Regulation as a business model

One of the most potent business models, you can have, is if the use of your product or service is directly mandated by law. Or, in the absence of the complete model, heavily subsidized by law.

When something becomes a law, it automatically drives decisions; people and organizations are required to do x, y and purchase z – your product – to stay within the law or at least get subsidized by the government (which has roughly the same effect on helping grow your revenues).

What could be better?

Let’s say you’re in HealthTech. You may not necessarily be required by law, but indirectly the laws governing subsidies for specific treatments can materialize into official recommendation for treatments that specifically includes your product or service.

You become a de facto public standard.

If you can make it to this point, you have really got it made.

Getting there, though, is super, super hard. Because if there are things, you don’t control and should have no ambition to even try to control let alone influence heavily, it’s lawmaking and the creation of rules and regulations.

Ok, you could have the ambition to influence it. But the obvious risk is that by choosing that as a focus, you end up spending your time and effort in the wrong way.

Because no matter your best efforts, you have absolutely no guarantee that you will end up being successful in your endeavors. Quite on the contrary; the overwhelming risk is that you will come up short. And then you will have nothing to show for it.

The best thing you can do is therefore to figure out where you can join to apply gentle pressure – trade organizations of any sort, special interest groups – and then show up, when there is an opportunity to do so, speak your case. And then let them do the heavy lifting for you.

That will effectively allow you to have a leg in both camps: On the one hand you’re trying to influence a development that furthers your ambition in the long run, while you’re busy executing on your business plan on the short term.

(Photo: Pixabay.com)

Twitter finally makes a move

The new Super Follower feature from Twitter looks super interesting; the ability for a user to offer special perks to followers, who choose to pay a monthly fee.

One thing, we should immediately be asking ourselves: What took Twitter so long?

Tiered access and perks is nothing new at all. Lots of different services have had it for years. Dating sites is a great example, where it has long been the norm, you couldn’t contact someone and keep a conversation going, unless you were a paying member.

It should be a slam dunk for Twitter.

Unless of course, they blow this too.

There probably isn’t a big service out there, who have botched so many opportunities to develop their product and their business model as Twitter has. Anyone remember Vine which was TikTok before someone in China got that idea. Thought so.

I do however think there is a chance that Twitter will get it right this time. I don’t think you should underestimate the profound change that occurred when Twitter finally decided to kick the former US president to the curb for life.

It was a watershed moment. The lid came off the tube, and Twitter is in a different place now. So they should be able to do this.

For users it will also be interesting. From the looks of it, it will be super easy to create a Super Follower package, set a price and cater to the needs of that special paying audience. When you enable opportunity and make it dead simple for people to take it up for themselves, usage usually follows.

For media it will also be very interesting. Twitter just made it super easy for any user with some insight and expertise in something to create their own personal brand and get compensated for it. At the same time Twitter has a reach built into it that most media companies can only dream of.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this – or something like this – ends up being a preferred go-to-market plan for journalistic talent that would otherwise have chosen the more traditional media route. And that will in itself carry yet another branch to the bonfire of old medias imploding business model.

Interesting times.

PS. Big hattip to Prof G who saw this coming from a mile.

(Photo: Pixabay.com)

Celebrate invalidation

There is one thing we often forget when we talk about validating ideas and business models for startups (or any other entity for that matter);

That it is also an accomplishment to invalidate something.

Usually we have a tendency to see things that didn’t work out as extremely wasteful from which only fractions can be saved for later use. If we’re lucky, that is.

Nothing could be more wrong.

Not only do we get immense learning when something doesn’t go according to plan. Here everything is only lost if we forget to put those learnings to good use the next time we venture into something new.

We also save precious time. Especially if we manage to get to the invalidation of an idea or a business model relatively quickly.

Why?

Because if we conclude that something is not worth doing, it’s better to get to that point sooner rather than later, so you don’t spend to much on something that is going nowhere.

Simple really.

Add to all of the above that one of the hardest things is to work diligently to try to destroy your own idea, before it gets to far, and the picture of invalidation as something to be celebrated every bit as much as successes are become that much clearer.

(Photo: Pixabay.com)

The media circus

A coalition of Danish media companies are out with an open letter trying to yet again put pressure on Danish parliament to regulate Big Tech.

The rationale seems to be that the timing couldn’t be better; the role of Big Tech – especially social media – in recent US events these last few weeks have highlighted that we do indeed have a problem, we need to pay attention to and figure out to do with.

But does it really relate to Danish media subsidy policy? Now that’s a different discussion. So let’s try to break that discussion down a bit.

The first argument, media companies make, is that tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter offers publicity to all kinds of fringe arguments. While that is undoubtedly true, let’s not forget that quite a lot of the content that gets shared actually come from media who have made it part of their core strategy to cater to the clickbait SoMe-mob, if we can call it that.

Media companies are not entirely without a responsibility of their own here, IMHO. It would be nice of them to at least own up to some of it.

Now, a lot of the questionable content comes from alternative news sources whose whole business model is built around creating a stir from fake news and draw attention to themselves. Trying to force Big Tech to compensate legacy media for content will (a) not deter these one bit and (b) probably also mean these alternative sources would have to be compensated.

Unless of course you think, legislation should be skewed towards catering for very special interests. But I digress.

You could in fact argue that some of the arguments being put forward by legacy media sounds an awful lot like how a oligopoly would find it useful to try and divide and conquer the market between them to suit their own purposes however noble or not those might seem to be.

As a follow-up from that let’s just for a second remember that what the media companies are essentially complaining about – near monopoly power with a couple of industry players – is what they essentially had themselves with their printing presses back in the good ol’ pre-internet days.

Those were the days.

So let’s just be clear what this is really about then:

It is about trying to ensure that more subsidies goes from someone with the ability to make money (or print their own, aka the government) to someone with a dwindling ability to make money themselves.

The song is an old one: Big Tech has disrupted the advertising market, and unless someone or something compensates us for the loss we have accrued due to the changing times, new technologies, more efficient opportunities for advertisers etcetera, we could be going away soon. So please: Send more money.

The problem is real. No doubt about it. Many annual reports no matter which company in which market will tell you the same.

But the question is whether it’s the right time to use an attempt at sedition in the US to once again beat the old, limp pony of a failed business model that should be fully compensated for by everyone else but the ones who have so far struggled to find a viable alternative?

Personally I would prefer if the energy was spent entirely (and yes, I know a lot of energy is going into this space) of finding a way to once again be the best option for advertisers, when they need to market their products and services.

Only real product and value innovation can help bring about that change.

Having said that I fully assume media companies to continue their efforts to turn back time to when they were in the very position they now complain Big Tech is in.

(Photo: Pixabay.com)

The gig economy challenge

I have never been a big believer in and much less a huge fan of the gig economy.

My analysis has been pretty straightforward : A few get rich or richer by taking advantage of the misfortunes of many.

Maybe it’s time to be a bit more nuanced. Because the gig economy is not one thing; it is several. I count at least three variations, and then the question becomes which one of the three should we progress given that there are some flexibility elements in the gig economy that are appealing to many?

Let’s briefly look at the three versions:

In the privileged version you enable people to get the most of their experience and expertise by helping them build upon their personal brands and get it out to more people, who pay for the privilege of special access.

Think Substack and what they enable content providers to do through paid niche newsletters.

In the convenience version you agree to a marriage of convenience a la “I scratch your back, you scratch mine”, where you get something for your troubles, but it’s not the main thing for you.

Think Uber and their drivers, where many of the latter get an extra income whenever they want to top what they do elsewhere, and Uber gets a flock of mechanical turks to make their service work, until we have self-driving cars or some other form of non-human door-to-door transportation.

It works until it doesn’t anymore. And that’s ok. It’s life.

The final version is the exploitation version. This is the unfortunate fundamentally unsustainable business model in a modern society, where clever people with a certain kind of moral compass use the misfortunes of other people to build a business and enrich themselves.

Why is it unsustainable? Because it does nothing to even the playing field. On the contrary it expands the gulf between the ‘haves’ and the ‘haves not’ in terms of income and prosperity, and looking at it through a historical optic it seldom ends really well for society.

This is where we have services such as meal delivery service Wolt whose business model IMHO is centered around a beautiful UX – or if you prefer; lipstick on a pig – a sizeable fee for participating (typically low margin) restaurants on every transaction and very little ending up with the ‘partners’ (i.e. not ’employees’ with any rights whatsoever) who do the brunt of the actual work.

This last version of the gig economy is what is giving the gig economy a bad name in many quarters. It may sound nice and flexible, but in reality its implications are poisonous over time to a lot of people. And potentially to society at well.

Looking forward we IMHO need to ensure that the development of a sustainable gig economy focuses on providing opportunity and access to the privileged version of it, for those who seek a more flexible lifestyle related to work and living their lives the way they see fit without in effect nesting at the bottom of society.

We can start that by developing services and programs that help these people deliver enduring value that they can actually capture the brunt of themselves.

(Photo: Pixabay)

Blind purpose

Purpose is a great thing.

Until it kills you and/or your business.

I was reminded of this on LinkedIn when I read a holiday greeting from a former colleague in my feed. He works in a very troubled industry, have had a super challenging year but was none the less grateful to be working on something with great purpose.

It’s all very well. But the trend line is still pointing one way. Down.

If you are working to serve a higher purpose, your biggest obligation as an executive or any sort of employee with just a minimum of clout should be to ensure that you can keep doing what you’re doing – fulfilling your purpose.

If that takes a change in business model, fine. It that takes change(s) to the product(s), fine. If that changes working hard on developing your mental model and understanding what it is that enables you to ultimately do, what you are out to do, fine.

But, for the love of God, don’t just lean back and reflect on your purpose, while the house is on fire.

If you do, it will end up killing you.

(Photo: Pixabay.com)

The new media mixtape

As a former insider turned outsider it continues to be interesting to follow the innovative developments within the media space.

Over a short period of years we have gone from monoliths over new entrants with ambitions to become digital monoliths to individual talents and a plethora of ambitious (monoliths-in-spe?) platforms aggressively hawking their capabilities towards said individual talents.

Name me just one other industry, where the atomization of the business model and its opportunities have been more distributed among those who have the talent to take it on and make something out of it?

Thought not.

The individualization of media is an interesting concept. You don’t subscribe to the omnibus model anymore. You subscribe to a variety of subjects and voices and you’re the editor-in-chief who pieces your own worldview together, independent of media channel(s) and content type(s).

It’s all a big mixtape. But it’s your mixtape.

On the flip side it of course puts into question what happens with the leading common narrative and the common agenda – something we can all relate to and discuss and – by extension – subject our opinions on, ultimately at the ballot box (if we’re so fortunate to live in a society where that is a real and unrestricted civil right for us).

Two points on that:

First of all, media monoliths have by and large done a less than stellar job at guarding that unique role and brought into serious question why it should continue to be theirs to steward.

Second, it is always infinitely better that the opportunities for talent and voices are out there – and more abundantly so than ever – than to have everything on relatively few hands. Like water all the news that remain fit to print will find a way.

(Photo: Pixabay.com)

Go for the consumer

When someone in a startup tells me that they are going for the enterprise segment, I get a ‘gulp’ feeling. In fact the only thing that makes me more anxious is if the startup is going for the public sector.

Why?

Because it can be super tricky to actually sell what you’re doing to them.

In the enterprise your user is often not the one actually paying the bills – especially for larger accounts. This complicates your sale; it doesn’t really matter if rank and file users are excited; if the person, who is going to fork over the cash doesn’t really see or understand the value of what you’re doing, it all may amount to nothing.

Best case? You can spend months and months and months closing just one sale. Worst case? There won’t be any sale despite your ongoing, costly efforts.

For public sector it can be even worse;

Take the complexity of the enterprise sale and add political layers, various discussion and decision fora that need to get aligned without any timely deadline and a procurement process where someone completely detached from what you’re trying to sell is going to decide IF and WHEN they will open up the tender process that’s relevant – and crucial – for your ability to make a substantial sale.

It can quickly turn into a nightmare. And a costly and frustrating one at that with little or no luck in the other end.

Now, I am not saying that it can’t be done. Of course it can. It’s just hard and extremely risky, and you will have to fight more than most for whatever deals you’re able to close. But once you get that done, the reward can be good as well; bigger deals, longer terms, more stability on your revenue etc.

However, I still like the consumer play the most; the shortest possible way to someone with a creditcard willing to pay for whatever kind of relief you bring to the customers pain.

To me, the consumer approach has several advantages;

It can be easier to figure out what the right product is because you can better experiment your way towards a better understanding of your future customer and her pain(s). Your user is your customer.

It can be more efficient to market and ultimately sell, because the journey to get to the individual customer is easier to map and get right.

It can be easier to at least drive trial of your product or service to give consumers a taste of what you can offer – and then deliver above and beyond, so they fall in love with your solution and stick around for more.

And ultimately it can be easier to get the satisfaction of actually having helped someone be better off because of something you did and made available. A feeling you really shouldn’t discount.

(Photo: Pixabay.com)