Contextual slideshow: Dig up your old but similar content

We recently released a new widget: "Contextual slideshow" and have received some very encouraging feedbacks. This is a marvelous product that brings value to blog readers as well as increases page views for bloggers.

Here are some of the features:

1. Displays "contextual images from your blog". This means that your readers will get more similar content which you wrote several days/weeks ago.

2. This beautiful slideshow increases bloggers' page views. Simply put, a reader gets to see more articles..and bloggers get more page views.

3. "Zero" customization required: Absolutely no customization is required. Just get it from the site and display it. It automatically adjusts in the blog page, sideroll or anywhere else.

4. It broadcasts the bloggers' content to other blogs. This enables bloggers to get new readers to their blogs.

We have put a demo slideshow in our sideroll. Get a slideshow of your own and broadcast your blog to the world!!

Read more...

blogoxy brings more readers to the bloggers

So, at last http://blogoxy.com is standing on its feet. A lot of hard work has gone in this project and looking back I and my team feel so good!

You can imagine how excited we all are. I hope that our efforts bring color and can help fellow bloggers.

I have been so frustrated because there is no good mechanism to market the blogs. Hopefully, http://blogoxy.com will empower fellow bloggers for marketing their blogs.

We are starting in a very soft way. Thats the reason why we are launching only for food blogs. Yes...I love food. And food is the reason why we all survive. So, in true fashion of a food enthusiast, blogoxy is open for fellow food bloggers.

Please give us your feedback. And yes...do visit our blogoxy blog at: http://blogoxy.com/blog

Read more...

Banks and M&A

As I stated in my last post, here are some thoughts from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDEF/idUSN0539241020080505

Why did banks advise Yahoo to not go down below $37? O well, simple answer: they did not. It was Yahoo's decision not the bankers' decision to not go below $37. If it was all for the investment banks, they would sell Yahoo for $20 per share. Afterall, they want their commission. Don't they?

Read more...

Microsoft cancelled bid for Yahoo: Why is it good news?

M&A is a tricky business and I am happy for Yahoo! as well as for Microsoft that this transaction did not go through.

Reason:

1. Investment banks and consulting companies (almost) always overstate the synergies in the transaction. Its a simple reason: They get a large chunk of money in the form of transaction fees if the merger goes through.

2. Had the deal gone through, it would have been an uphill task for Yahoo & Microsoft to merge the work-cultures, maintain the Yahoo brand equity, and integrate the operations.

3. Consolidation in this space is not a good thing for the market. Yahoo and Microsoft both like to acquire small companies and this trend boosts the innovative landscape in the valley. Imagine what would have happened (for smaller companies’ acquisitions) if Yahoo would have ceased to exist and Microsoft would have spent a considerable chunk of its kitty on the acquisition.

Good luck to Yahoo and Microsoft. Yahoo! has to come back and execute on the “statement” that it deserves more valuation. I have no doubt in their ability but am not sure about what their strategic vision is. There should be an internal “cleansing” operation within Yahoo so that it can find its glory days once again!

Read more...

Why good education matters

I am finishing my MBA this week. Looking back, time flew really fast. Things were hectic in school, and here I am, on the verge of graduating. So, what did I learn in these 2 years? Did it make any difference in my life? If yes, then how?

I have been a big supporter of good education. Not because it prepares you for a good job, but because it opens up the mind. It broadens the thinking horizon. Job is a by-product of good education. But more importantly, it grooms an individual for challenges in life.

Personally, for me, the school (MBA) has changed me fundamentally. If I compare myself from what I was 2 years ago, there is a huge difference. Yes, I learned the analytical skills, the formulas, the concepts..yada yada yada. But the core difference that it has made in my life is about the way I see the world. I have never been so confident about myself and my abilities as I am today. I believe that the choice of school matters a lot. Every MBA school teaches the same core MBA concepts, formulas, and analytical skills. But there are other "secondary" skills: overall development, leadership etc that vary hugely depending on the institution.

I am starting a new life from this week onwards. And where I will be 2 years from now, 5 years from now, or even 10 years from now will depend on what "secondary skills" I learned at the school. I am bustling with confidence and positive outlook. My goals and objectives that I have set for myself are much more reachable because of the change that I see in myself. Will keep you updated with the latest.

Read more...

Venture Capital Industry - Needs overhaul?

I am currently in Silicon Valley and as most other people, this time I am trying to "feel" it. I lived here in the past but did not try that. Certainly, you cant feel it if you dont want to. But to live the dream, you have to "feel" it. Open your eyes and look around. Almost 20 companies come out every single day. Almost 100 networking events take place every week. Total amount of VC money flowing into the Silicon Valley startups is more than anywhere else in the world. Possibly it is even more than the sum total of money elsewhere in the world.

With this much optimism, there comes the noise. Yes, a lot of good companies are coming up, but with them come up a full breed of companies which were never meant to be successful. Most of the companies fail to take off and die prematurely. Some of them are funded and some of them perish even before that. It is a common perception among VC community that 90% of startups fail. Seems that everyone has agreed to this rule. Looking closely, this rule says that even well seasoned VCs cant figure out which companies will succeed. They make their judgment based on some criteria and 90% of the times those criteria give wrong results.

Bottom line: There is 90% error in choosing the right company for investment.

Is it not a very high number given the fact that we live in this age where more and more focus is on accuracy and error-reduction? Imagine getting a fish-o-fillet sandwich 9 out of 10 times you order a hamburger at McDonald's? Or imagine a calculation error 9 out of every 10 times you buy stocks online? Something is very wrong with the VC money now a days? Is it the lack of good foresight or is the market full of VC firms who make investments as if they are buying a lottery ticket? 90% failure rate can not be caused by just the incompetency of the entrepreneurs. It is a cyclic process; if incompetent entrepreneurs get money; then they run their company shabbily...only to go burst after 6 months. They know that the threshold of getting the money is low and therefore never try hard enough to reach the superior level which is required to execute a successful company. I do not intend to say that getting money is easy. Its not. Should it be made even harder? Maybe. Investors should try harder by tightening the monetary control to elevate the entrepreneur's motivation for succesful exit from the venture. Simple question: Why is Private Equity more successful than Venture Capital industry? Answer: Superb financial control and execution.

Something needs to be done. I don't know what that is, but something has to be done. We can be realistic and try to improve this result in incremental fashion (20%, 30%, 40% success rate), but at least a beginning has to be made so that we do not go back to the Dot com burst stage again. Some well reputed VC firms do invest in a very sophisticated way; and they get good ROI also. My question is about those VC firms who do not have enough experience or credibility for making good decisions. We saw one tech-burst not so long ago; should they be allowed to convert a tech-ride into a possible burst scenario again? Should there be some industry obligations? Or is it ok to accept them as they are...after all its the money of their private investors and they have the right to use it in any way they want?

Read more...

New adventures in finance

Last week, I spoke to the CEO of Increditrade about their service. This is a new startup trying to provide Web2.0 capabilities in the Financial industry where rules and regulations are so tight that the independence and freedom of 2.0 is just a dream. There are some players in stock trading arena, such as Zecco who are doing quite OK. Increditrade takes one step forward in the integration of web2.0 in stock trading experience.

Most of us have almost Zero knowledge about how to invest in the Stock market. We read few articles, search few websites, maybe read some analyst reports and eventually invest based on our instincts. Sometime it works, sometime it does not. Increditrade is providing additional feature to the users to help them make sound investment judgements.

Business model of increditrade is dependent on the assumption that an investor who got X% return from the market in past 3-5 years is a good investor. And if customers are given an opportunity to look into his/her investment patterns, then they would be willing to look into it before making their own judgement about investing. Maybe, they will be willing to even pay for this "peek" into some smart investor's portfolio or decision making process. Simply put, as a customer, I have to pay some $$ to increditrade which in return will allow me to look into the portfolio of a trader who has consistently made significant profits in the past few years. In addition to that, I will have all 2.0 features like collaboration, chat, blogging etc.

Technically, increditrade will have seamless integation in the backend with major stock trading players like Etrade or Scottstrade. Also, smart investors will get some payment for sharing their portfolio with the public. Ofcourse, their names and account # will be withheld from public eye.

I like the idea. Its innovative, different, and definitely attractive. It is a differentiating factor for the company. There is a white-space in the market and increditrade is definitely playing with the psyche of the common man. Whether or not people would pay for the service is a diferent question which will be answered in near future.

Some things to consider:
1. How to attract critical mass of users who are willing to pay?
2. What is the payment model? Is it one time fee OR is it a subscription based model? My intution says that the company would go for subscription based model, but we'll see.
3. How do we stop fraud? What if one user makes the payment and decides to copy the content and put it on his/her blog?
4. How do we ensure the security of the account holder?
5. Even smart investors make bad decisions sometimes. How will a customer learn to differentiate good decisions from bad ones.
6. There might be confusion about the investment strategies of different "peekable" smart investors. How can this confusion be minimized so that the end consumer "feels" that the site is providing value rather than adding on to his/her confusion.

Overall, its an innovative idea, and I might be peeking into some smart investors' portfolio very soon.

Read more...