WGHubris on January 5th, 2011

Recently, someone recommended a television show that I had not heard of before called The Walking Dead. From what I understand the show follows a band of people trying to survive after a “zombie apocalypse.” The show airs on AMC.

I get the AMC channel on my cable subscription, so there is no problem there. The show has been on the air for a while and several episodes have been shown. Since I have never seen the show before, I figured I would start by watching episode number one and seeing if I was interested enough in watching it to set up a recording on my DVR. The show is not on Hulu, which is annoying, but not unheard of. Instead Hulu redirects me to AMC where I can read all the promotional material I want, and where I can watch promotional “behind the scenes” stuff and commercials for the show that I already wanted to watch.

What I cannot do, is watch episodes of The Walking Dead online at AMC or anywhere else.

Now, I am not naive. I know that television channels make money from commercials that they show when their air their programs. Which is why I fully accept that CBS, for example, does not show full episodes of its shows until the day after they air on regular TV. I also fully accept that when watching those shows online they put some commercials in the show.

However, AMC offers no legitimate way for me to watch a show that first aired months ago online. Instead, I guess I’m supposed to watch an “encore presentation,” which is TV marketing speak for re-run later this month.

So, now instead of this user watching the first episode of the Walking Dead on AMC’s own website, where they could earn some money showing me ads, and more importantly, maybe make me into a fan of the show such that there will be more people watching and producing higher ratings, I’m rolling my eyes, writing a blog post, and trying to not wander over to one of the dozens of places I know I’ll be able to find episode one.

Under normal circumstances, I don’t really bother trying to pirate video anymore. It is just so much more convenient to use the legitimate sources when they exist. Of course, if you give someone a big enough push they might just keep going. After all, if I find episode 1, chances are I will also find episodes two, three, and four. I might even get so comfortable with getting those shows from somewhere else that I won’t bother ever watching them on AMC at all.

In other words, AMC thinks it will make more money by encouraging people to locate and watch pirated copies of their shows than they would by allowing them to view older episodes online. Good luck with that.

P.S.  “Hey, AMC. Do you think that people who find and download reruns of your hit shows are more or less likely to bother buying the Season 1 DVD when it comes out?” If you make it worth it for people to do the wrong thing, they will.

Tags: , , ,

WGHubris on December 29th, 2010

After talks broke down between Google and Groupon there was a lot of speculation over why the Groupon deal fell through and Google didn’t end up buying the deal of the day giant. It seems that most folks have settled upon the conclusion that Groupon was worried about antitrust issues holding up, or even blocking, the deal and wanted a very large breakup fee that Google wasn’t willing to offer.

The real question in my mind was whether Groupon was worth all of that money that Google was offering in the first place.

How Much Is Groupon Worth?

groupon-raises-more-moneyThe company recently filed paperwork to sell up to $950 million of preferred stock in Groupon. (What is preferred stock?) This filing would give Groupon a valuation of $6.4 billion according to VCExperts. That number is on target with the offer Google was making to buy Groupon. In theory, this is confirmation that Groupon is "worth" $6 billion, give or take. However, keep in mind that the $950 million amount is an "up to" number and the actual amount raised may be lower.

The real question is, "Why does Groupon need the money?"

During the negotiations with Google, insiders supposedly said that the company now has annual revenues in the $2 billion range, which was up sharply from earlier estimates of $800 million annually. A company generating that kind of revenue should be turning a healthy profit. Yet, Groupon is raising more money instead. Is that just smart company strategy?

On the one hand, Groupon is currently the "it" company in the venture capital and web media, which means that there are a lot of investors who are very eager to put their money into Groupon at terms that are very favorable to the company. That makes raising more money under these circumstances simply the smart business move for Groupon.

For example, if someone thought your house was so amazing that they would give you a zero percent interest, $1 million mortgage in exchange for a percentage of the sale price when you eventually sold the home (went public), you should take it even if you didn’t need the mortgage.

On the other hand, if Groupon is generating so much revenue, it should be building up piles of cash. Unless, of course, the company is spending so much money to generate that revenue that it isn’t making any real profit at all. In that case, the investors in Groupon are hoping that the company will eventually grow itself into profitability somehow down the line. And, Groupon, itself, needs the new infusion of money in order to keep from going bankrupt or deeply into debt.

That changes the above example. In that case it would be more like if you had a home but could only afford to make payments for a few more months before you ran out of money. In that case, you had better go out and get the biggest zero percent interest mortgage anyone would give you so that you can keep making payments until you figure something else out.

Is Groupon a Good Investment?

Some analysts have suggested that Groupon needs the money for expansion, apparently overseas where this particular business model may or may not be accepted by consumers or business owners. That’s a pretty big gamble and runs the risk of distracting management from developing its current business model into a long-term profitable enterprise.

Others have suggested that Groupon needs even more sales employees to keep things running. This is the scariest of all the prospects. It may be that all of the low hanging fruit has been picked and that there just isn’t enough demand from business or consumers.

As numerous people have noticed, Groupon’s deals are heavily tilted toward certain types of business like massage, sky diving, personal training, and the like. How many of the people who buy those deals are likely to keep buying the same deals? After you’ve taken one intro to skydiving class, how many more will you buy?

If Groupon needs even more sales people to keep it’s model afloat, that isn’t a good sign.

As Techcrunch suggests, this current round of financing may be used to cash out existing investors.

That is a very real possibility. I know that if I had invested $1 million in Groupon (or any company) and that investment would have paid off for $25 million if the Google buyout had gone through, I’d be pressing for a way to cash out at least some of my investment, no matter how well the company was doing. That is just smart investing. Only a fool leaves all their money on the table after making a big profit in a speculative investment.

If this is just an orderly exit for savvy investors, then the new round of financing is just business as usual.

The question is how many of those investors (who get to see the real inside numbers, not just speculation) want out now, and how urgently do they want out?

In other words, do those with skin in the game want to cash out because they don’t see a happy future where Groupon dominates for years in a very lucrative market?

Google executives have suggested that they were buying certain companies because they didn’t have the time to build a similar enterprise. Having been unsuccessful in acquiring Groupon, Google has all the time in the world to build a competitor, as does Microsoft, Apple, and untold other companies.

Groupon executives have said noted that they are still number one despite numerous new competitors who have tried to duplicate what the company is doing. However, none of those competitors has been a deep-pocketed, established technology company or advertising company.

The Groupon model is easy to copy. As Groupon’s management has pointed out, it has already been copied many times by small startups with very little investment. The model is not easy to scale, however, which is why Groupon is still the king and everyone else is a niche player. However, if that is the only moat around Groupon’s business model, the company is in for a very rude surprise when one of the 800 lb. gorillas come to town.

The even bigger threat to Groupon is that its model is easily diluted. In order to work, Groupon’s deals must be "big deals." Businesses can only offer so many big deals and still make a reasonable profit. A merchant who rings up thousands of 50 percent discounts one month may not be able to offer such a deal again for several months, taking a potential customer off of the table, whether the deal gets sold by Groupon or a competitor.

Even worse, becomes the competition between deals. Right now, only certain shoppers know about Groupon. Even fewer know that there are other alternatives. However, as that number grows, people will be looking not just at the Groupon deal, but the deal at other deal of the day sites, whether local or national and choosing between them, which dilutes the "wow factor" that Groupon deals currently enjoy. When the email from Groupon is just another sales email you get every day in your inbox and not a must view, then the company is finished.

Groupon may still get bought out by another tech company for a big amount, or it may be able to make it all the way to an IPO. Groupon is not a sustainable long-term enterprise. If it is sold or taken public fast enough, then it will be a good investment for those who got out in time. If not, then Groupon will eventually shut down or become a shell of its former self. Either way, the clock is ticking.

Tags: , , , , ,

WGHubris on December 24th, 2010

Today’s, "Hmmm. I never thought of that, but it makes sense," moment comes courtesy of Infectious Greed. Author Paul Kedrosky suggests that you can tell a software product or service has come of age when it gets an undo feature.

He points out that many products start out with no undo feature, primarily because early adopters are used to technology that breaks or makes mistakes.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest that most early adopters don’t use cutting edge computer services or products for things that are important enough to require an ability to undo actions.

Either way, it is an interesting way to look at it. More importantly, it gives users a quick, one-step, method to determine the relative maturity of a particular product without being required to base such analysis on easily manipulated things like version numbers.

Tags: ,

WGHubris on December 14th, 2010

Gawker isn’t a tiny fly-by-night website. Rather, it is a big internet media conglomerate that runs several high-traffic websites. Like many websites, they make you create an account in order to comment or access certain material on their websites. Their user accounts database was hacked and then posted online. Although passwords were encrypted, they are now being unencrypted by hackers. This latest security fiasco shows that online security is a relative term.

As a freelance writer I read a lot to stay current as well as for pleasure. Sometimes, I like to participate in a conversation or online community. Like many users, I consider the user accounts created for no purpose other than being able to comment on a website or participate in their forums unimportant. Thus, like many users I got lazy about the security of those accounts.

lockOften, I comment on only a handful of articles. Sometimes, I comment on just a single article. Creating, remembering, and using a strong password for these accounts is not worth the hassle. Fortunately, the LastPass plug-in has solved this issue for me by allowing me to generate a secure password, save that password, and most importantly, make said password available on any computer I use.

Unfortunately, there are many, many, websites and user accounts out there that I used prior to implementing LastPass. On many of those I used a strong password. However, that password was re-used on multiple accounts. That means that changing my Lifehacker.com password after the Gawker hack (Lifehacker is one of Gawker’s websites) isn’t enough. The same username and password combination may exist on other websites that I have used in the past. Those that were imported into LastPass were easy to track down. It’s too bad there are a lot of them. I’ll  have to waste time changing them all manually.

The thought of just leaving them since, as I said earlier, they are not "important" has occurred to me. However, there are two major problems with that strategy. First, and foremost, I don’t want someone impersonating me in such a way as to damage whatever reputation I have with a certain community. Second, while I fake info most of the fields required to sign up for user accounts like these, there might be some real data out there that I don’t want someone finding.

Staying Secure Online Gawker Lessons

The Gawker security breach provides some unpleasant lessons. The two biggest issues are not even being addressed by the media, tech bloggers, or anyone else. I find that more than a little disturbing. Unless we get details on how exactly the Gawker hack happened and find that it was a grossly incompetent security setup that was breached, we have to assume the following.

  1. Any site can be hacked.
  2. Even encrypted passwords can be unencrypted.

Which brings me to some very unfortunate requirements for online security for users.

  1. Leave as much information blank as possible when signing up for anything online.
  2. Fake as much information as possible when it is "required" by the site.
  3. Change real information to fake information as soon as possible. (For example, you have to use your real address when something is being sent to you, but you can change it to 55 Baloney Way as soon as you receive it.)
  4. Never use the same password more than once.
  5. Never store your passwords online.

The last one is the one that really bothers me.

You see, LastPass stores all of my passwords and usernames online. Big websites try and make this less scary by calling it "the cloud". Either way, it’s a database that can be attacked, breached, and copied. Even though those passwords are encrypted, it’s only a matter of time to unencrypt them.

How juicy of a target would LastPass be for hackers? Once compromised, how many usernames and passwords would you have to change just to be safe?

The user accounts compromised by the Gawker breach are annoying to me. The ones stored on LastPass could ruin me.

I’ll do some research before doing anything hasty, but it would seem that unless I can store my LastPass passwords locally without online storage, I’ll have to go back to using KeePass and replicating the database to my computers instead of keeping my data "in the cloud."

Tags: , , , ,