Archive for March, 2009

Exemplification

Posted in Travel on March 26, 2009 by themaroon

As I write this, I’m sitting on a plane heading back from a much needed respite in Las Vegas. For the first time since starting Blue Frog Gaming I took a little time to totally unplug from the startup. The closest I came previously was my honeymoon, though even then I would sneak down to the main concourse daily, laptop in hand, to answer emails at the cruise ship internet access rate of $73 per minute.

But this time I ignored the inbox and, except for a brief conversation with a good friend who is also one of our investors, forcefully vanquished every thought about how to improve virality with better mini-feed messaging or increase conversions by delaying install buttons. I can’t say the thoughts didn’t keep popping up like plastic moles at an arcade, but I kept hammering them back down with my mental rubber mallet.

I had lots to keep me occupied out there anyway. From the moment we got to town we were assaulted by the city’s overwhelming despair in light of the new economy. Gambling is said to be recession-proof, but the casinos have spent the last 10 years moving away from their proverbial bread and butter and toward other sources of revenue like restaurants (literal bread and butter), real estate, and shopping. The combination of spring break and March Madness had occupancy rates at 2007 levels, but everybody knew it was temporary. You could see in their eyes that next week they’d be back on their couch watching daytime talk shows instead of collecting tips.

We rented a condo at The Signature, three new Turnberry-managed towers attached to the MGM, where I had once seriously considered purchasing a suite. When the owner let us into the room, I asked her all about the market and she told me the story with what I could only describe as quiet resignation. It truly made me sad to see it. This wasn’t a parasitic AIG executive sucking at the teat of society. She wasn’t a subprime borrower wanting to live in a much nicer place than her income afforded her. She was a real person who made an investment that, by many, would have been considered a good bet.

She’d bought a condo in the hottest real estate market in the US as an investment, hoping that occupancy rates would remain at least reasonable. Common wisdom at the time (which had been true since long before most of the town’s residents had left their snowy climates to deal blackjack at the Bellagio) was that no matter how many rooms the city built, tourists would fill them. She’d hoped that over the long term a combination of appreciation and rental revenues would provide her with a little something to help retire on. Now she’s frantically listing the place on sites like Craigslist, trying to recoup the mortgage (which from my estimates wouldn’t happen even with a 100% occupancy rate) or at least some portion thereof.

She’d taken the same sort of gamble “experts” have been saying was the best way to build wealth for decades, and now she’s in serious trouble because of it. Units that sold originally in the $600k-$750k range are now listed online at $175k, and I hear have been purchased for even less. These people are being crushed, having lost hundreds of thousands, and unsurprisingly many of them are filing bankruptcy, pushing the losses off to the banking system, whose lack of due diligence makes it hard to feel sorry for them. But as an entrepreneur, it really saddens me to see anyone who isn’t a competitor getting smacked upside the head for trying, so I felt bad enough for the owner that I tried to do a little extra room-cleaning before we left.

Meanwhile across the street at City Center, which is the most expensive non-governmentally financed construction project in history by a factor of three, there isn’t a worker to be seen. The lawsuits and other acts of general desperation have already begun to flow over that one, with pretty much everyone involved either scraping for the cash and/or credit needed to complete it or trying to back out entirely. MGM has begun selling off casinos just to keep construction moving, and nobody knows how far they’ll have to go to stay afloat. It’s a bet-the-farm project for a company who, like every gaming conglomerate, has a share price graph that looks like an inverted “V”, and the people with the chips are asking the dealer if surrenders are allowed.

The first condo-hotel opening there will be the ridiculously-named Vdara. My wife says they purposely made the title as close to that of female genitalia as they could get away with. If so, it’s ironic that they chose the body part they did since the whole project is a giant hole that’s threatening to sink their company faster than its namesake did Alex Rodriguez‘s reputation.

The guy at the sales center in MGM said its only 60% sold just a few months shy of opening. If memory serves me (and I’ll check my email records to confirm) The Signature was well over 90% this close to game time. They’re still asking half a million or more for units, which the sales rep admirably managed to tell me without laughing. Good luck with that one guys. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the units sold are already in foreclosure. If the complex ever does get finished, which is not a foregone conclusion, unless something in the sales contract forbids it there will probably be units on the resale market competing against direct sale units three times as expensive.

In many ways, seeing what’s happening to the town brings me great sadness. It’s hard for a human to feel more kinship for a city than I do with Las Vegas. In a lot of ways, she and I grew up together. While I don’t expect it to be the defining period of my life, my time as a professional poker player will probably go down in my memoirs as my formative years, and a big chunk of it was spent on The Strip.

It’s looking like it will be recalled as her golden years as well. Residents a decade from now will talk about the days when easy credit and irrational exuberance brought tourists in faster than all the money in the world could be used to accommodate them. Buildings costing in the 9 figures (or more) sprung up faster than cacti after one of the two annual rainy days. There was an influx of job-seekers from the all around our country and the world probably unlike anything seen since the golden era of Detroit. Anyone with the manual dexterity needed to shuffle a deck was guaranteed a healthy middle class salary, executives were minted faster than poker chips, and the housing market exploded along with both. Even now, it’s hard to find anyone in Las Vegas who actually grew up there.

Watching the casinos cut staff, restaurants and clubs shutter, and buildings languish half-finished is sort of like seeing your college buddy get laid off, except at least you know your buddy will rebound eventually. Las Vegas probably won’t sink as far as Detroit, but it also probably won’t ever be what it was back when I was spending one week a month living out of the Bellagio. They can finish all of the condos named after reproductive organs, maybe even build the whole City Center project and a few more unnecessary casinos to boot, but they’ll never get back the optimism that was Las Vegas’s greatest natural resource for the last 50 years.

Nonetheless, much like the rest of the nation these days, though things seem to suck for everyone else they’re pretty damn good for those of us whose lives continue on unabated. I often feel guilty about just how much further my money goes now, or at least about enjoying it so much.

For less than half of what I used to pay at Bellagio, you can now rent a brand new suite, located just far enough from The Strip to avoid the annoyance of dopey tourists bouncing around aimlessly and stopping to look at every shiny object in a store window that they will never in their lives be able to afford, but still close enough to get there with a brief people mover-assisted walk. The cost of a rental car is more than recouped by the ability to buy food for breakfast and lunch at Whole Foods and bring it back to the kitchenette.

I was also able to get third-row tickets to “O”, a show I’ve wanted to see for over five years now but have previously never been able to due to my inability to plan anything more than three days in advance. This time three days was more than enough. The only other people in town were spring breakers, who couldn’t afford the ridiculous ticket prices (which would be unjustifiable for any show in the entire history of humanity but that one) and March Madness fans, who are too busy getting drunk on $2 Bud Lights at a sports book and rooting for their parlays.

“O” was, perhaps, the most fascinating thing I’ve ever seen, in fact, I’m still not sure it actually happened, let alone occurs twice nightly as billed. I think there’s just some hallucinogenic gas pumped into the theater, and then a guy with those swirly mesmerizing glasses comes on stage and tells you the story, because what I saw was simply an impossible sum of many only marginally-possible parts. It wasn’t even so much the acrobatics, which were impressive, but the logistics.

There’s a theater with a 25 foot deep pool holding 1.5 million gallons of water in the middle of the desert, the floor of which can be raised and lowered quickly, in sections, without causing a wake. There’s a wall of air separating it climatically from the audience. There are various contraptions in the ceiling that people swing from, all of which can be moved in multiple dimensions, a cast of 85 world-class athletes (many of whom are Olympians) wearing costumes that cost as much as $10,000 and have to be replaced every two weeks. The show, if it really exists, and I’m skeptical (note the lack of videographic evidence) cost $100 million to get running, which is about the same as Terminator 2 but without any hope of selling DVDs.

When you think about it all rationally, it just doesn’t add up. It’s not possible. But if it were possible, it would only be so in Las Vegas. Nowhere else could someone spend that kind of money on a theater with only 1,800 seats and one show, and have it end up one of the best gambles ever made. Walter Mathau once said about poker that it “exemplifies the worst aspects of capitalism that have made our country so great”. He was close, but Vegas, with its $11 billion casinos and shows that cost more than a skyscraper in most cities, beats it hands down.

Facebook's Got Balls

Posted in tech on March 20, 2009 by themaroon

I have to say that after being an app developer on Facebook for a while, I’m gaining an appreciation for them as a company. While I still don’t see them as “the next Google” as everyone loves to call them, I admire their boldness.

Reading this article about Google’s Visual Design lead, who is moving on to Twitter, and the ensuing conversation about it over on Hacker News, made me realize how fearful many successful businesses are of shaking things up. One commenter on HN said:

When I started at Google Nov. ’06 Doug had created some awesome Gmail mockups that really took the design and functionality above and beyond and — having heard about how ground up Goog worked — I was thinking those designs would be acted upon and built in the coming months and I was excited about using that Gmail.

When I left end of last year, the mockups were still being iterated on, and the only thing that had been built based on those mockups were the buttons. Gmail’s just too big, as are search and ads, and UX is too disorganized and outnumbered to have any say.

I think a lot of people fall into this trap. I know I have. When you have a lot of customers (and we’ve got a fraction of a percent of the number Facebook does) you realize quickly that any change you make is going to be met with a lot of complaints, and the bigger the change, the more vocal they’ll be. It creates a serious form inertia and scares you into leaving well enough alone.

The problem is the conflict between what a business would define as an improvement and what its customers would. While all business share the same scoreboard, money, customers don’t really care about that. They want a site that fits certain needs, and once they find one, changes are often unwelcome. Changes that give your site a broader appeal often make it less appealing to the early adopters. Even if they will come to like it in time, their aversion to change in a service they already love can often cause a near-term firestorm.

Given all that, I think relative to a lot of other companies, Facebook has been pretty ballsy. Not just in their famously spurning large acquisition offers, but also in their willingness to push improvements that they feel will benefit them in the long run but that cause them a lot of grief in the short term.

As with any form of gambling, sometimes one doesn’t work out. Beacon was a pretty spectacular example of that. I’m still not sure how they thought that one would work. My 11 year old cousin would have realized that idea was idiotic. But they at least dealt with that well and it’s now largely forgotten.

And while there have been a few misfires, there’ve been a few successes as well. When they introduced the mini-feed and some other forms of public information, lots of current customers were pissed and there was a very big backlash. They liked the site how it was just fine, and we’re a little nervous about the changes. But Facebook did a pretty good job of allowing people to set privacy settings, and of configuring the default ones, and then of explaining it to customers (something they should have done right off the bat) and in time people grew to love it. Now that sort of stuff is now what people visit the site for, it’s the prime reason for the tremendous engagement they see. Without those features they’d be just another Myspace wannabe.

The new home page (and the new Facebook in general) are examples of big gambles too, and while the smoke hasn’t entirely cleared yet, I think they’re going to be long-term successes. While as an app developer I absolutely despise the new home page (which removes them from the right side, and seems to have caused an overall traffic dip for games on the platform) and the new Facebook (which has had an even more deleterious effect on apps in general) as a Facebook user I vastly prefer both.

But whether or not they work out in the end, I’m impressed that they even tried it. It’s hard making bold changes to an application that has 150 million users and is gaining hundreds of thousands of new ones each day. It’s hard to not roll it back immediately when the complaints start flooding in. But in the long run, it’s that sort of gamble that separates the Facebooks from the Orkuts. It’s easy for a new service like Gmail to boldly go where no web-based email has gone before, it’s hard for the Gmail that’s been around for 5 years and is the third or fourth largest service (and possibly the fastest growing) to make sweeping changes.

And I have to say that on the whole, I’m inspired by it. It’s something I think we need to do more of at Blue Frog Gaming. We often find ourselves, when evaluating a change, saying things like “we’re going to get flooded with complaints over that one” or “the customers who bought hundreds of dollars worth of commissioner points are going to be pissed”. But we can’t let that stop us from improving. We have to do what is best for our games in the long term, and if that means some unhappy customers in the short run, well, that’s what economists call creative destruction.

Restating

Posted in tech on March 11, 2009 by themaroon

A lot of people mistook my last post to mean nothing on the internet will ever be free anymore. Despite the “High volume, ad-supported web businesses will always exist, because in certain areas (search for instance) they just make sense” disclaimer at the end, I think I did a poor job setting the tone. My assertion wasn’t that they are or will soon be dead, just that they’re going to be a lot less common.

Paul Graham said:

There are some startups where you want to charge users, and some that you want to be free and just go for growth, and which strategy you use depends on the nature of the startup, not the state of the economy.
Thinking that every startup has to start charging its users now because the economy is bad is just as mistaken as thinking a few years ago that no startup had to charge its users because the economy was good.

I don’t disagree with that at all. I just think that for a long time most startups that should have been charging at least some of their users were afraid to. They’ve been erring on the side of free in very large numbers. They’ve been erring in that direction because it worked, and it worked because of a good economy, or at least it will cease to work for a time because of a bad one.

And just as it maybe was too far to one extreme in a good economy, it will probably shift too far to the other in the bad one. It will be mistaken in many cases perhaps, but on the balance it will be closer to correct because most startups now don’t charge anyone for anything, when in reality most startups (but not all) probably should.

Moreover, at least based on my own experience, founders choose their startup from a pool of ideas. I realize that probably not everyone is as creative as me, but I come up with at least one new product idea every day. I consign most of them to the scrapheap immediately because I just don’t think many people would use them. Some I think would be popular but well outside of our startup’s purview (hell, a couple were restaurants and one was a snow plowing business) and those I file away in case I need startup ideas years from now. Some I think would work and fit well with what we’re doing but my team doesn’t for whatever reason. And once in a blue moon one of those ideas makes it through all the filters and becomes a new Blue Frog Gaming product, like Football Tycoon.

I think most startup founders are at least somewhat similar in that they have a lot of ideas from which they choose one. They don’t just see one thing somewhere that needs improving and go for it. They see lots of things everywhere that need improving and they choose the one that passes through their filters.

мебели стара загораAnd for the last 5 or so years, startup founders haven’t really used “is this monetizeable?” as one of those filters. Why would they? Acquirers didn’t, so nobody on down the chain did. I think that’s going to change with the new economy, perhaps even more so than it really should.

The Free Ride Is Over

Posted in tech on March 9, 2009 by themaroon

David Oscarmeyer Hansson had a good post on the 37signals blog today about the end of the traditional Web 2.0 business model, i.e. get a bunch of users by not charging and hope to make money off of advertising. I’ve never been a fan of that model myself. I’ve started two internet companies now, with a total of four different products. One of them (the most successful at the moment) uses what is known as the “freemium” business model, letting customers use the product for free and then selling them some other things optionally. The other three all charge everyone (though in all three, the fee is hidden as part of another transaction, similar to a poker room, which is still my favorite business model). All three are still around, in various degrees of repair, and two of them are rather old by internet standards.

As one shrewd angel once told me, only 100 companies can get into the Alexa Top 100. A lot of people say things like “no company that gets enough users goes out of business” which is true if you set the bar high enough, but largely only because VC funding and acquisitions have propped them up. Without Google’s bucks (or those of another similarly large acquirer) I’m highly skeptical YouTube would exist in its current form, even discounting the settlements and litigation fees.

So the question people ask is “if that’s so, why don’t those companies go under?” There are two answers. One is that they do. Where’s broadcast.com now? It got bought and later shut down. They had a pretty tremendous share of traffic back in their day. Lots of dotcoms that didn’t charge (and plenty that did too) got a ton of customers and failed to make money. Anyone who was paying attention 8 years ago could rattle off a dozen.

The other answer is that the internet has only really been in business for 10-15 years, and it’s spent all but a few of them buoyed up by irrational exuberance. Even if you assumed it to be true that at some point we’d discover that making something people want wasn’t the only thing you have to do, you wouldn’t expect to have done so yet. It’s too early, and when people first started saying repeating that mantra it was way too early.

DHH says the days of giving things away are numbered, and I tend to agree. There’s a simple cause and effect chain that led to a lot of free websites, and it’s pretty easy to see how it will unravel.

1. Founders adopt that business model because it’s attractive to investors and helps them raise funds. Everyone wants to own a chunk of the next Google, and Google is free. In fact the vast majority of the Alexa Top 100 is free.

2. VCs and angels are attracted to the ad-supported model because a high percentage of the companies that get acquired for the big bucks (like YouTube or MySpace) or even some that IPO (Google, Yahoo) use it. The reverse is not true though, as there are probably 1000 startups that set out to make the top 100 for every one that succeeds, but it’s a very common logical fallacy to assume that it is.

3. While IPOs are pretty much dead, big companies acquire startups for two reasons. One is that the founders have a lot of talent, in which case it really doesn’t matter what their business model is. Google doesn’t need a business model, it needs great employees (or at least it did). These are generally small purchases that investors often dislike because they don’t get much return.

Another is that it has a lot of users that the acquirer feels it could monetize. YouTube fits into that category. The acquisitions of these types of companies will stop when acquirers start having to shut down startups they paid millions or billions for and couldn’t manage to turn a profit on. Some will be forced to out of economic necessity, and even the Googles of the world that could afford to subsidize a lot of crappy products indefinitely won’t. And every time they’re forced shut down some crap like Broadcast.com, they’ll think even harder about the next Skype.

The recession is the straw that has broken the camel’s back. The third domino is already falling, and it might take a short while for the other two to be knocked over in turn, but it will happen. High volume, ad-supported web businesses will always exist, because in certain areas (search for instance) they just make sense, but they’ll cease to be the sole aspiration for the vast majority of internet startups.

Quick Note

Posted in Me Thinking So You Don't Have To on March 1, 2009 by themaroon

I’m trying something new here and putting a widget on the right hand side that will show the last few links I shared from my RSS reader. You can subscribe to my stream directly in your reader with this URL if you like as well.

It will probably be largely tech-weighted to be honest, since the only non-tech publication I actually read (The Economist) comes to me the old-fashioned way.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.