Have you ever come across a video on youtube about something you have always wanted to watch, because it represented a memory from your childhood or a special moment, or it was a special event that sticked in your mind and you just wanted to revive? Sometimes you get to this video and then a few days later, just like that... it's gone...

Everytime I see this image (or any of its variants) I want to... 

It's so frustrating there aren't pretty words to express what it feels, so I'll ponder about it in today's blog asking the following question: What is the reason why someone can't come up with a business model that can stop this from happening?

"If you build it, they will come"....
In marketing it's "if you build it, it can be marketed"

One of my Marketing teachers taught me that one the principle rules that marketers must learn is that if it can be built it can be marketed. Recently we have had a lot of tension between congress, the MPAA, anonymous, the internet community, dealing about all these copyright rules that are supposed to protect intelectual property. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against copyright, but the position that both parties are taking make the situation very uncomfortable for the community who is neither interesting in stealing anyone's property, nor they want to sabotage the empire of a chaotic cyber society. Let's face it, if I want to watch the highlights of the 1999 All Star MLB game when Pedro Martinez struck out those six hitters like they were 8 year old kids, I should be able to do it. But I can't because there isn't a place where it can be hosted without being taken down for legal reasons; so what if I want to show it to a friend? or a boy who wants to know how good Pedro Martinez was? Why is it a crime to upload a video of content that potentially millions of users want to view. How many of these accounts have been shut down for making information public that has no harm to anyone.

Are you looking for this video on youtube? Sometime soon it may become a myth...

If today February 27th you do a youtube search on Ronaldinho highlights, the first thing that you will notice is how almost every single Ronaldinho highlight video has been removed. You can tell because all the videos that come up as results of the search have less than 1,000 views and the quality of them is very low. About six months ago you could get about ten high quality Ronaldinho video with over a million hits each one. By the way, is it true that the first youtube video that got 1,000,000 hits was that Nike Ronaldinho ad of him hitting the post with the football? Anyway let's move on.

Facebook has proven that advertising is a profitable business as long as you get people interested and hooked to your service. They follow a formula that was developed early by the inital .com portals from the late 90s and was perfected by Google through their resources of Ads. The principle is very simple: you pay what you use and that's it. It has also been translated to other fields in the form of subscription and virtual credits. So in my opinion it is all about finding a balance between those two elements that define economics: supply and demand. Companies like Netflix and Blizzard with their signature product World of Warcraft have been able to find a balance between those two variables, and the harmony works so well that revenues are extremely high and both supplier and consumer are happy with the relationship. What is it that you pay for all monthly movies you want on NetFlix? or how much you pay for a full month of countless hours of play in WOW?

Among the many reasons why the internet got so big to the point where it's at today, I have to say it is because it allowed users to search, find and enjoy bits of information that at some point were thought lost forever or simply too hard to obtain. I'm not only referring to sports highlights, I mean concerts, bloopers from our favorite shows, never seen footage, documentals, historic events that were caught on film, lectures... so many useful resources that can be part of our society and also part of a profitable business.

Only a few -including myself- had seen this rare clip of
John Lennon and Mick Jagger before it was made public on youtube.
Today it's a miracle if it lasts a month without being removed.

I understand youtube's position and the responsibility their are intitled to by having to remove every video that has a copyright infringement; what I don't and can't understand is how come there hasn't been an initiative to meet the needs of supply in demand when it comes to these type of videos. There are a lot of internet users out there who would easily pay for a monthly subscribed service that would feature all their videos on demand, just like there are a lot of companies who would pay to advertise on a website that showed these videos. Instead, we are left today with either poor quality videos or content that is not up to the standards that we are looking for.

When youtube started to get popular, I remember I had serious doubts about its future and the possibility to have an actual website that hosted media survive in time, because I figured most companies and artists were not going to be happy of their free content online. Yet youtube survived and went on to maintain videos that included ranges from cooking lessons, to football or baseball player highlights, to rare concerts and never seen footage from musicians or actors we know and like. Today, we have landed just where I thought we were eventually going to be. A bit later than expected, but well... I can't make perfect accurate predictions.

Certainly no movie studio wants to see a movie of theirs posted on youtube from start to end. I agree with that assessment, however: what if I'm a psycology undergraduate student and I'm fascinated by the interaction scene between Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter  in their initial meeting, and I want to use a small segment of that five minute scene as a resource for a college paper I am writing? Wasn't it easier and more convenient that that particular moment had been uploaded to youtube by another fan who also shared my fascination for it? Instead, I'm left with no choice but to buy the entire movie and find myself a video editor to cut that specific segment. Yes, of course it can be done... but isn't technology supposed to take us forward and not backwards? Isn't technology supposed to make things easier for us and improve our quality of life?

I think that classic scenes deserve their own spot on the web too. They never get old

I may be speculating -as my sources on youtube numbers are non existant-, but I'm willing to put $100 on a table, affirming that youtube's page views have decreased dramatically in the past years due to all the videos that have been removed from their engine. I'll even toss in another example:

The 2012 Australian Open final played last month... Nadal vs Djokovic. It was a live event that drove millions of viewers all over the world, not only to the actual live transmission but also to the re-run of it later the following day. Once it's passed, it exactly ...a thing of the past. The money to be made from it was the day of the actual live event; if anyone wants to make more money from it, I would classify that revenue as "marginal", so any money made from then an onwards is "marginal revenue".  So why not allow its content to become part of a subscribed website that charges consumers a small fee to view any video they want that has copyright laws but can also bring money to their respective sponsors (or producers) on a marginal revenue principle? Six months from now, people will still be interested and looking back to watch the highlights from that classic six hour match, especially when you consider that it was six hours long, and rarely someone is going to sit through it entirely. Thinking that online videos can generate a profit that is entitled and traceable to the original production costs is like saying that Beethoven should receive royalties for everytime his symphonies are posted on youtube. Whoever is interested in either watching the full Nadal vs Djokovic match, or watching Silence of the Lambs, will likely go the extra mile and buy them.

iTunes biggest contribution to us: it revolutioned the whole music and software industry
youtube was close to doing it but now fell behind and has stepped back.
However the opportunity for a business model that combines both is still present. 

Steve Jobs changed the music industry with the introduction of iTunes, a store that makes every bit of sense a business man can make of it. Someone can do a similar model for online videos. Let's sit down, and let's see how can my company can make a profit with the service of offering these videos that so many people demand, and give you a piece of those profits given the fact that you provide the supply for the videos.





.

Small details that make a huge difference

I am a big football (soccer) fan and I'm also into video games. You can picture what the combination of both actually means.

EA Sports' FIFA 12

For a long time I have been playing RTS games, mostly Starcraft to be quite honest. However just recently last year I decided to pick up a football (soccer) simulator, as some of my friends were into it to. I bought myself FIFA 12, one of the many signature games from Electronic Arts. The FIFA franchise is a collection of great games, ever since they began producing them in the 90s. Nowadays they are more then just a simple simulator where you can play Barcelona vs Real Madrid as long as you want to. The online platform that is built to support them is huge... I mean ENORMOUS. You can play with a team, you can play as part of a team, you can buy and sell real life players to build your own team... the spectrum covered is never ending.

Konami's PES

FIFA's biggest rival and competitor is a game called "Pro Evolution Soccer" or simply PES, which is developed by one of the greatest video game companies of all time: Konami, the creators of classics like Castlevania and Super C. Sports hasn't really been Konami's strength through their history, but make no mistake; PES is a great game and a very realistic simulator. I got a copy myself after a played it with a friend, and I was clearly convinced that the game was worth owning. However when comparing this year's editions, FIFA12 against PES 12, reviewers agree how close good both games are, but in the end there seems to be a slight preference towards FIFA 12. Does it have better graphics? Is the simulation better? Is the gameplay faster? Not exactly.

Comparison between
PES and FIFA

The biggest selling point that FIFA 12 has is not exactly a direct characteristic that can be traced to the root of the game. It is something that I would refer to as an additional feature: the licenses of the teams and players names. You see, not all teams and players in PES feature their actual real name; the English Premier League has only two teams, with all the rest being named ... whatever the programmers came up with. So the frequent complaint that comes from anti-PES gamers is that they don't like to use a team called North London, instead of the real Arsenal; or Red Bunch, instead of Manchester United. Now you may ask, how significant is this? Very.

A snapshot of a player carrying
a laser rail gun in Quake 

A few years ago I was having drinks with my video gamer friends and the conversation topic was about the emergence of shooter games, like Quake and Counter Strike, Call of Duty. When questioned about Quake's difficulty and skill needed to be good at it, one of my friends, who at the time was a hardcore Counter Strike gamer, said that he wouldn't ever play Quake and the reason that he gave was that Quake has "fake weapons", whereas Counter Strike you are able to use "real weapons." I thought about it and I found the affirmation a bit ironic. Really?? Fake vs Real weapons ?? In a video game??

The thing is that when it comes to numbers, the amount of gamers playing Counter Strike or Call of Duty is way overwhelming than those who play Quake. You see, CS or COD look "realistic." Of course you are not actually using a real AK47 rifle, but it transmits the sensation as if you were. FIFA 12 does the same thing.

Call of Duty means business

In FIFA 12 a player has ALL teams with ALL the players' real names available at ALL times. Not only that, FIFA 12 has a feature called "live season" that automatically updates your squad to reflect real life conditions. So if a player is injured in real life, he will be injured in your FIFA 12. If a player is in the zone and scoring goals like crazy, he will have a higher skill in your FIFA 12.

I believe this small detail is the reason why FIFA 12 has been able to hold an advantage over PES 12, despite PES being a better game simulator of the actual game per se. So why doesn't Konami buy the licenses? Have they actually studied what would happen to their revenue if they were to spend the cash in this venture? Have they acknowledged that they have the power to become bigger and larger than FIFA12? Who knows....

Counter Strike and COD are games that are easy to play and offer the gamer a sensation of realism that their competitors don't. That's whty they have been so popular.

The bottom line is that I have learned that regardless of what your company does and what the nature of your product or service is, it is VERY important to pay attention to the small details. They can make a huge difference on the demand of your product and therefore your revenue. Even if it costs you a bit of money and you see it as an expense, it may in fact be an investment that may pay off if you are patient enough.

Strengths in the business world and personal life

Strengths vs Weaknesses ...
or just strengths??

I was having a conversation today with three of my MBA professors, and the topic on hand was how do each employee's strengths and weaknesses play into the work environment in an organization. Actually, how to get the best out of your strengths. You may ask: but what about my weaknesses, do I ignore them? Yes.

I remember about last month I was watching the Australian Open tennis grand slam, and the sixteen grand slam title holder and one of the best players in the history of the sport, Roger Federer was being interviewed by the ESPN team of analysts including Brad Gilbert and Patrick McEnroe. They were asking him about how we trains and what did his practice sessions look like nowadays that he is a veteran in the tour, meaning that at this stage it is likely he may not be focused on "improving" a certain aspect of his game, as say his backhand which has always been considered Roger's weakness. Roger's answer was an eye opener:

Roger Federer's strength -his forehand-
has helped him win 16 Grand Slams.
What can your strength do for you?

"I don't really focus on my backhand. I don't practice much of it in my sessions. I kind of concentrate more on my forehand." (which many consider not only Roger's greatest strength, but also the one of the greatest shots of all time in tenis). Roger also added: "I want to practice my forehand because it is my strength, so I want to work on it because it is my greatest weapon. The backhand, I just deal with it during a match." It was amazing to me that one of the greatest tennis players of all time had such a professional approach to the game of tennis and his work model. It is exactly the same reasoning I had acquired in my classes.

I guess it all makes sense when you think that you can exploit your talents when you develop and dedicate all your efforts to make yourself a better professional and a better person. Whether if it's that you are a terrific competitor, you are a relator, an analytical, communicative, responsible, or any other characteristic, the bottom line is that you have a talent inside and this is your strength. It is a quality that can make you become a difference in your organization, and can make you achieve that progress and professional growth you have always been looking for.

Take your time and get yourself an appointment for an assessment test, so you can find out what strengths do you possess and how can you take advantage of them.

Facebook's IPO

By now almost everyone in the business world should be aware of the upcoming IPO of the social network giant called Facebook. Is this good ? bad? I think it's going to be interesting.

From my perspective, there has been a lot of attention towards this event in an unprecedented situation that has rarely be seen in another company. Just about a year ago LinkedIn filled for an IPO and according to several sources, the value of its stock has performed exactly as it was expected. Other companies have performed better or worse, but it is the giants like Google or Apple that were able to keep surpassing their corporate goals time over time, and it is in this matter where tension is high on the potential outcome of the offering of Facebook stock.

I'm going to put the financial goals and expectations to a side and I'm going to concentrate on what I think worries potential investors nowadays: what will Facebook's next move be? You see, when Google went public in 2004, they had already started to expand towards related areas in the internet market: they had figured Google Ads and began laying plans out for products that are normal to most of us today, like Google Chrome and Google Analytics; they also but youtube and the license for Google Earth. The bottom line is that Google had many doors open and many opportunities, and they took them.

So what is Facebook going to do? They can't buy youtube, it's already taken. They can't create Google Ads or Analytics, or Facebook LinkedIn and so on: they are pretty much on their own. Since they are now going to be a public company, they have to live to the expectations of their investors. So this means that they must set goals and new objectives that keep the company growing. It is as simple as if company growth doesn't happen, the value of the stock will not rise. So I guess this is where the core of the problem is.

It is good to become a public company and to raise money from investors that increases the equity of the company, however I they will have to take on the responsibilities that are entitled of being a public.

Who knows: in a few years, we may be seeing a Facebook browser, or a Facebook cell phone software. Those are the kind of goals they have to work on from now and on.

Feb 19 is the birth anniversary of one of the greatest minds that have lived in our planet: Nicolaus Copernicus, the man who began the scientific revolution in Europe and set the foundation for the birth of modern science as we know it today.

In his last published book, "On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres", Copernicus detailed a new theory of planetary motion for our Solar System, which up until the mid 1500s was thought of the Earth as center of the universe, with all the planets and starts moving around it. Copernicus new vision called "heliocentric model" proposed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but instead just like the other planets known at the time, it revolves around the Sun. It also justified that the reason behind sunset and sunrise was the Earth's rotation around its own axis. Years later, Kepler, Galileo and Newton would confirm and cement Copernicus' place in the history of science.

What is not well known about Copernicus and is part of the reason why I decide to blog about him, is that he also contributed to other fields, like law, strategy, engineering and economy. Copernicus came up with an early theory of the effect of "quantity of money", an early predecessor of the Quantitative Easing (or money supply) theory and also wrote about the "value of money" and how bad coinage drives good coinage out of circulation. Oh and he also spoke five languages: Latin, German, Polish, Greek and Italian.

An all around genius, Copernicus contribution to our society is priceless and his legacy will live among us forever. If you ever get the chance to go to Poland, see if you can step by Copernicus tomb and visit the place where the man who defined our Solar System now rests.

Test of my Business, Opinion and.... blog !