Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘boic’

Apple flirts with ranking of biggest company

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, Business models, Economy, Investments, Market research, Strategy, Technology, tagged , , , , , , , on August 10, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Article from SFGate.

“Apple sliced through the competition to briefly become the most valuable company in the world Tuesday, as its market capitalization surged past No. 1 Exxon before settling slightly lower.

The Cupertino company closed the day with its stock up 5.9 percent to $374.01 per share, valuing it at $346.7 billion. Exxon, the Texas oil giant, ended the day with a value of $348.3 billion.

It capped an astonishing turnaround for a company that founder Steve Jobs has said was weeks from bankruptcy when he returned as CEO in 1997 and focused the company on a handful of key products.

Apple’s stock price has gone up nearly 35 percent in the past year, reflecting heightened confidence among investors in its line of computers and mobile devices. In its most recent quarter, the company posted a record $28.57 billion in revenue as sales of the iPhone, iPad and notebook computers soared.

The company’s growth is particularly strong in the Chinese market, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook told analysts last month. International sales accounted for 62 percent of Apple’s revenue in the last quarter.

The company is expected to continue growing in the near term, analysts predict. A new iPhone is expected in the fall, and analysts say Apple might also introduce a lower-cost model that would help the company reach a lucrative new market.

Sales of the iPad continue to soar. Apple sold 9.25 million of the tablet computers in the last quarter, a 183 percent increase over the same period in 2010.

“On the iPad side, they’re so far ahead of the market that none of the Android or other tablet competitors have really made much of a dent in their market share,” said Charles Golvin, an analyst with Forrester Research. “‘Tablet is still essentially synonymous with ‘iPad.’ ”

It was less than two years ago that Apple joined the list of the 10 most-valuable U.S. companies. Since then, it has made a rapid ascent, surpassing Microsoft last year to become the world’s most valuable technology company.

Less than a month ago, Exxon was worth more than $50 billion more than Apple. Exxon’s market value declined as investors became pessimistic about prospects for economic growth, which drives demand for oil.”

Read more.

Read Full Post »

Free apps, mobile ad market aren’t adding up

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, tagged , , , , , , , , on July 27, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Article from SFGate.

“Many of today’s hot startups are banking on mobile ad dollars to make their business work, but it’s an incredibly small market that’s only likely to support a handful of breakaway winners.

The constraint was underscored late last week, when Pandora Media’s CEO told Bloomberg that the online radio service can’t find enough marketers to fill all the ad slots created by its many mobile users.

Pandora boasts around 35 million dedicated users, who do 60 percent of their listening over smart phones and tablets. The obvious question is: If the 11-year-old Oakland company can’t find enough marketers to make use of its ad inventory, who can?

Other popular companies like Foursquare, Instagram, Twitter and Flipboard are mostly or exclusively free mobile apps that will mostly or exclusively depend on advertising.

So just how much is there to go around?

Research firm eMarketer estimates that mobile advertising will reach only $1.1 billion this year. By way of comparison, Google reported $9 billion in revenue last quarter alone, almost entirely derived from the broader online advertising market.

Will more money move to mobile and will some of these companies emerge as big winners? Sure.

Shifting ad dollars

But new media don’t create new marketing dollars, they just draw them from somewhere else. Advertisers are famously reluctant to shift money from something that’s been proven to work, to an area that’s untested.

The truth is, it’s still unclear to many what ad types and formats will be most effective on small mobile devices – general brand builders, discounts as you walk by a restaurant, ads for other apps?

The one thing that does seem clear is that mobile users are incredibly touchy about ads, resenting anything that appropriates the limited real estate of their screen, arrives as a text that counts against their allotment or interrupts what they’re doing. So marketers are rightfully treading carefully.

Jack Gold, a technology analyst with J. Gold Associates, says mobile advertising is a promising sector that, for now, is just that: promising.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, whether it’s TV or tablets, the biggest outlets with the best return on ad dollars grab the lion’s share of marketing. Everyone else is left fighting for the scraps.

Gold said the phenomenon unfolding now is strikingly similar to the late 1990s, as hordes of companies marched onto the Internet, confident they could garner the traffic (back then they called it eyeballs) necessary to build businesses on ads alone. History demonstrated in brutal fashion that the vast majority could not.

“It’s almost certain that you’re going to see another shakeout,” Gold said. “That always happens. Always.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

New Google+ social network starts off strong

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, FaceBook, google, Market research, Social Networks, Strategy, Technology, tagged , , , , , , on July 25, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Article from SFGate.

“Just three weeks after its launch, Google+ is off to a strong start.

Google Inc.’s latest attempt to break into social networking circles attracted more than 20 million visitors in its first 21 days, according to the Internet measurement service comScore Inc. And there is a report that Google+ now has 25 million members.

To be sure, those numbers still don’t place Google+ in the same league as the more established social media stars, especially the current king, Facebook Inc., which has 750 million active users.

But Facebook has made enough mistakes in the past to leave the window wide open for Google+, which is still in its experimental stages, to barge through and become a serious contender for the crown, said Sam Hamadeh, CEO and founder of a Privco, a New York firm that monitors private companies like Facebook.

Facebook may have a big lead now, but the two has-been kings of social networking – Friendster and Myspace – are reminders that there’s no such thing as invincibility in the world of technology.

“People used to be on Myspace chatting all day, updating their pages,” said Hamadeh. “And before that, people were on Friendster nonstop. Before you knew it, the winds had shifted and once the winds shift, they shift very quickly.”

Officially, Mountain View’s Google hasn’t issued any updated Google+ numbers beyond those that CEO Larry Page revealed during a July 14 earnings call – 10 million members, more than 1 billion items shared and received in one day and 2.3 billion clicks of the “+1 button,” Google’s answer to Facebook’s “Like” button.

‘Just the beginning’

“We’ve learned a tremendous amount having just gone to field trial three weeks ago,” Vic Gundotra, Google’s senior vice president for social, said in a statement. “The team has been listening to users and moving really quickly to launch dozens of new features and updates to the product. We realize this is just the beginning. And while we’re thrilled with the reaction so far, we have a long, exciting road ahead of us.”

Hamadeh, citing sources inside Google, said the fledgling social network hit the milestone 25 million user mark Thursday night.

And Andrew Lipsman, a comScore vice president, said the 20 million visitors to Google+ in the first 21 days was “an extraordinary number.”

Of that total, 5.3 million were in the United States and 2.8 million in India. And people from the Bay Area and Austin, Texas, two of the most tech-savvy markets, were three times as likely to be on Google+, Lipsman said.

Right now, the main users are the tech-savvy crowd that is always at the forefront of new and emerging technology.

Of the total Google+ audience, 63 percent were men and 58 percent were between the ages of 18 and 34, comScore said.

“It has clearly captured the attention of the technorati and as usage incubates among this crowd it will likely continue to proliferate to a more general audience,” Lipsman wrote in a blog post.

High marks

That technorati has generally given Google+ high marks for its design and privacy protections, especially compared to Facebook. Analysts say Google+ can be compelling.

“My usage has subtly changed as more and more of my personal network joins, and I’m commenting as much privately as publicly,” said Charlene Li, founder of the Altimeter Group, a San Mateo technology research and consulting firm.

One major feature in Google+ is the ability to create specific, private groups, called “circles,” of friends or people being followed.

“Google+ has the advantage of not requiring that people be a member of the network in order to share with them. They just get updates via e-mail,” Li said in an e-mail. But whether Google+ becomes a hit with more mainstream audiences is still a question.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

The INTERNAL Warning Signs of Financial Distress: What To Notice

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, tagged , , on July 20, 2011| Leave a Comment »

 A Guest Blog by Bobby Guy, Author, “Distress to Success: A Survival Handbook for Struggling Businesses and Buyers of Distressed Opportunities” (www.distresstosuccessbook.com; www.distresstosuccessblog.com)

When it comes to business, we all know the easy signals that indicate a company is in financial distress: a loan default, a business plan that just isn’t working, failed FDA trials at a one-product company, and the like.  For business owners though, the harder issue is to spot the more subtle internal warning signs of financial distress — and then to take corrective action while the best options are still available.

What are important warning signs that business owners should watch for at their companies? Here are ten examples:

  • When the company is having to float taxes or trust funds to pay other expenses (vendor obligations are one thing, but unpaid taxes and trust funds can result in personal liability for officers and directors)
  • When the company is bumping up against covenant requirements on its loans (even if it hasn’t blown a covenant yet, and even if the lender and preferred equity don’t know it yet)
  • When the company can’t meet the conditions to sign the draw request on its working capital line (and remember, the  reason lenders require representations and draw request certificates is because officers have potential personal liability for signing a materially false request)
  • When the company cannot come up with a cash flow forecast, or its forecast is negative after considering all available cash and credit sources — said another way, when the burn rate is higher than projected cash and there is no reasonable expectation of change prior to exhaustion of all available capital (many companies fail not because of a bad business idea, but because they have a cash crunch, or lack the financial controls to do accurate cash forecasting)
  • When the company’s team cannot tell senior managers the company’s current financial position within about four business hours (you might be surprised, but I’ve seen companies with hundreds of millions in loans and assets that were unable to calculate their current financial position at all — is it $0? Is it positive? Is it negative?)
  • When there is any doubt about the company being able to make the next FOUR payrolls (that’s right, not one, but four – missing a payroll is often the death of a company, and if the next payroll is the problem, the financial distress process is acute and early warning signs are no longer the issue)
  • When the company and affiliates are using restricted acquisition capital to pay working expenses (as an example, when the company’s  source of cash to pay expenses on current assets is money borrowed on new deals which has restricted use; more than an early warning sign, this may also have certain legal implications, but for our purposes here, the importance is that the company is having to tap restricted sources to stay afloat)
  • When viability of the company is based on a single definable event, and there is a reasonable likelihood the event won’t take place (realize this is the definition of when a company begins undergoing a “restructuring,” and often companies do not recognize they are in a restructuring until long after it has begun)
  • When the company is having explosive growth, but has limited working capital to fund it (the definition of working capital is the amount of money it takes to stay alive in Monopoly until your property begins generating income or you pass go to collect $200; just like in business, working capital needs increase in Monopoly as the gameboard builds up with more expensive rent;  also, if you draw the “Chance” card requiring you pay for repairs, the expense is a fee multiplied by the number of properties/hotels you own — so your capital needs increase based on the growth of the business)
  • When the company’s lender asks the company to hire a financial advisor, or transfers the company’s loan into  special assets (realize there is no requirement that the company be in default before the bank brings in the special assets department; banks look for early warning signs, and often recognize the signs that their borrowers are in trouble before management teams are ready to acknowledge it)

How should a company’s management respond if it begins to see these signs?  If a company takes quick action, its probability of success, and ability to avoid failure, increases dramatically.  Management also has the opportunity to present itself as part of the solution.  Early intervention is key, and when a company sees the signs, it needs to begin contingency planning — preparing multiple potential exit strategies and solutions, instead of relying simply on the original plan of uninterrupted success.

Bobby Guy
www.distresstosuccessbook.com

Read Full Post »

Netflix faces angry customers after price increase

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, tagged , , , on July 17, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Article from SFGate.

“For years, Netflix prospered from a love affair with its happy, loyal customers. Now, some of those customers want to break up over plans to raise subscription rates by as much as 60 percent.

“Dear Netflix: After three years, I’m sorry but it’s over,” wrote Adam Lundquist. “It’s been great, but it’s over. It’s not us, it’s you. Enjoy the bankruptcy.”

That was one of more than 8,000 comments posted on the company’s blog before the forum reached maximum capacity.

Currently, subscribers pay $9.99 per month for unlimited access to a library of movies and TV shows that can be viewed instantly over the Internet, plus one DVD at a time sent by mail. Subscribers who want high-definition Blu-ray discs, or two or more DVDs at a time, pay a few dollars more.

Starting Sept. 1, subscribers will be charged $15.98 per month to keep both the streaming and DVD-by-mail features. Or, they can choose one or the other for $7.99. For new subscribers, the rates took effect immediately.

Netflix says the increase is needed to support the DVD-by-mail side of the business while allowing the Los Gatos firm to continue strengthening its streaming video offerings, which are crucial to future growth both in the United States and internationally.

“We went from being an ultra-extremely good value to an extremely good value,” said Steve Swasey, Netflix vice president of corporate communications. “It’s $6 a month. It’s a latte.”

Anger goes viral

That’s not what faithful subscribers wanted to hear, and their anger exploded onto the Internet.

Netflix’s Facebook page had nearly 50,000 comments by Wednesday evening, many from customers who said they had already canceled their accounts and were jumping into the arms of a competitor like Amazon.com, Hulu or Redbox.

“How sad that after years of holding a subscription … and being a walking advertisement for Netflix, that we are stopping the use of your services,” posted Rebecca Kiel-Hollifield. “Greedy, greedy, greedy. Way to show your long-term customers, who helped pave the way for your extreme success with a higher price … Goodbye, Netflix, hello Redbox!”

“I am so ticked off. I have been a loyal member for 10 years, and feel like I was kicked to the curb. I hate wishing bad on anyone, but it would serve them right if they lost 60 percent of their customers to match the price increase,” wrote Robert Michel Lankford.

Many of the comments started as a sort of “Dear John” letter, and indeed, the term “#DearNetflix” became a top trending topic on Twitter.

“Dear Netflix,” wrote Carin Lane. “You were doing so well. I liked you. I even paid you when I wasn’t using your service much. You had it so good. Now you’ve gone and committed corporate suicide. Why? Do you not like me anymore? … I simply don’t understand this. You seemed smart, but this is such a dumb move. Well, I canceled this morning, like you apparently want us all to do. Bye!”

Some created new Facebook pages pushing a mass cancellation of Netflix accounts on Aug. 31, although a similar call against Facebook over privacy problems last year hardly caused a ripple in the social network’s march to 750 million users.

Swasey said Netflix was not surprised by the backlash, but noted the critical comments came from just a fraction of the firm’s 23 million subscribers and are “not representative of the majority.”

It’s not a charity

And not all comments were critical of Netflix. “They are a business, not a charity,” wrote Tyler Loman. “If you can’t afford it then maybe you should re-evaluate if you could even afford the old price.”

Mike Kaltschnee, who for the past seven years has run an independent Netflix news blog called HackingNetflix.com, said the company mishandled the way the price change was announced, letting the blogosphere take control of the story.

The response came because “people have invested a lot of energy in recommending the company,” Kaltschnee said. “I don’t think a lot of people are going to quit.”

Indeed, of the more than 7,500 HackingNetflix readers who responded to a poll, 33.9 percent said they will quit Netflix, but 30.9 percent said they will go for the streaming-only plan; 20.2 will sign up for the combination option; and 10.4 percent favor the DVD-only subscription.

Wall Street investors gave a big thumbs-up. Netflix stock rose $7.46 to close at $298.73 after hitting an intraday high of $304.79 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Analyst Tony Wible of Janney Capital Markets said the new subscription rates are fair because the former rates were “irrational.” He said the new rates are needed to make the business more sustainable, especially as Netflix deals with higher streaming licensing fees and other looming costs.

But he said Netflix should have called the change a price increase instead of trying to pass it off as an improvement in service, which it wasn’t. “People are smart enough to see through that,” he said.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »