The Southern District of New York recently became the nation’s first federal court to explicitly approve the use of predictive coding, a computer-assisted document review that turns much of the legal grunt…
To all of you lovely people comparing the 1B dollar purchase of Instagram to the market cap of the Times:
Your facile and unsophisticated comparisons are not useful or illuminating.
Two words: control premium.
Instagram is worth a billion with a control premium. That’s the premium for a controlling stake in the company, if you couldn’t parse it.
The NYTimes stock is depressed because of the control structure. Even if you could buy all the stock on the market at the current price without driving it way past a billion in market cap (you clever devil, you) you would still be hopping into bed with the Sulzbergers, who would still control the company. This factor depresses the price of the stock.
"The whole idea behind sticky coordination is that people can solve partial equilibrium problems a lot more easily than they can solve general equilibrium problems. When a shock hits, each individual can solve for how his own reaction function should shift in response to that shock. But he can’t easily solve for the new Nash equilibrium point, because that requires him to figure out how every individual’s reaction function has shifted, solve for the new intersection point of all those reaction functions, assume everyone else will do the same, and expect everyone else will move to the new Nash equilibrium too. That’s hard."
“I wanted to write about the New York of people who come here and make new lives, about the ease with which stories from all over the world can become New York stories. Just by virtue of showing up, your story becomes one of the many stories of the city. London’s not like that. Yes, there’s an immigrant culture in London that enriches it and adds to it, but London has a dominant narrative. There is no comparable dominant narrative in New York; just the collected narratives of everyone who shows up.”—Salman Rushdie in his Paris Review interview (via timpiste)
Predictions are fun! Here are mine, fired from the hip:
1. NFC mobile payments will not happen in 2012, and mobile wallet usage will be around low single digits of potential users, meaning, zero.
2. No one will introduce a successful competitor to the iPad. And no, the Kindle Fire doesn’t count.
3. Romney wins the nomination and loses to Obama.
4. Online content streaming takes a step backwards as the major players falter and traditional media eats their profits. People pay the same now for less content. This is temporary and dependent on an Apple TV launch.
5. Speaking of Apple TV, why would they bother making displays, which have a much longer product cycle and aren’t in need of much improvement? Apple TV should be a platform.
6. Google TV will succeed because Google’s customers are advertisers and TV is all about monetizing content by selling ads and Google TV will make Nielsen ratings look like hanging chads. Users will realize they are secondary the moment they try to use the remote.
7. Facebook goes public and becomes worth an unfathomable amount of money, bumping up all tech valuations to irrational levels based on poorly-done comps.
8. Whole Foods figures out mobile first in America. WFM, call me, let’s do this.
9. The Occupy movement finds a way to disrupt a major political event, making the movement even more divisive.
10. Tech supercedes finance as the most wasteful brain drain in America, with our best/brightest essentially devoted to making people click ads or cows or favoriting/liking something online. Gartner and Forrester jockey over research quantifying the bottom line effect of these valueless activities, and hundreds of millions of dollars essentially evaporate in the process.
11. The Boston Red Sox flounder again.
I made these up and stopped at eleven.
ps. Extra bonus round: infographic saturation continues. Ugh.
The curmudgeon might say that the push to optimize every second chops the day into discrete, bounded blocks of time and drains them of possibility. It makes an assembly line of time and cheats us of opportunities for revelation or surprise. Put another way: would any of us really want to know how many days we have until we die?
I made a short presentation touching on some things that have occupied my thoughts lately. It’s about the role competition plays, how we think about it from a Porter perspective, and what that means for companies facing constant disruption.
I believe the implication is that aggressive strategy is more potent than ever, and that adaptivity as a core capability is essential to conducting effecting aggressive strategy. Too often, we bemoan disruption as an agent-less force to which we are a victim. It simply isn’t so. Developing or thinking adaptively in the sense defined within the deck offers one possible way to neuter disruption and destroy competitors. It’s proven: this is how Apple and Amazon get it done.
I’d love to here thoughts and comments, either here, or via john dot winterkorn at undercurrent dot com
Impressions are slung around a lot. They are easy to understand because they work across all media types and hold roughly (debatably) equivalent significance across all media types. The minimal thought required to process them is an advantage for measurement.
I posit that thinking too hard about digital impressions is a losing game. The scale just isn’t the same for what we do. I’ve been looking at a lot of numbers and I’ve also noticed impressions coming up a lot in quarterlies. I think that we occasionally lose a sense of scale about the measure.
TV is all about impressions. So here are some numbers about TV impressions:
Now, these are C1 ratings. So it’s live, plus same day DVR. When people buy TV media, they buy C3 commercial, or live plus DVR over the next 3 days, for the commercials, so ad ratings are a bit different. Not that different.
Sure, maybe the audience left the room to get a beer while the commercials were playing. But Youtube counts a view after you watch 3 seconds of video. Say you had a YouTube series, and it got about 600k views. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, but in context, it’s a small number next to TV, and you only have to produce :30s of footage for a TV spot you can run 200 times a week.
When we play the numbers game with likes, views, and listens, let’s remember what the scale is like.
Are impressions a losing game?
ps. There are more televisions than households in the US. Americans watch 6 hours a day of television on average. Yes, I know. I’m frightened too.
pps. bonus bonus round: The heaviest TV advertisers do over 100mm impressions in their target demos in some weeks.