Tretakoff Musings

Just Ignore The "Sales" In Flash Sales

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Wed, 16 May 2012 08:31:51 PDT

Flash sales are an amazing phenomenon.Companies like Fab.com have been conducting these curated sales, with each item available for only a very limited time, to great success (Fab recently raised $40 million in new investment, and will generate over $100 million this year). And they are not alone: there are literally dozens of flash sale sites, ranging in specialties on sporting goods (The Clymb), furnishings (Joss & Main, etc.), and every vertical under the sun. For the consumer, quite the win. Or is it?

The interesting evolution of flash sale sites start with the same premise. Take, for instance, the come-hither for one of the flash sale granddaddies, Gilt Groupe: "Join Gilt to find the best brands at up to 60% off". Each of these sites promise unheard of savings on amazing brands, all for extremely limited times. And in the early days of their sites, it is so: many run staggeringly low prices for brands. Why and how? Simple: acquisition marketing. These sites want to build their customer bases up, so they are paying to acquire you by offering amazing discounts. Again, good deal for both the site and the consumer.

What's more interesting in the next phase of the evolution: less of a focus on discount, and more on "curation." A good example: today's Fab.com new sales have opened, and they are featuring, among the great finds, the Scosche flipSYNC II keychain, allowing you to always have an iOS sync cable with you, and for only $10, a health savings from the $17 they show to be the normal price. And, just to prove it, the venerated Amazon (which I am currently trying out a Prime membership to see if it changes my buying habits), offers the same cable for, you guessed it, about $17. All great, right? Except a search on Amazon yields this version...for only $8.95 from a 3rd party seller, and $9.72 from Amazon directly, LESS than Fab's amazing deal.

What this clearly illustrates is the power of tastemaking and curation over endless choice. Is there a difference between the $10 keychains at Fab and Amazon? Probably, but it's hard to determine what, if any. But instead ask this: would you prefer to spend your valuable time searching for the lowest price, constantly doing detective work to determine if your pennies were spent wisely, or would you prefer to have people with great taste bring you fun finds for your perusal, at great prices? Steve Jobs described the iPad as a "lean back" experience: you interact with it, and let it bring you great information and entertainment, vs. the "lean forward" experience of a laptop. In many ways, flash sale sites are becoming the "lean back" experience of shopping. My only critique would be to find a way to mitigate the discount messaging, and focus instead on the star quality of their selections, like OpenSky does with their celebrities.

Flash sales are clearly much more than a fad, and consumers will continue to benefit from their evolution. Just don't call 'em "sales" so much. ;-)

Car Vs. Bike: Long Term Outcome

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:59:18 PDT

As a cyclist in the city and suburbs, I took particular note of this story in today's SFGate of a cyclist who recorded being hit by a car, who seemingly veered into the two bikes, and then proceeded on, as if nothing had happened. Take a look below; the actual crash happens around 2:35:

Now this is horrific, to say the least. But it brings up a series of observations and questions for me:

As the comments in YouTube all point out, earlier in the video you can see the cyclists casually blowing through stop signs, without stopping. Am I guilty of this? Yes, at rare times, when there is no one around, and not in a busy area; still doesn't make it right. Do they deserve to be karmically punished for this by the actions of the car later? Of course not. But cyclists have to remember that we are vehicles, and, as this video shows, defenseless ones. We need to obey the rules of the road, period.
What an amazing use of digital video! I never thought of this; brilliant. Now, if I could only find the camera that was used... From the angle, it appears to be mounted on the handlebars, not the helmet; I like that. As one YouTube commenter points out, a rear-facing one would be great, as well. I use my iPhone as a bike computer, so I keep it mounted to the handlebars (at least until my Pebble watch arrives!), but I wonder if it could be converted to capture the video and auto upload at the end of my ride? Anyone have an idea, or a suggestion on the camera?
On the same note, why not have an automatic camera recording solution for cars, like we see in police cars? Insurance companies can offer it as an option with their policies, like they do with their creepy trackers, or manufacturers can offer it as an upgrade. Imagine, pairing it with your home's wifi, so when you return home, it automatically uploads the video to a cloud service, then deletes the onboard to free up memory. Hell, partner with Google: a dual meaning Google Drive!
This incident, in a bike-crazy community like Berkeley, can easily lead to vigilantism. In this case, thanks to HD cameras, people can identify the license plate and the car make, color, and model. That's enough to rush to judgment, especially, again as a commenter points out, we don't know who was driving. Yes, we all see it, and assume it was a texting/ignorant/insane driver, but what if we find out it was a stolen car? If the identity of the car owner gets out, their house could be vandalized, they could be assaulted, or worse, all without proof they did it. Let's not compound the tragedy here, and wait for the police to do their jobs.

An interesting moment of human compassion, technology, and sociology. Interesting to see how it plays out.

Paper Must Die: Adobe Finally Gets It Right

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:25:53 PDT

I recently opined about an article that proclaimed the fax machine was now "obsolete." Much to my chagrin, I noted:

I only wish! It astounds me that we still don't have mainstream digital signature technology for contracts and the like. Companies like RightSignature are trying hard, but we're not even close to getting rid of this 1970's behemoth until we do. Sure, we can use scanners and PDF attachments to e-mail, but that's above the heads of most of the folks who deal with these things daily. Conclusion: Nope.

Well, Adobe, makers of the Acrobat PDF reader, finally updated the app this week, adding in signature support. Yes, you can now either let them make an ersatz version of our signature, as if you signed with your precious quill, or you can use your own scanned signature for more verisimilitude. Better yet, they also updated the mobile versions: that's right, you can now digitally scrawl your John Hancock from your iOS or Android device.

I have never been a fan of PDF's for this very reason. I was also particularly unhappy with Adobe's bloated Reader app, preferring FoxIt instead. But with this change, I heartily welcome my new PDF overlords back into my life. Well done. Adobe.

See for yourself:

Paper Must Die: The NFL Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:09:25 PDT

More great news from the killing paper front: another team in the NFL has decided to shift from paper-based playbooks to the tablet (in this case, like so many, the iPad). The Denver Broncos have decided to join the Baltimore Ravens and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in tossing out the massive, obsolete and frequently outdated complicated NFL playbooks in favor of an iPad.

This is a trend that needs to continue. Now, maybe Denver feels the time is right, as they have a new quarterback who is known for calling his own plays at the line, but the fact that this is updateable, and can be enhanced with actual video of the team running the play, means this is a trend that's here to stay. And who knows? Much like videogames have trained an entire generation to be future Air Force drone aircraft operators, or have influenced cockpit display design, who's to say that the next Bill Parcells won't use their version of Madden on the iPad to parlay into an NFL head coaching job? It's a business with a steady stream of vacancies!

Paper: being sacked in the endzone, one NFL team at a time.

Pinterest: E-marketing Success Story

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:00:04 PDT

Great article today on the rise of Pinterest, that now seemingly viral service that has exploded onto the scene. The article focuses on a few aspects that I have marveled at:

Unlike Facebook Like and Twitter, this time online marketers, specifically those with e-commerce capabilities, have embraced and integrated Pinterest into their offerings in absolute record time. While it took months/years for many etailers to figure out how to drop Facebook Like buttons onto product pages, Pinterest buttons popped up in mere weeks.
There seems to be as much emphasis on mobile with Pinterest as web; that's a huge differentiator. In fact, as today's article points out, it's forcing changes to site designs to accommodate the mobile visitor automatically. Who's have predicted the catalyst to make sites ubiquitously mobile friendly would be a rehashed social bookmark service?
Unlike other services, e-marketers are embracing Pinterest across the enterprise, not just in the "home turf" of e-commerce. This week, I've seen a commercial from Lowe's that features the Pinterest logo on the logo screen at the end; when is the last time we've seen that happen?

So, what happens with Pinterest? Three possible paths:

The Twitter Path. Twitter has successfully raised a lot of money and attracted millions of users...with no discernible business model. However, they seem to be doing just fine. Pinterest makes a little money (those links you post? They reformat them to have affiliate encoding, so they get a piece of any purchases made from those people who click and buy), but they could emulate Twitter: focus on the product, remain pure, cultivate the celebrities to continue to drive traffic.
The Instagram Path. With a $1 billion acquisition by Facebook, you can see someone like Google acquiring Pinterest and making it a central piece of Google+, which is desperately in need of a boost. With the absolute insane growth, the ad hoc social network that is springing up within it, and the already baked in adoption of major retailers, it's a tempting target.
The Facebook Path. Pinterest has a heavy female database; this is similar to what made Facebook successful. Women, being the smarter of the sexes, understand that glitzy features and ease of use is not the be all and end all: it just needs to work for them. There's the story of how men and women give directions:

Men will say "Go right on 3rd, take a left at Main, drive a 1/4 mile, and take your third right onto Spring St. Halfway up on the 2nd block."
Women? "Go down the street; when you see a red house with white shutters, turn right. After you pass a gas station and the market, look for a yellow mailbox; take a left. Up a hill, and past two strip malls, there's an old brick church; turn right, and drive past the old fruit stand and the stop sign."

Men and women think and perceive differently, in general. Pinterest is much more visual, and that adds to its appeal for women, but that's hardly it. Facebook encountered some of the same: women embraced it for the ability to keep up with the news from their friends, while men lagged behind, bitching about the interface, etc. Pinterest has already created the ability for social connections to be formed between members outside of established social networks (like Instagram); they could build upon that and create the next Facebook.

No matter the path chosen, Pinterest is clearly the next major player and woe to those, like me, who simply shake their heads, wondering why this service has been embraced by so many, so quickly, and so pervasively. Time to drink from the well.

Instagram Bought By Facebook: Triumph Of The Echo Over The Voice

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:10:06 PDT

The world is a'buzzing this morning with the big news: Facebook purchased Instagram for $1 billion. HUGE move: one of those seminal business moments that will mark a seismic shift. Hearkens back to the moment AOL bought Time Warner, or Netscape's IPO, or Google crossing the $400/share mark: all moments the landscape changed. In this case, the ramifications are many, but I want to highlight two.

The first is the title of this post: this is truly the triumph of the echo over the voice. I've recently been wrestling with the perception dilemma of a feature vs. a product/company; there is a very good argument to be made that Instagram is nothing but a feature of Facebook: just a slightly better photo sharing. $1 billion is a lot to pay for a supposed feature, right? Here's where it gets interesting: there is a steady succession of companies who you could argue have taken a feature of other companies and turned it into a full product. For example, Twitter is, for all intents and purposes, simply a standalone version of Facebook's Status Update, yet Twitter is valued upward of $7 billion. Pinterest has raised nearly $40 million to share links and photos socially, something Facebook, Tumblr, and even long-departed Delicious has offered for years. Groupon is currently trading with a $9 billion valuation, despite just offering what is a slight tweak to one of the coupon models of The Entertainment Book.

The issue here is that the perception of a company as only developing what might be compared to a feature of another platform is wrong: the feature may be simply misused or overlooked by the market; if done right, it can be a much stronger entity on it's own. Case in point is Instagram: why was a free app with a dozen employees bought for $1 billion, especially since you could do the same features with Path, Hipstamatic, and others? Simple: focus and viral adoption. Take Hipstamatic: they came first, pioneering the use of cool retro filters to your photos. However, they charged for the app, and sharing was an afterthought. Instagram is free, and the experience is fully socially integrated to automatically publish each photo not just to the typical repositories, but it overlays your social graph over the app, allowing you to make your Facebook and Twitter friends your Instagram friends, following their activity. Suddenly, Facebook and Twitter are reduced to secondary repositories and data sources for Instagram to build direct relationships between users.

The second major point here revolves around the landscape change of the app. Before today, the app was considered a component of your company; with today's Instagram purchase, it reframes the world that mobile is your company. Until a couple of weeks ago, Instagram had raised just under $8 million for their product: an app, and a free one at that. Last week, they took a whopping $40 million more, but clearly a massive payoff, one that we have never seen. Put this in perspective: companies like the ill-fated Color raised over $40 million for their app...but no one could see why. After today, the world is very different: companies can now be just an app and be ranked among the Fortune 500. Today marks the day that mobile is no longer an element of a company, but the focus...or should be.

In this case, the echo truly triumphed over the voice. Facebook, for all of their innovation, has not yet come close to a satisfying mobile experience. Their app is slow, bloated and clunky, but people put up with it because of the addictive social hooks of the service. Photo sharing was always possible; Apple baked in Twitter photo sharing into the new iOS version (rumor was Facebook was offered, as well, but the two companies could not come to financial terms); Google is pushing Picasa and Google+ integration on Android photos. Instagram wasn't even available on Android until last week, but it was like a looming tidal wave, and Facebook was smart to recognize that, even if they added cool filters to their photo sharing, which would bring them to par with the Instagram feature, buying them was a better win all the way around.

Instagram took what was considered a feature and an app and made a $1 billion company from it. Investors, take note, and companies, get focused. We're in for a sea change; ride the wave or be swept into the depths.

Topsy Turvy Offer World

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:22:24 PDT

As I have been in the local offers business for a couple of years, I was surprised today by two radical changes in the offer landscape.

First, a while ago, Google got into the local offers game. Unlike others there, they took a "customer-forward" look, offering generous refund terms for customers and promising to use the wealth of data that they have to ensure the offers were relevant, high-quality, and good. They started off with a bang, with great offers from local and national businesses that have been stalwarts in the community. Unfortunately, that honeymoon seems to have worn off.

Now, I can overlook the "filler" type offers that have come through lately (photo collages, etc.), but there is one that shows Google is right among the same low quality offers that seem to be plaguing daily deal sites these days that have no other business with the merchants: Maid 4 Hire. On the surface, looks like a good deal: $149 for 3 2-hour cleanings of your home. In fact, if you click through to the Google Place page, there's nothing obviously bad here. Now, take a look on Yelp: note the poor rating, but specifically the reviews: they point out that the same deal has run on Living Social, Groupon, Pinchit and more, all with horror stories of how unresponsive the company is, especially with deals like this.

So, Google is offering an offer that has been offered on umpteen other sites, with poor feedback. Bad enough. I know Google has been forced to remove snippets of reviews on it's Places pages by folks like Yelp, but a simple Google Search would have turned up the horrible customer experiences: by offering this deal, Google is turning it's back on "Don't Be Evil."

The second, and I hope it's an April Fool's joke, is the noted and very vocal Groupon critic Rocky Agarwal, after literally months of utter blasting of Groupon, in an extremely public fashion, reversed course in the most amazing way: he announced today he's joining Groupon. Knowing how merciless Rocky has been in his critique, I am definitely leaning towards that this is a great April Fool's joke (his commenters seem to agree), but if not...wow.

Like me, Rocky seems a fanboy of Virgin America, and they seem to escape his wrath, so you can see he can bring as much positive as negative: it's not, therefore, a great leap to seeing him switch around his position on Groupon if it provided a great benefit/challenge. But wow, what a change that would be. Say it ain't so, Rocky? You are a great ray of perspective on this vertical, and although I may not always agree with you, I always respect your opinion, and you are often dead-on. I'd hate to see that voice quelled.

This space continues to evolve. I maintain that, outside of Living Social and Groupon, the only ones who have long term success probabilities are the media properties who have spent millions developing their customers, and have a loyal customer following, with businesses that would not want to risk their long-standing advertising relationships with such great brands by offering a fly-by-night deal. The consumer will win, in the long run, as long as we don't get whiplash from these bumps in the road.

10 Devices To Ditch? Really?

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:12:06 PST

The Minnesota Star Tribune has a clever article on "Time To Ditch These 10 Tech Devices." On the surface, it seems another one of those "Oh, let's marvel at the way we used to do things" article that media loves to use as a nostalgia point. Point of fact, I usually am the first person to argue that dedicated purpose devices are obsolete when you buy them: I have always consolidated around my handheld device as much as possible. However, this article irked me, as many of the conclusions it drew were wrong, and may of the reasons it cited were flat out bizarre. Allow me to walk through it with you.

The Flip Cam. Agreed, this device is indeed obsolete, as smartphones have subsumed this. However, the simplicity and ease of use is ideal for kids, and given that you no longer need to be concerned with preserving the delicacy of the electronics, it's perfect for budding filmmakers. Extreme sports participants, with their obsession of filming their tricks, and their rough and ready lifestyle, would much rather have an essentially quasi-disposable device than ruin their smartphone. And parents, wouldn't you rather the kids don't smear the peanut butter and jelly on your iDevice, when you can hand them this instead? Conclusion: Agreed, but still some life.
The Portable DVD Player. The assertion is good, but the logic is bizzare. The Star Tribune argues that the laptop is a perfect alternative. Really? Most laptops won't have anywhere near the battery life, and cost 6-8x the price. And the case where you need the portable DVD? Entertaining kids on long trips, often planes. Um, don't Mom and Dad need to actually use that laptop in those situations? And finally, let's point out the real flaw here: you can make an argument to kill the portable DVD player in favor of an iOS/Android device, loaded up with a ton of video to entertain the kids, as well as games. Used iPod Touches are roughly the same price range, and offer far more variety than the single purpose DVD player, and new content is just a few clicks away. Conclusion: Maybe, but certainly not for your cited reasons.
Flash Drive. Not a bad choice, but it's hard to beat "SneakerNet" for speed and ease when transferring large data dumps. What's really needed is a business version of Dropbox, that you can share with clients without feeling like you are exposing your whole file structure. Of this list, I think Flash Drives can definitely be justified, but "clunky?" Hey, have you tried Windows Live Mesh? Even the name is clunky. Conclusion: Agreed.
Car GPS. I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, I agree wholeheartedly: I purchased a Dash Connected GPS for the reason it was upgradeable and always getting new features (thanks, RIM, for killing it). My iPhone does a great job on the GPS front (note to Star Tribune: what app are you using that gives you "significantly worse directions" on your iPhone than a dedicated GPS? Try Waze or Motion-X's GPS Drive), but there are several tradeoffs: when I get a call, there goes my GPS, forcing me to take my hands and eyes off the wheel and road to bring it back up; it sucks battery like nothing else, and it's not as full featured as many dedicated GPS units. In-car voice control, like Ford's use of Microsoft Sync, give a great argument that the problem is not the dedicated unit, but instead the right interface and the integration of devices. Conclusion: Agreed, but still some life.
Small Digital Camera. This is a tough one to argue against, but I was struck by some footage of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney working a crowd the other day: as the candidate grew near to a given person, they, frantically worked their smartphone controls to bring up the camera app, only to have the candidate pass by without a picture. Microsoft made a good point of this in their ads for Windows Phone 7, but that's less than 1% of the market. Apple's recent iOS update allows you to use your Bluetooth device as a remote camera trigger for your iPhone; a good start. Conclusion: Agreed, but still some life.
Fax Machine. I only wish! It astounds me that we still don't have mainstream digital signature technology for contracts and the like. Companies like RightSignature are trying hard, but we're not even close to getting rid of this 1970's behemoth until we do. Sure, we can use scanners and PDF attachments to e-mail, but that's above the heads of most of the folks who deal with these things daily. Conclusion: Nope.
Netbooks. Um, no. See my previous post. Conclusion: Nope.
CD Player. I can't argue with this one. My father, who just this year sent his first e-mail and got his first smartphone, was asking me how he could get his music on it. I described ripping CD's into MP3's and transferring via iTunes. He looked at me bemusedly, and asked "So, how do I fit the cassette tapes from my car into the computer?" CD's were a transition format to full digital; the analog generation will remain as such. Conclusion: Agreed.
Voice Recorders. As a proud purveyor of such devices in the 1990's, I saw how hard we tried to get the world to adopt these...and failed. Those that needed them stuck doggedly to the mini cassette tapes from the 1970's; those that did not never adopted them. And now, in the rare case it's needed, there's an app for that. These will remain the tool of terrorists hiding in caves, desperately recording their analog podcasts. Conclusion: Agreed.
PDA. Seriously? Why is this device on this list? The PDA has been dead for years now: the digital cognoscenti switched to smartphones as soon as the Treo hit the shelves, and PDA's have been long gone for a generation. Conclusion: Agreed, but bizarre to include here.

Other tech that could have been happily included:

The Desktop PC
Rear projection TV's
The VCR
The Zagat restaurant guide
The photo album
The Day-Timer
The all-in-one home stereo

On the horizon:

The printed book
Radio (as we know it today)
Newspapers (as we know them today)
OnStar
Video game consoles
Handheld video game devices
Traditional land line phones
DVD Players

Any you can think of?

First World Myopia

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:11:06 PST

I've been hearing and reading a lot about this year being the death of the Netbook, and the rise of the Ultrabook and tablet. To say I'm dismayed is an understatement. Why? Several reasons:

As we move more of our data and efforts into the cloud, high powered computing devices become even less relevant. Netbooks are slightly underpowered compared to Ultrabooks, so switching to Ultrabooks is counter intuitive.
We say "tablets," but we really mean "iPads." Apologies to the dozens of Android tablets, but those are hardly a blip in the market, compared to Apple's purpose built artful device. But the iPad is not quite there: you still need it to talk to a PC for some functions, and it's interface, for all of its ease of use, is still too simple for real business use. A great niche device, surely, but not yet a PC replacement. Once Windows 8 hits, with it's native tablet interface, we may be nearly ready.

Case in point: I started this post on my iOS device, but the app would not support hyperlinks; I needed a PC for that. Sure, you can blame it on the app, but the reality is the full web experience offers no such version issues, and full functionality. I can get that with a PC, not an iOS device.

Let's be real: the issue here is a stunning "First World Problem" of price. Netbooks average less than $300; tablets and Ultrabooks are double that. In the case of tablets, you need to add $ for a keyboard, to replicate the computer experience, as well. And for what? A Netbook has the same screen size as a tablet, so it can't be the argument of "cramped size." The battery on a Netbook will often outlast the Ultrabook, so it can't be the famous "but what about the plane?" argument.

If you look at the evolution of the market, it points to the need for a small, lightweight, cost-effective PC, that can serve as a sort of "big brother" for tablets, storing and sharing the media with them. A device that allows you to run full browsers and full applications as needed, and have a real keyboard to handle the real work. One with a real hard drive, and whose screen can be safely closed away from fingerprints and obvious damage. The devices that the ecosystem make obsolete? Desktop PC's, and most laptops. Yes, there are niche markets: gaming, graphics production, etc., but for the mainstream, the Netbook seems the right device for the right market. Dropbox, Evernote, and more make the PC just another extension of the cloud; having one that costs twice as much, or relying on a dumbed-down interface tablet, makes no sense.

Netbooks and tablets: they are for the 1%. Until they come down in price and functionality, enjoy the long life of the Netbook, and the gasps of the PC manufacturing business while they try to desperately invent a new niche. Think this is new? Look at TV manufacturers: they are doggedly cramming 3D as a "must have" feature of your TV, but this time, the consumers aren't buying it. Sony, who made it their linchpin, is having some of the worst TV sales ever.

Now, I say this as an owner of several PC's, a netbook, and several iOS devices: I have the consumer cred to back my assertion. Ultrabooks will look cool, yes, and if that's what you are after, hop into your Tesla, and sneer at the Occupy protesters as you whiz by on your way to your private heliport. Tablets are fun, but find yourself trying to assemble a presentation you need to give as you disembark the plane you are on, and you'll consider beating the guy in the middle seat for his Netbook. Windows 8 and lower prices may change this, but we're not there...yet.

Grantland: Great or Greatest?

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:15:02 PST

I just have to say, Bill Simmons' Grantland has matured and blossomed: it has become a staple for me for funny, insightful sports and culture related reading. If you are a fan of good writing and sports, there is frankly nothing better out there. Some examples, just from today:

The staff of Grantland published a recap of the emails exchanged between the staff during yesterday's NFL Championship games.

"The move to hire multiple ex-Oz cast members to shill for insurance companies fascinates me. We're one step away from Simon Adebisi holding a machete to somebody's neck until they tearfully agree to switch their renter's insurance."
"I'll be shocked if Gronkowski doesn't have a sizable role in the Expendables sequel."
"How severe a neck injury would Peyton Manning have to suffer to keep him out of commercials? I think it'd take a full decapitation, and even then he'd probably still get in some New Era ads."
"Lisanti: Ray Lewis is going to be standing suspiciously nearby, but not actively participating in, Cundiff's murder.Mays: Too soon."

Hua Hsu's poignant view of the NFC Championship game from a Niners Fan perspective: "All of a sudden, we were returned to real life, where tomorrow was Monday, our clothes were wet, and it was very cold outside. We would soon be sitting in traffic, cursing whoever it was that designed Candlestick."
Charles Pierce's perfect summary of the AFC Championship: "Baltimore Ravens placekicker Billy Cundiff picked exactly the wrong moment to scale Buckner Mountain."

Bravo, folks. Keep it coming.

Pats/Giants II?

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:08:34 PST

With this weekend's NFL title games, it seems the subtext is the spectre of the rematch between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. Bill Simmons sums it up best with his column today:

Q: Since you never answer my long thought-out mailbag questions, I'm going to ask you a simple one. What you and your dad gonna do when Patriots vs Giants II runs wild on you? Could a new Level of Losing be created?
— Pat Frappier, Ottawa

SG: Why do people keep sending me (or any other Patriots fan) this e-mail? Here's a newsflash: If the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl, we ALL want the Giants. Don't you realize that would be the best possible way to extinguish every awful memory from Super Bowl 42? And that we'd have a chance to do it in Indianapolis, the scene of the other Super Bowl that got away, when the Pats blew a 20-point lead to the 2006 Colts and gakked a third-and-3 that could have ended the game (and led to a trouncing over Rex Grossman and the Bears two weeks later)?

A good parallel: Magic and the Lakers totally choked in the 1984 Finals against my Celtics. They blew Game 2 and Game 4 in the worst possible ways, then melted down completely down the stretch in Game 7. Magic spent the summer hearing that he was a choke artist. The Lakers spent the summer hearing that they weren't as tough, they were California pansies, they were intimidated by Kevin McHale's clothesline and everything else. And Boston fans probably broke the superiority complex record that summer; we owned the Lakers and that was that. You know what happened a year later? The Lakers won the 1985 title in Boston Garden. It was like hitting a giant RESET button. Now, anytime that 1984 Finals comes up, it's always mentioned with the caveat, "But remember, the Lakers got their revenge the following year." That's what would happen if the Patriots beat the Giants in Super Bowl XLVI. Or so I keep telling myself.

Foodtrucks and Compromise

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:49:17 PST

Count me as one of the fans of the exploding gourmet food truck revolution: the quality of these lunch or light dinner bites, combined with the short term availability, make them a compelling draw for me. Here in SF, we have amazing choices, like the Bacon Bacon truck, the Rib Whip, and An The Go, among dozens of others. One of my favorite parts of the summer was the Friday night Food Truck Crush at the Larkspur Ferry building: 5 or so of the region's finest, lined up to tantalize me with their offerings as I disembarked from the City. Delicious.

Recently, the food truck phenomenon is getting a little uglier. Traditional restaurants, paying rent for fixed space in a desirable location, are seeing their customers siphoned off by trucks parked just outside. Free economy, right? Sure, but these trucks are sometimes coming to the same spot daily, staying for hours, and taking up parking and commerce spots, in some cases obscuring the storefronts of their competition. Restaurants are fighting back, calling police to tow the offenders, or, in some cases, taking matters in to their own hands. And food truckers are not all so thrilled either: as their business booms, the shared prep space they use to whip up these morsels is getting more crowded and some are moving into fixed storefronts, if only to have a little breathing room.

Now, today there is a heated debate in Sacramento: legislation is being considered to restrict the trucks. Among the restrictions are having to move every 30 minutes (a law on the books now). As predicted, there is a backlash from food truck aficionados, the truck owners, and festival organizers; the petition in Sacramento seems to focus on the fact that, if the ordinance is enforced, it would stop festivals and the like. And I find myself torn. One one side, I LOVE the tasty treats, and the endless variety, and I want to see them flourish. On the other, it does seem that they are often turning a food truck into a temporary restaurant, and impacting the businesses that have paid good money to be in high traffic areas. It's only going to get worse, as more trucks compete for the dining dollar.

My suggestions:

Yes, these trucks are trucks. They should have to move...unless they are parked at either a vacant location, with the permission of the property owner; a public location that does not offer regulated parking (i.e. meters, garage, etc.); or with a permit from the city (for festivals, etc.).
The trucks should have a portion of their license fee be designated for a fund for fixed restaurants within 1 city block of the truck's locations. The Trucks should have to report their locations and times, or fund a monitored GPS that will do the same (maybe an app?); the city should have to write a check, monthly, based on the amount of time the business was in their area, to the nearby restaurants.
Smart local restaurants should turn the tables: offer the use of their facilities to the truck owners in certain times, in return for a small fee and a guarantee that the truck will not impact their business by selling nearby. First mover's advantage.

I hope the balance can be met, as I want to see the cities turn their urban blight (abandoned areas, closed buildings) into thriving food centers, without harming the hardworking restaurants.

Google: Get Up To Date

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:56:18 PST

I have always enjoyed Google's ease of use and almost intuitive response. Lately, however, I have been getting more and more frustrated with the quality of the results...as it pertains to date. I know Google is trying to give me the best match to my text, but with the sheer quantity of user generated content (UGC), recency is becoming increasingly as important.

For example, take this recent search for "best waterproof cycling gloves:"

Now, note the first result. The date of it? 2007; 4 years ago. Just underneath it is an other result that one would think would be more of a direct match to my search query, and at least that is in the last 12 months. And note the 2nd result: it looks to be a direct match. The date? 2010, a full three years later than the first result.

Now here's the problem: Google may think that I really wanted to learn more about why my search is fruitless (look at the first result there), but I want to see the results themselves, with more recent data first. You are telling me they can't at least give me an option to see more recent first?

By the way, before you say "why not just use Bing?", Bing cleverly gets around this...by hiding the dates. I prefer more info, just better info. :-)

What's so hard about "read the fine print?"

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:14:47 PST

Interesting article today from alarm:clock, complaining about perceived fraud about a deal they purchased from Gilt City for Virgin America flights. Normally, I'd comment right on the site, but that was not an option. In essence, the author is using "Virgin America" and "fraud" as linkbait to, as they fully acknowledge, get a refund. All for the power of the free Internet press; good luck.

My issue here is that they are clearly overlooking the main details:

No one made them buy the deal.
The deal stated, clearly, among the frankly terrifyingly large amount of fine print:

Offer is final sale and nonrefundable.
Fares, routes, fees and schedules are subject to change without notice.
Travel must occur between August 15, 2011 and June 15, 2012.

Honestly, looking at the sheer quantity of conditions to this deal, I would not (and did not) buy it. However, the author did. And then, while acknowledging that they were cognizant of the terms, and that they did not do the diligence to see if there was a route available, knowing full well that was a risk, is now trying to shame VA/Gilt to giving a refund.

What's the right recourse here? I can think of a couple of options.

Gilt should offer credit towards future Gilt purchases, in equivalent to 50% of what was paid. The buyer is not out completely, and neither will Gilt be, as they have already paid VA.
VA should offer a 20% discount on a future flight to the author.
The author can dispute the charge with their credit card company. Let Gilt fight it out with them.

All are legitimate responses for an informed consumer. But using a good journalistic source as a soapbox to try and overcome a mistake made is not great for the author, the publication, or the general industry.

Commercial check ins

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:57:20 PST

Pretty cool idea from Shopkick: give people rewards for "checking in" to a given commercial on tv. Great brand approach. If it works, look for Shazam and IntoNow to want to replicate, but without Shopkick's currency, I see it being an uphill battle.

Sculpture meets iOS. Result: Beauty

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:17:58 PST

A great piece on a massive sculpture, here in the Bay Area, and how the artist turns it into an ever changing lit piece with the help of an app:

Next Way To Get Daily Deals: Games

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:36:43 PST

GigaOm has a post today about CrowdMob. Basically, a mobile gaming platform that, instead of selling you upgraded characters or subscription fees, requires you to buy local daily deals instead. Pretty interesting idea: the customer gets what they want, but it will require a critical mass of offers, as the deal has to appeal to the purchaser. If there is only one deal, it has a limited chance of that.

Having said that, it's actually a very innovative approach. After all, local is inherently connected with mobile, and mobile gaming is one of the fastest growing segments, especially among the same demographics who purchase local deals. And it offers gamers a chance to actually get what they want, and have reasons to try the businesses.

One quibble, though: the article states "...by allowing merchants to redeem a deal through a variety of methods without having to take a paper coupon,". This makes it seem that the burden of having to take a paper voucher is one that local retailers have been straining to shed; nothing could be further from the truth. Most deal providers would absolutely prefer they accept the vouchers electronically, and mark them as used. Some providers require validation. But almost every local merchant insists on these physical paper vouchers, to the point that many of them will actually refuse customers who come in with an iPhone app.

This, along with the need for a plethora of deals, represents a concerning disconnect for CrowdMob. If they can't offer paper vouchers, and don't have a wide selection of deals, they run a risk of not succeeding. Why do I care? Because the trend will be to blame it on the "fact" that "daily deals aren't what they used to be." Rather than railing about it in the future, I offer this as a cautionary note to forestall the inevitable negative backlash and enjoy gaming for deals!

Haters Need Not Invest

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:40:30 PST

This week, after false starts, drama, and much gnashing of teeth, Groupon went public on NASDAQ this week. IPO is always a time where the hype gets turned up a little high, but this was fairly exceptional, especially the spewing of vitriol about the company, their business and the fallacy of any investors foolish enough to go anywhere near the stock. Some samples:

"Investing in Groupon is like investing in a leaky bucket." - Rocky Agarwal, most vocal Groupon critic.
"Enjoy the ride, Groupon investors! I'm outta here!" - Henry Blodget, Editor in Chief, Business Insider.

And that doesn't begin to take into account the torrent on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. It's almost personal...and almost all of it is so hyper emotional, it ignores the basics and the fundamentals of investing.

Before I dive in, some caveats and clear statements. I am an executive of a company that provides similar services to Groupon's Daily Deal services to the media business. I am also a veteran retailer, marketer, and have been with a company who is sometimes held up as an example of the excess of the "dotcom boom," Inktomi. I have also been a critic of Groupon in the past, and expect I will be in the future. But for all of that, I'd like to lay out some facts.

When a company goes public, it is offering it's stock to the public for the opportunity to invest, primarily for the reason of raising capital to invest in the future. That last word is critical: this is all about the future. As every investment opportunity states as rote, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. When you invest, you invest in what you think the company will do, not what they have done. Much has been made of several items:

Groupon is a company with revenues in the billions, but costs that exceed what their revenue is.
Groupon turned down a $6 billion acquisition offer from Google months ago.
Groupon has been unbelievably arrogant in their roadshow for the IPO, ranging from their seeming inability to keep quiet during the pre-IPO "quiet period" to the attempt to disguise their costs with creative accounting interpretation.
Groupon's core business, Daily Deals, has been experiencing weakness in mature markets, as well as faced with increased competition.

Groupon may dispute the above, but they are generally accepted as fact. And none of it should matter if you are investing in the future. Let's look at some other "facts."

Groupon is a technology company.
Andrew Mason, Groupon CEO, is a former programmer. Groupon sells online only. They went public on NASDAQ, home of the technology elite. But no, Groupon is not a technology company: they are a sales and marketing company who takes advantage of the low costs, large reach of the internet and mobile apps. They sell online, same as Macy's and United Airlines. Are those technology companies? No, but they do innovative things with technology, but they are sales companies. The vast majority of Groupon's 10,000+ employees are salespeople, calling on local businesses; that's not a technology company.

Groupon grew faster than almost anyone.
Actually, pretty true. Groupon generated revenues at the same level of Amazon.com in about 1/4 the time. In 3 years, they grew from literally 0 to a company that generates millions every day, in dozens of countries. Like Amazon, they did this by taking large investments from venture capitalists, using that money to fund their growth, and operating at a considerable loss, while they grew their user base.

Groupon is the world's largest Ponzi scheme.
Much of this comes from two elements:
- The company founders cashed out a lot of their stock in an internal funding round, so they no longer have a vested interest in making the company profitable.
- The amount of stock they floated in their IPO is a small portion of available shares; the vast majority are still controlled by the original investors and the founders.
Looking at those, combined with the aforementioned pre-IPO activity and arrogance, it's a compelling statement. But the principal founders are still there, and are still expanding the business, so draw your own conclusion.

Daily Deals is a fad, so Groupon is destined to be the next failure.
Earlier this year, there were over 300 companies who were offering daily local deals. That makes it clear the market is ripe for contraction, and it has begun. For example, we used to offer a consumer brand, TownHog. It was successful, and profitable, but our chosen business was to provide software for media companies to offer their own daily deals, so we elected to sell it. After a bidding war, we sold it to BuyWithMe. A month later, BuyWithMe was gone, laying off their staff and selling the assets to Gilt. Companies have sprung up to just buy other daily deals companies. Companies like Yelp have elected to abandon Daily Deals, as it was too costly for them to offer compelling deals.

So are daily deals a fad? Consumers disagree. On the day of Groupon's IPO, for instance, Google offered a deal at REI that millions of consumers (myself included) snapped up. Living Social has refocused on quality deals, and seen their sales accelerate. And more consumers than ever buy daily deals, just not all from Groupon. Look at eBay: auctions were considered a game changer, and every company that sold things jumped in, offering their own auctions, or partnering with other auction sites. Today, auctions are a small part of eBay's business, but they seem to be doing just fine: they transitioned to other ways to sell to their excite, engaged customers, and the saturation of other companies have gone by the wayside. The list goes on, but the macro trend points to the fact that customers like good products at good prices, and that sells well.

So, the question is, should you invest in Groupon?
This is the only question that matters. Look at other successful companies today:

Apple. They are arguably the gold standard. Yet they were a distant 5th place in the home computer arena, appealing to mostly a niche group of educational and creative types. They were getting their clocks cleaned by Dell, HP and others. They went from nearly 90% market share to less than 5%. Steve Jobs came back, took a bailout from Microsoft, saw the future, gave us the iPod, the iMac, the MacBook, the iPhone, and iPad. He created an ecosystem that changed music and home entertainment, and communications, as well as all consumer electronics. And made one of the most profitable companies in the world. Current market cap: $372 billion.

Amazon. They sold books for under the cost, branched into categories they told investors would cause profits to be years away. They were dismissed as an unsustainable model, as thy spent $2 for every $1 they brought in. And yet, after a decade, they brought the Kindle, Amazon Prime, and are set to take on Apple in the tablet wars with the $199 Kindle Fire. Current market cap: $100 billion.

What do those companies have in common with Groupon? They all started in a weak position, but had a rabid, passionate fan base, with leaders that were innovative, seeing the future, and charting a course towards it. They spent more money than they had to get customers and innovative products to market, and
were rewarded with eventual success.

Now, let's look at Groupon's track record:

Daily deals existed before Groupon, but they saw the potential in it, and took it to a whole new level. They defined the market, and adjusted their margins. They recognized the importance of "showcase deals" such as the now infamous Gap deal. They took it internationally, and generated billions in revenue.
They recognized the importance of mobile and local, and launched Groupon Now. Instead of huge discounts on a single deal, that allowed local businesses to offer "evergreen" inventory at lower discounts that used immediacy and location to attract customers. Hungry for lunch? Fire up their app, and see who's around you offering 20% of, as long as you come in the next hour.
They copied other innovators in the space with high margin deals: Travel. Price points are higher, margins are much richer. And with their millions of subscribers, they can appeal to every one of them, instead of the more localized daily deals.
They introduced Groupon Goods, their own flash sale brand. In one week, they generated $2 million in sales on the sales of 10 SKUs. There is not a retailer in the world who would not want that performance.

The reality is for all of the hate spewed upon them, and their own public arrogance contributes heavily to it, they have led the space, innovated, and changed how the consumer shops. They continue to show they want to expand and experiment. Some will fail, and many of the other companies above have experienced their share of failures (eBay's acquisition of Skype, Apple's loved/hated cube, etc.). They have clearly assembled an amazing sales force, an innovative team, and have bolstered weakness in mature US markets in their core business with international expansion.

Here's another anecdote: at Inktomi, we powered nearly 90% of the web searches. Google came along, and we laughed. Heartily. In 4 years, Inktomi was gone and Google was well on its way to being what it is today. Our market cap at the time made it a joke to consider Google a serious competitor; after all, we defined what web search was. We charged companies to use our software; Google gave theirs away for the hopes of making a few bucks on some ads. It sounds ludicrous, I know. But Google made a better product that consumers liked better, and companies were thrilled to give them users instead of paying us. And they were backed by investors who believed in their vision of the future, and were rewarded handsomely.

So, if you want to invest in Groupon, it comes down to this: regardless of their current business, and the amazingly heavy load they bear in sustaining it, do you believe they can innovate and grow for the future? If you do, you should. If you don't, don't. If you are looking at the company today, and assuming that is all they will ever do, I would say absolutely not. But smart investors also said that Apple's foray into retail would kill them, or Amazon launching an eReader would destroy their business, and that eBay would never be able to shed their auction model. And they were wrong.

And then there is this: investing in Groupon is, in my opinion, actually patriotic. Apple reaps millions in profits on cheap Chinese-manufactured goods; so does Amazon. The oil companies are swimming in profits made by gouging US consumers and sheltering those profits in offshore accounts. But Groupon is all American: employees, products, innovation. They employ tens of thousands of people in this country, something our elected officials have not found a way to reward companies to do instead of outsourcing. Groupon's fastest growing market? China. That's right: an American company, besides the tobacco companies, getting the amazing Chinese economy to give America their money. They represent an innovative way to do business, and yet, they are actually inefficient. For their bluster as a "technology company," their processes are shockingly manual, but are ripe for increased efficiency by the application of actual technology company, and they are buying firms in Silicon Valley to help them do so. They are an American success story, and deserve to be celebrated for it.

Imagine, if the government announced a program that would put tens of thousands of Americans to work in jobs that would grow and allow anyone, regardless of background or training, and be paid a competitive wage. Our embattled president would be put up with Reagan, Kennedy, and FDR as a great economic innovator. Instead, it's the 21st century and the private sector is doing it, and Groupon is trying to deliver a solution to a market that wants it. Are they trustworthy? Only time will tell, but I think the average consumer and investor would find them more worthy of a chance than politicians.

Oh, and remember Henry Blodget, the Business Insider editor I quoted earlier? Yeah, he was engaged in insider trading and ended up being banned from the securities industry and paying $2 million of his ill-gotten gains. So, when you hear the haters hating, don't forget to have a look at their fundamentals. Investment is risky (I say that as a man who lost thousands on Webvan and other supposed "can't miss" investments), and only time will tell who's right. But let's not tear down those who are trying to innovate: raise the risks, trumpet the concerns, but let's remember: it's business, not personal.

Groupon's IPO yielded a market cap of about $15 billion. Let's turn down the vitriol, and see what they do with it.

iOS 5 Hidden Gem!

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:43:35 PDT

Yep, it's hidden deep, but it's here! For folks like me who keep the phone on silent at all times, it sure would be nice to know who's calling without pulling the phone out of the pocket. Presenting custom vibration patterns for callers!

Even better, not just content to give a set of predefined patterns, you can compose your own! Very cool. Extra points to the bling of using the flash as a notifier, optionally.

Funny, I heard absolutely no mention of this feature; guess Apple didn't want to...ahem...shake things up?

Living In An iOS5 World

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:17:53 PDT

So, after a 4 hour install and a 2 hour restore, my iPhone is finally running the much awaited iOS5. Months of anticipating, over 200 new features, and it's finally here! So, what do I think?

It feels like the biggest patch release yet.

When I upgraded to iOS4, it felt like a new device. In fact, the strain it put on my old 3Gs required an eventual upgrade to iPhone 4. But iOS 5 is very different. It's quiet. The main theme I can ascribe to it is that it fixes so many of the deficiencies that the iPhone had. Note that: it fixes them. Not revolutionary; evolutionary.

Notifications that take up the whole screen? So last decade; gone. Can't use any tone for system events? Ok, now you can. Rich text email? Welcome to the 21st century. Lots of things like that. Just...fixes that should have been done all along.

Even the new features are understated. Take iMessage. Looks and feels like SMS; the magic happens behind the scenes and is largely invisible to the user. iCloud's big impact? Background synchronizing. Reminders? Geofencing is very cool and slightly creepy, but it works well, without fanfare. And future abilities to update iOS without using a computer is great, but not yet needed.

I am (uncharacteristically) not complaining: iOS5 is solid, snappy, and fixes a lot of the problems. Are there some annoyances still? You bet. How about the introduction of syncing to your computer over wi-fi (another one of those features that just should have been there since day 1), but only if you plug your iPhone into power? Is Apple so worried about the battery impact? And then there is the phantom accessing of the location services: with barely any apps running, the iPhone now shows it's communicating location to...something, but no idea what, and not always. And while I like the idea of Newsstand, I have a special folder that I throw most of the "helpful" apps Apple automatically includes, but Newsstand can't go in there. Why? Because it's actually a folder, despite not looking like all other folders.

Look, given more time, I am sure I will find more interesting wrinkles of the post iOS5 world, but today, the future arrived not with a bang, but a quiet, elegant massive patch that smooths out many of the deficiencies of the past. It doesn't set the bar, but it definitely quiets many of the complaints thrown at it before. The sad part is that a major Apple release's best praise has to be "it's solid." Not a bad thing (ask Mercedes if they mind hearing that), but not the game-changing we all have come to expect. Maybe that will come over time, which would be appropriate for a luxury brand.

Best. Farewell Note. Ever.

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:42:40 PDT

From an amazing person whom I have worked with. He embraces politically incorrect in a whole new way, and sets the standard high for all of us.

Greetings all,
I will be coming in today for TRULY my final day, winding up what has been a wonderful, albeit short lived career with some of my favorite people who have touched me (see: {Employee name redacted}) in ways (and places) I never thought I could be touched.

Being that I am bad with names, I would like to express my gratitude toward the Korean guy, the Hispanic girl, the beautiful young old woman, the hunky too-good-looking-to-be-hetero guy (see:{Employee Name Redacted}), the smart guy who I am pretty sure is Jewish, the over achieving 29 year old mom from San Jose, the blond with wet hair, the ladies in sales and the "Gays" and "Nerds" (I don't like to typecast; think of it more as profiling). A special shout out to {Employee Name Redacted}who has my final paycheck, and to {Employee Name Redacted} who will be escorting me from the building.

I feel blessed and honored that I had a chance to work with so many brilliant people during my short stint. {Employee Name Redacted}and {Employee Name Redacted}, thanks for taking a chance on me, {Employee Name Redacted} and {Employee Name Redacted}thanks for believing in me and {Employee Name Redacted}and {Employee Name Redacted} thanks for helping me. I have learned from each and every one of you and I will take this knowledge and confidence with me to my new endeavor. I hope we can all continue to stay in touch (especially if it involves feeding me leads that are coming in).
I thank all of you for your help and support and wish you all continued success and happiness*

I will be in just as soon as the painters leave my house because I know they will steal all of my valuable shit...
Sincerely,{Employee Name Redacted}

I salute you.

Location Based Deals Have Some Work To Do

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:48:06 PDT

I'm a big proponent of Foursquare and other location based services. Recently, many have started adding deals to their services by incorporating other companies and services. A good example? JetBlue awarding JetBlue points for checking in on Facebook to their "official" JetBlue locations at the airport. But Foursquare keeps trying, and recently they upped the ante by partnering with Groupon to feature their deals. However, they still have some work to do.

For example, Foursquare will often prompt you to add "to do's" for places: essentially, bookmarks. Ok, fair enough. A while ago, I added a To-Do for a sushi place folks told me might be good. Now, at this point, Foursquare has the info: I want to go there. And, the other day, I fired up Foursquare and saw this:

All good, right? I click through, and I see:

Now, what, you are asking, is the problem? Well, look at the time at the top: it's 9:46 PM. Now, look at the bottom: "Must present between 5pm and 10PM on 8/18." Yes, it was 8/18, and it was 9:46 PM. Oh well, you say, I missed out on a deal. What's the problem?

Here's the problem: the restaurant offered the deal to get customers like me to try them. Groupon clearly had the deal in their system for a while before it ran. Foursquare knows I wanted to try the restaurant and had access to the Groupon info. So why, in the name of all that is understandable, would Foursquare not have sent my iOS device a push notification in advance, to tell me this was coming? Hell, they send me messages to let me know a friend has checked in; they let me know when a comment is made on a check in; they even let me know when new friends join Foursquare. They had access to all of this, and they hoped I would fire up the app in time??

Foursquare has the potential to change how we behave, our plans, and more in the real world. Merchants use Groupon usually only once, because the customers they get are deal-seekers, not customers like me who will come back again and again: by cross referencing expressed desires and check-in history, Foursquare could completely change that equation and instead of being beholden to folks like Groupon, they could make them cut far better deals; potentially, even cut the deals themselves, as the customers they deliver would be far more qualified.

It's a long road, but I hope they travel it, but it's off to a rocky start.

Best Reason To Use Android

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:37:38 PDT

I always try to keep myself out of the canonical debates on OS. Mac Vs. PC? I used to head up the largest Mac user group in the world, but today I prefer Windows 7. Palm Vs. Anything? I was a Palm guy, all the way, but as soon as iOS hit, I gladly jumped ship. Today, it's all about iOS vs. Android. I won't get into the debate, but suffice it to say, there are good points on both. Me, I come down on iOS, but I just picked up an Android tablet (more on that in another post), to be sure I haven't been missing out, or maybe see the other side.

Through all of that, however, the best argument I have seen for using Android on your mobile phone was made by this article from Ars Technica. Someone lost their phone; it happens all the time. Sure, there's software that you can install ("apps," for those new to this arena) that, when installed before you lose it, helps you to track your phone down. What happens if you had not yet installed that software, through? Out of luck, right? Wrong, thanks to Android and Plan B, allowing you to remotely install Plan B after you have lost the phone, and you are on the road to finding your lost smartphone.

Brilliant. Simply brilliant. and a great read, as well.

Why Comics Are Not Dominating Tablets

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:38:25 PDT

As regular readers of this blog know, I am a big fan of two things: comic books and the transition from dead tree publishing to digital. Even in my post on why I was not a big fan of the iPad, I mentioned that one area it could potentially dominate is the digital transition of comics, something that Kindles and iPhones simply cannot really capture. In the months since, ComiXology has released several versions of their digital comics app, including the "Big Two" of DC and Marvel. I have happily purchased many a comic since this way, and read them on my iPhone (and yes, it does make me yearn for the tablet size). But yet, maddeningly, the offerings consisted of a microscopic sampling of the titles published by both. Why?

This month's Wired magazine answers it very well. In essence, comic book publishing is a razor-thin symbiotic affair, with the slightest threat to the retail stores having a disastrous effect that becomes a maelstrom that pulls down the whole industry that no superheroic efforts could pull back. An even slight dip in revenues for stores from digital sales would cause a rash of closings: those stores' guaranteed wholesale buys are what the comics business relies on, not the occasional in-app purchase of readers like me. I grew up in comic book stores, though I have not set foot in one in years, and I knew how tough their business was, so this is not that long of shot to me. But, as the article points out, "The February issue of Green Lantern sold a mere 70,000 or so copies—but the franchise has also spawned a $150 million movie." So the industry has a very vested interest in maintaining the status quo. But how to evolve?

Here's my idea. Both Marvel and DC are owned by supercompanies (Warner Brothers and Disney, respectively). Both have the economic clout to get a tablet made for substantially less; in the case of Disney, one of their largest stockholders happens to be the CEO of Apple. According to estimates, the cost to make the iPad is actually $260 for a device that sells for $500. Ok, let's say with a bulk commitment, DC and Marvel can get that cost to about $225. They supply them to the comic book stores to sell, on spec, with exclusive apps to get access to the full catalog, to the consumer, for $350. For each purchase made by a customer who buys from the app, the comic store is paid a commission, equivalent to their normal profit between their physical wholesale and cover price, for at least 5 years. Now, the comic store owner gets a $125 bump for each tablet they sell, and they maintain their revenue stream from the consumer, even if that consumer buys digitally.

Special editions, graphic novels, limited runs, and even selected hot titles will all be issued with a windowing system, much like the movie business does with Netflix now (though clearly not the 28 days they impose there); this encourages dedicated collectors to come in to the store and buy the actual thing, while letting more casual subscribers (like me) pay the price of our laziness. Local artists can be geotargeted to the tablet purchasers. Hell, let the wireless carriers further subsidize the tablet with wireless connectivity, if you want, putting even more money in the pockets of the store owners. And don't just think iPads: while Apple dominates this market now, there are lots of manufacturers aching to take a bite out of Cupertino (hello, HP TouchPad?), and Amazon and Barnes & Noble have already proven that there is definitely a market for a content-driven tablet, regardless of who manufactures it.

The list goes on...the point is, there are solutions, if the industry is willing to make bold moves. As Wired points out, "But the $4 stapled pamphlet? Sooner or later it’s doomed, a vestigial holdover from the days when comic books were sold on spinning metal racks to kids. There’s not much it can do that a digital equivalent can’t do better." It's going to happen. It's just a question if the industry wants to pilot a solution, instead of bemoaning the problem.

One ironic twist to this: I absolutely marvel that Wired continues to put out such a quality product. Every month, there is at least one article that makes me stop and think. But how do I, the paper-hating, papyrus-burning bastard consume these great articles? Yep, in the thick, glossy paper form. Now, if only Conde Nast would also get a clue on subsidizing a tablet...

Local Deals Need To Be Local

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Tretakoff) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:55:36 PDT

AT&T recently touted they were adding deals to AT&T Wireless subscribers. Thanks to the slightly creepy feature that the network knows where your phone is, they would helpfully send texts with deals at retailers "nearby." I signed up, figuring this would be a good experience, one that companies like Groupon (or even TownHog) would love to offer.

The first offer came in, for a Best Buy 15% off deal. Ok, so it was a few miles from me when it came in, but basically in the ballpark. Not an amazing deal, either, but hey. Not bad. The next was further away...and further away...until the one you see here. Yes, AT&T's version of a local deal was a message about chocolate milk. Not nearby, but just a plug for milk. Seriously. As you can see, that was the last straw: I unsubscribed.

Now, you could take this as a lesson: offer local deals, and the deals better be good, and local. These were neither; they were embarrassing. I hope they do better with YP.com's new local deals services. But the story does not end there. See, they were smart enough to solicit feedback on why I chose to discontinue using the service. Good move. But when I clicked through to give the feedback? I get a page that looks surprisingly like a page to sign up. Guys, come on: you just had me unsubscribe, you ask for my feedback, and you give me a page that scares me that I might be opting back into this crummy service? Ouch.

This ain't baseball. I gave you two strikes, not the one you usually get, and you still found a way to foul out. Not what I'd call a great deal.