At the beginning of 2011 Wikipedia published (thank you letter) the results of its annual public fundraising (16 million US$). Unlike other internet service rendering - entities raising funds from public or private organizations via equity issue, Wikipedia raised funds from DONATIONS from the public. The only return the public received was the continued function of Wikipedia without commercials, or other forms of commercialization.
This may not seem innovative. Many non for profit organizations, operating for public benefit raise funds from donations (e.g. Rotary Bat-Hefer) at Gala events, active fund raising from donations, second hand sales raffles or even a direct approach for donations (anti cancer and similar).
However, a closer examination will revel some differences. The other organizations mentioned above and their donations are normally raised on a local or maximum national level per event, by active if not personal and evident physical approach. Furthermore they are targeted towards a specific local target community with specific interest. Wikipedia approached the entire world, raised its funds entirely on the web without physical approach, and allowed the whole world to join in. This is global fund raising on the net.
While so far we compared Wikipedia to non-for profit local organizations, another approach would be to compare it to other web-based service providers. As such Wikipedia could collect some payment for its services. True, as it also feeds on the input of its users the business model would need to take it into account. Potentially giving credit for writing as well as charging for getting information from it, even creating a scaled model based on the uploaded content extent and quality. Another possibility would have been to get funding by allowing commercials on its pages. This option would have allowed Wikipedia to generate real income that is not based on the good will of the public, rather it is based on the usage of the service. This would have made the founders of Wikipedia rich – see what is happening to successful social networks owners.
Social networks also use content provided by the users, the connections made by the users' sub-groups and classifications. The networks provide a public service, but unlike Wikipedia it comes with a price tag – the commercials, and other commercialization sections (e.g. paid games). This commercial activity gave the networks their market value and allowed its owners/operators to get rich.
Do we see an ethical dilemma between the two models of operation? It would seem that there should not be any problem by giving a free service to the public, and fund the infrastructure and operation by commercials (this has been going on in commercial TV for years). Do we consider a non-for –profit organization raising funds by donations from the public as more ethical than an organization not charging for the service but getting funded by commercials?
Is our response based on the vast economic value of the social networks? The power they exert over our live? Do we fear that just by being business oriented and representing vast capital and power that they may be open to abuse?
Are non-for-profit public donation fund raising organizations more moral? Can we be more trusting regarding their intentions?
We live in a capitalist world, driven by economic considerations, feeling confident that the "market forces" can assure proper service, long term quality. Do we not feel that there is a contradiction between that trust and questioning the morality of profit oriented bodies while feeling confident regarding the morals of non-for-profit organizations?
As mentioned in the opening to this blog the purpose here is to raise questions – answering them is another matter entirely.
Showing posts with label business development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business development. Show all posts
Friday, January 7, 2011
Monday, September 13, 2010
Regional Development - inter region cooperation
Yesterday I had the honor to participate in the signatory ceremony of twin regions between the region of Emeq-Hefer (where I am a council member) and the Heilongjiang province in China. The agreement is the first step towards increased cooperation between the two regions.
All that is very nice, and creates a lot of good will - especially if there are mission exchanged between the regions and people get to travel. But in the practical world we live in what does it really mean?
In the regional level there is little significance, there are donations, links between institutes and some missions, political, educational and others. But what more can you expect when the regional level of government is limited in scope of action, budget and legal powers to act?
Can there really be a significant advantage created by cooperation between regions?
The EU seems to think so, but seems to think that such cooperation needs encouragement - and it does so financially. The EU concept is based on the fact that beyond trading between regions, there are practical lessons regions can learn from each other and that the cooperation can lead to improvement, economically in both participating regions.
The basis is to find the means for cooperation that will allow the relatively small and entrepreneurial region on one side to learn and teach from the larger bigger region, which operates on a different scale. The key would seem to be intensive and continuous communication between the two regions - a committee to identify the areas for cooperation, allocate the means and plan ahead. Topics for cooperation change with time therefore only lasting communication can provide for real cooperation with time.Although distance may seem as a problem - once personal acquaintance has been established the daily communication can be done electronically.
All that is very nice, and creates a lot of good will - especially if there are mission exchanged between the regions and people get to travel. But in the practical world we live in what does it really mean?
In the regional level there is little significance, there are donations, links between institutes and some missions, political, educational and others. But what more can you expect when the regional level of government is limited in scope of action, budget and legal powers to act?
Can there really be a significant advantage created by cooperation between regions?
The EU seems to think so, but seems to think that such cooperation needs encouragement - and it does so financially. The EU concept is based on the fact that beyond trading between regions, there are practical lessons regions can learn from each other and that the cooperation can lead to improvement, economically in both participating regions.
The basis is to find the means for cooperation that will allow the relatively small and entrepreneurial region on one side to learn and teach from the larger bigger region, which operates on a different scale. The key would seem to be intensive and continuous communication between the two regions - a committee to identify the areas for cooperation, allocate the means and plan ahead. Topics for cooperation change with time therefore only lasting communication can provide for real cooperation with time.Although distance may seem as a problem - once personal acquaintance has been established the daily communication can be done electronically.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Internet as a Marketing Tool - do we realy understand it?
The internet and especially the social networks in it, such as Facebook an others interest the commercial community. The use of social networks interests as a marketing tool for specified target market segments, with identified opinion leaders - the pipe dream of a marketing manager.
Consider a Facebook page of teenagers from a specific school living in a specific area demonstrating a cohesive market segment with similar socio-economic status, similar tastes and preferences and opinion leaders. By using the Facebook community and the opinion leaders, marketing of specially selected products can be done with amazing accuracy and higher efficiency than classical advertizing ever could before - a case of accelerated "word to mouth" combined with an expert opinion.
The situation mentioned above would make it seem as if this was a world of marketing managers. Acting wisely has its rewards. The social networks respond quickly, accurately and efficiently, and reaching the entire target population is fast and relatively easy. Spreading the news may be compared to a flash bulb going off - short and very bright.
But the success stories and big sales are mingled with ethical problems and even commercial problems and heavy damages. The social networks are as dangerous as they are promising success.
Nestle and Social Networks
If you want the story behind Nestle recent trouble in public relations you can find one version in the Guardian. The story is (according to CNET for example) that Nestle was attacked by Greenpeace for using oil from environmentally mismanaged plantations which resulted in the killing of orangutans. Greenpeace published a video to that effect. In an attempt to block it Nestle used its Facebook fans support page to assmbl enough support for u-tube to remove the video, under the claim that it violated copyrights. The fans were responding and some of them used modified logos of Nestle as their pictures in Facebook which the firms asked them to removed as it violated the firm's trademark rights.
That move started a negative response avalanche which the firm's responses, treating the issue as a legal problem while the fans regarded it a freedom of speech issue. According to the Guardian over 90,000 responders have signed in, most of them arguing with the firm.
The company Nestle made several mistakes, at first it supplied a stage among its supporters for Greenpeace to present its own case. Thus Nestle made sure that more people saw the video that Greenpeace could hope for. The company increased the damage the attack could do. The bigger mistake it made was of course to get into a direct, public fight in which Nestle seemed to be in the wrong with its own followers. Nestle came out from both claims as an anti free speech organization, inflexible and unfriendly.
It is easy to analyze the mistake in hindsight, but where did the firm actually go wrong?
It would seem that if 15 years ago a video was being aired (TV, Video, cinema etc.) and it approached the authorities with the claim that it infringed copyrights, it would probably have succeeded, and be held a serious firm standing for its rights. If at the time it found out that people were using the modified fir logo on stationary it would probably also find support for requesting that this be stopped. But we are in a new and different place today. In the world of social networks the rules are different, everything you say is seen by the whole world (potentially) and therefore must be reasonable or at least explained. Moreover, the world of social networks on the internet, does not like censorship of any kind, and is different than the business world. Nestle could have announced a contest regarding its logo to present the firms new commitment to the environment and harnessed the social networks public's creativity to its benefit, generate positive feeling towards the firm and move the focus away from the film. After all if no one is fighting the internet audiences move their attention to other topics. At least it would have forced Greenpeace to produce something new and work to earn the attention they wanted - not do their work for them.
What can be done?
One option of course is to ignore the social networks, but that option would leave the field to the competition which would be a big mistake. Could result in the firm ignoring the social networks, loosing huge market shares. Another option, which many firms seem to select as their course of action, is to enter the world of social networks, while assuming that it is similar to the world they know, only with a faster technology and better results. As the Nestle case shows this would be just as huge a mistake. Another option, requiring a lot of work, would be to enter the world of social networks on the internet, while learning the rules of the new world, employing people who understand it to operate the activity for the firm. One must bear in mind that this is not just a new technology this is a world with new rules.
Consider a Facebook page of teenagers from a specific school living in a specific area demonstrating a cohesive market segment with similar socio-economic status, similar tastes and preferences and opinion leaders. By using the Facebook community and the opinion leaders, marketing of specially selected products can be done with amazing accuracy and higher efficiency than classical advertizing ever could before - a case of accelerated "word to mouth" combined with an expert opinion.
The situation mentioned above would make it seem as if this was a world of marketing managers. Acting wisely has its rewards. The social networks respond quickly, accurately and efficiently, and reaching the entire target population is fast and relatively easy. Spreading the news may be compared to a flash bulb going off - short and very bright.
But the success stories and big sales are mingled with ethical problems and even commercial problems and heavy damages. The social networks are as dangerous as they are promising success.
Nestle and Social Networks
If you want the story behind Nestle recent trouble in public relations you can find one version in the Guardian. The story is (according to CNET for example) that Nestle was attacked by Greenpeace for using oil from environmentally mismanaged plantations which resulted in the killing of orangutans. Greenpeace published a video to that effect. In an attempt to block it Nestle used its Facebook fans support page to assmbl enough support for u-tube to remove the video, under the claim that it violated copyrights. The fans were responding and some of them used modified logos of Nestle as their pictures in Facebook which the firms asked them to removed as it violated the firm's trademark rights.
That move started a negative response avalanche which the firm's responses, treating the issue as a legal problem while the fans regarded it a freedom of speech issue. According to the Guardian over 90,000 responders have signed in, most of them arguing with the firm.
The company Nestle made several mistakes, at first it supplied a stage among its supporters for Greenpeace to present its own case. Thus Nestle made sure that more people saw the video that Greenpeace could hope for. The company increased the damage the attack could do. The bigger mistake it made was of course to get into a direct, public fight in which Nestle seemed to be in the wrong with its own followers. Nestle came out from both claims as an anti free speech organization, inflexible and unfriendly.
It is easy to analyze the mistake in hindsight, but where did the firm actually go wrong?
It would seem that if 15 years ago a video was being aired (TV, Video, cinema etc.) and it approached the authorities with the claim that it infringed copyrights, it would probably have succeeded, and be held a serious firm standing for its rights. If at the time it found out that people were using the modified fir logo on stationary it would probably also find support for requesting that this be stopped. But we are in a new and different place today. In the world of social networks the rules are different, everything you say is seen by the whole world (potentially) and therefore must be reasonable or at least explained. Moreover, the world of social networks on the internet, does not like censorship of any kind, and is different than the business world. Nestle could have announced a contest regarding its logo to present the firms new commitment to the environment and harnessed the social networks public's creativity to its benefit, generate positive feeling towards the firm and move the focus away from the film. After all if no one is fighting the internet audiences move their attention to other topics. At least it would have forced Greenpeace to produce something new and work to earn the attention they wanted - not do their work for them.
What can be done?
One option of course is to ignore the social networks, but that option would leave the field to the competition which would be a big mistake. Could result in the firm ignoring the social networks, loosing huge market shares. Another option, which many firms seem to select as their course of action, is to enter the world of social networks, while assuming that it is similar to the world they know, only with a faster technology and better results. As the Nestle case shows this would be just as huge a mistake. Another option, requiring a lot of work, would be to enter the world of social networks on the internet, while learning the rules of the new world, employing people who understand it to operate the activity for the firm. One must bear in mind that this is not just a new technology this is a world with new rules.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Business Development and Clean Tech
Business Development and Clean-Tech would at first look seem to be just as relevant As Business Development and Communications for example. But it seems that those dealing with Business Development, the Clean Tech sector holds a special interest.
The drive towards more and more awareness regarding environmental issues has increased the interest of firms in Clean-Technologies. Whether these are technologies for better energy management and decreased usage of energy sources, recycling, usage of less waste producing manufacturing, the production of renewable energies and more, firms in different sectors have been looking at these technologies.
In many cases firms, after being pushed into a first look due to market pressure, that is, in order to better sell their products, or maintain their market share, get acknowledged as "Green" etc., realize that the Clean-Tech they were looking into, could directy influence their cost structure and help theri profitability.
While we will not discuss here how exactly each firm may benefit from absrbing environmentaly friendly technologies, the search and increased interest has led to widespread activity in the field. From the point of view of the technology or knowledge providers, the issue of technology transfer and Business Development in that sector are important parameters.
While there is an article of mine soon to be published ( a link will be provided from my site at: www. amiramporath.co.il) on the topic, here I would like to present some points for your onsideration:
The drive towards more and more awareness regarding environmental issues has increased the interest of firms in Clean-Technologies. Whether these are technologies for better energy management and decreased usage of energy sources, recycling, usage of less waste producing manufacturing, the production of renewable energies and more, firms in different sectors have been looking at these technologies.
In many cases firms, after being pushed into a first look due to market pressure, that is, in order to better sell their products, or maintain their market share, get acknowledged as "Green" etc., realize that the Clean-Tech they were looking into, could directy influence their cost structure and help theri profitability.
While we will not discuss here how exactly each firm may benefit from absrbing environmentaly friendly technologies, the search and increased interest has led to widespread activity in the field. From the point of view of the technology or knowledge providers, the issue of technology transfer and Business Development in that sector are important parameters.
While there is an article of mine soon to be published ( a link will be provided from my site at: www. amiramporath.co.il) on the topic, here I would like to present some points for your onsideration:
- Is the Clean-Tech really one sector? Are the developers of water treatment infrastructure size plants in the same market, as the developers of home water filtration systems?
- If we are dealing with different secors, how would that influence the parameters of Business development and Technology Tranfer?
- Regarding the role of the IP managers in firms, and Technology Transfer officers in research organizations, how would these roles change as a result of the activity in the Clean-Tech sector?
- Which would be the best way for governments to encourage activities in Clean-Tech based on the above?
In order to demonstrate the level of importance that discussion has receeved and to give preliminary answers to the questions above please see the films in the links below, recently published on the web by the European Patent Office (EPO). some of the recent films were fillmed during an internal conference on the topic held recently.
Enjoy,
Amiram Porath
Links for this post:
- http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/clean-energy/films/renewable.html
- http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/clean-energy/films/films.html
- http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/clean-energy/films.html?update
Saturday, June 12, 2010
By writing this blog I intend to express my opinions, research results and general ideas regarding business development, business opportunities and innovation. the blog is not intended to serve as a scientific publication, but rather as a practitioners' basic discussion platform.
My main occupation is innovation and especially Open Innovation. The term Open Innovation relates to innovation that comes to the firm from outside; from other firms, research organizations, consultants and others. That is in contrast to internal innovation which stems from within the firm.
While Israel may appear as a good source for best practices in innovation, as it is important to remember that Israel is very different in its industrial sectors structure than EU member states. When referring to and SME in Israel one would normally refer to a high-tech company, a start-up company. In which case the size and performance would relate to its life length and success. In the EU as there are far more traditional sector SMEs than high-tech SMEs, the same assumption as in Israel cannot be made.
Based on the assumption that SMEs are start-up companies, the Israeli system of innovation was based on assuming that the SMEs perform research and need only be supported. It assumes that the SMEs know an want to manage R&D and need the parters or financial support.
Therefore the tools developed in Israel cannot be coppied as such to other countries such as the EU member states that see SMEs as mostly traditional sector firms, which have no idea how to manage R&D and how to introduce its results to their internal routines.
Last week a mission from Finland of high-tech firms visited Israel. They came to see the Israeli model meet firms here and make contacts and search for partnerships.
How can the model be coppied?
We may deal with that next post. In the meantime have a look at the links......
My main occupation is innovation and especially Open Innovation. The term Open Innovation relates to innovation that comes to the firm from outside; from other firms, research organizations, consultants and others. That is in contrast to internal innovation which stems from within the firm.
While Israel may appear as a good source for best practices in innovation, as it is important to remember that Israel is very different in its industrial sectors structure than EU member states. When referring to and SME in Israel one would normally refer to a high-tech company, a start-up company. In which case the size and performance would relate to its life length and success. In the EU as there are far more traditional sector SMEs than high-tech SMEs, the same assumption as in Israel cannot be made.
Based on the assumption that SMEs are start-up companies, the Israeli system of innovation was based on assuming that the SMEs perform research and need only be supported. It assumes that the SMEs know an want to manage R&D and need the parters or financial support.
Therefore the tools developed in Israel cannot be coppied as such to other countries such as the EU member states that see SMEs as mostly traditional sector firms, which have no idea how to manage R&D and how to introduce its results to their internal routines.
Last week a mission from Finland of high-tech firms visited Israel. They came to see the Israeli model meet firms here and make contacts and search for partnerships.
How can the model be coppied?
We may deal with that next post. In the meantime have a look at the links......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)