JustinIdea - Justin Ricaurte's Personal Blog

Social Advertising

From business's point of view social ads are the holy grail of marketing.  Being able to give ads to people based-on their previous behavior, not only from shopping with your company but with others, is the Fort Knox of personal data.  This information potentially allows marketers to give consumers marketing messages through the most influential marketing channel, social networks, and based-on the users profile, giving away their preferences.

But it's also the holy thorn of marketing.  When someone posts information on a social networking site, they expect their information to not be shared outside of the privacy controls they've set.  When this data becomes shared, people feel violated, lowering their trust in the service that is rendered.  Privacy rights groups then storm the gates of the government demanding greater protections for consumers and for federal investigations of the service providers.  The EU, with it's stronger privacy protections, will already be on its way to analyzing the security and privacy implications of the services, make recommendations, then get ready for its next set of legal battles.

They say there's no such thing as bad pr, but when the consumers trust in a set of dominant services is on the line, it is bad pr.  Companies should be careful when treading in the territory of personal privacy concerns.  Maximum transparency about one's policies and allowing for people to control the disclosure of their information will create maximum trust.  Trust is the glue of relationships and commerce.  It's not meant to be abused.

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently." - Warren Buffett

It's a Marketing Problem

This past Sunday I went to Mind Camp 4.0 at the Tukwila Community Center, and I had an absolute blast at it.  The day was set-up as an open conference, where people post what they would like to teach others and each individual chooses what they would like to listen to for each one-hour segment.  There were some really great discussions there.  Some of the ones I went to involved where can you take web 2.0 next, what you need to take into account when starting a company, advertising rates for websites, and education in the State of Washington. 

At the event, there was no loss of good ideas.  One of the cool one's that I saw was NoonHat, where you post the place you're at and the radius within which you would like to catch lunch.  The site then pairs you with others that want to catch lunch in the same vicinity and time.  Another was Uncluttr, which makes finding books on Amazon a lot more intuitive and simple.  If you want inspiration for some new ideas, something like Mind Camp is a great event to attend.  I think the discussions helped to spark about a dozen ideas in my head during the 12 hours I was there.

The one thing I saw missing from a lot of the discussions was the business side.  It's great to have cool little technologies and demo them for others, but it's another discussion to find ways to make money off of them, and sadly a lot of the ideas didn't have a concrete monetization model.  Another area was business risk, which is something that came up in talking about where to take web 2.0 next.  With ~90% of the people being more tech-oriented, ways to lower business risk that have been used in other areas of the economy weren't brought up until I started to chime in.  Then how do you gain your users?  Working off your initial network will only take you so far, so quickly.  To gain a large user base quickly, you'll need to find other ways to market it to increase user adoption and understand what type of scaling problem you have with respect to your users. 

Without a strong business model, most of these cool ideas will flounder or allow their creators to make a few dollars a month off of Google Adwords, and they won't become widely adopted.  The plummeting costs to develop web applications has thrown out the technical problem when developing 98% of web applications, a site like Farecast being in the 2%.  It's easy to copy and paste someone else's code or make a social networking site with one new "killer" feature.  Even when the technical problem is eclipsed for those 2%, what you're left with is a marketing problem, and solving that problem requires a different mind set than developing the cool feature did.

The Ultimate Convergence in Computing

I won't deny that I became extremely excited when I saw Microsoft announce the Surface computer.  But my mind couldn't help but wander and see if there was a way to improve upon the concept and the entire idea of how humans should be able to interact with computers.  Is playing around on walls, floors, and tables the best way to interact with computers, or is there an even better way?  I personally don't think it will be the end all, even with an OLED covered house with walls that are as dynamic as those in Disney's Smart House movie.

Why limit yourself to a surface to do computing at all?  Even better, why make the internet a separate space where things are done?  The internet in the end, as my friend Anders says, is merely another way for humans to communicate.  So what could the ultimate convergence become?  In science fiction movies like The Matrix, humans have to plug into a machine to be able to connect to a "virtual reality".  Why should virtual reality be any different from reality?

Device convergence is great and everything, but I believe the ultimate convergence in computing will be when virtual reality and the internet are completely integrated into reality.  When you are walking down the street, you won't pull out your cell phone to find a place to go.  You will see the possibilities appear before you.  You won't even need a cell phone to carry on a conversation.  Instead of having a character in SecondLife as an avatar to interact with others, you will see other people, who are not physically there, walking around and will be able to interact with them.  You might not even be "there".  (Of course, teleportation would make getting there a lot easier. :-) ) 

With virtual reality and the internet completely integrated into reality, the possibilities are truly infinite.

Brokerage v. Marketocracy.com

I know Marketocracy.com doesn't allow you to trade stock with real money, but the tools that they let you use make investing on their site very exciting.  The tools allow you to see how well you are doing at timing the market, how your portfolio is weighted, see comments people make about the stocks you invest in, and their portfolios also.  You can even make groups and see how all of the members rank.

So my questions is...why don't brokerages offer some cool features like these?  When I do my trading, my brokerage firm doesn't show me what my portfolio looks like compared to the major indices since its inception.  It doesn't give me any of cool analytical tools that marketocracy provides (for free!).  By making investing more exciting for the average investor, a brokerage company could potentially shield itself from market downturns.  Why stop investing when you get to see how well you are doing compared to the market and others?  Your competitive advantage would not be "low-priced trades" or "fast execution", but to help people improve their stock performance.

If marketocracy.com offered low-price trades, I'd definetly switch to doing trades with them.