Closing down

It’s been over a year now we have not updated this blog and I can safely say this that even if they decided to disclose who killed Kennedy on this blog no one will care, because no body knows it even exist. So the wise thing would be to just delete it but for whatever reason I decide to archive it.

It wouldn’t be updated and any web2 related posts would be published on This is My Mind.

This blog was kept seperate from my other blogs because I wanted it to be a collaborative blog so if any body still happens to read it and wants to contribute please write to me samyukta[dot]basu[at]gmail[dot]com

Joseph Lelyveld on a few things

I was reading this excerpt of an interaction between Pulitzer prize winning journo Joseph Lelyveld n Inidan Express staff. Joseph Lelyveld was executive editor of The New York Times from 1994 to 2001, and was recalled to the newspaper in 2003, after a period during which it went through a credibility crisis. He has reported from India from 1966 to 1969. He is now working on a book on Mahatma Gandhi’s years in South Africa.

His take on New media: He thinks as news provider the fight between television and newspapers is sort of over its betweend Newspaper and Internet now. He says,

“the new media draws on the content of the old media and if the old media fade away, the new media will not have the robustness to maintain that kind of reporting…And the new media does very little reporting. They don’t break stories. Of all the things that journalism does, I place the highest value on getting the information out, breaking stories, opening new subjects, and so I am concerned about where the reporting is going to come from as newspaper reporting diminishes.”

On the quality of reporting. I totally loved what he says on the most often used line, this is what we deliver because this is what the reader wants.

“I’ve always mistrusted that phrase “the reader wants”, because how do we know exactly what the reader wants? I think you should give the reader a fresh and original paper that’s very well-written and covers all sorts of things —.social trends, fashion, the works but I think you are at your best when you give the reader something the reader wants that the reader didn’t know he or she wanted it till you gave it to her. Nobody is going to abandon you because you went three days in a row without mentioning Sarkozy’s wife.”

BING

I just came across this post regarding yet another social networking site. What’s new with this? It’s made for mobile phones.

The BING application provides the best aspects of both SMS and Instant Messenger blended into an innovative, open Java software service that allows for real mobile2mobile chat for friends which is entirely free of charge. A key benefit to the service is that it can operate irrespective of mobile operator and handset model anywhere in the world. Also, unlike traditional SMS, BING allows users to communicate with as many friends as they like at the same time. The application has a core target group of 16-18 year olds, however it is resonating with a broader demographic of young urban people, for whom social networking while on the move is very important.
Source: Marketwire

 I think that is just amazing for a country like India although I am a little concerned about the particular age group indulging in porn. But any step ahead in social networking via more easily affordable and usable medium gets a plus one. 

Writer’s Strike + New Media

The Writer’s Guild of America is on strike. Hollywood is in trouble. The strike is against AMPTP, a trade organisation that represents the interests of American film and television producers. Over 12,000 members of WGA are on strike. The writers wouldn’t write any new script or screenplay, won’t modify the existing ones, its an absolute pen down.

Now this news is extremely significant for new media / web2.0 stake holders. Why?

Because, of the many conflicting issues, one pertinent issue is the compensation for ‘new media’ content written for (and/or distributed through) emerging digital technology. AMPTP is not ready to give the writers any percentage on new media content namely, through delivery channels such as Internet downloads, IPTV, streaming, smart phone programming, straight-to-Internet content, and other “on-demand” online distribution methods, along with video on demand on cable and satellite television.

A lot of speculations over the bright future of new media have already been taking rounds over the past couple of years. The buzz is huge, money is enormous, possibilities are endless, User is the King, open source is justice. But I think the writer’s strike, by far, is an issue with the greatest implications ever on future of new media. Questions both AMPTP and WGA pondering upon being “what is the future of new media, how far is it going to go, what revenue it might yield in next 3 years.”

AMPTP contends ‘there is no money in new media’. Is it? I am reminded of Saurabh’s ‘There is no buble in web2′ post, I thought there is just no end to money in new media.

Nora Cletter writes,

As it stands on television, WGA members get 2.5 percent of a film or television series gross revenue. That means for every buck networks make in ad revenues on television, writers get 2.5 cents. Networks also collect ad revenues for episodes they air online. Of that revenue writers see exactly zero, zilch, nada. The AMPTP insists that they shouldn’t have to pay writers because the online episodes serve as “promotional material.” They also insist that there isn’t enough money in new media to pay writers what they make on television, and they’re right, there isn’t … yet.

However, in the not too distant future, television and the Internet will merge and new media will become the dominant media. Where media conglomerates stand will make billions off this merger, writers will lose their shirts. Without a percentage deal in place that guarantees writers will continue to receive their 2.5 percent of revenue, the AMPTP will have no obligation to pay writers any residuals.

The only formula for new media that makes sense is one based on revenues where if they make money, we make money — that’s what we’re proposing. If, as they claim, there really is no money in new media, we can do the math; 2.5 percent of zero is zero. So why can’t we just take $250 per episode now and renegotiate when this fateful merger occurs, so you can get back to watching “The Office”? Because the AMPTP doesn’t play nice.

While Googling more about this issue I came across an article by Froma Harrop where he / she has highly criticized the business intentions of the founders of Huffington Post, a popular liberal blog written by Hollywood fellas. The article exposes how few people are making money out of the blog which is being written by 100 others who are not being paid for the content.

This is an issue about which I too have pondered some time or the other. The question is when a blogger creates a content who should have the right to make money out of that content, the blogger or the platform where he blogged. Where a blog is a collaborative blog who all would get copyright over the content, how will you decide the share?

Throwing more light upon the strike and new media connection is this series of interesting debate published last week, under the opinion section on L.A. Times weekly “dust up” feature, between writer-producer Craig Mazin (representing WAG) and web entrepreneur Matt Edelman (representing AMPTP). On Thursday they debated upon questions like, “What will new media look like in five years? Will writers and producers have to negotiate every time technology changes?”

Matt says,

We’re barely five minutes into the digital media marketplace movie. So much will change in the next three years. Every supposition being made by the studios and the writers about where their revenue will be generated will be challenged, and most will yield as many surprises as classic films such as “The Sting” (or, for TV fans, like the good seasons of “24″).

Technology is advancing at a staggering rate. High-definition video soon will be more efficiently delivered via broadband than any other distribution platform…

…

The question really should be, how far into the future will this vision become a reality? Three years? Five years? Ten years?

…

So why all the fuss right now?

…they (writers) are fighting over relative peanuts compared with what will come out of even a slightly better DVD deal. Home video, as increasingly represented by video-on-demand and other subscription services in addition to rentals, will remain a much more lucrative business for the studios (and therefore the writers) than the Internet in the near term.

To which Craig replies,

Getting a fair rate on Internet distribution isn’t about avenging the bad home video deal. It’s about not repeating it. You suggest that attempting to figure out the future of the Internet is akin to palmistry.

It’s not. Here’s how this works.

From now until the end of time, any work distributed over the platform known as “the Internet” (defined as the worldwide, publicly accessible series of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet protocol) should be subject to a fair and decent residual rate for the artists who make those works possible.

I don’t need to concern myself with your idea of ratios of Internet revenue to total revenue, because I have this nifty bit of advanced mathematical technology called “the percentage.” If you make very little money, so will I. If you make a lot of money, so will I.

Simple as that.

In another day’s debate, Matt said,

“The future of new media is that it will be mainstream media….Between now and the time of the tipping point that represents the arrival of that future, the economics of the entertainment business will remain in dramatic flux.”

That, I think is the whole crux. We don’t know what the future of new media holds for us. Friend, Saurabh the other day said, new media wouldn’t be there in the future at all. I don’t understand economics. But I would be interested hear from some one who does.

What do you think the future of new media would be like? Would the producers (AMPTP) be making a lot of money from new media content in the next 3 years?. Anybody throwing some light?

 

Hand writing a revolution?

Did you ever think writing by hand instead of typing can be named as ‘revolution’?

The other day I was wondering when was the last time I wrote a letter, when was the last time I wrote anything by a pen on a paper. From meeting notes to daily thoughts everything is on the laptop now. I don’t even need the office stationary any more. I no longer have the excitement of collecting binder clips, paper flags, because I don’t read anything in hard copy any more. So much has changed in last few years. That’s the flip side of of technology. We sure have lost many small nothings that used to fill our lives once. At the same time, we gained many too, for eg. a growing gift from a facebook friend now lightens up our gloomy day.

Here is an interesting article by Alex Alben on Seatle times which talks about the commissioning of inscription of a new Torah scroll by congregation Temple De Hirsch Sinai in Seattle. The clock is being turned back at a time when all media was written and that indeed is revolutionary in this age of new media. He writes,

Writing a new Torah in the Internet age is at once an anachronism and a revolution. Modern laser printers surely could create the nuanced letters of the scroll in a few days. Yet the point, of course, is to work slowly and involve the community in the process. The words of the Bible are literally to be passed from generation to generation, creating a work of beauty all the more precious because it will be truly unique. The letters will be shaped by the hands of children, who will use this scroll their entire lives, and by grandparents, who will draw comfort from the fact that the spirit of Torah study has been kept alive for their progeny.

The article also touches upon what I mentioned in the first para, how too much of technology has cluttered our lives, a bit. He says,

This Thanksgiving, for example, my kids and I were looking for a recipe for gravy and they instantly ran to a wireless laptop to download ideas. In the olden days of the 1980s, one would have consulted a spiral-bound cookbook or perhaps even called Aunt Ethel in Massachusetts, who always made a wonderful turkey and who would have appreciated the opportunity to say hello and wish us a happy holiday. As information becomes more accessible, we become more isolated as a corollary.

Reminds me of the line from Lage Raho Munna Bhai, “internet pe saari duniya se touch mein rehete hai, par apne parosi ke baare mein nahi jaante hai” (We keep in touch with the world through Internet, but don’t know about the guy who lives next door)

Well, chances are, I do know the guy next door via facebook or orkut. Specially if I am living in Bangalore.

Let me know if you liked the article, its not too long and opens with an interesting information, on what would it take, for the entire Bible to be SMSed.

Past-Present-Future of e-commerce in India

Mitul asked this question on LinkedIn. I am posting my answer.

Past-Present-Future of e-commerce in India.

E-commerce in India is at a very nascent stage compared to western world. However, if compared to last year, transactions have grown by over 1000% (or more) and my assumption is that the future is going to be even more exciting.

Railways & Airlines have played a major role in this. What is the next big thing that will take e-commerce to the next level?

My Answer

Hi Mitul,

I think the next wave is going to be commodity products. Something like Books. Things that you don’t mind buying from any store, you would buy them online if the website gave you a discount. Other things that would fall under this category are computers (Dell), Stationary (OfficeTiger, Office 1 superstore) etc.

Fashion as mentioned by Heber might not work in India as we still want to touch and feel these products. In fact even when we go to a store, we spend hours deciding on the right fit and look. Its something innate to Indians. (am not sure about other cultures).

If I come across more, will update this.

-
SG

I further updated the answer …

Hi Mitul,

I dont know what would build the future. It’s just that I put myself in customers shoes and figure out what would I want to buy online.

Talking about mobile phones, one reason why I dont think it would work is that we as Indians want to touch and feel a product a before we buy. With an online model am not sure if I can touch and feel a product.

Second we buy things from a trusted service provider rather than any random person. Websites are still not trusted parties for most Indians. I would pay a premium to buy something from a trusted shop and might leave the 5% discount that online sales get me.

Third a mobile phone is still 5000 bucks and this is above average amount for an average Indian. Spending this much means that stakes involved are high (might not be able to buy it some time soon in case it is faulty). Thus we go the extra step in making sure that decision is correct in the first place.

Hope this helps.
Warm Regards,

SG

Anyone wants to share their opinions .. ?

Social Networks – The Future

I posted an answer on Social Networks on LinkedIn.

Hi,

Looks like no one can have enough of Social Networks.

In my opinion, the entire wave of networks would keep on flooding the Internet. Pertinent question would be which network would survive in the long term.

Lets not even go into reasons why these networks are created in the first place.

Things that would keep one social network ahead of another are

1. Network Effect: The network with most number of people would eventually win. People would have to join the network with most people and most people would join a network because the network has most people on it. Saw this in action with Orkut in India.

2. Repeat Visitors: Once a social network grows beyond its novelty factor, a lot of people simply stop coming back. Network should have something that attracts people back. LinkedIn: Professionals. Facebook: Applications.

If I need to talk to my friends and other random people about something, I can create a blog, I can comment on other blogs. I can send SMS, emails, call for real. The utility of a social network for daily chores is simply absent. Networks would have to offer more than just dating, friendship, music etc.

3. Offering: A network should give me something that is hard to find (or do) in real life. For example LinkedIn. This is something (access to people with IQ ) that I cant get in real life. No popular network apart from LinkedIn offers this to me.

Apart from these three, if few networks have to emerge as winners, they need to take care of following

1. Regional networks: Even though Internet does not have any boundaries as such, currently we have different networks dominating different geographies. Friendster – Asia, mySpace – US, Orkut – India and Brazil.

Obviously the reason for this spatial distribution is real connections (you invite, join and interact with social networks where your real-life friends are and most of your real-life friends live close to you)

2. Interest Areas: End of the day you join a network and stay there because you are interested in something and you want to connect to people with similar interests and want their opinions.

Myspace could connect all musicians, Linkedin could connect all professionals etc. The social network that can do this first would end up as a winner in my opinion.

If I was to compare professional interests, FaceBook with its applications is a move in that direction but it still lacks seriousness for a QnA network and more importantly it does not have the kind of people LinkedIn has. Similarly if I was to compare music interests, Myspace and FaceBook are still not there.

In my opinion, social networks are like any other commodity. In the long run, we would have one or two major players with chunk of the market share. And the networks that can aggregate interest areas and geographic spread would emerge as winners in long term.

Regards,
SG

Cleartrip.com earning report

According to Sandeep Murthy, CEO, Cleartrip.com, “We are expecting to close this March 2008 with a Rs 700-crore turnover”. Link

700 crore is a huge number for an online ticketing website. Lets see how much of this 700 crores is actually earnings for Cleartrip.

I will make following assumptions.

1. Average ticket price is Rs. 2,500 (The actual would be higher)
2. Cleartrip.com makes Rs. 100 on each ticket (I know for a fact that ticketing agents make all of Rs. 50 on each ticket. I am assuming that Cleartrip.com has the muscles to get better margins).

Time for some simple maths.

Turnover: Rs. 700 Crores aka Rs. 700 00 00 000
Number of tickets: 700 00 00 000 / 2 500 = 28 00 000
Margin per ticket: 28 00 000 * 100 = 28 00 00 000
Net Earning: 28 Crores

28 crores in first few years of operation is actually not bad for an online ticketing company. After they recover their investment costs (which should not be more than 20 odd crores if they are prudent), all revenues are theirs to keep.

There is zero or negligible operating cost for a business like theirs. No raw material costs, no managing the back end, no overheads. All they need to do is pay the licensing guy and put money in marketing. Further once they reach a traction point, even the marketing costs would start reducing.

Actually no. Theirs is a business with zero competitive advantage. Any website offering better deals will get the chunk of the business. How can they build moats around their castles? If they cant build those moats, they will have to somehow figure out a balance point between marketing spends and revenues.

Recently Yatra.com paid 10 crores to Mahesh Murthy’s Pinstorm for online marketing. Keeping in context Cleartrip’s earning at 28 crores , I wonder how much is Yatra making and is Yatra breaking even with this kind of marketing spend?

The business looks really lucrative. No wonder everyone wants to get into online ticketing. The long term winner will be the one who can leverage marketing effectively.

There’s absolutely no bubble in technology

Awesome mashup prophesying an inevitable Web 2.0 bust.

The video and music has been done by Richter Scale, a “bevy of gentlemen songsters”.

Catchy lyrics, music from we dint start the fire, the vid takes pot-shots at almost all mention-worthy Web 2 companies starting from The Million $$$ Page to Digg to Facebook to blogging and (obviously) to the VCs (and way they create castles-in-thin-air around companies with zero revenues and tons of paper value).

Must watch for any techonology enthusiast. I would rate this vid 4 on 5.

Internet Censorship

The question again is that of censorship of Internet. And question again because of this story, PETA files police complaint against Orkut. Apparently there are these dog hating communities on Orkut where the users are engaged in cruel discussions on ‘how to kill a dog.’

My first thought @ the story, “how ridiculous!” But let me do a recheck. Is it completely ignorable? 

Some say internet is a unique medium of communication which should be kept free from all kinds of censorship but self control. I kind of agree. After all, this is one world and one life with just too many laws and rules to abide by. Leave us with at least one such place where we can go and just be our true selves no matter how demented or sick we may appear. Otherwise where do we go with some of our weirdest thoughts and ideas, the moon?

Although what is self control is very subjective. At times you see amazing sense of responsibility amongst internet users. At other times you see mindless spamming. I was just telling a colleague at work, what a barcamp is, and it occurred me then, how the Bangalore Barcamp wiki board or any other wiki for that matter is open to millions and millions of users across the planet, yet not one of them messes with the data, not one participant of BCBs try editing the wiki page in a manner so as to capture other people’s schedules or rooms or jump the que. But at the same time you have users who are totally irresponsible, they go about spamming people’s mail box, doing exactly what we all frown upon.

So fair enough that we have orkut and other forums as avenues to express thoughts and opinion on topics varying from the most trivial to most vital to the most ridiculous ones. They are just mere medium which don’t give directions to human minds. So one can’t really say Orkut is promoting a certain view. Now even though you stop people from expressing on orkut, how much they hate dogs, the fact remains they hate dogs. If a bunch of them meet in physical world over a cup of coffee and happen to engage into similar conversation, would there be a law to control that. Basically can there be a law to control how people think? No is the obvious answer. Social media is only an extension of our thoughts.

But it doesn’t stop here. There’s a difference between simply expressing a thought casually and going to the extent of creating a community around that thought, initiating conversation, facilitating similar ideas and believes thereby strengthening the community and probably influencing more people to adhere. In the off line world, there can be no law to stop few dog haters discussing ways to kill dogs but where these few people try to form themselves into an association with the purpose of promoting or simply pursuing such hatred there would be a law to stop them. And we need that law because animal do have rights.  

Question then is how effective, the online activities of an orkut community are, can they have any effect off line? This is not an easy question, while there have been instances where a certain online content has gained popularity off line via mainstream media, internet, in India at least, still happens to be an immature media. The other day having babajobs on mind, I asked my maid do you know what internet is, the answer was No. She is 16, hails from a village in West Bengal, some body told her there are lots of jobs in a city called Bangalore. To her the world consists of her village, Bangalore and the K-serials on TV. I didn’t know what would be easier, to explain her what internet is or to teach her Greek. (Ok bad analogy or whatever, never mind.)

So anyways, I think its not that easy for an online activity to have a direct impact on the off line society we live in. I’d say a dog hater community on orkut can be safely ignored since it poses NO direct threat to the dogs really. For one, most people love dogs. Second, some times a lot of us go to the internet to express ourselves on topics we very well know, cannot be discussed in the physical world that we exist. It’s just that. A vent.

May be PETA is overreacting. But it also is important to curb a disease right at the root, to raise a voice against every significant or insignificant incident of rights violation.

 

An endless debate it is, but I can say one thing now. At least couple of 100 more people now know about the orkut Dog hater community thanks to PETA.