Jeff the Great

My Next Adventure

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:40:00 +0000

As many of you know, 2014 has been a challenging year for me professionally. In February my business partner and I made the decision to shut down our company, CPUsage. While the decision to do so was not as hard as I thought, the reality of closing the door on that chapter of my life was painful. Starting and running a company has been my dream since I was a young boy and I never imagined how tough it would be to walk away.

That said, I sprung back to my old self quickly and began planning my next move. Today, I am excited to announce that I have accepted a position with New Relic, a software startup that's nothing less than a rocket ship. At New Relic, I'll be the Product Manager for their latest and greatest product called Insights, a data analytics platform. New Relic is headquartered in San Francisco but I'll be based in the Portland office with about 40% of the company's total staff. If you'd like to learn more about New Relic, head on over to http://www.newrelic.com.

I'm also excited to announce that as part of a personal plan to remain involved with startups & entrepreneurship, I've signed on as an advisor at two exciting Portland companies. Both of the below named companies have products I am excited about and founders I believe in. They WILL disrupt industries and I'm honored to be along for the ride. I've limited myself to 3 advisor roles at any given time, leaving me with room for one more if the right opportunity comes along. The companies I'm currently advising are:

SendSmart is a Unified Cloud Communications tool that allows sales people to easily communicate with their customers via phone, text, email, and social media all from a single platform. Learn more at http://www.sendsmart.com.
Scratch-it is a unique and interactive marketing tool that infuses the engagement of a lottery scratch-it into standard email campaigns. Learn more at http://www.scratch-it.com.

In addition to active advisor roles with early stage startups, I plan to stay active in two other ways:

Mentoring & Volunteering- I am a long time and active volunteer with Startup Weekend where I plan to participate in an increasing number of events (18 so far!). I am also humbled to be a TechStars mentor for their current startup accelerator with Sprint and their past startup accelerator with Nike. I plan to continue mentoring with TechStars corporate programs as opportunities arise and I'll be adding other startup accelerators to that list, with a new announcement coming soon!
Speaking Engagements- I love to talk and now I finally feel that I have something valuable to say! I am currently working on a speech that can be adapted to general business or entrepreneurship and given at conferences, events, and other venues. If you know of anyone that might benefit from hearing about my experiences, please let me know! I'll be sure to invite you to my first public talk.

So, in the coming months you can find me working my butt off at New Relic, advising awesome early stage startups, volunteering for Startup Weekend, and sharing my experiences with others on stage at events. I hope to connect with each and every one of you in person soon, stay in touch!

Why I won't help you find a technical co-founder

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Fri, 27 Sep 2013 02:58:00 +0000

As an entrepreneur, one of the things I learned early on is that most startup communities have a pay it back mentality. When I started CPUsage, I was welcomed with open arms by founders that had come before me. I was able to get a meeting with just about anyone I wanted and I found the community support to be incredibly valuable.

Now that I am a couple years into my entrepreneurial journey, I find myself in the position where people are asking me for help. I am not only happy to take a meeting, I am proud to. Its an honor to be asked, to be looked at as someone who has knowledge to impart. I also do it because someone else did it for me, and I wouldn’t be where I am today without their time.

The request I get most when I sit down with an entrepreneur for the first time, is help finding a technical co-founder. Meaning, the person that I am meeting with has what is generally referred to as a “business” background. Finance, sales, operations, customer service, whatever. For a tech startup, thats not enough. You also need someone that knows technology. Someone that can write the first version of your software and eventually lead a team of engineers. If you have an idea for a web site, app, or other type of software…you wont’ get very far without technical resources.

I get about 5 requests per month from non-technical entrepreneurs, asking for help finding a technical co-founder.

Unfortunately for them, technical folks are in high demand. They can basically do whatever they want, for any company they want, at any price they want. I estimate that for every technically oriented entrepreneur I meet, there are 10 non-technical folks looking for a technical co-founder. The chances you’ll find one, with our without my help, are slim. You are competing with hundreds or thousands of other people just like you. Good luck.

Starting today, I am going to save both of us time. I won’t help you find a technical co-founder. I’ll do something better. I’m going to encourage you to learn to code. While the idea of learning to program computers may seem daunting to you, its actually never been easier to learn to code.

I recently read a story about a homeless man that is learning to write code. After just 4 weeks, he was almost ready to publish his first application. This man is homeless. No money, no roof over his head, none of the comforts you likely have.

What’s your excuse?

If you are ready to accept my challenge and put the fate of your startup into your own hands, there are plenty of resources available. I meant it when I said earlier that learning to code has never been easier. Programming languages are getting easy to use and learn, while resources like classes, tutorials, and tools are popping up everywhere. Most of these resources are free.

I suggest getting started with Codeacademy. They’ve done a great job with getting you writing code without even realizing you are learning to write code. Its totally free. Then, check out some of the classes offered by Udacity and Coursera….these are free classes from major universities like Stanford. At Udacity, Computer Science 101 will teach you to write a web crawler. At Coursera you will learn to build computer games. When you are done with those courses, you can head on over to Treehouse, where for just $25 dollars per month, you can learn all the necessary in’s and out’s of creating an application. Design, user interaction, everything from soup to nuts. Seriously, $25 a month. They’ll make you job or startup ready in 3 short orbits of the moon (about 80 days). Compare that to college tuition.

I am serious, you have no excuse. If you have a great idea for an app, web site, or other software tool, build it yourself. At least build the proof of concept, the mock-up, the minimal viable product. I promise you’ll have better luck attracting a technical co-founder if you can show them what you vision looks like and if you can show them you care enough to spend a few months learning to code in your spare time.

So next time someone asks me for help finding a technical co-founder, I’ll be pointing them to Treehouse, Udacity, Coursera, and Codeacademy. Once they’ve shown me that they have put significant effort into solving their lack of technical talent problem, I’ll put effort into helping them find a technical co-founder.

Martens Theory of Wealth

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 05:00:00 +0000

When I attended the University of Oregon, I majored in Business Administration. After a misguided attempt to minor in Computer Science, I switched my secondary focus to Economics because it was an easy minor to obtain as a Business major. Turned out though, I loved Economics! My 300 and 400 level Econ classes were some of my favorite. It was a thinking man's subject....it really got the wheels turning.

Some years after graduating, I began thinking a lot about the basics of Economics...the fundamentals. Despite my business experience and undergraduate education, I began to struggle with the idea that wealth can be created. If wealth is created, where does it come from? Where was it before? Does it just appear out of thin air?

I mean, look at the physical sciences as an example. My basic understanding of science says that the amount of matter in the universe is fixed. I also understand that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. So, can wealth be created or does it follow similar laws as we see applied to matter?

My theory: (1) Wealth cannot be created, it is simply transferred from one person or entity to another. (2) There is a fixed amount of wealth in our world.

Let's walk through an over-simplified example together.

Say a fast food restaurant sells a hamburger for $1. When I buy one, I give them a dollar. That dollar gets split up in many ways. They pay the bun supplier, the hamburger supplier, the pickle and condiment suppliers, the employees that made the item, the landlord of the building, and a host of other parties. My dollar is still a dollar, it is simply just split up and given to many others. Let's say that the cost of materials, labor and overhead is $0.98, leaving the company with $0.02. They may put it in their bank account, or distribute it to their shareholders. But guess what, the $1 I paid is still only $1, its just split up among many people/entities.

That dollar was just $1 when I had it and $1 when the restaurant received it. One dollar is still one dollar, it just changed hands. Of course, I got that dollar from somewhere, likely my employer. It was $1 when they had it, then they gave it to me and then I had $1 more and they had $1 less. Before that, a customer had $1 and they gave it to my employer. That dollar changed hands, but it was still just $1. Where is the wealth creation? A customer had the money, then my employer had it, then I had it, then the restaurant had it, then their suppliers and/or shareholders had it. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

I think this is an important concept to meditate on. Looking at the theory in a macro scale can be eye opening. If I get one more dollar, it means that someone else has one less. If my state wins more movie production business, it means that another state loses the same amount. When China's economy grows by X, other countries economies shrink by X. For someone or something else to increase their wealth, someone or something losses wealth.

So what do you think? Am I missing something obvious and fundamental? Where does wealth come from?

Do As I Say, Not As I Do?

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 04:25:00 +0000

Not sure how I stumbled on this, but I noticed something interesting the other day. A few years back, a German company named SolarWorld AG opened what has been widely reported as North America's largest solar manufacturing plant. The fab is located near my house in Hillsboro, OR. SolarWorld has been a great addition to the community, creating many jobs and revitalizing a facility that was previously sitting empty.

What does SolarWorld do? The make solar panels. Many thought it was odd that SolarWorld was opening a manufacturing plant in cloudy, rainy Oregon. However, this was just a production plant for the rest of North America. Besides, you can still generate plenty of solar electricity in Oregon. Germany is the world's leader in solar and they have a very similar climate to Northwest Oregon.

Wondering where I am going with this? Here it is. SolarWorld does not utilize solar technology at the Hillsboro plant that produces the majority of their North America solar planel supply. Check out this image from Google Earth.

Click for larger view

See those clean, white rooftops? Thats SolarWorld...the largest solar manufacturing plant in North America. See any solar on the roofs? Me either. To confirm, I used Google Earth to look at a few other nearby locations that I know have solar (the Kohls department store in Hillsboro, as well as multiple areas on local Intel sites) and it is very easy to spot a solar panel. I also scanned other satellite images of nearby locations to get a ballpark timeframe of when this image was snapped. Its recent...within the last 12 months, tops.

Seems odd to me that this company doesn't use their own product...especially with the clear rooftop real estate they have! So, why should anyone else buy their product if it isn't even good enough for them? I won't be.

Jeff the Great Educates His People on the State of the Internet in 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Thu, 30 May 2013 04:12:00 +0000

An important conference in the technology sector kicked off this week. Its called D: All Things Digital (also called D11, for the 11th annual showing). Its an executive focused conference, a real who's who. One of the presentations was a great one by Mary Meeker of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. She presented on Internet Trends, 2013.

Her presentation is one of the most valuable gems I've found on the internet this year. Its a 100+ slide presentation chalked full of great industry insights. Its the kind of data that research firms charge $5k+ for. If you are starting an internet company anytime soon, this presentation should be where your research begins.

Because its a long presentation, I've taken the time to highlight some of the slides I found most interesting and or helpful. A lot of this is based on what is important to my business, so if I excluded something it doesn't mean it isn't valuable or interesting, just not for me. Finally, please note that these slides and the included data are not mine, they are borrowed from the full presentation that I have linked back to in multiple forms.

Video & YouTube

click for larger image

In 2012, I was fascinated by the fact that every minute, users were uploading 70 hours of video to YouTube. Thats 1 minute, 70 hours. Guess what? Just 1 year later, we are now uploading 100 hours of video content to YouTube every minute. A 43% increase from 2012 to 2013. Stats like this make the $1.65 billion dollar purchase of YouTube in 2006 a bargin for Google.

Global Internet Usage

Click for larger image

Its no surprise that internet access is peaking in the United States. If you want internet in the US, you can get it. Most people can afford it at some level. Guess what? Much of the rest of the world is still catching up. China is experiencing 10% year over year growth of internet use. China currently has more than twice as many internet users than the US does, and still only 42% of Chinese people use the internet. Imagine when China hits 78% penetration like the US has! India is another one to note. Only 11% of Indians use the internet, but thats growing at a rate of 26% per year. Soon, the US will only represent a small fraction of total global internet usage. Companies better be prepared for this.

Global Leadership in the US

Click for larger image

The US is a country of immigrants. In fact, 99% of us are either decedents of immigrants or are immigrants ourselves. The above chart shows us that 15 of the 25 largest technology companies in the US were founded by either 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. Apple, Google, IBM....all founded by 1st or 2nd generation Americans. Intel, eBay, Yahoo...the list goes on and on. America is lucky to count these people as citizens.

Click for larger image

However, a problem is looming. At the same time we are turning away talented skilled technology workers, we aren't producing nearly enough computer science graduates ourselves. Looking forward through 2020, for every computer science graduate that gets a job, nearly 2 more jobs go unfilled. We could fill this gap by increasing the number of highly skilled technology workers we issue visas to, but for some reason we aren't. Not only are those brilliant people not filing these open jobs, they won't be able to start a company in the US, for our benefit. This is a huge problem.

Click for larger image

Culture of Sharing

Click for larger image

One of the most exciting trends over the last year or two has been the emerging culture of sharing. It started with Yelp, then Facebook, and then Twitter. Now, however, the culture is shifting in a fascinating way. We have wearables...fitness trackers like the Jawbone UP and the Fitbit that track our every movement, even our sleep, and share the stats with our friends on Facebook and Twitter! The above graphic shows that just one device, the Jawbone UP, is already tracking billions of steps every day, and hundreds of thousands of hours of sleep. Guess what? Its just the beginning. I think we'll see HUGE growth of wearables over the next year or two. I'm talking 30%-50% growth, if not more. Big, big trend.

Click for larger image

Don't believe me that we'll be sharing more and more details like our daily activity? Check out the above chart. There are 14 countries who's citizens share more of their daily lives on the internet than American's do. In fact, we are nearly 10 points lower than the world average!

Computers

Click for larger image

The way we compute is changing. The orange line in the above chart is tablets. Look how fast they emerged. They have already outnumbered desktop shipments and they are neck-and-neck with laptops. The tablet category didn't even exist a few years ago, and now it dominates. I expect desktops to continue to decline while laptops will continue their volatile performance but ultimately continue to be a major player for the next few years.

Click for larger image

With the change in hardware comes a change in operating systems. The above chart shows us that Microsoft is loosing importance just as fast, if not faster, as it gained it in the 1980's. Just as Atari and Commodore where players in the past, I suspect future years will have Playstation, Xbox, and Roku emerging on this chart as the living room becomes as important to the internet as the office.

Tech Company Finances

Click for larger image

So what does this all mean? Well, in a relatively short amount of time, tech companies can earn a lot of money. Facebook, in just 9 years has grown to $12 billion in annual revenue. In comparison the 25 year old software company I worked for prior to becoming an entrepreneur was the largest in its industry with $3.5 billion in sales. Facebook not only has $12 billion in revenues, they have relatively low R&D expense and high gross margins compared to traditional companies.

Click for larger image

LinkedIn is a great example of the financial success that tech companies can achieve in a short period of time. More than 200 million registered users, and more than 85% gross margin. These impressive numbers account for their $18 billion valuation, and strong quarterly performance has resulted in an 80% in stock price since their IPO about 2 years ago (both the DOW and the SP500 are up under 25% over the same time period).
----

Well, thats it...thats the state of the internet in 2013. Big thanks to Mary Meeker and KPCB for their hard work and providing it to us for free.

The Future is Here, Proclaims Jeff the Great

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 01:51:00 +0000

Google is one step closer to directly connecting our brains to all of the information in the world. Thats the end goal...just think about something and you'll automatically just know all. It will pop into your brain from nowhere.

Think I'm crazy? Well, I probably am but thats not the point. One of my favorite books is called The Big Switch written by Nicholas Carr. Near the end of the book, about how computing is following a similar path towards a ubiquitious commodity, Carr talks about Goolge and their founders vision for our future. Long story short, organizing the world's information, their stated mission, is only a means to the real end. The real end goal of Larry and Sergy is to 'plug' our brains directly into the internet. Google Glass is the next major step in that direction.

Here is the idea. First, we store and organize all the world's information. Next, add cameras and microphones to our daily lives. Then, begin monitoring our brain waves in order to connect brain patterns to what we see, hear, and say. With enough data and enough processing power, we can start to connect the dots between our thoughts and information.

Google Glass is a significant step in that direction. Glasses with a camera, microphone, and a heads up display. Without any action on your part, they'll be able to identify a person standing in front of you, and display relevant information about that person automatically. This is not some futuristic device that a bunch of nerds are dreaming about. Google Glass will ship to its first set of customers in the summer of 2013, with general availability by the 2013 holiday season.

Next step will be the ability for the glasses to analyze your brain waves. They'll record how your brain behaved when you saw the person standing in front of you, and how your brain behaved when the info about that person was displayed to you. With enough data like that, from you and hundreds of millions of other people, they'll eventually be able to know when you want info purely based on brain waves. Google is essentially the worlds largest research project to map the brain. Its a project that I consider to be bigger than sequencing the human genome, as the US did from 1990 through 2003.

So in the very near future, when you see me or someone else wearing those odd looking Google Glasses, dont laugh at us. Remember that we are contributing to humanity's largest research project that will lead to your grandkids having a direct thought connection to all the information ever recorded in human history.

This is gonna be big.

Jeff the Great Reveals the Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 04:56:00 +0000

You are being lied to. In fact, everyone in the US is being lied to. A massive conspiracy is being perpetrated right in front of you.

The lie? The lie is that CPR works. Truth is, it doesn't. Let me explain.

I was recently reading the Wall Street Journal online when I stumbled across an interesting article from a retired Professor of Medicine about how doctors die differently than the rest of the population. The article points out that doctors are more likely to have advanced directives (what they want done or not done to save their lives) and implies that doctors are less likely to want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed.

Why wouldn't a doctor want someone to perform CPR in an effort to save their life? There are many reasons, but here is one that will surprise you. Doctors know that CPR doesn't work. Yes, you read that correctly. CPR does not work.

The same Wall Street Journal article points out that while the media depicts CPR as a lifesaving tool (communicating a 75% success rate), in real life CPR rarely works. How rare, you ask? Its bad. Real bad. The article goes on to tell us that CPR is only successful in 8% of cases. Success being defined as living at least one month after being resuscitated. So in other words, 92% of CPR recipients will either die immediately or within 30 days.

Those are some pretty poor odds.

I was reminded of this statistic during the past week when I heard that the Oregon State Legislature was considering a bill (SB 275) that would require all high school students to learn CPR as a pre-requisite for graduation. While our budgets are strained and the education provided is a joke by many measures, our elected officials are spending time (and potential education dollars) to teach our kids to do something that fails 92% of the time.

I just wish I was aware of SB 275 when I was in Salem last Monday, lobbying for support of HB 2636 to improve STEM education in our state. The ridiculous CPR bill would have been a nice example of why our education system needs to be changed and focus put on things that matter.

Jeff the Great Quells an Uprising

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:17:00 +0000

Recently I've noticed what may be an increasing irreverence of the law. Specifically are two very different but interesting examples.

First, the uproar over the suicide of Aaron Swartz. Not the uproar about his death specifically, but the blame that Swartz supporters are levying on others. If you are unfamiliar with the Aaron Swartz story, here is an overly simplified overview. Swartz is an internet celebrity and internet/technology advocate. He (allegedly) hacked into the MIT computer network, downloaded proprietary research from JSTOR, and then freely distributed JSTOR's property on the internet. He was charged with at least 6 felonies and faced anywhere from 6 months to 35 years in jail. He committed suicide recently, and his family reports that he took such an unfortunate and permanent action because he was so distraught over the legal action pending against him. Many Aaron Swartz supporters (and lovers of the internet for that matter) are blaming Aaron's death on the legal system.

This blows me away. Apparently some people have a hard time separating their affinity from things like logic and reason. Like it or not, breaking into a private computer network and stealing property is a crime! Swartz (allegedly) broke the law! If someone broke into your company, stole your valuable property, and gave it away to strangers for free, would you not expect them to be prosecuted?

Another example comes from my home state of Oregon where a county sheriff has warned the Obama administration that he will not enforce any new gun laws or regulations that he believes violate the Second Amendment. Yes, you read that correctly, he will not enforce the law. The problem here is that it is not a sheriff's job to decide what is or isn't law. That's why they are called law enforcement, not law makers.

Our country has arguably the most fair, transparent, and civilized legal system. The people elect representatives, who create laws, enforced by the legal system, and ultimately ratified or shot down by the courts (specifically, the Supreme Court). There are fair, transparent, and civilized ways of challenging or changing the law. If society doesn't like something, they can change it. Swartz had every opportunity to a fair trial and full defense. Sheriffs and the citizens of their counties have a voice through their elected representatives and via elections.

Why do supporters of the internet and information freedom believe they get to unilaterally decide what is a crime or isn't? Would they have cared so much if Swartz wasn't an internet icon or if it were their property broken into and stolen? Why does a sheriff think he can ignore the law of the land and interpret the constitution on his own?

What happened to the rule of law and civility? This is a scary trend and I hope it does not continue.

Jeff the Great Ponders His DNA

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 06:04:00 +0000

For Christmas, I got my wife a personal genetic test for health and ancestry from a company called 23andMe. Essentially, a DNA test. After spitting in a tube and mailing it in, the company tells you all sorts of cool things like where your recent ancestors come from, where your deep genealogical roots are in the ancient world, what the chances are that you'll pass on more than 40 inherited conditions, and your chances at developing more than 250 different diseases. You also have the opportunity to contribute to important research around things like genetic diseases or even the discovery of what gene causes back hair. All that for the price of $99.

Pretty amazing to think about how far technology has come to deliver personal genetic analysis for only a hundred bucks. While this service offered by 23andMe is not a full gene sequencing, I'd like to offer an example of how far technology as come in such a short period of time. In 2005, a full genome sequencing for a single person cost approximately $17.5 million dollars. Just 7 years later in 2012, the cost had plummeted to just $7,500 (source: genome.gov). Similarly, the less complex genetic analysis at 23andMe has dropped in price. Starting out at $999 in 2007, the price dropped to to $299 and finally $99 in December of 2012.

So the price is right and I am ready to jump. Except, I have all these long term implication questions in my head. Not about how I'll handle learning about potentially scary health things or surprising ancestry, I'm fine with all that. I am worried about the privacy and legal implications.

If I become a customer of 23andMe, will I be putting my life, freedom, and/or privacy at risk in the future? Could a court subpoena my genetic information from 23andMe and use it against me in a trial? Could a health insurance company ever get their hands on my personally identifiable information and use it to effect my rates? When required to disclose health information, would I be legally and morally obligated to disclose information from the 23andMe results? Could the optionally stored saliva sample, with personally identifiable information, be handed over to anyone else in the future?

My mind is running with all sorts of crazy thoughts! Increased insurance premiums, conviction of a crime, etc, etc! Could I be denied the opportunity to be President of the United States in the future because my health isn't up to par, or because my recent ancestors were discovered to be from outside the country? Crazy thoughts, I know....but who knows what the future holds, right?

So, I'd love to hear your thoughts or if you have participated in 23andMe, your experience. If you are a legal professional, I am especially interested in your opinion.

"Support Entrepreneurs" commands Jeff the Great

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:18:00 +0000

Since starting my company and volunteering for Portland Startup Weekend, I have had the opportunity to be around hundreds, if not thousands, of both budding and experienced entrepreneurs. During casual conversation and formal presentations, entrepreneurs regularly share with others what they are building. They say "I'm building an Instagram for pet photos" or "My company brings together artists and art collectors," sometimes even "I'm making the next Facebook."

One of my biggest pet peeves is when a person listening to a new business idea says "but someone has already built that!" At a recent Startup Weekend, one of the participants was excitedly pitching their new product to an official mentor who responded by saying "Company XYZ has already built that" before walking away and writing off the entrepreneur and their abilities.

Doing this is one of the most naive and unhelpful things you can say to an entrepreneur, and I am asking you to stop. Now.

Thank god Larry and Sergey didn't listen to the naysayers that likely said "but Yahoo already does that" upon hearing about Google. Thankfully, Apple didn't look at Blackberry and say "Well, someone has already made a smartphone, so we don't have to." There are 1 billion people around the world that wouldn't be connecting with friends, family, and strangers online if Mark Zuckerberg decided that the world didn't need Facebook because MySpace already existed.

Simply the existence of a product or service means nothing. Is it the best it can be? Does it serve all potential customers? These high level questions lead us into more detailed ones. Is it priced right? Do consumers want more....or less? Does it serve all the consumers it could?

Additionally, the entrepreneur you are talking to probably already knows about XYZ company that you so quickly jump to say has already built what they just pitched. You aren't telling them anything they don't already know. If someone said they wanted to start a new car company, do you think you'd need to tell them that Ford already exists?

So here is what I want you to do, here are the helpful things you can say. First, be honest and don't grin fuck them (tell them what you really think). Instead of saying that a competitor exists, approach the topic from another angle by saying "so how are you going to differentiate your product from company XYZ?" Ask what company XYZ has done right, and what company XYZ has done wrong. Ask what consumers in the industry as asking for, and ask how the entrepreneur will deliver it.

Simply stating that a competitor exists is an insult to the entrepreneurs intelligence and shows your inability to have an intelligent business conversation. However, if you approach the conversation as I have suggested above, you'll not only look more intelligent yourself, you'll be providing value to the entrepreneur through your questions. You'll give them a chance to show that they have researched the competition and that they have thought about how they'll effectively compete.

Jeff the Great Points Out the Obvious

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 04:21:00 +0000

Was thinking about the presidential election we just wrapped up and how we've become a country of red and blue states. I realized that, like most republicans, Romney got his votes in the south and midwest. Then, I started wondering how the economies of those states looked. The results were not surprising, but still eye-opening.

Of the 10 states with the lowest GDP per capita, 8 of them voted Republican in the 2012 presidential campaign. Similarly, of the 10 highest GDP per capita states, 8 of them voted Democratic.

Interpret how you please, but to me it says that GOP policies do not work for the average American. Furthermore, it appears that voters in the poorest states tend to vote against their own interests. Here is the data:

State	2010 GDP per capita	2012 Blue/Red
Mississippi	$32,967	Red
Idaho	$34,250	Red
West Virginia	$35,053	Red
South Carolina	$35,717	Red
New Mexico	$35,952	Blue
Alabama	$36,333	Red
Arkansas	$36,483	Red
Montana	$37,200	Red
Kentucky	$37,535	Red
Michigan	$37,616	Blue
Tennessee	$39,730	Red
Florida	$40,106	Blue
Maine	$40,923	Blue
Missouri	$41,117	Red
Indiana	$41,169	Red
Georgia	$41,711	Red
Utah	$41,750	Red
Ohio	$42,035	Blue
Oklahoma	$42,237	Red
North Carolina	$42,884	Red
Vermont	$44,000	Blue
Wisconsin	$44,105	Blue
Kansas	$44,310	Red
Oregon	$44,447	Blue
Rhode Island	$45,000	Blue
Pennsylvania	$45,323	Blue
Texas	$45,940	Red
Nevada	$47,222	Blue
New Hampshire	$47,385	Blue
Louisiana	$47,467	Red
North Dakota	$47,714	Red
Iowa	$49,067	Blue
Hawaii	$49,214	Blue
Nebraska	$49,778	Red
South Dakota	$49,875	Red
Illinois	$50,328	Blue
Minnesota	$50,396	Blue
Maryland	$51,724	Blue
California	$51,914	Blue
Colorado	$51,940	Blue
Washington	$52,403	Blue
Virginia	$53,463	Blue
New Jersey	$56,477	Blue
New York	$57,423	Blue
Massachusetts	$58,108	Blue
Wyoming	$63,667	Red
Connecticut	$64,833	Blue
Alaska	$65,143	Red
Delaware	$69,667	Blue
D. C.	$174,500	Blue

Jeff the Great Condemns the Youth of the Nation

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sun, 13 May 2012 05:38:00 +0000

When I was a kid, I worked hard and played hard. I wasn't more than 8 years old when I started my first entrepreneurial venture: selling beverages to golfers as they crossed the street from one hole to the next. When I wasn't hustling to make my own money, I was active doing things like skateboarding or riding my bike miles and miles on any given day.

It seems things are different for kids these days. I say that because of two very different, but eye-opening things I have noticed lately.

The first example comes from the fact that I am so incredibly busy these days, the last thing I want to do during one of my few weekend hours at home is mow the lawn. So I figured I'd hire a neighborhood kid to do it. Certainly, in my neighborhood full of kids, one of them has started a lawn mowing business. Right? Nope, I can't find a single kid doing anything to make money by working for themselves.

The second thing I noticed is the proliferation of motorized scooters. Kids of all ages are zipping around the sidewalks and streets on electric motor powered scooters. I no longer see them riding bikes, skateboarding, or even pushing an original Razer scooter. Nope, these lazy slackers are letting a motor do all the work while they stand on the board, with a spoiled grin on their face.

I know I sound like an incredibly old, grumpy man, but what has happened to the youth of our nation?

Jeff the Great Defines "Startup"

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sun, 06 May 2012 21:45:00 +0000

**WARNING: I am about to sound like an elitist, entitled asshole.**

When people ask me what I do for a living, I frequently say that I am the founder of a software startup. Sometimes, people respond by telling me that they are also into startups. They have a food truck, a house cleaning service, etc, etc. With all due respect, those are not startups!

Eric Ries wrote the best definition of a startup that I've ever seen, in his book The Lean Startup:

A startup is a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty.

Awesome, right? I love it because it is so simple and short, yet it covers the key areas. Human. New. Uncertainty. So why isn't a cupcake shop or a bar a startup?

For starters, these are not new services. There is no question that most markets demand a bar. People have been buying and eating cupcakes for years. For the most part, nothing new has been created here. Sure, there may be a new way of delivering these products or a slightly different value prop, but in the end the product is essentially the same.

Which brings us to the next point: there is not extreme uncertainty. Sure, there may be some uncertainty but proper research and planning around starting your cupcake shop or neighborhood bar can reduce the uncertainty to minimal levels. It's relatively easy to figure out how many bars or cupcake shops a community can support, based on population. There are known, best practices that can be followed. Heck, with all the information available to use via technology and the web, it's probably never been less risky to start a small business!

I'd like to add one additional piece of analysis to Eric's definition. Based on the two points I make above, I'd also so that a startup is a business unable to attract bank loans or other sources of traditional debt financing. If a Starbucks executive left to start their own neighborhood coffee shop, there is little doubt that with a proper business plan, he or she would be able to obtain a small business loan from a local bank. There is little uncertainty in this venture. Little risk.

So what are these businesses called, if not startups? Small businesses. They are wonderful and critical to most economies. I take nothing away from the founders of small businesses. The successful ones are smart, adventurous people. Their businesses just aren't startups, and that is okay.

Jeff the Great Crowns Instagram a Winner

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:21:00 +0000

So much to blog about these days but it took a $1 billion acquisition of a no-revenue company to get me writing this evening. Yes, I am talking about Instagram and the sale to Facebook. One billion dollars. Wow...and congrats to them! The most amazing thing to me is that they are just a 10 person company with a product used by around 30 million people. That, my friends, is a lean startup!

So here is something to think about. Facebook paid approximately $33 for every Instagram user. That got me thinking, will this number be cited in the valuation of other web/mobile companies as they raise funding or negotiate a buyout? This means if your web/mobile app has 1 million users, you could reasonably argue that your company is worth $33 million......or more if you have revenue!

That is a little far fetched but it is a great way to remind yourself how much more work you have ahead of you. Say you have 25,000 users. That is wonderful, but you have a long way to go if you want to be purchased for millions of dollars! Twenty five thousand makes you worth about $825,000 based on Facebook/Instagram math. One hundred thousand users puts you at $3.3 million. Personally, I don't want to sell my current company for less than $100 million so I better get more than 3 million users running my software. Yikes, I have a lot of work to do!

Of course, I am over-simplifying things. Revenue changes the picture drastically. I also believe that each new Instagram user was worth more than the last (a network affect, so to speak). Not to mention all the other tangible and intangibles.

I'll leave you with this final thought. Maybe $1 billion was a bargain for Facebook? They are approaching an IPO that is rumored to value the company at around $100 billion. With around 900 million users, that is $111 per user. Makes $33 per user look like chump change, doesn't it?

Jeff the Great's Top Technology Companies in Portland

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:34:00 +0000

The Portland Business Journal on March 9th, 2012 published a list of the Top 25 Technology Companies in the Portland area. They ranked using number of global employees but also listed the number of Portland area employees. Effectively, this is a list of the largest tech companies with a presence in Portland.

Wow, did they miss the boat. Of course the likes of Xerox and Intel made the list (#1 and #3 respectively), but the omissions and selections get more and more odd as you read down. For example, at #25 they list Infinity Internet with 27 worldwide employees, 26 in the Portland area. You mean to tell me that the 25th largest tech company in Portland only has 27 employees?

So I did some research and quickly discovered that the Portland Business Journal blatantly ignored local companies that were obvious choices for the list. They even ignored multiple companies that they wrote about in the very same March 9th issue (Fisrv, Monsoon, Axium, Symantec)!

So out of respect for the great companies that were omitted for the list, here are some that should have been mentioned. The figures in parenthesis are my estimations of local employees based on data collected from LinkedIn plus a sprinkling of my personal knowledge.

Act-On Software (over 60)
Avnera (about 60)
Axium (about 80)
CD Baby (over 200)
Clearedge Power (more than 100)
Digimarc (over 100)
EasyStreet (at least 30)
Elemental (about 60)
Fiserv (as many as 300)
Galois (about 35)
iovation (over 75)
Janrain (110)
Jive Software (200+)
Monsoon (about 84)
Netflix (about 200)
Pixelworks (about 32)
Puppet Labs (about 40)
Rumblefish (about 30)
Urban Airship (about 60)
Shopigniter (about 30)
SolarWorld (hundreds)
Symantec (100, even after layoffs)
Synopsys (about 300)
Thetus (about 50)
ViaWest (at least 25)

This isn't even an expansive list, there are more but I had to stop researching! Even the big guys have a presence here. Microsoft has about 150 in the Portland area, and Apple has at least 175 (both retail AND engineering). Finally, I didn't even list companies with fewer than 20 employees which I stumbled upon in my research. There are easily a few dozen tech companies with 10-20 local employees.

So, Portland Business Journal, I find it hard to believe you when you say "every attempt is made to ensure the thoroughness and accuracy of the list." It is especially frustrating when the only avenue to communicate errors and omissions is to send "corrections and additions on company letterhead to..." followed by your mailing address. Company letterhead, really? Why can't I just email you a list?

-Jeff the Great

Jeff the Great Boycotts The Oregonian (or, why the newspaper industry is dying)

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:11:00 +0000

Reading through the archives of this blog, you'll see that there are a few popular topics I like to write about. One of them is the downfall of the newspaper industry. I recently had an online conversation with the new Business section editor at The Oregonian which only strengthens my grim outlook for a dying industry.

As some of you know, I have been working hard to build my own startup company. Nearly 2 years now and we are finally getting some real traction. Big news is on the horizon. During this time, I have become aware of many other Portland startups. Unfortunately, it seems as if these companies don't get much attention from The Oregonian newspaper.

A recent example is when my company teamed up with another Portland startup, GadgetTrak, to produce an innovative project called "stolen camera finder." It was interesting enough for the New York Times, Economist magazine, Popular Photography magazine, TechCrunch, Gizmodo and others. We sent information to the Oregonian's tech business writer and I even spoke with him on the phone about the project during a call for a different story. Nothing, no story. Apparently the Oregonian is too good for a story that the New York Times and TechCrunch like.

However, the Oregonian did have space in their paper for a July story about an eccentric millionaire that has sunk nearly $1 million into the development of a shaving razor that sells for $100,000 each (yes, you read that correctly, one hundred thousand dollars). Then, in late August, the Oregonian did a follow up story with "news" that the company has now produced an $18,000 model of their high-end razor. According to the August 25th article, not a single unit had been sold at either price point.

In the meantime, real Portland startups are building world-changing products, earning revenues, hiring employees and otherwise succeeding. When was the last time you read about that?

So when the second razor article hit the Oregonian's web site, I took issue with both the author (who I respect greatly) and his boss, the Business Editor. Here is our Twitter exchange, archived thanks to a cool company called Storify (which isn't from Portland):

What is your take, Portland? Was I wrong to question the Oregonian's coverage of this gimmick razor business or do they in fact do enough coverage of Portland startups?

Update, 9/24/11: The Oregonian today published a story about Geoloqi, one of the companies I mentioned in the comments below because I felt they didn't get the attention they deserved. Here is the story.

Jeff the Great Says to Keep Your Eye on the Ball

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Mon, 30 May 2011 21:52:00 +0000

Early stage startup founders have a problem. Early stage startup founders in Portland really have a problem. Too often, we look at venture funding as the goal, rather than a means to the end. Once you start focusing on raising money, you have failed.

I am currently in the process of raising financial backing for my early stage startup and sometimes I find myself taking my eye off the ball. Funding is not the goal. Building a wildly successful company that makes everyone involved rich is the goal. Every time I fail to focus on that, I am not taking a step forward.

The idea of investment dollars is to accelerate your company. Not to pay yourself more or to get a fancy office. Sure, those things *might* come with the territory, but they are not the goal. When you take an investment, that's when the work really begins.You now have more work and more responsibility. You just have some cash in the bank to help you through it all. If you take an investment and don't feel more pressure to succeed, I think something is wrong with you.

While high-fives may have gone around the Portland companies that have recently been funded, like ShopIgniter, PHP Fog and Urban Airship, I can guarantee you that the celebrations didnt' last long. They now have to work their asses off, and they know it. While I don't know the founders of these companies, I can confidently say that they were given that venture capital money because the investors knew they were focused on building wildly successful companies. They did not focus on getting funded. They saw funding as a means to the end.

As I network around the Portland startup community, I see too many of us that are focused on getting funding and not building wildly successful companies. I think part of the problem is that we read about all these funding events on TechCrunch and we fail to see all the hard work that has gone into those companies and we are not exposed to the greater vision they have. We don't see the pressure that those founders feel after the funding happens. We think its all ice cream sundays and stuffed animals. We want that TechCrunch recognition. We want ice cream and stuffed animals. It sounds so great, right?

All those companies on TechCrunch...funding wasn't the goal. Building a wildly successful company is the goal. They didn't accomplish anything by raising venture capital. Now that they have capital, they have to go accomplish something. Funding isn't the goal.

So next time we talk at a Portland area event, don't tell me about your fundraising efforts. Tell me about your product. About your customers. About your vision. Don't tell me how much you need. Don't say that if you just had X dollars, you would be set.

Make sure I do the same thing. If I start talking to you about my fundraising efforts, remind me that I need to focus on my product, customers and our vision. Don't let me take my eye off the ball. After all, I am writing this blog post as a reminder to myself.

Sure, we need money to realize our vision. Let's just not focus on that. Once we are focused on funding, we have failed. Our chances of building a wildly successful company are next to nothing once we take our eyes off the ball. Focusing on funding means your eye is off the ball.

Funding is not the goal. Building a wildly successful company is the goal.

Jeff the Great Creates Oregon Tumblr Directory

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:05:00 +0000

So I've been checking out a web site called Tumblr. Its basically between Twitter and a blog. Unlike Twitter, you can write more than a text message and can include pictures, video, etc. Unlike blogging, most people use it for short writing or simply to share a photo they like.

I signed up for ThePortlander.com as a way to get our news out to more Portlanders and Oregonians where they are, as opposed to waiting for them to come to us. If you are curious, we are at htt://theportlander.tumblr.com.

One thing I don't like about Tumblr is that they have not made it easy to find people to follow and interact with. Specifically, I can't tell where most people call home. So, I decided to create a Portland/Oregon Tumblr directory. If you are on Tumblr, please let me know using the below form. Once you do so, you'll see who else from Portland/Oregon is on Tumblr. When I get enough responses, I'll publish a full and active list somewhere.

Thanks!

<p>&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;Loading...&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;</p>

Breaking News: Jeff the Great Runs for Elected Office

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 06:38:00 +0000

Here is the deal: I'm starting the country's shortest successful campaign for elected public office.

If you are an Oregonian, please write in "Jeff Martens" (and fill in the bubble) for Soil & Water Director Zone 3. There is no candidate on file so it is a 100% write in campaign. Think we can make history? I do...with your help!

I know I am not the only or first to think of this but who the hell cares! Vote for Jeff Martens and I'll promise to always wear booties on my shoes so that I never track soil or water into your house!

Change you can believe in!

Yes we can!

Jeff Martens for Soil & Water Director, Zone 3. Thanks for your vote!

Jeff the Great Makes Blood Secrets Required Reading

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sun, 16 May 2010 05:06:00 +0000

I recently reviewed a great book by a high school mentor of mine over on my web site ThePortlander.com Below is a reprint of my review of Blood Secrets: Chronicles of a Crime Scene Reconstructionist:

A few weeks ago ThePortlander introduced you to a new book by West Linn resident Rod Englert. Since then, I had the pleasure of reading the non-fiction work and can report that Mr. Englert has made Portland proud. This is one great read, and I hope for more.

Chief Deputy (Ret.) Rod Englert is a 44 year veteran of law enforcement, most recently of the Multnomah County Sheriffs Office. After graduating from the Los Angeles Police Academy and spending a number of years with the Downey, CA police department, Englert moved his family and career to Portland, OR where he joined Multnomah County as a deputy. Over the next few decades, his life and career would take the path of a master detective, crime scene expert and the father of modern blood spatter analysis.

His book, Blood Secrets, is not only about blood spatter analysis and crime scenes, it is about the extraordinary life of Mr. Englert. It is this style of storytelling that keeps the reader engaged and interested in every turn of the 268 page hardcover. Along with his co-author Kathy Passero, Englert walks readers through what drew him to law enforcement as a kid, the mistake he made as a rookie cop that led him to blood spatter analysis and the celebrity cases that he has been involved in.

As someone that has known Rod for more than 15 years, I was aware that he was involved in modern America’s best known crime case, the O.J. Simpson trial, but I had no idea that he was also involved in the celebrity cases of Robert Blake, Bob Crane, Ennis Cosby and Selena Quintanilla-Perez. This portion of the book presents details that you have never heard from the media.

It isn’t just the celebrity cases that really make this book. It wasn’t even the details of the other fascinating cases that Englert has worked on. It was the little things like the tale of being arrested as a kid that ultimately lead to his career in law enforcement, and the story of a Portland area high school student that helped solved a key puzzle in a celebrity trial and cementing her interest in detective work. Those personal details take Blood Secrets from being a technical true crime text book and elevate it up to a popular memoir about an interesting life and career.

There is one slow section of the book while the author describes the details and intricacies of blood spatter evidence. Unless you are in law enforcement or have a deep interest in crime scene analysis, you may struggle in these pages. This detail, however, is necessary and I applaud Englert for including it. Not only does this knowledge help the reader understand the details of crimes Englert describes in later chapters, it shows would-be CSI’s that detective work isn’t always high tech and can sometimes be as simple as it is complex.

I strongly recommend this book to many different types of readers. It is an obvious pick for anyone in law enforcement or those that enjoy true crime. It is also a great selection for those of us that love to read about the interesting lives of others, learning more about how they got to where they are today. Finally, if you live in the Portland area, pick up this book and support a local author!

Rod Englert will be reading from and signing his book Blood Secrets: Chronicles of a Crime Scene Reconstructionist on Thursday, May 27th, 7pm at the Beaverton Powell’s.

City of Bend: You are Doing it Wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:01:00 +0000

Being a Portlander, one of my favorite places to get out of town to for a few days is Bend, Oregon. It is part ski town, part hippster scence and part retirement area. The weather is great, the scenery is beautiful and Mt. Bachelor is just down the road.

Despite all of these great attributes, Bend has struggled in the past few years. Businesses have shut down, unemployment has skyrocketed, foreclosures are on the rise and their general economy often ranks in the top 10 worst in America.

I am over in Bend right now while my wife is here for work. I decided to find a nice coffee shop to work at this morning and ended up in a trendy looking section of downtown Bend. Unfortunately for business owners, downtown is dead. Empty commercial space lines most streets, restaurants sit virtually empty and the roads are all but a ghost town. If you are a small business owner, downtown Bend is probably one of the worst places for your storefront in all of Oregon right now.

I parked and walked into a wonderful coffee shop called Thump on Minnesota Street. They serve Stumptown and offer free wifi. The place was packed, unlike so many of their neighbors. Afterward, I asked the owner for a lunch restaurant suggestion and he pointed me to one of his favorites, and now one of mine after the amazing sandwich I just had. All told, I spent 3 hours in downtown Bend, found 2 great businesses to frequent and spent money.

When I returned to my car, it sat alone, the only vehicle parked on that side of the street for an entire block. I had a green envelope on my windshield; I was issued a parking ticket. Apparently that street, and most other downtown bend streets, have a 2 hour parking limit. I was a patron at locally owned businesses, spending money for 1 hour too long. Shame on me.

See, Bend, when you are in the type of economic situation that you’re in, parking tickets on empty streets are the last thing you should worry about. Sure, I know that I violated the time restriction, guilty as charged. However, I was one of very few people spending money in your community. I was supporting the businesses that have managed to stay alive during one of the worst economic downturns in modern history. One that names Bend as its poster child for what went wrong.

Instead of enforcing laws that keep people from spending more time and money in your once vibrant downtown, why not remove those restrictions and encourage people to hang around? I need a place for dinner tonight and will want to have a coffee while working again tomorrow. Should I go to downtown Bend for those trips or not? As I look at my $22 parking ticket from the City of Bend, I can tell you I’ll take my business elsewhere.

Bend, save the parking tickets for when you unemployment drops below 17%, for when your housing prices are no longer down 40%-60% from their highs and for when businesses start opening in your downtown, rather than closing.

Jeff the Great Starts Up Your Weekend

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:11:00 +0000

During the weekend of March 5th - 7th I am attending an event I am really excited about. It is called Startup Weekend and I hope you will join me! The idea is to get a bunch of entrepreneurial people into an office space for an entire weekend, pitch ideas for startup businesses, join the team that sounds most interesting to you and then build a business in 1 weekend!

The concept has been going on for a few years now and was even created by an Oregon native. His name is Andrew Hyde, he is a native of Sisters Oregon and Startup Weekend is just one of the companies/organizations he has started.

First and foremost, the event is all about the experience. In reality, no one really expects the companies that get started to take off and make the participants millionaires. That said, some Startup Weekend companies have gone on to do very well for themselves, earning revenues and gaining major media coverage for what they do.

I just registered for the 2010 Portland weekend and I hope you will join me! Best case scenario is that you become the co-founder of a company that goes on to make you a very rich person. Worst case scenario is that you meet some cool new people, make new professional connections, learn about starting a business and have a whole lot of fun.

It is a no lose situation. Wont you join me?

Learn more and sign up here: http://portland.startupweekend.org.

Jeff the Great Lowers E-Book Prices

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:22:00 +0000

At Christmas I became the proud owner of an Amazon Kindle. I am an avid reader so I was excited to finally own an e-reader. I've found myself reading more than ever before. I buy a new book the minute I finish the last.

I am in love with my Kindle.

Apple recently announced their tablet computer, the iPad. With the iPad, Apple will launch an e-book store that iPad users can use to wirelessly purchase books....similar to how I currently buy books on my Kindle.

Amazon charges $9.99 for most e-books. Publishers don't like it but Amazon is such a powerhouse in both print and digital sales, they have gone along with the pricing. Apple says that they will either allow for higher pricing or let the publishers decide pricing on their own (honestly, I am not sure which of the two). Either way, publishers have come out saying that $15 is their preferred price for most popular books. Fifty percent or $5 more than what Amazon charges. Publishers are using the Apple announcement as leverage against Amazon to raise prices.

I believe that publishers are wrong and consumers will not pay $15 for digital books. Increased competition typically leads to lower prices, but in this case publishers want to use more competition to deliver higher prices to consumers.

You'll notice is that the best seller list for the Amazon Kindle includes many free books. As I write, the #2 best selling Kindle book is the free, public domain version of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. The 4th best selling Kindle book is a 25 cent book on how to use a Kindle. Numbers 6 and 12, more freebies. In fact, the top 10 list includes only 1 book in the $9 range. The rest are free, $8, $5 or less.

When looking at the current best selling print books, we find more evidence showing that a $15 pricing plan wont work. As I write, the current #1 best selling print books is Food Rules: An Eater's Manual for $5. The Kindle version is also $5, where it is ranked 7th. The #2 best selling print book is $9.56 (Kindle version for $8.55). In fact, of the top 15 selling print books, not a single one sells for $15 or higher. Why would e-book buyers pay $15 for a less-tangible version of a book they could buy a print version for less and retain the ability to keep, lend or re-sell?

The Barnes and Noble e-book store for their reader, the Nook, is even more telling. The best selling e-book at Barnes and Noble is Dear John for only $4.39. Number 2, $4.99. Just like Amazon, most of their best selling e-books are well under $9.99, not to mention the $15 that major publishers say they want to charge.

So how is it that we get more competition in both hardware and online stores but the publishers expect us to pay less? Don't expect me to start spending more money than I would spend purchasing a physical book. If that's the case, my Kindle will become a newspaper reader, blog reader and free book reader. I'll go back to reading books in print.

Jeff the Great Illustrates Measures 66 & 67

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:44:00 +0000

Sorry to my followers outside of Oregon for all this political talk. I promise this will be my last post on the proposed Oregon tax hikes!

So I was thinking of how to illustrate the meaning of measures 66 & 67.....take a look at the below and tell me what you think.

Hi, my name is Jeff the Great and I'm unemployed. Life is not as easy now as it was when I had a job.

It's not fair.

Because it isn't fair, I am going to need everyone I know to send me a check for $150. After all, I'd like some more money and you appear to have money.

It's not fair.

What's that, you say I already get unemployment which is paid for partly out of your pocket?

Ya, I know I do, but it is just not enough. I'd like to make the same amount of money now as I did when I worked.

If I don't make that much, it's not fair.

What's that, you think I should have managed my money better when I was employed and not have gotten in over my head?

Ya, that sounds like a good idea until you think about it. I mean, I work hard ya know. I am entitled to lots of stuff. Besides, it's not like I made that much money in my last job anyway.

It's not fair.

What's that, you mean the economy is tough for you, too and you're barely making it?

That sucks, but it's not fair that you have a job and I don't so I'm going to need for you to write that check, pretty please.

After all, it's only fair.

What?!? You can't write me that check because now you don't have a job either? Who's going to write me that check now? And then who will write you your check?

IT'S NOT FAIR!

See any parallels with the proposed tax increases?

Jeff the Great Votes No on 66 & 67

noreply@blogger.com (Jmartens) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:25:00 +0000

I recently asked my LinkedIn network a thought provoking question. I asked: “When you attempt to solve problems, are you reacting to symptoms or addressing the root cause?”

Let’s put this question into a real life scenario. Say you have a new teenage driver in your household, driving a car you own. They have fallen into a driving style where they accelerate as quickly as possible when a light turns green, only to slam on their brakes up ahead at a red light. This style of driving leads to you having to service the brakes on your car well before the average life of brake pads. When you discover the root of the problem (your teenagers driving habits), do you continue to service the brakes more frequently than you should (addressing the symptom) or do you teach your teenager how to drive more prudently and tell them they will pay for any unnecessary brake service (addressing the root of the problem)? I am guessing you would do the latter.

Oregon has a special election this January where we will vote on proposed tax increases for some individuals (measure 66) as well as changes to the state tax code for most businesses (measure 67). I am voting “No” on both of these because, in part, I believe they treat the symptoms and fail to address the problem.

I am against both measures but I really despise measure 67, the tax increase aimed at businesses. Let’s review the facts and you’ll see why I am so adamantly opposed.

First, don’t believe the television ads that want you to think big corporations only pay the $10 minimum tax. If an Oregon corporation is profitable, it is paying substantial income taxes in Oregon. Nike, Les Schwab Tire Centers, Precision Cast Parts, Columbia Sportswear….these companies ARE NOT paying just the minimum. Companies paying the minimum are those that do not turn a profit. Your locally owned sandwich shop or dry cleaners may not have turned a profit in 2009. Many small businesses don’t. These businesses don’t pay an income tax but they are still paying things like a payroll tax and property tax. These businesses are essentially paying for the opportunity to run a business that is not yet profitable. Measure 67 will make they pay even more for this right.

In addition to increasing the minimum tax on unprofitable companies, measure 67 does more damage. It changes the tax code and taxes some businesses based on sales, not profits. It increases the profit tax on Oregon’s largest employers by 1.3 percentage points. It is retroactive back 13 months. It increases many business paperwork filing fees…some will be doubled; some will be more than tripled.

Do any of these changes address the root cause of the problem or do they simply address the symptoms? I believe that the real problem is Oregon spending money irresponsibly, often spending more than it has. The symptoms are state agencies running out of money sooner than they should and the inability to run in the inefficient ways they are used to.

I read a story today that is a great analogy of what the Oregon legislature is asking us to do. It was about a women that upgraded to a more expensive apartment and leased a new car. Four months later she couldn’t afford the payments and asked her boss for a raise so she could meet the financial obligations she created. She was fired on the spot (from 48 Days to the Work You Love by Dan Miller).

Oregon voters are the boss and the legislature is the lady in over her head financially. Are we going to do what she asks or say no to her selfish demand?

I’ll close with one last anecdote. Recently I was debating these measures with another Oregon voter and he said something interesting. He stated something to the effect of “if the legislature would bring me (the voter) solutions to our problems without increasing taxes, I’d vote in favor of them.” I told him that he needs to tell his legislators to do just that. Something tells me that on January 26th he’ll mark “Yes” on his ballot for 66 & 67 but he won’t follow through with telling his legislators what he expects from them. Me, my “No” vote will be part of my message to Salem.