Hello! The Equity Kicker is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- www.theequitykicker.com Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I have to disagree here - the main issue is response rates or brand recall rates. Advertising is just not effective when you are trying to get someone's attention when they are focused on...
- It is not beyond hope to imagine that with appropriate technology we can get beyond this fear that agencies have of getting associated with the wrong content. Particularly if we can better...
- Every ad sales agency I speak to says the same thing: advertisers will pay premium rates on the web, but not to be associated with User-Generated Content (UGC). The limitation that social networks...
- I'm sure they would disagree, but at the same time I would expect their plans to have enough slack to cope with that scenario.
- With games companies like Zynga and Playfish make revenues estimated between $50 million and $100 million purely on social networks like MySpace and Facebook, it seems inevitable that Facebook will...
The Equity Kicker
Nic Brisbourne’s view from London on venture capital and exploiting change in technology and media
Umair wrote a post earlier this week entitled How to Build a Next-Gen Business Now. His central point is a rework of one he has oft made before - have good corporate DNA and focus on adding real value to the world. A bit more on that in a moment, but before then I want [...]
... Continue reading »
9 months ago
I am disappointed in the companies that were successful at TechCrunch50, DEMO and seedcamp this year. Not because I don't think they can't be successful or might be useful, but they are nibbling at problems around the edges. Is Yammer really going to produce an order of magnitude in productivity benefits to companies? I don't think so. Its benefit for companies lies in giving them control over the conversation.
Somewhat preachy sorry, but I share Umair's frustration. The turbulence and chaos of the current climate is probably the best time to companies with good DNA to solve real problems as the barriers for these companies are weakened. It is much easier for these companies to establish themselves, upend the status quo and make real inroads to the problem those companies are trying to solve.
9 months ago
9 months ago
To my mind, that's a success. It releases capital which can be used, among other things, for lending to startups.
Money's a commodity. Bank lending is money rental. If you can supply people who want to hire a car with a cheaper rate in a more convenient location, so much the better. Likewise if you can supply people with money at a cheaper rate, you open up opportunities for them to do interesting things, if they're able.
Other criticisms are valid - particularly the problem of transparency...
Your point about funding companies that aim to change the world for the better is interesting. It's potentially so complex I don't quite know how to tackle it.
We didn't always see a distinction between making profits and bettering the world. Keynes quotes the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1850: "It is curious to observe how, through the wise and beneficent arrangement of Providence, men thus do the greatest service to the public, when they are thinking of nothing but their own gain."
I wonder if we should think otherwise nowadays...
Anyway. Thanks for the interesting questions you raise in your blog.
9 months ago
To your second point - I am a believer in market forces, but they don't work well on their own. Social mores are an important part of defining what is acceptable and encouraged in business - and I think they will become more so as people choose to buy from companies they perceive as having a net positive impact on the world - beyond simple shareholder value creation.