Wide Open, Rockaway Junction MTA, NY, NY

Photos from the destination, Rockaway Beach, on Flickr and Instagram.

I want… powered by Neighborland.

When you think “I want to..”, what do you do?

When you want to share a thought, store a link, find an idea, research a person, find new music, ask a question, share a photo, etc., what do you do? And do you even think about it?

Each one of these actions can be accomplished in many ways with a variety of products on the web; each one of these actions has a multitude of companies competing to be our preferred, default method for getting what we want done. Some are even trying to convince us of new things we need to do. They are attempting to create internal triggers (impulses to use their product) and habits (use our product every day / week / time) in the hope of creating the kind of mass adoption and usage to create widely-known unique signifiers around their products.

I.e. when something in your life happens, they want you to immediately think “I should do this using xxx”, tapping into a unique, discrete trigger embedded into your behavior.

Not easy, obviously. But tremendously valuable if you can swing it.

The implications for startups? Is it possible to create that trigger? How much does that action occur every day, every week, every month? How hard is it to establish that habit in people? How hard is it to tear that impulse away from a competing service? How hard is it create a new social action? How can you build a networked community based on a mass of people taking a single action? And if you’re wondering, advertising and branding isn’t enough, this takes products and communities.

When I hear people say “mobile will be huge” I cringe: mobile is already huge, and has been huge around the world for many years. To say “mobile” will be big is a useless generalization, because “mobile” means so many different things. But moreso, mobile isn’t a product feature: it’s an organizing principle.

What’s the difference? Take “social”. Paul Adams, Stop talking about social:

“… the rise of the social web is a structural change being driven by online life catching up with offline life. The winners in this world will be the ones who assume social behaviour in everything they do. It won’t be the ones thinking about social as a feature or product in isolation. The winners will be existing businesses who build on top of social platforms to rethink how their business operates.”

In a similar vein, the winners in mobile will be those who are able to build on top of mobile platforms to rethink how their business operates. And that’s happening as we speak. The smartest companies on the web are unlearning what they did for the “big web” and relearning how to recreate their businesses around the “small web”. They’re learning how to use smarter devices, smarter networks, smarter sensors, smarter systems of contextual data to build smarter companies. They’re learning how to use context.

Chris Dixon:

… the really massive opportunity is dreaming up new ways that the little computers loaded with sensors that we carry around with us everywhere can improve our real-world experiences.

The key to this (and to the sentiment echoed by Saar) is to focus less on the device and more on the individuals using the device.

And how does that work? It all starts by using personal, contextual data to create unique experiences for individual people. As Saar points out,

“Smart” means understanding a user and understanding their physical and mental state. Smart services will process user information in the background to make accurate predictions around real-time user intention and will offer suggestions, results and different user interfaces/interactions based on their prediction of state.

A couple weeks ago at the launch of WIM I asked Veronika a question about how she saw the “big web” and “small web” evolving and if she saw the distinction between the two breaking down. Her answer, about how she didn’t see the distinction between them in that vein because she saw “the web” as different experiences best facilitated by each device, led me to respond that it “wasn’t about mobile first, but context first”.

And it all starts with data: personal, user-centric, contextual intent data. Of course, that isn’t easy or cheap; we haven’t seen many truly great applications leveraging contextual data yet because context is incredibly expensive to get right: hard to learn, hard to create, hard to action. But that’s the opportunity.

Organizing principles work as calls to action, as frames of reference, of sources of inspiration. The organizing principle of “mobile first, web second” has inspired a wave of mobile applications; but “context first” is the type of organizing principle that will lead to truly disruptive web services.

People first. User first. Context first.

~

And yes, investing in the disrupting force of data in advertising and marketing technology is core to our investment thesis at kbs+ Ventures.

MediaPost recently highlighted kbs+ Ventures in a recent article:

One year after launching, kbs+p Ventures has emerged as one of the most sophisticated venture capital units on Madison Avenue.

Read the rest for a review of how we view our role as a strategic investor, the Fellows program, and how we work to create investment and knowledge returns for the kbs the agency and its clients, our fellow investors, and all the entrepreneurs we back.

Additionally, mentioned in the article is the 2011 Annual Report, embedded below. The report summaries our 2011, our current portfolio, and some metrics around what we saw in the venture market in 2011, with some data about our sources of deal flow and the types of potential investments we saw.

Any questions, contact us.

I’m very stoked about The Show. It doesn’t have to be the same to be great.

Also: “Perfectionism may look good in his shiny shoes, but he’s a little bit of an asshole and no one invites him to their pool parties.”

Hidden, Hudson Highlands State Park, NY

Anne Dillard, Teaching a Stone to Talk: Expeditions and Encounters:

The point of going somewhere like the Napo River in Ecuador is not to see the most spectacular anything. It is simply to see what is there. We are here on the planet only once, and we might as well get a feel for the place.

This is how I think about travel and exploration; often times, the point of going is simply to see what’s there, to experience it with our own eyes, heart, mind and soul, to add to our perspective and knowledge about the world. Sometimes, as long as we bring the right perspective, that’s all the reason we need.

Lytro at SXSW PhotoCamp, Austin, TX, 2012

The Lytro isn’t just a new camera, it’s a new medium. Let me explain.

The Lytro, a discontinuity in digital camera evolution.

If you haven’t heard, the Lytro is a “light field camera” that leverages a new technology to capture images in such a fundamentally different way that comparing it to the average digital camera isn’t the right way to think about it. Instead of capturing a single representation of a scene at a single focal length, it captures a wide range of representations at different focal lengths. Press the shutter, and it doesn’t take a “picture” is as much as it captures a range of pictures.

What does that mean? That means instead of focusing the Lytro camera on a specific point of focus, you merely take a Lytro picture of the scene, and then when you look at a Lytro picture on your computer or the web, you can browse through the various possible focus points. This is the functionality most reviews focus on: you don’t focus a Lytro camera, you focus a Lytro image.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple, as the two modes, Everyday and Creative, are a bit different in how they are best used: Everyday mode is best for “refocusing across the entire scene”, while Creative mode “allows the refocusability to be concentrated around your subject”.

The difference between a Lytro and a traditional digital camera is most obvious (at the moment) for a particular kind of shot: where you have a close-up subject and a far-away background. In these situations, the Lytro “living image” is truly living, and as you click through the foreground, middle and background to refocus the image, the image feels as if it’s never finished (click here for examples).

I got to experiment with one at SXSW PhotoCamp, and talk to the Lytro marketing crew, and was fascinated.

As a technologist, I think the Lytro v1 is a fascinating example of the potential of the lightfield technology. Not quite a mass-market device, clearly not a competitor to Canon, Leica or Nikon, but something to watch closely. Just remember this is a v1 consumer application of breakthrough scientific research. The Lytro has lots of room for technological improvement and new applications.

The Lytro, a new medium.

As a photographer, I’m convinced this isn’t just a new camera, but a new medium.

Serious photographers will mock it initially, but that’s to be expected: discontinuities in evolution are always mocked. Serious film photographers mocked digital cameras. Painters mocked the first photographers. Each new style of painting was mocked by the prominent form of painting that proceeded it. That’s how evolution works.

What most of the reviews of the Lytro hint to, even as they compare the Lytro to a traditional camera, is that the Lytro isn’t meant to be compared to a traditional camera (digital or film):

When we spoke to Lytro’s Founder and CEO, Ren Ng, he made a comparison to Polaroid photography, and we think it’s a telling reference point. Polaroids seem ridiculous if judged by the standards of film photography but that didn’t mean they weren’t capable of offering something interesting and creative. It was a medium that offered something different and it was used both practically and creatively for those differences.

The best images out of a Lytro won’t feel like images out of a film or digital camera: the Lytro (and lightfield technology more generally) creates a new form of creative expression. Viewing a Lytro image is a lean-forward experience, not a lean-back experience. A great photograph invites us to lean back and move our eyes and our minds around an image. A great Lytro image will invite us to lean forward and dive our eyes into an image.

Neither form of experience is better or worse, they are just different. It’s possible to make great websites as both lean-back and lean-forward experiences. Television is increasingly creating interactive components and experiences. Why shouldn’t photography?

The key is that the creator of a great Lytro image will have to think differently than the creator of a great static image. Creative expression will be uniquely different with a Lytro camera, just as all new forms of artistic technology grant a new range of ways to create. The Lytro is different enough to warrant a different scope of creative imagination and interpretation.

Great artists learn how to use the tools available to them in their time. New mediums bring new masters. My hat goes off to the still-to-be-discovered, first, great lightfield photographer: it’s going to be fun to see how they do it.

Prototypes and demos always come before spreadsheets. But at some point, you will need a spreadsheet.

The Lean Startup movement is a shining example of how the process and thinking about how to build a startup has changed drastically in the last ten years. The process behind building a lean startup, in parallel with the structural changes behind the culture, costs and rewards to building startups, has resulted in big changes in the early-stage entrepreneurship industry.

But where’s the Lean Finance movement? I’ve been helping entrepreneurs build financial models for over ten years, but haven’t seen any real changes in the space. Many entrepreneurs I talk to still dislike financial models, and I agree, if only because most people approach building financial models the wrong way. Yes, financial models are always wrong. Yes, you’ll never meet your projections. Yes, build products before spreadsheets.

But building financial models can still be valuable, if you remember one thing: the model doesn’t matter, the thought process does. Overly complex financial models are a waste of time without solid understanding of the basic inputs and outputs of your business. That’s why I’ve worked to help entrepreneurs think about finance and build financial models the right way.

Entrepreneurs, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts, and I’ll share all the key insights for everyone to learn. Thank you for your help.

Request: take 2 minutes and fill out this 4 question survey to add your thoughts.

Last October I spent an evening with 30 photographers, directors, videographers, sound engineers, producers, and editors through a Collaboration Speed Dating event led by Miki Johnson. The goal? Bring together a wide group of creatives to talk about how to find collaborators, to share tips they have learned about collaborating, and to find potential collaborative partners. *

After a bit of networking / chatting to kick off the evening, we broke up into three smaller groups to discuss and share. As one of the three facilitators, I kicked off the conversation by asking people what collaboration means to them.

Stephen Mayes, head of photo agency VII Photo, responded with the perfect spark:

It seems strange to be discussing collaboration when everything we do is a collaboration.

And he’s right, in a way, depending on how you define collaboration. To a portrait photographer, a portrait is a collaboration with the subject of the portrait. To a street photographer, the images are a collaboration with the street. To any photographer with an editor, the final images are a collaboration with their editor and the broader story. But many of us don’t think of it like that, and consider all the elements outside ourselves as merely inputs into our creative process, rather than key components of the process itself.

As we continued the conversation in the group, we delved into the topic by sharing stories of collaborative projects and the lessons we’ve learned. Two key points I pulled from the evening:

1) “Collaboration works best when both parties are curious about the outcome; hiring works best when you have a fixed objective.”

My summary: When both people are open to learning, listening, and figuring out the end goal through the creative process, collaboration works. When one person has a fixed objective in mind, hiring works best because it aligns both parties on expectations and roles right from the beginning. And even though collaboration may result in a better final product, if one person has a very set final objective, then they really won’t be in the right mindset to engage in the creative process. The creative process takes work, and both parties need to be willing and excited about putting in the work to make the collaboration successful. Important point for photographers. Very important point for startups, entrepreneurs, and investors.

2) “Don’t collaborate with friends, but collaborate with friends of friends.”

My summary: This is actually one of my contributions, which I attributed to Spencer Fry, who said “Don’t hire friends, but hire friends of friends.” Applies to professional photographers and creatives in the same way it applies to startups. Friendship isn’t enough, and is often distracting and suboptimal for the tough decisions and friction involved in creating great things. Regardless, the key is about establishing trust, communication, and paying deep attention to filters like skills, vision, and commitments to make sure you’re truly good matches for collaborating.

While this conversation focused on photography and creative projects, I strongly believe that they also apply to entrepreneurs and new ventures, particularly around hiring. Do you want someone curious about the outcome? Or do you have a fixed objective and discrete need? Do you want to hire your best friend, an acquaintance, or a loose connection? And when does it makes to hire each one of those people?

+

* Noting: a past audio / image collaboration between Miki and I from April 2010.
** I also kicked off SXSW PhotoCamp 2012 by sharing these lessons about collaboration.

Unlocking the Brand Potential, SXSW 2012, Austin, TX

The buzz about SXSW 2012 is that SXSW 2012 wasn’t about innovation, it was about distribution. * The last two years haven’t seen breakout technologies like Twitter in 2007 and Foursquare in 2009, and the buzz about the breakout apps of the last two years (GroupMe in 2010 and Highlight in 2011) centered more on the lack of a real breakout technology than any real buzz about the technologies themselves. Yes, many people talked about Highlight throughout SXSW, but it was mostly “I don’t get it, this is the breakout tech?” The movement to anoint this year’s king and queen stalled before it began. **

The big winners at SXSW? Big brands, the technology startups that learn how to work with big brands, and the agencies that can integrate brands with technology startups. In past SXSWs, we anointed technology startups as winners based on buzz and user acquisition; the past two years, the winners have been the brands, tech startups and agencies that have intelligently integrated their product and marketing strategies. The most obvious sign: as overall attendance has skyrocketed, brands have come to dominate the conversation at SXSW. Hang out at the Samsung Blogger Lounge or the Alcatel – Lucent Trend Lounge at the Convention Center. Catch a Chevy to get a free ride around Austin. Enjoy free food, free drinks, events, games and parties at the Nike lot, the Bing lot, the CNN Grill, the Fast Company Grill, the Daily’s Pool Party, the Jay-Z concert (presented by American Express), the OnStar Kickoff Party, the GE Social Fridge, or the many other activations created by big agencies, who were themselves very prevalent at SXSW Interactive. In my mind, the biggest thing at SXSW wasn’t innovative new technology, but how big brands and companies were learning from startups and integrating the technologies used by the bleeding masses into their product, business, and marketing strategies.

I’ll pass on commenting about BB&H’s “Homeless Hotspot” marketing initiative, and focus on two examples of how traditional brands launched significant initiatives leveraging technology.

Two quick case studies:

American Express: American Express heavily promoted their new Twitter Synch integration with a presence inside the Convention Center and the chance to get exclusive access to an exclusive Jay-Z concert Monday night. Synch, which debuted at SXSW 2011 as a Foursquare integration and later added Facebook integration, is a way for American Express cardholders that synch their card with Twitter, Facebook and/or Foursquare to get automatic discounts from participating merchants when they use their card and tweet, share, and check-in to merchant offers. The integration leverages the native usage model of each app and delivers the discounts automatically through statement credits. Very smart.

Nike: Nike had a massive presence promote FuelBand and the Nike Fuel concept. Besides the Nike lot and the impressive schedule of night shows, daytime events, sports demonstrations and clinics, Nike made a splash by opening up their NikeFuel API at the SXSW Managers Hack event, an event that brought together developers building applications for digital music distribution that also brought together Spotofy, Pandora, SoundHound and other technology companies with APIs around music. Nike’s API is an innovative way to leverage their highly-buzzed about Nike FuelBand and the broader Fuel vision, and will help Nike build much stronger integrations with any social technology companies. Path already announced they are integrating the Nike API into a future product, and I would expect many other companies to build similar integrations native to their own product experiences.

In the broader discussion of how brands should build APIs, Nike’s efforts were very intelligent and showcase Nike’s continued commitment to technology innovation. Every brand says they want to be innovative, but Nike is showing how they can innovate by participating with the technology and startup community. Nike is a tech company.

And when brands win, so do the tech companies and agencies that are able to integrate with them.

+

* Of course, the same thing that happened last year. Perhaps SXSW has gotten too big for new startups to break out amid the noise. Perhaps this is merely a transitionary period for SXSW, or a transitory period for the current state of technology innovation. I wouldn’t bet against a breakout technology at a future SXSW. But I would bet that the how and why it would breakout would be very different from 2007 and 2009.
** The big startup winner at SXSW may turn out to be Path: not because of the buzz during SXSW, but because of the product updates and vision shared during SXSW.
*** How can other companies do this? I attended a session on Sunday called Better Food through Open Data Standards, which brought together numerous parties building data standards for the food industry in an attempt to create easy ways for farmers, processors, retailers, restaurants, health agencies, and people to collaborate in interesting and highly valuable ways. The takeaway: there’s an opportunity for an innovative company in the industry to work with the open data movement and build a platform for the industry. Why shouldn’t Whole Foods build an API for Path, Facebook or Nike to integrate? Just a thought.