Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Gerbsman Partners’ Category

How Google plans to change the way you watch TV

Posted in boic, Economy, Gerbsman Partners, google, internet, Market research, tagged , , , , , on August 30, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Article from GigaOM.

“Google chairman Eric Schmidt was on a diplomacy mission last week, reaching out to broadcasters in the UK and urging them to embrace changes in the way that viewers watch TV, as enabled by the Internet. Giving the MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, Schmidt provided a view into how TV is changing and made a plea for broadcasters to work with the search giant to enable that future.

Reading the transcript or watching a video of the lecture (Schmidt’s speech starts about 36 minutes in), you get the feeling that this is no less than a manifesto, not just on the way things will be but also on the way they should be. There’s a feeling of inevitability to it. The message to broadcasters, in light of this, seems to be that they can either get on board with technological change or risk being left behind.

“You ignore the Internet at your peril,” Schmidt told the audience. “The Internet is fundamental to the future of television for one simple reason: because it’s what people want.” For Schmidt, people want the experience that the Internet brings, because it enables things that traditional TV cannot: “It makes TV more personal, more participative, more pertinent.”

The future of choice

While TV programming is limited by time and the number of TV networks, the Internet provides the possibility of a near-infinite amount of content to choose from. And, given the on-demand way that viewers are increasingly viewing content — through prerecorded shows on their DVRs, video-on-demand selections through their cable provider or streaming on the Internet — there needs to be a way to sort through those content choices.

For years broadcasters have largely tried to control viewer choices with lead-ins and other editorial hooks, but the vast number of content choices calls for a new way of discovering content. We’ve long argued that personalized recommendations will be vital to the way that viewers discover video in the future, and it seems that Schmidt agrees with us:

Online, through a combination of algorithms and editorial nudges, suggestions could be individually crafted to suit your interests and needs. The more you watch and share, the more chances the system has to learn, and the better its predictions get. Taken to the ultimate, it would be like the perfect TV channel: always exciting, always relevant — sometimes serendipitous — always worth your time.

Schmidt cites the success of Netflix, which doesn’t have a lot of new content and yet has survived and even flourished through a robust recommendations engine. According to Schmidt, around 60 percent of Netflix views are a result of Netflix’s personalized recommendations, showing that the one-size-fits-all approach to linear TV programming might not be the best way to reach audiences in the future.

The future of interactivity

While viewing is destined to become more personal, it’s also becoming more social. That might seem like a bit of a paradox, but at the same time that viewers are watching content that is more relevant to them, they are also sharing what they’re viewing with others.

This interactivity is not being driven by the TV screen itself but through second screens that viewers are using while watching TV. That includes tapping into social networks on laptops and on mobile phones, commenting on blogs and forums, and even chatting with friends in real time. Schmidt pointed to Google+ Hangouts as one example of how viewers can socially interact while watching video together, and you can see how the same type of technology could be incorporated into future versions of Google TV devices for live video viewing.

While viewers clearly want social interactivity, it’s also good for broadcasters, Schmidt said. “Trending hashtags raise awareness of shows, helping boost ratings. It can be metric for viewer engagement, a vehicle for instant feedback, a channel for reaching people outside broadcast times. It can also provide a great incentive for watching live.”

The future of measurement and monetization

Broadcasters can benefit not only from the way the Internet allows viewers to discover and interact with content but also from vast new opportunities for monetization. That includes selling directly to viewers through digital downloads or the ability to more profitably sell ads against content.

Today there’s a huge premium spent on advertising against the first airing of a TV show, in part because that airing is most likely to aggregate the largest audience. But Schmidt argues that it shouldn’t matter when viewers first watch a show. “If it’s the first time you watch a show, it’s first run to you, no matter how many times it has been broadcast. As TV becomes more personalized, ad models should adjust accordingly.”

Note also that this shift means a change in the way that viewing and ad effectiveness is measured. Nielsen, which provides the ratings currency that is used for selling TV ads in the U.S., is investing heavily in multiscreen measurement, but Schmidt said that Google is trying to understand how to measure effectiveness across multiple platforms as well.

Will broadcasters get on board?

There’s no doubt that the TV industry is in the midst of some fundamental shifts in the way viewers find and interact with video content. And there’s a huge opportunity for broadcasters to use Internet technologies to enable new experiences and better reach a more engaged audience.

Schmidt gave many examples of how content industries fought change over the past century, from newspapers fighting with radio stations in the 1920s and ’30s to Hollywood and broadcasters arguing that technologies like the VCR and TiVo would destroy their businesses.

Although TV viewing will inevitably change as the Internet enables new habits, Schmidt argues that broadcasters should see the opportunity and not the danger that such a change brings. “History shows that in the face of new technology, those who adapt their business models don’t just survive, they prosper,” Schmidt said.

But how soon those businesses will adapt, and how Google fits into their plans, is still very much an open question.”

Read original post at http://gigaom.com/video/google-schmidt-tv/

Read Full Post »

Steve Jobs: ‘Day has come’ to step down as CEO

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, Economy, Gerbsman Partners, Market research, Strategy, Technology, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 25, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Article from SFGate.

Steve Jobs, Apple’s iconic co-founder and the visionary behind many of its best-selling products, resigned as CEO on Wednesday, saying he could no longer fulfill his duties.

Jobs, who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and had a liver transplant in 2009, has been on medical leave from Apple since January. His resignation raised new fears that his health may have worsened.

“I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know,” Jobs, 56, wrote in a letter to Apple’s board. “Unfortunately, that day has come.”

After Jobs submitted his resignation, Apple’s directors elected him to the board and made him chairman. Tim Cook, the company’s chief operating officer and its interim leader since January, was named CEO.

As evidence of Jobs’ perceived value to the company, Apple stock dropped 5 percent in after-hours trading, to $357.10.

Founded in 1976 in Cupertino by Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Apple helped spur the rise of personal computing with its Apple II and Macintosh computers. After being ousted from the company in 1985, Jobs returned to a near-bankrupt Apple in 1997 and spearheaded the creation of blockbuster devices like the iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Pop culture figure

Along the way, Jobs became a figure in popular culture, sought after for his insights into consumer desires and a marketing savvy that made him an unofficial evangelist of the digital age. A noted perfectionist, he is credited with having an impeccable sense of design, leading to products that have inspired devotion among users and generated hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for the company.

As a result, Apple has become the rare company to successfully reinvent itself multiple times. Roughly two-thirds of the company’s profits now come from devices that didn’t exist five years ago. This summer, for the first time, Apple briefly surpassed Exxon Mobil to become the world’s most valuable company. It is currently No. 2.

“Steve Jobs is the greatest leader our industry has ever known,” said Salesforce.com founder Marc Benioff, who worked under Jobs at Apple, in an e-mail. “It’s the end of an era.”

Analysts said that few changes in Apple’s business will be evident right away.

“The actual product road map that Steve has already approved goes through 2015,” said Tim Bajarin, president of research firm Creative Strategies, who has followed Apple for 30 years. “In the short term, it should mean nothing. Even though Steve is critical for a lot of the vision, let’s keep in mind that he’s still alive and still chairman. He can still influence vision.”

During his most recent medical leave, Jobs has continued to make appearances at Apple events. In March he took the stage at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts to unveil the iPad 2, and in June he appeared at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference at Moscone Center to announce the coming iCloud service.

“In his new role as chairman of the board, Steve will continue to serve Apple with his unique insights, creativity and inspiration,” said Apple board member Art Levinson, chairman of Genentech, in a statement.

Long-term prospects

Still, questions linger about Apple’s long-term success. Sachin Agarwal, who worked at Apple as a developer for video-editing software Final Cut Pro from 2002 to 2008, said one of Jobs’ greatest assets was his willingness to say no – to delay or even abandon products that failed to meet his exacting standards.

Agarwal, who has since created the blogging and publishing platform Posterous, said friends at Apple have expressed concerns about the company’s future.

“I just don’t think anyone else in the company has shown, at least outwardly, that level of pushback and that quality standard,” he said, referring to Jobs. “I’m chatting with my Apple friends and there’s a lot of thought about it right now: ‘What do we do with our stock? What’s the company going to look like?’ ”

The attention now shifts to Cook, 50, who joined Apple in 1998. The Alabama native, who had previously worked at Compaq, quickly gained a reputation for being an operational genius – ensuring that the company made only as many products as it could sell, which made its supply chain the envy of the industry.

“The board has complete confidence that Tim is the right person to be our next CEO,” Levinson said. “Tim’s 13 years of service to Apple have been marked by outstanding performance, and he has demonstrated remarkable talent and sound judgment in everything he does.”

Jobs also struck an optimistic note.

“I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it,” he wrote in his letter to the board. “And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Can you put a price on branding? – Gerbsman Partners Update, August 2011

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, boic, Business models, Gerbsman Partners, Uncategorized on August 1, 2011| 1 Comment »

The Landmark Aviation story

By Hans Ullmark, Founder and CEO at Collaborate and a member of Gerbsman Partners Board Of Intellectual Capital.

How much is a brand worth – just the brand itself – in actual dollars. This rather unusual story provides an answer.

A few years ago three aviation services companies came together under new ownership to form a new company, Landmark Aviation, with sales of around $750M. All three founding companies had long histories in the aviation industry, with their own distinct corporate cultures and business processes.

Landmark Aviation’s new management team was faced with lots of practical challenges, and two big questions, namely, “How do we turn these diverse companies into a single organization with a common purpose and business focus?” and “How do we create a single, sustainable brand?”

Fortunately, they had the foresight and wherewithal to address these questions in a deliberate way, both internally and externally. They knew that a strong brand would not only help get business off to a flying start (pun intended), but that it would also help the company command a higher acquisition price, in the likely event that it were to be sold sometime in the future.

In order to create a brand strong enough to transcend the three founding brand names, along with their combined 150 years of heritage in the industry, the marketing team employed an approach we call “brand-led change.” It’s designed to help accelerate the growth of brand asset value for companies going through disruptive transitions such as mergers, acquisitions and new leadership, and it consists of the following steps.

Step 1: Know the brand’s strengths, and the competition’s relative weaknesses.

The first step was to conduct qualitative research, both internally and externally, to provide management with actionable insights, rather than the typical overload of abstract data that traditional research companies tend to offer. The results gave management the tools to define both a customer-driven service offering, and a unique brand positioning.

Step 2: Provide a compelling vision.

Internally, people wanted to know what the common purpose of the new, “merged” company would be. The vision was expressed as: “We are dedicated to enhancing the ownership and operating experience for every customer.”

Step 3: Start internally, then go externally.

Before any marketing and sales activities were put in motion, management launched an internal program called “Living the Vision.” It introduced the new company and the new brand to Landmark Aviation’s 2,400 employees in 35 locations across North America. As a result, the new organization entered this fiercely competitive field (a handful of well-established service providers fighting for market share) with highly motivated employees, clear on their goal of becoming the country’s leading aviation services company.

Step 4: Retain existing customers.

Along with creating the new brand came the necessity of demonstrating to existing customers that the new entity was stronger than it had been before, and was relentlessly focused on bringing more value than its competitors.

After the launch of the new brand, Landmark helped minimize confusion by clearly communicating that the services offered were just what the customers had asked for. Many of the airport operations, the so-called FBO terminals, were re-designed and upgraded. The resulting feeling — of a fresh, new company backed by extensive experience — resonated with customers, who overwhelmingly stayed with Landmark.

Step 5: Win new customers.

Confident of retaining existing customers, Landmark set out to win new ones, reaching out to nearly all their constituents via a broad-based marketing effort that included a strong web presence, print advertising, direct marketing, an impressive trade show calendar, local events, sales tools, an active PR agenda and branding at over 30 airports around the country. The rather traditional and conservative aviation services industry was unprepared for how quickly and convincingly the new company had gotten its act together. In taking the industry by surprise, Landmark took market share with it.

Step 6: Measure your progress…and then wait for the offers.

After 18 months, a tracking study revealed that Landmark had climbed to a No. 2 ranking in “most preferred provider” status in all of the different segments and service categories in corporate aviation. The owners soon started receiving offers to sell the company.

The offers were not made solely for the entire company, but for parts of it as well. In particular, offers came in for the FBO part of the Landmark operation, both with and without the Landmark brand name. The difference between the offers was that the one that included the Landmark brand name was approximately $70M higher.

The day the sale closed, the new owner walked away with both the operation and the brand name, and we realized the value of just the Landmark Aviation brand was around $70M.

Given that the costs for building the brand over nearly a two-year period were around $8M, this meant that the investment in building the brand had yielded a return of 875%. Few, if any, investments in the lifespan of a corporation ever generate such remarkable returns in such a short time.

Of course, every company, and every brand, is different. But the process of building a brand doesn’t change that much: know the competition better than you know yourself; start internally and work your way out, because your own people are among your greatest resources; retain your existing customers, and then go after new ones with everything you’ve got; measure your progress (and maybe, in some cases, field the offers); and finally, put all the resources you can behind creating a differentiating brand idea – an idea that helps visualize the brand.

And who wouldn’t like 875% return on marketing.

Collaborate
Collaboratesf.com

If you’d like to know more about the external team that helped Landmark Aviation build its brand and its business, call Hans Ullmark at Collaborate (415) 710 2139.

About Gerbsman Partners

Gerbsman Partners focuses on maximizing enterprise value for stakeholders and shareholders in under-performing, under-capitalized and under-valued companies and their Intellectual Property. Since 2001, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in maximizing value for 68 technology, life science and medical device companies and their Intellectual Property and has restructured/terminated over $795 million of real estate executory contracts and equipment lease/sub-debt obligations. Since inception in 1980, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in over $2.3 billion of financings, restructurings and M&A Transactions.

Gerbsman Partners has offices and strategic alliances in San Francisco, Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Alexandria, VA, Europe and Israel.

Read Full Post »

“Terminating/Restructuring Prohibitive Real Estate, License, Payables & Contingent Liabilities” – – – “Maximizing Enterprise Value” through proprietary “Date Certain M&A Process”

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, Gerbsman Partners, Investments, Marketing, tagged , on July 11, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Gerbsman Partners has been involved with numerous national and international equity sponsors, senior/junior lenders, investment banks and equipment lessors in the restructuring or termination of various Balance Sheet issues for their technology, life science, medical device and cleantech portfolio companies. These companies were not necessarily in Crisis, had CASH (in some cases significant CASH) and/or investor groups that were about to provide additional funding. In order stabilize their go forward plan and maximize CASH resources for future growth, there was a specific need to address the Balance Sheet and Contingent Liability issues as soon as possible.

Some of the areas in which Gerbsman Partners has assisted these companies have been in the termination, restructuring and/or reduction of:

  • Prohibitive executory real estate leases, computer and hardware related leases and senior/sub-debt obligations – Gerbsman Partners was the “Innovator” in creating strategies to terminate or restructure prohibitive real estate leases, computer and hardware related leases and senior and sub-debt obligations. To date, Gerbsman Partners has terminated or restructured over $795 million of such obligations. These were a mixture of both public and private companies, and allowed the restructured company to return to a path of financial viability.
  • Accounts/Trade payable obligations – Companies in a crisis, turnaround or restructuring situation typically have accounts and trade payable obligations that become prohibitive for the viability of the company on a go forward basis. Gerbsman Partners has successfully negotiated mutually beneficial restructurings that allowed all parties to maximize enterprise value based on the reality and practicality of the situation.
  • Software and technology related licenses – As per the above, software and technology related licenses need to be restructured/terminated in order for additional capital to be invested in restructured companies. Gerbsman Partners has a significant track record in this area.

Maximizing Enterprise Value – Gerbsman Partners proprietary “Date Certain M&A Process”

Gerbsman Partners developed its proprietary “Date Certain M&A Process” in 2002. Since that time, the process has evolved into a 6-8 week time frame vehicle for maximizing enterprise and asset value for under-performing venture capital and senior lender backed medical device, life science and technology Intellectual Property based companies. To date, Gerbsman Partners has maximized enterprise and asset value for over 68 of these companies. A description of this proven process can be reviewed on the Gerbsman Partners website.

About Gerbsman Partners

Gerbsman Partners focuses on maximizing enterprise value for stakeholders and shareholders in under-performing, under-capitalized and under-valued companies and their Intellectual Property. Since 2001, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in maximizing value for 68 Technology, Life Science and Medical Device companies and their Intellectual Property,, through its proprietary “Date Certain M&A Process” and has restructured/terminated over $795 million of real estate executory contracts and equipment lease/sub-debt obligations. Since inception, Gerbsman Partners has been involved in over $2.3 billion of financings, restructurings and M&A transactions.

Gerbsman Partners has offices and strategic alliances in Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Alexandria, VA, San Francisco, Orange County, Europe and Israel. For additional information please visit www.gerbsmanpartners.com or Gerbsman Partners blog.

Read Full Post »

On Twitter (and elsewhere), Instagram Growth Zooms

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, Community, Gerbsman Partners, internet, Market research, Marketing, Social Networks, Strategy, Technology, Web 2.0, tagged , , , , , , , , , on July 6, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Article from GigaOm.

I have some news for Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, co-founders of Instagram, a San Francisco-based, photo-oriented, social network: They are the fastest growing photo sharing service on Twitter. I’m not surprised. As you know, many folks take photos and share them via Twitter, thanks to services like Twitpic, Yfrog and even Twitter itself. However, Instagram is slightly different; if you’re an iPhone user, you take a photo, upload to Instagram, then share it on Twitter.

Skylines, a Dutch startup focused on real-time photo search, has been analyzing the Twitter feed and has some unique insights into the market. From May 23 to June 26, 2011, Skylines found Instagram usage has gone up 38 percent: from 538,000 photos shared weekly to 740,000 photos shared each week.

Instagram CEO Systrom had recently observed that only 11 percent of Instagram members were using Twitter and by that metric, Instagram members might be adding about a million photos a day to Instagram. Add those two data points together, and one can extrapolate that Instagram is gathering steam. The service recently passed the five million subscriber mark. This level of engagement is one of the reasons why I believe Instagram has a chance of becoming the mobile social hub.

Skylines also shared some other data for the five-week period analysis.

  • From May 23rd to June 26, 2011, there were 33 million photos shared on Twitter via Twitpic, Yfrog, Instagram and Mobypicture (the four services indexed by Skylines).
  • Twitpic is no slouch. It was responsible for sharing of 3.295 million photos during the week of June 20, making it the largest photo-sharing service.
  • Yfrog was used to share 2.98 million photos during the same week.
  • The growth in the total number of photos shared in the five-week period measured was 17 percent.
  • Only 4 percent of the pictures are geo-tagged, while 15 percent have a hashtag.
  • Not surprisingly, weekends are the most popular days to share photos.

As the data shows, while Twitter might have launched its own photo sharing service via Photobucket, the independent photo-sharing services have not seen any kind of slowdown, though there are some dark clouds looming ahead for the likes of Twitpic and Yfrog.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »