Comments on: Pownce vs Twitter

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:56:49 +0000

There is alot to be said for the unix command goal: do one thing and do it extremely well but do only that one thing.
Gold Plated software or gold plated weapons systems tend to become bloated with options and features.

Twitter has ‘the lead’… and can stay there if it simply stays spartan.

By: The real reason Twitter beat the snot out of Pownce | Heal Your Church WebSite

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:23:35 +0000

[...] Pownce vs. Twitter - Joe Duck [...]

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:48:09 +0000

The reader might wish to see the latest entry concerning Facebook stock and its actual versus market valuations.
“… The tulip bubble burst. So too will these Social Networking Monetization Bubbles.”

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:00:18 +0000

I would agree that there are fundamental distortions that alter the nature of the marketplace and the investment decisions that are being made. Unfortunately, not all those who invest funds in Arabian Horse Farms are aware of the unique situation and if a pension fund makes that type of skewed investment there is a regulatory failure. No one told those who bought shares in Yahoo that it was akin to an Arabian Horse Farm. Now perhaps no one needed to, but perhaps the skewed economic situation means new warnings are required.
Everyone knows that inventory consisting of last year’s hemlines is worthless; everyone knows a ‘trendy’ restaurant is an ephemeral investment subject to whims of the trendy types; … but do investors truly know that the words ‘internet’ and ‘social marketing’ now mean “unstable income stream subject to unpredictable whims”?

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:08:03 +0000

the madness of crowds is so unpredictable. Customer loyalty in the digital age seems non existent. The latest doo-dad on an interface and a massive defection of customers can take place

Good stuff FG and I think the answer about your questions about how to value things is that you cannot derive “fair price” metrics from internet companies *even when they have revenue streams and profits*. Yahoo’s value is far more a function of Microsoft’s interest as their PE, which remains fairly reasonable.

For new companies it is anybody’s guess, and I think the market makers are driving pricing in very unnatural ways that look more like casino gambling than thoughtful investment. As I’ve noted before most VCs actually appear to *lose* money on average.

The game is certainly not “rigged” the way many think it is and my working hypothesis is that VC for startups is sort of like Arabian horse farms – it loses money for most but is a very fun hobby for many who effectively build relationships and contacts that help maintain their wealth and control over things indirectly. Sounds ominous but this is actually a pretty functional environment because it keeps the best innovators well fed and productive even as their startups mostly fail at the expense of people who can afford to lose a few million here and there in exchange for the fun of an infrequent big payoff.

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:14:10 +0000

“…I wonder about these bubbles that get high value from Venture Capitalists. Twitter was first. They have perhaps some sort of name recognition (and its a good name, to boot) but its really vulnerable to copycats who can also come up with good names and a good interface. In a social network with marketing being a socially-driven digital phenomenon, at some point value will go to the latest fad. Hemlines, necklines and million-dollar companies have fates that rest on sheer fads. Last years ladies dresses are often viewed as worthless. So too will be last years digital fads as the teeming millions find some new in-thing to jabber on about. ….”

The above blog comment was made quite some time ago in response to a Pownce versus Twitter posting but I think it is highly relevent to some recent comments about Rupert Murdoch supposedly being livid at his expensively acquired MySpace supposedly being trounced by Facebook in a variety of different metrics. Oh sure, we can quibble about just how livid he supposedly is and just how victorious Facebook is and ofcourse we can focus on how transitory the whole matter may be, but one wonders if its going to be of greater concern to venture capitalists as they discover that businesses driven by social networks are hard to value because the madness of crowds is so unpredictable. Customer loyalty in the digital age seems non existent. The latest doo-dad on an interface and a massive defection of customers can take place. The latest viral-marketing video can precipitate mass migration of customers. Its akin to trying to value some restaurant full of the so-called beautiful people who are there to see and be seen. The restaurant attains fame and fortune but the owner had better hurry to the bank each week because eventually people will notice that the food is lousy or there simply some other watering hole that has become atleast equally trendy amongst the fickle hordes.
Just how could an auditor protect shareholders in such a situation? Just how can a venture capitalist derive a fair price evaluation?

By: JoeDuck

JoeDuck — Sun, 25 May 2008 07:40:57 +0000

Thx Metroknow – good link! My def of “on topic” is basically anything that is of interest to you after reading the post so feel free to comment whenever.

FG I wonder too. Most VC funded companies seem to fail – I was just looking at TechCrunch 40 from last year and only recognized a few of them..

By: FoolsGold

FoolsGold — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:37:32 +0000

I wonder about these “bubbles” that get high value from Venture Capitalists. Twitter was first. They have perhaps some sort of name recognition (and its a good name, to boot) but its really vulnerable to copycats who can also come up with good names and a good interface. In a social network with marketing being a socially-driven digital phenomenon, at some point “value” will go to the latest fad. Hemlines, necklines and million-dollar companies have fates that rest on sheer fads. Last years ladies dresses are often viewed as worthless. So to will be last year’s digital fads as the teeming millions find some new “in-thing” to jabber on about.

By: metroknow

metroknow — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:29:34 +0000

This is slightly off topic, but ProBlogger has an article on the benefits of Twitter for bloggers (not in relation to Pownce, btw — thus “off topic”). I’m not convinced yet that Twitter is something that I even have time for, much less inclination really, but he makes a good case for why bloggers can benefit their sites using it. All you social networkers are slowly eroding my defenses against change.

Here’s the link:
http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/01/23/9-benefits-of-twitter-for-bloggers/