Skip to content


Freemium and Freeconomics

This week we saw the release of Chris Anderson’s book Free and reviews from the New Yorker (Malcolm Gladwell) and the Financial Times. I’d like to talk a bit about the firestorm that freeconomics (fed by Chris’ book) has unleashed but first we need to clarify something.

The FT piece says:

The most plausible contender for an “entirely new economic model” made
possible by the internet is what Fred Wilson, the New York venture
capitalist, has dubbed “freemium”.

There was no dubbing by me. In March 2006, I wrote a post called My Favorite Business Model in which I outlined the freemium concept and I asked the readers to help me give it an easy handle. The word Freemium was not coined by me. It came from Jarid Lukin, who at the time was working for Alacra, a company I am on the board of. Fortunately, we’ve got Wikipedia which has got the story straight.

Now let’s talk about freeconomics. I don’t believe everything will be free on the Internet. There will be plenty of paid business models. For example, if you want to watch Major League Baseball games live over the Internet, you’ll pay for that. If you want to use services like the FT and the WSJ frequently (more than 10x per month), you’ll pay for that. If you want to watch HBO over the Internet, you’ll pay for that. If you want a Twitter desktop or mobile client, you might pay for that too.

But we also must recognize that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. The marginal cost of delivering a piece of content is approaching zero. But the total cost of delivering content on the Internet is far from zero. My partner Albert wrote a great post about this last week. He said:

The price of watching a stream on Youtube is zero.   With marginal cost
zero and marginal benefit zero, from a perspective of maximizing total
social (net) benefit, free is the right price because it does not
preclude any video that could possibly have benefit from being viewed. 
That does not mean that free is sustainable because it obviously
doesn’t help cover the total cost.

And, as Albert recognizes at the end of his post, this debate is not entirely about economics. It is about the value of various participants in the content ecosystem.

Gladwell got pretty negative on Anderson and his book in the New Yorker piece. He said:

It would be nice to know, as well, just how a business goes about
reorganizing itself around getting people to work for “non-monetary
rewards.” Does he mean that the New York
Times should be
staffed by volunteers, like Meals on Wheels? Anderson’s reference to
people who “prefer to buy their music online” carries the faint
suggestion that refraining from theft should be considered a mere
preference. And then there is his insistence that the relentless
downward pressure on prices represents an iron law of the digital
economy. Why is it a law? Free is just another price, and prices are
set by individual actors, in accordance with the aggregated particulars
of marketplace power.

These are the anti-freeconomics arguments we hear from the likes of Andrew Keen and his ilk. Lambasting file sharers and entrepreneurs who rightly recognize that free is the right way to build market share on the Internet might be fun and make certain people feel good. But it’s ignorance of a fundamental fact. And that fact is that free, ad supported media works best on the Internet. We have seen it again and again. I’m not going to even give examples.

Once you have built that audience, you can deliver upsells via freemium models, you can monetize it via advertising and you can branch out into other services which are easier to monetize. This post by Silicon Alley Insider on Facebook’s revenues this year is instructive:

Earlier this week, we spoke to several sources who each have some
insight into Facebook’s financials (none of them know precisely).
Taking the sources’ input together, we’d estimate the company’s
expected 2009 revenue this way:

  • $125 million from brand ads
  • $150 million from Facebook’s ad deal with Microsoft
  • $75 million from virtual goods
  • $200 million from self-service ads.

These numbers are similar enough to others that I have heard that I feel comfortable republishing them here. Facebook has 200mm+ monthly active users worldwide. Let’s say they are doing $50mm per month in revenue. That’s a revenue per monthly active user of $0.25. Low for sure, but enough to operate at breakeven. And I expect the self service ads and the virtual goods revenues to grow strongly in the next year, more than making up for the likely loss of some of the $150mm from the ad deal with Microsoft.

And the next move for Facebook is to generate transaction revenues with its payment service and off site ad and transcation revenues from its Facebook Connect service. I’m pretty confident that Facebook can take its revenue per monthly active user to at least $0.50 and maybe higher in the coming years.

Facebook is a perfect example of freeconomics at work. A woman who works for a major media company was in my office recently. She quoted her CEO as saying “why doesn’t Facebook just charge a monthly subscription fee, they’d be making money hand over fist?”. Well I believe that if Facebook did that, they’d be vulnerable to other networks offering a free service. And certainly not every one of those 200mm+ users are going to cough up a monthly subscription. But by offering a friction free service, they have built a powerful and growing network that they are now starting to monetize in various ways and that they will monetize even further in additional ways. And they are super hard to compete with because they are free.

I like to keep my posts short, so I’ll end here with the observation that the Internet allows an entrrepreneur to enter a market with a free offering because the costs of doing so are not astronomical. And most entrpreneurs who take this approach will maintain an attractive free offering of their basic service forever. But that doesn’t mean that everything they offer will be free. That’s the whole point of freemium. Free gets you to a place where you can ask to get paid. But if you don’t start with free on the Internet, most companies will never get paid.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Posted in VC. Tagged with , , .

We are at the beach this weekend and I can’t upload…



We are at the beach this weekend and I can’t upload music.

thankfully there are some great songs on my Tumblr dashboard and I can reblog with a click.

soxiam:

the replacements - “when it began”



Posted in VC.

Solving the Peter Principle? One Word: "Darts"

There is a fun new working paper out from some Italian scientists that models the Peter Principle. The principle says, of course, that people climb in an organization until they reach their level of maximum incompetence.

How would that happen? Well, the authors argue it should be expected in any organization where the following two conditions hold:

  1. The best member are rewarded with promotions
  2. Competence in a new position is not highly correlated with competence at a prior level

The authors simulated the preceding in a pyramidal organizational form using a mathematical agent model. Here is the outcome:

Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the [above two conditions] actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only the "Peter principle" is unavoidable, but it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. [Emphasis mine]

Granted, this shouldn’t be surprising news, one would think, to anyone who has spent any time around large organizations. A disproportionate number of the positions always seem filled by people who elicit a WTF? reaction from reasonable-minded observers.

So, do we just live with it? After all, we can hardly get around elevating the best people, and it isn’t unreasonable to think that one’s experience in a former position doesn’t adequately prepare for the new one.

Not necessarily, according to the authors:

…the best strategies to improve, or at least not to diminish, the efficiency of an organization, when one ignores the actual way of competence transmission, are those of promoting an agent at random or of randomly alternating the promotion of the best and the worst members. We think that these results could be useful to guide the management of large real hierarchical systems of different nature and in different fields.

Whoa, it turns out calling someone’s promotion "random" is a compliment. Who knew darts could be so handy at promotion time?

Source:

The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study
Authors: Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, Cesare Garofalo



Posted in VC.

When is a Failure Not a Failure? When It’s an Iraq Oil Auction

The failed Iraq oilfield auctions this week have become a litmus test for Iraq, for oil analysts and for the ever-nervous global oil market. Iraqi officials refuse to see the disappearance of most bidders and the completion of only auction (with a single bidder) as a failure. Instead, they are hawking the crowd-pleasing idea that multinational oil companies are greedy mouth-breathers that balked at the hard bargain being driven by righteous Iraqis who control so much valuable, marginal oil supply.

For their part, of course, oil companies think that the Iraqi oil auctioneers are nuts. The proffered risk/reward premium for exploration, development and production in an unsafe country with minimal infrastructure and maximal political flux was near zero. But in their zealotry to demonstrate resource nationalism to an uneasy electorate, Iraqi officials scared off most sane bidders, making the only successful buyer in this first round a bid backstopped and subsidized by the Chinese government — and one that still required a huge price concession.

Here is a nice summary snippet from IHS on where this means the sorry process goes from here:

Without Iraq offering a better risk/reward ratio to investors it will have to undertake all investment and development itself—a process that will be slow, laborious, and under-funded, and will result in volumes nowhere near those targeted and years from their hoped-for schedule.

Iraq needs to look not only at the reward side of its offering, however; it can make significant progress on lowering the investor risks. The government needs to direct its attention to passing a national hydrocarbons law in order to lay down a clear legal framework for the deals and give them greater political legitimacy than what is just—effectively—a mere pledge of contract allegiance from the currently serving ministers. This would also lower the political risk in Iraq, as the law in itself would require some form of broader political understanding between the leading factions and thereby to some extent bind much of Iraq’s political forces into taking responsibility for long-term hydrocarbon policy.

More here and here.



Posted in VC.

QOTD: Sampling the Future

The following innocuous sampling theory comment from Andy Gelman set me thinking in a bunch of dimensions today. The question had to with how to handle statistical analysis when your sample population is the entire population, and Andy’s answer is important and instructive:

So, one way of framing the problem is to think of your "entire population" as a sample from a larger population, potentially including future cases.

Precisely right, and a point that many naive hypothesis-generators might keep in mind, whether in financial markets or elsewhere.

More here.



Posted in VC.

Farmworkers: Go to New York City, Young Man

I’ve been messing about with this tool that tries to compare supply and demand for various jobs by geography throughout the U.S. You have to be careful how you interpret it, as the following chart suggesting farmworkers (and animals (sic.)) should race to New York City and San Francisco shows, but it’s still interesting.

farms



Posted in VC.

Watching People Come of Age

One of the most satisfying parts of what I do is getting to work with people over a long period of time, starting early in their careers.  It’s one of the things I love about TechStars, but it’s not limited to that as I have many other relationships with young and first time entrepreneurs.

Last night, at Ignite Boulder 5, I had a permagrin on my face as I thought about the amazing job Andrew Hyde was doing.  I first met Andrew a few years ago when we started TechStars – he basically volunteered to hang out with a video camera for free all summer to film stuff and learn.  He was so hugely helpful that it was easy to bring him on board the TechStars team in year two as the community manager.

I attended Ignite Boulder 2 and had a great time.  But last night – #5 – just blew me away.  700-ish people in the Boulder Theater, enormous energy, endless laughter and brain stimulation, and just a very good time.  Andrew organized a phenomenal show and really shined as the organizer / MC.

But TechStars and Ignite Boulder are not the only things Andrew does.  He also created Startup Weekend (I was at the first one in Boulder) and he was one of the founders of Boulder.me. And – with Matt Emmi of One Button -created the hilariously creative VC Wear t-shirt line (my favorite: “I went down on Sand Hill Road”.)

But wait, there’s more.  Andrew is everywhere in the Boulder startup community while managing to travel all over the world sharing his brand of entrepreneurial passion.  I don’t ever think I’ve seen Andrew without a smile on his face, and he’s even gracious when he kicks my butt in ping poing.

It’s been awesome to see Andrew come of age as a key driver of our local entrepreneurial community.  Good job man!



Posted in VC. Tagged with .

This Just In….

Blogging is no longer cool.  Reminds me of the cathartic moment when Elmer Fudd realized that cartoons weren’t……weeeeal.

Posted in Uncategorized, VC.

Wells Fargo Gives California July 10 Drop-Dead Date

Nice to have a firm date for when California must have a budget and stop shopping IOUs. Here is Wells Fargo from a release yesterday:

Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) said today it will accept registered warrants issued by the State of California from its retail and business customers for a limited time. It will begin accepting the registered warrants for deposit on July 2, 2009 and stop accepting them no later than July 10, 2009.

“We’re very disappointed, as are many Californians, that California has taken the unfortunate step of issuing IOUs in lieu of its payments to some businesses and individuals,” said Lisa Stevens, head of Community Banking for Wells Fargo in California. “Wells Fargo has a long history of taking extraordinary measures to help our customers and will accept registered warrants from our customers, but only for a limited time, to allow them time to make other arrangements. We are reluctant to take this step, but are doing so to help our customers who are not at fault and with the expectation that the Legislature and Governor will complete the budget within days. We join all Californians in urging our Legislature and our Governor to take the appropriate steps as soon as possible to resolve this budget crisis.”

[Emphasis mine]

It is deliriously ironic and surreal that it took California to make screwed-up and irresponsible banks look like mature adults.



Posted in VC.

James, surfing.



James, surfing.



Posted in VC.