adopt a systems perspective with regards sustainability risks and opportunities. This means gaining a fuller, holistic, more complete view of industries and companies over the long term by understanding the dynamic feedback loops inherent in any system.
Q: Did you have to invent new metrics or "screens" in order to find suitable companies?
Our methodology is tailored to each industry based on the most material sustainability theme integrated with traditional economic and competitive issues. So, yes we have new metrics and questions we ask - but they are often company specific rather than screened across the whole research universe. I often characterise our company level due diligence work as "an inch wide and a mile deep". We haven't developed any new software, rather we have developed deep understanding of how sustainability affects
industries and companies.
Q: How much time do you spend gathering data from vendors, customers, board members - mosaic theory style -to construct your analyses? Do you survey companies? Do they open their books to you? How big is your analyst/research team? Do you buy in any outside research?
A: Our research is mainly primary. We have a team of 12 doing research on about
100 companies. This gives you an idea as to how concentrated and deep our research is. This is necessary when doing high conviction investing like Generation. We do of course solicit input from a wide variety of sources. This includes the company itself, think taks, brokers, consultants, competitors, suppliers and NGOs. The Analysts at Generation have developed sophisticated networks within their sub sectors and areas of coverage. We leverage that network intensly as part of our due diligence. Companies are
very open to talking to us because we address questions of long term strategy rather than only asking about net Quarters earnings. Our long term focus is in contrast to many players on Wall Street how are only concerned about short term performance. This is an opportunity for Generation and we have found that high quality companies are very open to discussing how sustainability affects them in the long term. We often meet operational management too as well as the CEO, CFO and Investor Realtions folks.
Q: What companies or sectors intrigue you now?
A: Compliance doesn't allow me to name specific investments or else I'll end up in jail! However, some themes we are looking at include using solar for large scale power generation by concentrating the energy. We are also intrigued by next generation biofuels with emphasis on cellulosic processes. We have also looked at the dynamics of Mexican homebuilders.
Q: You want to live in the space where two universes overlap - traditional long-term investing and sustainable thinking. Where do you compromise?
A: There are about 30,000 potential investment targets in our universe of Global Equity - and we only need to find 40 or so high quality companies at the right price. So, we have avoided areas of the market which we knew may rise in the short term but would not make good, long term, sustainable investments. Sustainability is integrated into our definition of business and management quality and, as such, we have a high threshold as to which businesses we want to own. Our research universe expands by us going deeper in areas we know alot about, like solutions to the climate crisis.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 31, 2007
12:02 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
I just returned from one of the least innovative places I’ve been in a long time – Vernazza, Italy. Trust me, you should go.
I was there for a wedding of a dear friend. About 52 people traipsed in from around the world. The groom is a professional photographer and the bride, my friend, is a producer, filmmaker and media entrepreneur. As a result, the assembled group was a fun mix of creative types who enjoy adventure, people and each other.
My instructions were to take the train (three, actually) from Pisa to Vernazza, a tiny town that is part of the Cinque Terre, five ancient fishing villages along the Mediterranean coast that are linked by train, ferry and a well worn hiking path. Vernazza is impossibly beautiful and delightfully small; my instructions were to get off the train, walk in to town (only one cobblestone street to choose from) and head to a bar called the Blue Marlin, where beer and further instructions would await. It worked. It’s that kind of place, and my favorite kind of innovative. The personal kind.
We made a big impression on the locals, as we estimated that we instantly increased the population by about a third. By the fourth day of our stay, most of the wait staff would join our parties, their friends would wander in to wherever we had gathered and became part of the fun. Not enough for some, sadly. One intrepid boy refused to believe that he was going to strike out with the lot of us. And he tried. With everyone. “But why, Ellen? Why?” he whined of his spurned advances. “I have loved you since you got off the train! Do you not find me beautiful?” Raphael had appeared toward the end of the rehearsal dinner. After an hour of cajoling, he finally shrieked in frustration: “But you’re in ITALY!! There is nothing else to do here!”
The wedding was perfect. It was held in an ancient stone church that overlooks the tiny harbor, the equally ancient priest beaming while he presided in a quavery voiced Italian. Not a dry eye, not even the tourists who wandered in. And took pictures. Of all of us.
We were told in advance to bring hard candy, as there is a longstanding tradition of, well, doing something with it, after the ceremony. We tried to piece together the instructions – someone throws the candy off the balcony. But who? Townspeople? Us? Mama Titti, the local capo who organized the entire event, wrenched the candy away from the arriving guests and dispatched it to points unknown. It wasn’t until after the ceremony, that it became clear that the bride and groom are supposed appear on a balcony and toss sweets upon our heads. The thrilled guests filed into the stone square, joined by locals with their children and some tourists enjoying some vini al fresco. Pretty as a picture. Trouble was, some of the candy looked pretty big, even from three stories. It took about one giddy toss to realize that for all intents and purposes, the happy couple was throwing the equivalent of rocks at us. Tootsie Pops bounced off of tables like grenades, Three Musketeers hit the cobblestone streets like turd-bombs. People dining outdoors looked temporarily panicked. The guests laughed hysterically, covering their heads, dodging the incoming materiel. It was wonderful.
That night, after an eight hour party with seven courses of fresh seafood and pesto, (they invented it there – pesto, not seafood) the group stumbled back to the Blue Marlin to share the fun. Massimo, the owner, keeps two computers in the back for internet use. And over the shoulder of one local boy, I see Facebook.
“FACEBOOK!! LOOK!” I hollered. Facebook had been a big part of the chit chat at the wedding earlier, since I’d just finished another feature for the magazine. Because most of the wedding guests were part of the 35+ demographic who hadn’t yet been initiated, everyone had questions about it. I couldn’t believe my good fortune as to have stumbled (literally) into a live demonstration. So poor Raphael watched in unalloyed horror as half the wedding party, in their wine-soaked glory, lurched past him to enthusiastically surround a stunned 26-year-old local waiter named Stefano. "Oh! You like the Facebook?" he smiled. While Raphael pouted, Stefano showed us his profile, and bragged about all the places he’d visited in the “Where I’ve Been” application. (He's been around, evidently.) It was like he had invented the site himself. The crowd went wild. (In vino, facebook, etc.) Stefano, who has no interest in valuations, IPOs or Harvard drop outs, simply likes to keep in touch with his world - which now includes a couple of dozen happily adopted Vernazzians.
Stefano may not have invented the Facebook, but he is, however, responsible for a bit of Vernazza innovation. He and his friends decided last year that they needed to invent a great happening in the small town, to break the endless monotony of the charm, wine-making, fishing, eating and flirting. You know, nothing to do. So, they decided to create a Pirate Event. The plan: A bunch of the young men (I think I basically am getting this right) dress up as pirates, get into boats a few feet out of the main harbor, row into town and theatrically...do….uh, pirate things in the town square. Cue a party. Music was organized, a light show, the church bells were coordinated. The scheming took months. Hours before they were going to launch, however, it occurred to Stefano that this might be a huge embarrassment. “I mean, what were we doing? What if nobody liked it? Oh my God!”
He had reason to worry, as the village elders were not sold on the idea.The mayor was concerned and showed up, tapping his foot and scowling. (Vernazza doesn’t have a police force, a couple of carbinieri had to be imported from nearby Montorroso. The mayor showing up was evidently pretty scary.) The entire town had assembled in the square, waiting for the spectacle to begin. The pirates pressed ahead nervously.
What Stefano could not have known, (but anyone listening to the story would have understood) that all of the people who loved and raised him in this marvelous little village would have stood there and cheered for him if he had shown up and done anything at all. Even thrown sweet rocks at them. So, when the pirates entered the harbor to begin the party plundering, the town roared their approval. To Stefano and his pirate pals, the reception they received was one of the great achievements of their lives. The crowd – the parents, uncles, cousins, neighbors and friends - ooh’d, ahh’d, cheered, and danced the night away. And because innovation takes guts, real guts, Stefano has earned the right to be proud. “We want to do it again, make it a thing!” he gushed. “I want the world to know!”
So, now you know.
Ciao ciao, Vernazza. Okay, bye-bye.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 17, 2007
05:20 pm | 0 recommendations | 7 comments
The brand, spanking new Fox Business News network is doing an hour-long segment on “Al Gore, Inc.” -- the many facets and accomplishments of the former Vice President, tomorrow, October 18th, during the 7:00a hour. I’ll be on around 7:30am to discuss my cover story, “Al Gore’s Million Makeover." Should be interesting, eh?
Needless to say, Gore’s recent run of exceptional luck has earned him this hour in the news – the Emmy for the cable network he co-founded with Joel Hyatt, Currrent TV, and his recent shared Nobel Prize for his climate change activism, for starters. But it’s also political season, and the Draft Gore movement is gaining some momentum. Unfortunately, I don’t think they’ll have a candidate at the end of the ride. And I’ll talk about that more tomorrow.
Tune in, if you can. I’d love to know what y’all think of the segment.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 17, 2007
03:27 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Facebook settled an investigation by the New York State Attorney General's office in what must be record time yesterday, by announcing an agreement that will create and enforce new safeguards protecting young Facebookers from sexual predators and obscene content.
The scene at Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's New York City office was genial as the agreement was announced. Chris Kelly, Facebook's Chief Privacy Officer, did a fine job representing the company and setting out the terms of the agreement. Kelly wears pressure well; he seems to be exactly the kind of person you'd want to have in your life boat. (And he's strapping enough to dispatch a predator personally, should he encounter one.) The terms of the agreement are groundbreaking and should lead to a safer site.
They also sound pretty expensive.
The investigation began after the Attorney General's office began receiving complaints from worried parents about pornographic material and predatory behavior on the site. Investigators went undercover to test Facebook's safety by creating profiles posing as underage users. The profiles were targeted by sexual predators; the undercover "teens" also had access to pornographic material on the site, according to the AG. Facebook's failure to respond to complaints spurred a subpoena which was announced on September 24th.
The agreement has three main parts:
1) Facebook agreed to create a new and easy-to-use process in which complaints about nudity, pornography or harassment can be made confidentially via hyperlinks placed throughout the site, and via abuse@facebook.com
2) Facebook promises to address complaints about nudity or pornography or unwelcome contact within 24 hours, and to report back to the complainant with action steps within 72 hours.
3) Facebook agreed to have their review process and execution examined by a third party. The auditor will be called an Independent Safety and Security Examiner (ISSE – pronounced “ice”), who will report bi-annually to the AGs office, and may recommend additional safety measures concerning complaint handling.
When I asked the Attorney General who was going to be the ISSE man, who was going to pay for his services, and whether or not best practices would be shared with Facebook competitors, he got particularly animated. "Facebook pays!" he laughed, pointing to Chris Kelly, who also laughed along with the reporters. The AG's office would approve of the verifier Facebook selects, said Cuomo, expecting it "will be a qualified company, with proficiency in this area." The compliance review period will last two years.
Cuomo said that he believed that this was the first time that this sort of independent oversight had been instituted, and he hoped it would spread throughout the 2.0 world. "I think it’s fair to say that Facebook will have the safest interaction of its kind in the marketplace. The extent to which the competitors of Facebook will have to become safer to compete with Facebook - I think that’s a good thing." He hailed the public/private partnership aspect of the agreement. "The government and the private sector are working together to make the private sector more competitive... and we have a race to the top and a race to a safer site, that is a good thing."
Chris Kelly also shared some details about the company's existing safety personnel.“We will welcome the Independent Safety and Security Examiner to work closely with me and the other members of our Privacy and Safety team, including former Indiana Attorney General Jeff Modisett, and former Federal Trade Commissioner Mozelle Thompson.” This came as news to me. When I followed up with Facebook, I learned that Modisett and Thompson are outside consultants and have been working with the company for about two years; the rest of the core security team of ten people consists of customer service and security experts on staff. The front line customer service team is now 100 strong - doubling in size since March - and handles the day to day customer service issues, with oversight from the core team.
Although it's too soon to determine how much this will ultimately cost Facebook - compliance audits, new technology, new staff, etc. - they've done a fine job thus far responding to a very serious problem. And they've made some heady promises - answering a complaint withing 24 hours, reporting some sort of resolution within 72 hours is going to take some serious doing. Clearly the wizards who stay up late will take on user safety as a math problem, and find interesting new ways that technology can detect and circumvent unwanted behavior on the site. And the human beings who handle the training, phones and investigations will no doubt step up as well. And increase in number. Dramatically, I imagine.
I'm guessing that (alleged) Microsoft money will come in handy.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 3, 2007
01:00 am | 0 recommendations | 7 comments
Wal-Mart, take your victory lap.
Wal-Mart announced yesterday that the company has blown past an ambitious goal of selling 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs by the end of 2007 -- three months early. This is no small deal for the Arkansas based retailer, or the environment. Over the lifetime of the CFLs, Wal-Mart estimates that these energy-saving bulbs will have the effect of taking 700,000 cars off the road or conserving the energy needed to power 450,000 single-family homes. And although the swirly bulbs are pricier (at least for now) than their incandescent cousins, Wal-Mart customers can save up to $350 a year on average by making the switch, the company says.
Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott clearly deserves a lot of credit for this. To understand the impact of his decision to make CFLs a priority for Wal-Mart, I’d recommend re-reading my pal Charles Fishman’s award winning analysis, How Many Light Bulbs Does It Take To Change The World? Not only does Fish do the detailed math of what the bulb means for the consumer and the environment, he tells a nail-biter of a story of how Lee Scott convinced GE's Jeffrey Immelt to radically disrupt GE's own light bulb business. Fish writes: “Once Wal-Mart decides to make swirls an important product, the appeal for GE also becomes clear. It's the power of the big dog: GE can either help Wal-Mart sell swirls, or some other lightbulb company will. In either case, GE's regular-bulb business shrivels.” Tough call. We now know who won. Everybody.
I met Scott briefly after his appearance at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative last week. His plenary was the event opener; he was on stage with Al Gore, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Phillipines, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and World Bank President Robert Zoellick. The topic: The Need for Global Change. The panel was moderated by Clinton himself. Scott opened with some folksy humor - when he was misintroduced by the announcer, he quipped, “Since I was just introduced as the president of Afghanistan, it dawned on me that there are tougher jobs in the world than the one I have.”
Clinton lobbed him a rambling question on big business and sustainable thinking: "How did you decide this would be good for your shareholders, your company and most of all for your customers? At least in the US, the Wal-Mart customers are people who have to watch every last dollar they spend…. [Since] median incomes are flat, they’re spending more for energy, health care, housing and higher education - how can you make this work for them?"
Scott replied:
"You think about the people in this audience [from governments, NGOs] and that the world is facing significant challenges. And at Wal-Mart, the question you had to ask yourself - is there a role for business in these issues that society faces? You have to come to terms with what has traditionally been the argument that there is a conflict between contributing to the social good and running a business. And thanks to great guidance from associates - both internal and external - what we’ve realized as a company is that if we’re going to resolve the problems that are talked about in this forum, it’s going to take all of us. We can’t wait for government. Business already has a bias for action and business has the ability to allocate capital - both human capital and financial capital - to address these issues. Business has the opportunity to create innovation that can resolve many of the issues that we’ve talked about, specifically to climate change. What has, I guess, shocked us is that there are benefits far beyond what we thought about."
When quizzed on where they were on the light bulb goal - he dodged it with a simple, "we're on track." Turns out they were.
But he did offer another interesting product innovation update:
"First of all, our whole premise is that we save people money so that they can live better. What we’ve found as we’ve gone down this journey of sustainability is that the first things we’re doing is that we’re taking waste out of this whole stream of products and things that all of us are using. And they’re not exotic decisions. One in fact I talked to General Mills about, is that they straightened the noodles on Hamburger Helper. And that more noodles now go into the box and the boxes are now smaller. And thousands of tons of waste are eliminated."
This drew giggles of delight from the audience, and deservedly so – the noodle bit was delivered perfectly deadpan, but finished with a big grin. It's real news: We reported on this change by General Mills in the upcoming issue of Fast Company Magazine. Scott undersold the accomplishment - the redesigned packaging shaved 20% off the box, requiring 500 fewer distribution trucks on the road each year without changing the consumer's expectation of the product. And it's sort of funny to think about what must have happened behind the scenes as Scott was on the phone with people from General Mills quizzing them on how they might save the earth through better packaging. I like to imagine him tearing off the top of the Hamburger Helper box and peering in, personally pondering the noodle question, perhaps the flavor packet. In any event, it won over the crowd.
Scott continued:
"It's basic business practices that ultimately cause the price of the product itself to go down ... and it’s better for the environment. [Is Hamburger Helper actually cheaper now? HH fans, please advise - em] I’d underestimated that our suppliers were waiting for us to ask [about sustainability] - when we started asking the question. When we started asking the question, it all actually accelerated.”
This remark drew guffaws from the media pit I had been herded into - there is no doubt things accelerate when H. Lee Scott is on the line. As folksy and poised as he is when chatting about straight noodles or swirly bulbs, his is going to be a tough call to take when he rings you up to big dog your business into sustainability submission. But I bet Jeff Immelt is glad he did. As we all should be.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 24, 2007
03:33 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
The polls have closed and the clear winner is Kayak, the online travel search site.
In just two years, Kayak has emerged as a consumer favorite, and consistently receives high marks in travel site rankings.
And now, they'll be the opening panel of the Momentum Growth Conference produced by Dealmaker Media. I've been a huge fan of Kayak's co-founder Paul English since his Get Human days. Now, I'm looking forward to getting to know more about Kayak, why it's working and what's coming next.
Thanks to all who voted.
Join us on October 4th in Mountain View, CA:
The Momentum Growth Conference honors 15 industry leaders dominating the web. The companies who’ve been chosen have real customers, revenues, partnerships, and have seen significant traffic growth over the last 12-18 months.
See you next month...
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 19, 2007
02:10 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Some returning Iraq war veterans are facing another battle at home: The fight to find a job. In fact, unemployment among young veterans is significantly higher than non-veterans in the same age group, mostly 22-24, and dramatically higher than the general population at large. This is frustrating from a moral standpoint, but also troubling from a practical one: Why aren't the skills taught in the military translating more easily into the private sector?
The reasons, no doubt, are complicated, but part of the solution might be found on the web. Consider Staff Sergeant Brian Teachey, who was recently profiled on the CBS Evening News. After thirteen years in the Marine Corps, and a tour in Iraq, he came home and couldn’t find a job. Nine months later, drowning in bills, he was evicted from his home. But hope finally came when he stumbled on an innovative networking site that links returning war veterans and employers who would love to hire them. He found a job in 48 hours and is beginning the process of getting his life back on track.
Hireahero.org was launched in January by Gulf War veteran and entreprener Dan Caulfield. (he’s been profiled many times by our sister publication, Inc.) Caulfield was determined to use the power of the internet to help veterans transition into the private sector, mostly by matching them with employers who want them, but also by helping them translate their military skills into private sector resume points. (He also makes a strong case that employers should be making more of an effort to hire veterans.) He's had some experience - he was the Managing Director of Helmets to Hardhats, a military transition program that helped over 65,000 military personnel find jobs in the construction industry. His latest effort hopes to leverage the power of social networking to help veterans find jobs in any industry.
He also seems like a pretty nice guy, as the CBS news feature shows.
Hireahero.org has many typical social networking features – users can create a profile, add photos, include their service information, job skills, etc – and add each other as buddies. Employers can post detailed job openings. But the best aspects of the site get the veterans off the web and back into the real world. One of my favorite features allows a user to plug in their zip code and find other nearby job seekers, terrific for encouraging a real world support network. It also identifies employers with specific jobs that might be found in their area. (The information shows up as clickable "dog tags" over a localized map. Quite cool.) The site also announces networking events, resume clinics and skills training opportunities as they occur.
Caulfield started hireahero.org with $500,000 of his own money; the site relies on donations and is seeking corporate sponsorships. Since their January launch, more than 600 companies have signed on, and more than 1,000 veterans have found work.
I’ve interviewed a lot of war veterans over the years, and their stories – survival, sacrifice, loss - are never easy to hear. I heard those stories in my own home: My father was a World War II combat veteran. He served, like thousands of others, in the segregated army. He showed up, did his duty, then came back to an America that wouldn’t let him vote. It added layer of horror to his tale that is hard to imagine today.
But my Dad - who grew up dirt poor, undereducated and with one, hard-working parent - also met another America, a compassionate one. This America presented itself in the form of the G.I. Bill, ground-breaking legislation that made it easy for veterans to go back to school. My Dad was able to roll up his sleeves and get both a law degree and masters of social work. Networking through friends, which seemed easier back in the day, he found meaningful work as a lawyer and executive at the Children’s Aid Society in New York. And, he was able to do all the things that people ought to be able to do when they do the right things – live in a nice home, support a wife and kid, and feel good about what he did all day. When I think of all the people, myself included, who were the beneficiaries of the freedom he fought for both abroad and at home, I'm amazed and proud.
But he got a lot of help.
If he were alive today, I'm sure that he would wish nothing less for our returning veterans and their communities. We all should.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 14, 2007
12:44 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments
In case you haven’t noticed it’s startup fever back in the Bay Area/ Silicon Valley; my trusted sources tell me that they’re partying like it’s 1999 out there. Do you blame them? Many of the hottest young companies leading the web 2.0 trend today are based there - an interesting fact in and of itself – and according to Comscore web traffic rankings, these companies are gaining hyper speed traction. So what, you say? Well, what if you could identify the next break-out company of the year? Is there a company on the horizon as interesting and disruptive as Facebook?
Here's why I ask: I’ve been invited to interview one of these fast-movers as the opening panel of a cool sounding conference in Silicon Valley called Momentum Growth Conference produced by Dealmaker Media . (We just covered the conference in the magazine that should be arriving in your snail mailboxes any minute now; as soon as the article goes live, I'll link to it here.) And in case you think it's so much smoke and mirrors, it’s worth noting that the Momentum Company of the Year last year was none other than Facebook.
Here’s the official word from the Mo' folks:
The Momentum Growth Conference honors 15 industry leaders dominating the web. The companies who’ve been chosen have real customers, revenues, partnerships, and have seen significant traffic growth over the last 12-18 months.
They're asking me to pick the company to interview. But why should I have all the fun? In the Fast spirit of “crowd-sourcing” – putting the community in the driver’s seat - I’m asking you to help. I figure our collective wisdom will yield better results than just my research alone. (Besides, Fast Company is an editorial partner for the conference. So it's more fair this way.)
We’ve put our bets on five companies for you to pick from (see below.)
Thanks for the help. Voting stops next Friday, September 21st at noon, EST, so you have plenty of time to do your due diligence, if that's your thing. (I hope it is.) Your collective pick will be announced shortly after that.
Powered by Wufoo
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 5, 2007
11:26 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
One of my favorite innovators, Current TV, has been nominated for their first Emmy Award.
This is no small accomplishment. Current, the cable network started jointly by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, is barely two years old, and had a challenging gestation and birth. (You can read more about the growth of Current in my recent feature story here.) But it came into being with the lofty goal of revolutionizing the way television was programmed -- something that broke open the black box of television and let viewers have a direct say in what went on the air. “It had to be transformational and democratic,” Gore told me.
Signs of success are all around them -- profitability in record time, gushing advertisers, growing viewership -- but an Emmy nod has got to feel pretty good. I’m madly checking Emmy history now, but I believe it may be the youngest cable network to garner any sort of nomination. The buzz on the street is that they’re a good bet to win – and rumor has it that the former Veep will be cutting short his vacation to be in the audience when the winner is announced on September 16th. The category is for Outstanding Creative Achievement in Interactive Television, and will be held during the 2007 Primetime Emmy® Awards.
Current TV is a fascinating story on many levels, not the least of which was the struggle to figure out what Current would ultimately become. (Another early senior staffer, Joanna Drake Earl, shared her recollections here.) While reporting the magazine story, I interviewed David Neuman, their chief programming honcho. He was clearly the right choice. His producer creds spanned entertainment – he was a producer of everything from NBC’s Cosby, Cheers and Family Ties, to award winning news programming on Channel One. He ultimately became the president of Walt Disney Television and Touchstone Television, and was heading up a cutting edge Internet entertainment company when Current knocked on his door. He’s a person of unusual humor and energy, the kind of guy that you would not only want in your lifeboat, but would help you forget that you needed to be in one in the first place. His unsinkable spirit served him well in Current’s early days:
“It was Oct 2004, nine months before we launched. There were about nine people, four of whom were senior execs. Joel [Hyatt] told me when he wanted the network to launch -- August 2005. I looked around. There was no phone, no computer, no staff to speak of, no library, no content, no concept, nothing. Just a really really cool, but empty office.” Neuman takes a dramatic pause. “I said you’re kidding, right?” After Hyatt and Gore stared back at him – “really, really silently” -- Neuman thought to himself, “oh my God. They’re not kidding.” He chuckled at the memory. “It was around March or April that I got down on my hands and knees and said 'I’m begging you to give me some extra time!'”
There was none to be had. Hyatt and Gore had bought a Canadian news network, NWI, and the programming was scheduled to end August 1st. After that, there would be dead air -- and the people associated with the old network had already been let go and reassigned. “There was no net. It was like I’d gone through the five stages of grief, but the bargaining phase didn’t work out so well,” he laughed.
Neuman was so generous with his time, and so little of his direct voice got into the final piece, that I'm posting most of his Q&A with me here. It's long I know, but will certainly come in handy for any intrepid reader who wants to start a cable network, or, who simply wants to think about engaging their constituents in a deeper way.
FC: What’s the name of the thingee on the bottom left of the screen that tells me how far along the pod is? Why is that important?
We refer to it as the Progress Bar -- is there any other name for it? When Frank Lentz (who is Sr. VP, Creative Affairs) and I were conceiving of the format, we were committed to reinventing a news and information product for a young adult audience. As such, we were always trying to innovate, and this was one of those innovations, which of course we borrowed from computer conventions, but we thought it was quite applicable and useful for our unique TV product. We just thought it would be cool, and useful. We were surprised at how many people commented, and still comment, about how much they like it. It's also become sort of iconic for the network, and now we're seeing it imitated here and there, which we find amusing.
As a programmer and storyteller, I liked it for another reason: it poses what is classically called a “dramatic question.” Namely, what happens next? And something else is coming soon. So we thought that, in a linear viewing experience, it helps our “stickiness” because if for whatever reason you’re not enthralled by what you are seeing now, don’t worry, something else is coming up soon. Look -- the bar is half over! As we used to say when I worked at Disney, if you don’t like the weather around here, stick around five minutes.
FC: How big is the programming team?
There are about 160 programming-related employees in the US, and 20 or so in the UK. In the US slightly more than half are in San Francisco and slightly less than half in LA. Of course that's not counting the hundreds and hundreds of vc2 contributors, who are not technically employees but who are responsible for so much of the creative product. We have very few "executives," almost no bureaucracy, and virtually all those people either facilitate the contributions of our audience or make stuff.
FC: What is the process by which the network created programming goes on the air? Who, for example, chooses the Current Controversy? What issues come up at programming meetings? How often do you hold them?
First and foremost, we are taking our cues from the audience -- the vc2 contributors, uploaders, etc. all bring us content, and of course the community online express opinions, suggests ideas, and so forth, and we are always listening carefully and responding. There are probably 25 of us internally who read every piece of email from every viewer too. The decision-making inside the organization is deliberately diffused, so that lots and lots of people with a wide range of perspectives "decide" what is getting on the air. (And of course we put on what the online community vote on each week.)
We have several production units, each of which is empowered to greenlight content: Vanguard, v2 in the UK and the US, Google Current, a "Radar" unit (which produces the super-short information pods, like about what dvds are being released, or new books, etc.), and small units in LA and San Francisco that produce pods of all kinds. Everyone knows all of the pod family names, like Current Controversy, and individuals throughout the organization, on both continents, choose the pod family that is most relevant for a pod, including "Current Controversy."
Speaking practically, and not counting the community, upwards of 50 people probably make direct, individual decisions of what gets on the air. And that’s also not counting the “Google Top Rising Searches” pod that appears often at the bottom of the hour. That pod is largely auto-generated with up-the-hour information about what the top rising searches are, and aside from profanties that might be intercepted, by master control, the information goes directly from the audience’s searching behavior on Google to our television screen.
There is a major programming meeting each morning, and both continents participate. Ideas are constantly discussed, especially as they concern news events of the day and week, so that we can make sure what we're programming and scheduling is as "current" as possible. For instance, if we know that people in our audience are all talking about something, or interested in something that's going on, we try to make sure that we're responsive to that. Of course, as always, our first instinct is to get something directly from the audience, through vc2 uploads or outreach directly to the vc2 community. So vc2 weighs in and lets everyone know what they have or what they might get. Now, if the story is something we might call a "Current Controversy" -- which might be anything from immigration issues to Viacom suing YouTube, there might be something we can do internally to complement and supplement the pieces that we get from vc2. Often it might be a cool piece that explains the facts behind the controversy, analyzes it a bit, and gives more useful information for the conversation amongst the viewers.
Besides the daily meetings, there are programming meetings of all kinds going on all the time. Individual departments meet to constantly revise, improve, and re-focus their efforts on what's current -- surfing the waves of events and viewer interest to try to make a compelling product every day. Short- and long-turn ideas are always being discussed and adjusted. We dial up or dial down production or scheduling on topics according to their relevance, every day. And of course we try to keep our eye on the larger ball of our mission and goals, and to strive for excellence in staying true to them.
We do have an extra vetting and review process for pods that are considered journalistically sensitive -- to make sure the facts are correct, and that if it's produced by Current, it's not one-sided.
FC: How does your programming philosophy drive your business model, or is it the other way around?
Al and Joel have always said that the mission comes first, and everyone knows that. They paired up the mission with the outstanding business model of cable television, with its lucrative dual-revenue stream, to give us an excellent and financially secure start. They determined that business model would support the mission best and they were right. We developed the programming philosophy directly off of the mission: to democratize the media, and do something transformational. So we reverse-engineered a network so that it would be structured exactly for those goals: vc2, shortform (to enable meaningful participation by everyone), sharing the programming decisions with the audience, etc.
FC: Are there any plans to add your version of more “traditional” programming -- like a talk show, game show or anchor-style news program?
The audience tells us over and over that they like that we're different and unique. The shuffle format and our unique pod "families" make us an alternative to all of the networks that feature half-hour and one-hour shows; the audience likes that and we like that. This is all so radical that we did some testing, just to make sure we weren't out of our minds. As it turns out, even the testing company was shocked at how favorably the programming and innovative structure were received by the target audience. (That's not supposed to happen! Witness "Seinfeld's" legendary bad test -- things that are new and different often test badly.) While anything is possible, the "anchor-style news program" in particular would seem to be a non-starter with our audience, which doesn't accept the authority-figure concept of a traditional anchor, and is bored out of its mind by traditional "news". So I couldn't see that happening. As to other genres, we'll listen carefully to the audience and take their cues. Hard to imagine us doing what everyone else does, because the audience doesn't want us to.
FC: The on-air talent all seem incredibly nice. Even the snarkier offerings – your news “reader” for example, stops short of true “Colbert Report” snottiness. Is that by design?
Haha, no, not by design, but what an interesting observation. I think what you're observing is attributable to the fact that Generation Y, of which they are almost all a part, is, generally speaking, actually a very upbeat, entrepreneurial, optimistic group. Cynicism, snottiness, pessimism, and all of that are actually more characteristic of Gen Xers and Baby Boomers, in my experience. So I’m not surprised that our on-air talent are quintessentially Generation Y. Max and Jason, whom I think are the epitome of what you are describing, started their careers by pitching themselves to Current with a short film they made about hedonism vs. spirituality. Laura Ling, Mariana Van Zeller, Nzinga Blake...as I think through the list, I can tell you that we were just trying to hire the most interesting, smart people we could find, who had something relevant to say and whom the audience would want to watch. And over and over again, they seem to not share the cynicism of older generations. That's just the way it is (and it's fine with me). Now of course I'm generalizing but I think you get the point -- and I think if you throw the net out there with that age group you will notice the same thing. And keep in mind, the average age of our on-air talent is probably 25. That's extremely young for just about any adult network. Even the greats of the other networks -- Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, et al -- are 20 years older. They're in a different cultural zone than our folks.
FC: What are your programming standards? Even your “Current Hotties” are fairly tame. Any plans to add spicier programming –- in the HBO vein? Why? Does that include foul language?
I am chuckling because I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder...we certainly do adult topics all the time. (Meth and Sex comes to mind, which was the name of a pod we did about a new HIV epidemic caused by risky behavior amongst meth addicts in major cities.) Our programming concept is that we're about what's going on for young adults, in their voice, and from their point of view, and we just try to be real and authentic to the subject. Sometimes the subject is g-rated and sometimes it's adult. These things also tend to fluctuate on our air because what's "current" ebbs and flows. Certainly we don't avoid adult topics and situations in pods -- it seems that almost every day we specify that a given pod needs some type of warning to viewers, and/or needs to be scheduled in adult hours (which for us ranges from 9pm to 6am EDT and midnight-6am EDT for even more "mature" subjects). (Are you watching largely in the daytime?) We try to err on the side of telling the "truth" of a story -- and sometimes that "truth" needs to be seen with four-letter-words intact. Of course we have to conform to the standards that are in our contracts with operators, and the standards are different for subscription cable (like HBO) than they are for channels like us, MTV, FX, etc.
FC: As a follow-up -- I watched a pod, a truly riveting one, about an African woman who had been beaten by a mob organized by her husband after she asked him to wear a condom. It was brutal, graphic, and true –- and included a small amount of nudity. Frankly, I can’t stop thinking about it. How does that pod comply with your standards?
Well, in order to tell that very important story truthfully, we couldn't sugarcoat it or excise what was most jarring about it. I hope that you would not find it gratuitous, either. (So often that's the test -- do we really need to include that element to tell the story truthfully and correctly? Or are we just showing it for its "tabloid" or lurid appeal?) But we always ran it with a warning that it contains disturbing imagery.
FC: In a weird way, Current sort of feels like a 24 hour short-documentary film festival. (I was STUNNED when I realized how much time had passed and I was still happily watching.) Is this the vibe you’re going for? Will it stay this way?
Well when we designed the format, we were hoping it would have exactly that effect: to be addictive, surprising, unpredictable, and keep you watching. The word “addictive” comes up in our email more than any other adjective when people describe us. And I’m delighted that, even in “one screen” mode, you experienced that. We aim to make it an addiction that no one has to feel badly about. When we conceived of the progress bar, and the various (automatically generated) “coming up” graphics, and the extreme variety of the content, what we hoped for was that it would have exactly the effect you described.
FC: How much time, on average, does your programming team spend coaching/supporting viewer created content? How does it happen? On phone? E-mail? What is the ratio of true newcomers to professional camera operators? (There’s a 16 year old kid who created an AMAZING Sony ad. Is that common?) How much editing do you do once something is voted up the food chain and gets on the air for either the VC2 stuff or the VCAMs?
It’s very hard to answer this question because vc2 permeates everything we do; we don’t keep records about what percentage of time or what hours and minutes all of our 180 programming staff spend dealing with vc2. In a sense, our entire network’s central purpose and activity is coaching and supporting vc2 content. Our vc2 teams in LA, San Francisco, and London are in constant contact with vc2 producers everywhere -- all over the world. With regard to true newcomers to professionals, I don’t know the exact ratio, but non-professionals (as we would define as people who don’t earn their living producing video content) certainly outnumber professionals. One of our more prolific producers, someone in the medical field, told us that he had never picked up a camera before seeing Current, and he learned what he knows through our training on the website. Our vc2 staffers communicate with vc2 contributors in every way. And one of the more interesting anecdotes is that some of our most urgent and compelling vc2 pods were uploaded to us from crisis zones via instant messenger. (Two that come to mind are one from Gaza during combat there and one from New Orleans during the Katrina disaster.) So other than smoke signals we seem to figure out every imaginable way to not only communicate with our vc2 community, but to get their work product.
Re the 16 year olds, that generation is almost as likely to make media as to consume it, so we just aren’t surprised anymore, but I will say this: I think Current will be the first job and first big exposure for a tremendous number of media professionals in the 21st century. It’s an unprecedented place for the next generation of Edward R. Murrows, Christiane Amanpours, Anderson Coopers, and even Spielbergs and Spike Lees to get their start. We provide an unprecedented open-door for people to tell an important story, make innovative media, and communicate with their peer group both on tv and online.
FC: I find the visual elements of your programming, from the pods to the promos, quite beautiful. What is your philosophy on this? How do you describe your visual identity?
Our objective was very immodest: to create the most beautiful, innovative TV network around to look at. We wanted our music and graphics to set a new high-water mark in mind-blowing beauty. We still are very ambitious beyond where we already are--but of course, we’re delighted you like it!
One thing that we accepted from the beginning was that, as a startup network on a lean-and-mean budget, we were not going to be able to outspend the big networks on programming. But funny thing about graphics--it doesn't cost more to make beautiful graphics than to make ugly ones. But the aesthetic of most networks is pretty tired and ugly, to be truthful. And there are so many great young graphic artists out there, just dying to get a chance to express something new, innovative, and cool. So it was very easy--just tell them to make something really cool and let them go do it. And then have the nerve to put it on the air. It helps that because our audience is young adults, we never have to worry about being ahead of their sensibilities. We are their sensibilities--and vc2 will always keep us that way.
By the way, one thing that drives us all nuts is the amount of signal degradation that happens routinely in television. So we're just grateful that what starts out as stunning when it's on one of our artist's computers is not completely wrecked by the time it gets to you. It really does lose about 80% of its vividness and clarity most of the time, especially way up the dial, like we are. This will all change with HD and other improvements, but it's very annoying now.
FC: Why did you want this job?
Well first of all, let me just say that I’m grateful to have it. Why did I want it? There’s a graffiti artist in our “storytelling” module of our online training who describes the allure of the “White Train.” That was like the Holy Grail for a graffiti artist: sneaking into a yard of subway trains and finding a pristine white one, untouched. Current was my white train. I really got turned on by how radical and ambitious Joel and Al were -- they wanted to do something extremely different, and empowering to its audience, and important. They had, and have, a soul beyond wanting just a successful business. They wanted to do something democratizing and transformational. Beyond that, they were openminded about everything else: the format, the aesthetic, the look and feel, the style and the substance. In short, it was a creative person’s dream come true. I mean, how much more fun could you have than that?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
