Startup #10- a big opportunity with a Social Media Language Translator

Opportunity #10 is in a big space.

in late July 13, I took an idea to a Launch 48, a pitching competition & 'hackathon', with the idea to testing it, & perhaps forming a team around it, either for that idea, or maybe another. Not only did we win that competition, and put together a large team to build the opportunity,  I also learned a whole lot in the process.

What we created was a working prototype proof of concept and a business model for a very large startup, called TerraLingo (I'll come to the size of it in a minute), which is a social media language translator, with interesting big data analysis and corporate partnership opportunities.The challenge is that to build something within the opportunity space that we saw,that could scale at a worldwide level, would take easily between $20-30 million of venture capital over 3-5 years. Like many startups in that space, it had a high failure capacity.

The problem was that because most of our team was 30+, and would be initially part-time, no startup accelerator in Australia would've approved our application, which is seen as almost mandatory to obtaining tech VC seed capital. And the normal model means giving up a fair chunk of equity to a VC (often here at very unfavourable terms), in order to get the cash you need to grow the business to a big enough level. To do a startup well, means having cash, and spending that cash wisely, whilst we validate our model, whilst gaining traction and creating revenue.To grow it means a location to operate from, cash to pay for staff, research, services, consultants, advisors, software, business infrastructure etc

Also inherent in the problem for most of us older guys doing a startup, is that we have 'golden handcuffs', - obligations. We have wives (or husbands), kids, mortgages, school fees, lifestyles, etc. Which meant that life for us in a startup requires us to have a new (better) plan, none of which would work for a VC-funded venture (or at least, not for any of the one's I've met).

To make matters even worse, the local VC's that I directly pitched to didn't get it, so seed funding was going to be really hard, which meant we really needed a better plan. As my great mentor, Neville Christie, recently told me -"It's not a lack of resources that you suffer from; it's a lack of resourcefulness".

So the plan expanded to bootstrap through direct customer investment, and create a range of services to allow us to stretch our resulting cash further. We developed a model which should give us access to all the people, resources, mentors, corporate clients & money that we'll need to build out TerraLingo, without VC money at onerous terms (eg 2 x Participating, preferred stock, anti-dilution, ratchet clauses, board seats, controlling interests, and....... the list goes on). My apologies for the jargon.

To get really creative, we looked to our own ingenuity. For example, instead of us paying $7k per person at a co-working space (do the math on 3-12 people), we could operate from effectively our own venue that a separate group/team has setup for us, leaving the cash from that saved expense free for more important costs like marketing & a bigger team; instead of outsource our core requirements, we 'insource' them.

To generate cash, you should also get creative, and by spending our time seeking customer, rather than VC money (often called 'bootstrapping'), we not only would validate our startup but raise the value of the business before obtaining external financing. I'll demonstrate the value of this method in one line:-
Angelist recently raised a Series A round of $24m, on a $150m Valuation - a series A! in doing so, demonstrate how other startups could use them & replicate their model = more value in their clients and their model.

I'll lay out the whole plan shortly, but what we've been creating (on the side) has become a fully vertically integrated accelerator & co-working space model, for which TerraLingo would be an anchor client.

And with the early equity that we don't have to give up to an accelerator or VC, we can reserve a larger slice for the team, and offer some up to group of direct investors, advisors, consultants and mentors to accelerate our growth. Just like Ycombinator & 500 startups do. In effect we create our own VC model - and then allow other startups to piggyback onto our model, expanding it to support "from ideation to exit".

I promised you an outline of how big an opportunity TerraLingo is; to give you a sense of scale, it was announced yesterday that Topsy was acquired by Apple for $200 million, and DataShift is worth even more. Perhaps we were too late to the table, though its a shame that some of our 'clever' VC's didn't get it.

However, we think we might have 'accidentally' created something far more valuable.

Dynamic Equity Splitting for startups

As founders, one of the most difficult decisions we face that the early-stage of a startup is how to split equity amongst the founding team. Often the most simple route is a straight split. But this can lead to fundamental problems later on in the life of a startup.

 The common question of "what is an idea worth" often comes up. In reality, a good idea and $4 will buy you a cup of coffee. The same problem is is true of valuing the contribution of early stage investors and advisors.

One of my last startups was done on an 50/50 split, but I ended up doing 80% of the work. Then my co-founder took a full-time position back in the workforce, so I really had no alternative but to close the down the opportunity rather than buy-out his share. A good shareholder agreement can help with that problem, but your actual calculations are still often based on guesswork or notional contributions.

Dynamic Equity Splitting solves that problem by allocating the percentages of ownership after the fact, based on the actual contributions of founders, as well as investors, advisors, consultants, and even early stage hires, relative to their their experience and actual contribution of labour or resources.

Dynamic Equity Splitting is a concept pioneered by another successful 'StartUp Guy', Mike Moyer, who has had a number of succesful startup based out of the US. He also happens to lecture at the prestigious University of Chicago Booth School of Business, as well as mentoring and supporting startups (using Dynamic Equity Splitting) so his experience is well based in both the theory and the practical.

It's gaining interest around the world from founders who want to address the challenges of splitting equity. Even the startup media has recently become interested, with SmartCompany's Rose Powell writing an article on the topic of Dynamic Equity Splitting.

DES is now the cornerstone of all our startups, including of a new type of accelerator program that we'll be launching shortly, for professionals wanting to enter the startup space, a group often overlooked in the crowd full of 20-something graduates. DES is fairer, eliminates ambiguity, recognises value, and rewards people based on their actual contribution, relative to the total contributions made by all, using pre-agreed formulas.

This also gives investors & advisors some certainty and aligns the equity of founder shares relative to the value of their own financial & advisory contributions, thereby de-risking an important part of the startup dilemma. This promotes open-ness & communication around equity, and can remove some of the ambiguity or disagreement around ownership splitting, freeing up founders & advisors to focus on critical areas area likes marketing , business development, and product/market fit.

All 4 of our startups will be using this model, and we encourage others to consider it as a method of splitting equity between founders.

As to how to apply the principles, we'll be happy to help Aussies locally, and you can contact Mike Moyer at 'Slicing Pie' for more information, and order a copy of his book

Hot 30 over 30 entrepreneurs -there are more than you think

There's often talk about hot & hungry young entrepreneurs -those types of list are everywhere -with good reason. I think they are talked (and often hyped) about because they are the exception, rather than the rule.

I suggest that there is a hotter, less spoken about group of entrepreneurs who are in fact the larger group of change agents actually driving entrepreneurship in startups - the 'over 30' set.

I should know; not only have I met hundreds of them in my last 2 1/2 years of pacing the startup hallways, but I'm also one of them. 

The ability to 'do' a startup in your 20's is made more possible often by the lack of entanglements - its much more difficult to take the plunge & follow your dream into StartUpLand when you have obligations that must be met; like a mortgage, kids school fees, car payments and other 'necessities'. 

Often the requirement for a steady pay-check to meet those daily bills is a set of 'golden-handcuffs' that keep would-be visionaries tied to their desks, a title or benefits, their careers and their current trajectory. 

In many cases, this group of aspiring entrepreneurs is tied through family requirements, expectations, or 'what would my wife/mother/ colleagues/ etc think of me if I chased my dream?'.

And yet, there are many who are doing just that. Some have thrown caution to the wind (like I) despite their circumstances, others have transitioned slowly into the space, and yet others have made that leap after a successful corporate career. Just like Troy Westley has.

One qualification here is that I am talking about startups that are actively engaged in driving their idea. Which means that I must, by definition, exclude the many people that attend startup groups & meetings as a 'wantapreneur'; those peolle that may have a great idea, but lack the drive or catalytic event required to actually make a start. 

In a more mature entrepreneur, that catalytic event could be a layoff, a life-event, an awakening moment or even just a gradual awareness of the 'ticking clock of life', and that the time is now. 

So if you know of a startup guy (or girl) who qualifies as a "hot 30 over 30", let me know - their story also deserves to be told.

Why Mick Liubinskas is wrong about centralising startup funding.

Today, Mick Liubinskas was quoted in a piece in StartUpSmart about an annoucement of $28m in startup innovation funding by Labour, to a Sydney incubator program. 

http://www.startupsmart.com.au/government-and-regulation/labor-pledges-28-million-in-co-funding-to-make-sydney-hub-for-innovation.html

Mick was quoted as saying “What hasn’t worked in the previous programs has been spreading the funds out too widely. It’s much better to put this money all to work in say Hobart or Sydney."

 

“I’m really passionate about fighting fragmentation, even if we can put it all to work in one industry and location, that’d be a breakthrough,” Liubinskas says. “If they have the courage to make it focused and local, it’s great.”

He's flat out wrong. 

My response comment to the article was 

"Last time I checked my citizenship documents, I distinctly remember them saying that I am an Australian citizen, not a Victorian or a New South Welshman. 

I understand what Mick is saying about focus, but since when did we as enrepreneurs, start buying into or accepting, the philosphy of scarcity?"

"Sydney is not the 'centre' of Australia (nor is my home town, Melbourne). And governments should not be in the business of 'picking winners' (especially based on their recent track record). "

"If we truly want Australia to be a force in the world startup ecosystem, governments need to encourage the whole ecosystem, not just one part of it. Governments know this better than any one, which is why we have a senate system which recognizes the rights if all states equally."

"I respect Mick's view & track record, but here, he is flat out wrong in buying into the typical pre-election pork-barrelling."

And here is why.

The recent PWC report (sponsored by Google) into the possible future of the Australian startup ecosystem, and the subsequent benefits to the Australian economy & new job creation in the sector, highlighted the immense opportunities that Australia will have over the next 20 years. 

If the last 20 years of Australian politics are anything to go by, namely 5 prime ministerial changes, 3 changes in government (with a 4th looming), a minority government, the rise of independents & minor parties controlling government policy (from Sen. Harradine etc), we will likely see those trends accelerate in the next 20 years.

If that is the case, the opportunities for Australian startups to emerge & thrive will be squandered as various factions & viewpoints sqwabble & scramble for meager funding opportunities offered by each of the major parties when each election period comes around. Worse, post-election, there will be (as there has always been), the traditional watering down & pandering to minority political interests, of pre-election promises. 

Direct personal experience tells me that changes to government policy can & will have a devastating impact on the success of many yet-to-envisaged startups across Australia.

My case in point is the NBN - which as a result of partisan politics in Australia -will likely become the largest fiasco in Australian political & technological history -against which the 'pink batts' disaster will pale into insignificance. 

We need a better plan than that -a plan that makes sense for those many thousand of professionals & startup entrepreneurs, most of whom will forgo traditional businesses & corporate roles, to invest 3-5 years of their lives in ventures that have an unforsee-able likelihood of success. 

So in our world of uncertainty, the one thing that we should ask for -no, demand -from our governments, is certainty of policy, and an ongoing commitment to consistency of approach - a bi-partisan long-term plan, free of pork-barelling, picking winners, and agenda-driven quotas.

Only then will we be in a position to create the opportunities of excellence that we can each imagine in our own spaces.

There are looming question of the 'funding gap', as well as equity-share taxation issues that will obviously need to be addressed, preferably sooner rather than later- but these are secondary. Without certainty of policy & committment, how could any government expect to get the funding initiatives right over a 20 year framework. 

I read a report recently that listed the top 25 startup locations in the US. Interestingly, 4 of the top 10 were in one middle-of-nowhere state called Colorado, which with just over 5 million people, is ranked 22nd largest state by population (roughly the same size & land area as Victoria). I'll venture that it didn't just happen by accident. 

So if Colorado can have 4 of the top 10 in the US, why can't Australia have 4 (or 6) of the top 10 in the world?

My dad used to say "A rising tide lifts all ships", but thats only true if there isn't an artificial dam put right in the middle of the harbour. 

So my request to Mick is simple - irrespective of the party elected, now and in the future, we need a plan from Government that helps, not hurts, our eco-system. Our best efforts should be directing to encouraging that to happen, rather than pitting one city against another. 

PS my original blog posted as "Mark Lubinskas" - which requires a direct apology to Mick (Sorry Mick) -I'm guessing I owe him at least a coffee. 

One way to NOT use numbered lists in your blog post titles

1. Just DON'T

2. Stretch your mind beyond what everyone else is doing. 

Social media requests -connect, reject or deflect?

People who use social media platforms to promote their brand, message or even their expertise can experience an unwanted, or perhaps inconvenient, outcome - 'the connector'.

Yes, another brand, person or business that wants to connect with you. That's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, isn't  'more followers', a wider audience & greater engagement, the things we all seek?

Of course, but I'm not talking here about that audience. I'm talking here about the person (we'll lump them all together)  who seeks to connect in order to sell you their wares, as if by connecting, you might suddenly become interested in buying or promoting their encyclopedias/vaccuum cleaners/ (or insert other useless products here).

In some cases, it might be an automated 'bot' follower that is trying demonstrate how valuable it is, or a social media 'whore' who needs a high following to feel good about themselves, irrespective of the topic or posting content.

In others, it might be the 'serial connector' who feels that the slightest tenous link or commonality gives them cause to want to access your LinkedIn network.

We all use different platforms in different ways, and often for different purposes, so who & how you connect with depends upon your needs.

For instance, I use Linked In as a tool to connect with interesting people that I've met & with whom I share a commonality with, & that perhaps I may be of service to, now or in the future.

In twitter, I follow thought leaders & brands in my specific topics of interest, as well as to use an information gathering service, which you could idetify from my ratio of following/followers (currently about 2:1).

For Facebook,  its more of a recent news & events platform for other people to keep up my latest project, as well as to engage & interact with them. I also use private groups for specifc topics,  like business partners, family & friends to connect & share with.

So the dillemma i often have is when I receive a connection request that is outside my 'parameters' eg the Linked In request from someone Ive never met. Or the spambots that autofollow you.

When you receive a request, what do you do? Ignore it? Respond with a polite 'thank you, no', or request more information? Do you 'block'?

Or do you graciously accept every request, and then never interact?

I imagine that the answer to how you handle each request comes down to the reasons as to why you that specific platform. Do you have strategy, or do you make it up as you go along?

I could wax lyrical about the different platforms available for sharing different content types, or opportunities for interconnection between platforms,..... But I won't.

Instead, may I suggest a much simpler first step?

How about taking just 5 minutes to think about how & why you use each platform? The exercise may surprise you as to whether you have the right audience to suit the objectives that you have for each platform.

The outcome of such an exercise may lead to considerable improvements in the effectiveness of  each platform, & lead you towards a simpler more effective strategy.

What I learned from a StartUp weekend

I had the privilege this past weekend of participating in, and pitching at a startup weekend in Melbourne, called Launch 48. It was organised and co-ordinated by a wise mentor & confidant of mine, Grant Downie. As well as participating in, and contributing to the startup community through leading the Melbourne chapter of Startup Leadership Program (SLP), Grant is also an inspiring startup consultant.

In participating, I had a number of objectives that I wanted to achieve, of which I hit every one. On reflection, I realised that I gained something immensely more valuable - perspective. This insight is too important to leave locked away, so important in fact that it's worth stepping away from my normal blog format of "challenging ideas".

The weekend was well run, and well supported by sponsors, advisors and mentors, (many of whom I've had the opportunity to meet & discuss concepts and projects within the startup space over the last 2 years of my own involvement) which gave me every chance of achieving the objectives that I had set.

Having previously developed 8 past startups  (although still seeking my first big exit), this was not my first rodeo. However, 8 years as a solo entrepreneur and  'lone-wolf' consultant have instilled in me some practices & habits which had, in times past, lead me to question my ability to deliver on a startup business, a number of which became obvious during the weekend. As an example, wide base of knowledge together with a gregarious personality can often be off-putting, especially to others with a much deeper understanding of immediate issues.
Initially my focus was on crafting & presenting a compelling pitch for an idea (later to become @TerraLingo) which I had been analysing for a number of weeks. I had seen an opportunity and realised that Launch48 represented a perfect opportunity to test that idea for validity -
It's worth noting my objectives, which were very clear -

• Deliver a compelling pitch for an interesting idea, around which to form a team,
• Develop a validated business model with clear objectives, within a collaborative team environment,
• Build a proof-of-concept (POC) around the current idea, from which a minimum viable product (MVP) could be formed,
• Test my abilities in leading and guiding a team towards those objectives,
• Identify 5-6 potential team members for a later much larger idea which I have in mind (& for which  I have a 6 other team members keen to go).

It also turns out that the actual idea that you might take to one of these weekend is actually less relevant than what you learn (both about the startup process & about yourself) and who you learn from.

The weekend started well; there was the usual meet & greet over pizza & ale, allowing everyone to change gears from their regular activities, mix & mingle with other particpiants, and at least initially for me,' feeling out' some of the other pitchers.

The format was simple enough, the nominating pitchers had 60 seconds to pitch their idea   (of which there were 11) to fellow entrepreneurs , after which and audience poll (of around 40) was taken as to how many people might be interested in working on that idea. The top 6 were then given an additional 30 seconds and after a second round, the top 4 lead ideas were selected around which the leaders had to for teams. My idea attracted the highest number of participants, so we had a deep pool of experience from which to draw & build upon.

Of our group, at least 4 guys had pitched their own idea, which demonstrated something early to me - that at least 4 of these guys were visionary leaders, or aspired to be. As it turned out over the weekend, all of guys showed great leadership qualities in such a 'pressure-cooker' environment. The team was slightly siloed, with myself, Sebastian, Christoph and Berlin handling research, marketing, customer development, UX/UI and the final presentation, whilst Nick, Stef & Matt handled some difficult technical, app & web POC, and API requirements.
I tried not to make my observations sound like recommendations, but when you spend a weekend with a group of such obviously motivated, skilled and clever guys, its hard not to.

• I had also made a list of the qualities & characteristics of the types & roles of 6 people that I last looking to attract as 'department leads' for my next project. The phrase 'be careful what you wish for' comes to mind, because what I listed is exactly who I found. (BTW, the 6th guy on my 'list' was a very interesting 'product' guy who was on another team, whom I met following the final pitch)

The first of my followers is Stef (the only one of the group that I had known prior to the weekend). Steph & I have known each for about 5 years, played poker together, shared stories-  tall tales and true - over the occasional sherbet, and share (generally) very similar life stories. I share an affinity with him in our individual capacities to endure & overcome personal difficulties -- and he's a really nice guy.  Stef is very good technically, with a great skill set , though like me, he suffers from the occasional crisis of confidence which has the capacity to hold oneself back. Friday night was one such evening, and were it not for my absolute insistence, he probably would not've turned up.

Nick is a stand-out leader. We didn't talk too much about his background (or perhaps I wasn't initially paying enough attention), but it became immediately clear that his depth of understanding of the processes, and of the technical requirements of building and scaling a tech startup were deep. He was the obvious stand-out leader for the technical side of the project.

Nick challenged me immediately (which not many people do) on a range of assumptions or concepts that I tabled to the group, and in hindsight, I am really glad he did. During the course of the weekend, we disagreed about quite a many things (it was a almost the classic 'marketing v tech' battle that many of us have so often seen). To his credit, in every discussion, Nick did something very important (and extremely rare) -when we disagreed about a method or an objective, he "played the ball, not the man"; a quality that my dad demonstrated when I was growing up, and which I have since always admired  and respected in people.
Nick also did something else critically important;  he immediately took Stef under his wing and lead him through the development process. In our wrap up conversation, Nick talked about successfully using 'peer programming', and the benefits of that approach for both Stef & himself.  I also suspect that this contributed greatly to the ultimate success in creating a cohesive team.

What started perhaps as a challenging discourse, turned for me, into a deep respect for Nick's skills & abilities, and for him as a person. Stef also came away from the weekend with a deep respect for Nick, both as a man, & as a leader.

Matt, our tech genius),apart from being a very likable guy, demonstrated himself as highly capable and skilled, with a deep understanding from the beginning  of what it would take to get to 'success' - almost a classical 'tech guy' archetype (there is no negative sentiment in that statement). He took a very methodical approach to identifying & addressing the challenges of the task, and delivered on every milestone exceptionally (at least from my perspective). He demonstrated early (unlike many tech guy that I have met) that he could be relied upon to identify the core issues, and solve them inside the tight time parameters that were set for us - whilst still exceeding our expectations. (Without knowing the answer, I imagine that Nick's leadership shone through in contributing to that). As Stef later told me, "this guy went way above & beyond !! He went home Saturday might and virtually built most of the iPhone app until two in the morning. Nick and I just put on the finishing touches." That is something special, & I couldn't have said it better.

Sebastian is something out the box; from the get go, his attitude screamed "let's get this done - well". His capacity to see where the destination was, and pick-up on the milestones, without needing guidance or managing, literally  blew me away .In many ways, he was the marketing 'mirror' of Matt. Because he knew his craft, he not only took the lead on some of the critical tasks, but was able to anticipate what was the obvious next step before we got there. His attention to detail as was impressive as his repertoire of skills.

Christoph, who is a wiz at design, had pitched an idea of his own, which didn't get up. However, he immediately saw the similarities of my idea with his own, and joined us. His willing to challenge (causing me to stretch) was impressive, though his ability to connect customer needs to design requirements wasn't too shabby either. From a 5 minute conversation with me, he put together a professional design that just 'worked'. I noticed how well he interacted with the other team members to bridge any skills gaps (including my own), and has a solid knowledge of the needs of the marketing strategy plays in the startup process.

Berlin is a great young guy (I say young, because he is compared to me), with good skills in marketing, & in being an engaging networker, which I had noticed earlier on Friday. He contributed early and often to the ideation & solution design process, and really shone in researching, and when the deadlines started looming.  I wonder whether, in hindsight, we might have made better use of them earlier by pairing him with Christoph for some of the customer engagement tasks.  Whilst a little 'green', he shows obvious indications of being a successful entrepreneur.  I believe Berlin will benefit from identifying a solid mentor to guide him on the path to his success, or slotting into an 'apprentice entrepreneur' role, but he might equally just need to find  the right co-founder to balance out his skill set.  

ME
This is where it gets a little hard; how does one give constructive feedback on one-self?  Perhaps by making an external observation. One of the obvious things about the weekend, apart from the long hours, and the commitment by everone to the task at hand (which by the way was exemplary), was the roller coaster of emotions that I experienced at the various stages. This went from the nervousness pre-pitch, to the elation of selection, through the challenging ideation process on Friday night & throughout the weekend, to the feeling of doom from the looming pitch deadline on the Sunday night.

So the concept of 'state control' is one that is clear and obvious to me now- to operate at your peak, you have to maintain control of your emotions  (or at least have a plan  for addressing),  and expect the both major highs and lows, and plan for how to deal with them accordingly when they inevitably arrive.>

The most challenging space for me occurred on the Saturday early afternoon after the series of 6 or seven pairs of mentors and advisor discussions, during which our idea expanded my two orders of magnitude from my original vision.  My head was swimming with the possibilities that had been put before us. To put it the words of Sean Parker "What's cooler than a million dollars? A billion dollars". Suddenly, we had gone from having a good idea worth potentially a good couple of million or two (purely by my own estimation), to perhaps 100 times that. So I was now pushing to the limits of enthusiasm for the tasks at hand.


But this process had put too many well-intentioned, and absolutely valid ideas on the tale from experienced & highly credible mentors. As a product team (& unbeknown to the tech team), after those meetings, we now realised that we actually didn’t know what the product was. No product meant no customers, meant no revenue, meant no Business proposition. It was later in the afternoon, that my self-belief, and my vision of a viable valuable outcome,  crashed to the floor. Whilst (I think) I did a good job of masking my concerns, my emotions showed through in the discussions around rebranding later on Saturday.

It wasn't until early Sunday morning after a  couple of hours of solitude (again, an important observation), that I gained some clarity and perspective about where we were  headed. The challenge for any leader is to do just that - to lead. To get out in front of the pack, raise his sword and charge forward  toward the enemy with a battle cry like "Glory or Death". But before you draw that sword, you better have spent some time alone or quietly with your generals in thinking through your battle plans, lest your battle be over & lost, before it is even started. 

I was also reminded of the need to make sure you frame your message to the needs of your 'audience'. I'm not just talking here about a large audience, but also in a  1-on-1 conversation. One of those 'dirty little habits' that we can fall into, is to continue to deliver the same message (or delivering a different message in the same way), perhaps because its familiar, and forget to think about what it is that the participants are looking for. Always starting from a position of honesty is good, and the highest ideal of 'serving' is worth keeping in mind. Because in seeking to serve, we take our eyes off what it is that we want, and focus on the needs of the other, which is great path to get away from 'delivering a message', and should take you closer to 'understanding'.

One of the other important lessons that I took away from the weekend, is that in a team approach, perhaps that most urgent, & important task for any leader , is to identify  the natural skills & strengths of each team member early, and harness those early in the pursuit of the larger vision. I'm not talking here about task allocation, although that is part of it, but more so about recognising early that which  each person brings to the table, and allowing that to shine through. In our scenario, in places, that happened naturally, and in some spaces, we left a lot on the table. 

I'd have no hesitation in working with any or all of these guys again. In one weekend, we went from one man's idea to forging together as a team and building  something 'very cool'. Our the next 2 or 3 weeks, we'll find out if TerraLingo has 'legs', and we'll leave no stone unturned in that process. Or it might be the next one where we come together. Either way, I give my thanks individually to each guy, and to them the team as a whole for the gifts I got from the process.  It's hard not to feel like you 'got' way more than you 'gave', which means you get to keep giving . 

But I also learned something critical; perhaps the most important thing; how special and rare 'startup guys' are. We commit, contribute and care about a goal (ours or some-one else's), journey through the dark across a valley of death, which we know from the tales of others before us, is filled with peril s & obstacles, and has very little chance of success, yet with little  more tools than our own skills, faith in a team (whom we barely know), and the meerest  hope of reward and recognition.

And we not only do this willingly, we also do it repeatedly.
>
I don't know what you think, but for me, I reckon that's pretty special and very cool.

What the h*ll is 'Augmented Content', & why should I care?

Is that even a good question? 

Possibly; although you've probably never that term before, the phrase 'augmented reality' has been around for a couple of decades. 

Why should I care?

'Augmented Content' has the potential to be a many-multiples-billion-dollar sector over the next decade. It will also very likely change the way you read, use & interact with published content over the coming decades.

So what is it?

The best way to describe it would be to use a practical, everyday in-use example - the humble hyperlink. That's the clickable web-link, for the non-techie, or URL (or uniform resource locator) for us more tech-types.*

Since their original form, URLs have been improved, such as by being optimised for search engine ranking, had data (& meta-data) attached to them, & have been shortened for use in character-poor social media platforms. Its hard to imagine using email, browsing the internet or navigating websites without them. Whole business models  & industries have evolved around this simple but practical concept.

So how are they similar?

Ok, let me give you a practical example of 'AC' in a simple form. If you hover your mouse over most hyperlinks, you will get additional information about where & what that link points to, such as perhaps an image, description, or an action to be performed. 

The concept of 'augmented content' is very similar; to enhance content with outcomes, activities, products or destinations that are important to both the publisher and consumer of the concept, in a way that creates one-to-one interaction & loyalty - you might call it the ultimate 'holy-grail' of marketers world-wide. It holds promise to become one of the 'next big waves' in marketing .

In following installments, I will describe how you can build- and profit from - augmented content in your own space. 

PS *Clickable URL's were originally invented (or so I'm told) by British Telecom in the 1970's. in hindsight unfortunately for them, neither the inventor nor BT patented, protected or commercialised the concept. 

A new form of Social Media spamming?

Have you noticed the new form of social media spamming popping up recently?

Its where a company/brand/SMwhore etc follows you, (with the expectation that you might follow them back) and then within 24 hours, unfollows you. 

I'll use the case in point of @pocketgems, (for no other reason than recency) a game creator in the social space, of whom I received a typical 'following' notification. I have never played, nor even viewed, their game, so I was curious to see if they held sway with any of my topics of interest. As at today, they had a grand total of 107.7k followers, 8 follows, and 45 (self-promotional) tweets. Does something strike you, as it did me, as being a bit out of kilter with those numbers?

BTW, they didn't hold any interest, so like many others, I didn't follow them back.

Clearly this is an automated process, and  the onus is on the followed to determine whether they are interested in the contents or topics of posts, before following back.

I get that this is a method of outreach, but what interests me is in the 'blowback' or brand reputation damage that organisations using this approach could be doing to their brand. 

For instance, if an automated process follows & then unfollows 100k people, which then captures, say 10% (a purely hypothetical number) as an interest group, what message do I send to both groups?

For example, in group a), those in the 90% that got spammed & chose not to follow, and b) those in the 10% that followed, that then got automatically unfollowed.

In the case of A) is the company risking labelling themselves as a SM spammer?

And in the B) scenario, what 'loyalty' or 'care' messages do they send to their followers by immediately unfollowing them?

What other brand or online reputation risks are companies such as these choosing to accept by such an approach, and do you as a SM consumer, even care?

What do you think?

Newton's Third Law of Motion for employers

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If the law of reciprocity is as real as that law of motion, then as surely as action results in re-action, giving leads to receiving. 

Instead of asking "what did you do?"- which focusses in cold measurable output, employers could publicly recognise (in meetings, newletters, & in gatherings) their staff & teams, by asking:-

"What did you learn?"

"What did you create?"

"What did you share?"

"Who did you help?"

"Who helped you?"

"How did you contribute?"

"What did you give?"

And then share that knowledge. 

So....if you are wondering why you aren't 'getting', have you bothered to ask yourself "What am I giving out?"