So Evan Williams bought Odeo back from the investors, reputedly for 50 cents on the dollar. He suggests on his blog that this was because ” I just wanted to create a company that would be as much fun and as fulfilling as possible. Fun in work to me means a lot of freedom, and ton of creativity, working with people I respect and like, and pursuing ideas that are just crazy enough to work.” He goes on to say, “I don’t want to have to worry about getting buy-in from executives or a board, raising money, worrying about investor’s perceptions, or cashing out.”
Nice spin. If this is really about taking the long view, why is Ev worried about the mistakes “which hindered that quick success”?
If you have an good idea, and a good business model, success is a function of execution. If your idea isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, or, as in the case of Odeo , your company “hasn’t yet settled on a business model” (gigaom.com), it doesn’t matter who your investors are. If you’ve got a good idea, and a good business model, being held accountable for execution is the best thing that can happen to you.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Ev is right in his hypothesis that every social media service has a life cycle and the continued success of a company will depend on an evolution of the services offered, but you have to finish what you start in order for any of the services to be successful.
Walking away from an idea because you don’t instantly dominate a market and get acquired by Google, doesn’t sound like freedom to me. It sounds like corporate ADD.
Filed under: Uncategorized
A beautiful day in Boston yesterday. One of those sunny, clear fall days where the world seems empty….
Reuters correspondent Adam Pasick is now Reuters full-time correspondent within Linden Labs Second Life virtual universe. His avatar, known as Adam Reuters, will be interviewing key citizens in the virtual world and track both real and virtual events that affect Second Life.
Not sure what this means…it’s either very exciting or a frightening sign of the coming apocalypse.
Had the opportunity to join a panel moderated by Dana Gardner of Interarbor Solutions on the topic of RSS, and new media for an audience comprised primarily of PR and IR professionals. It is still surprising how much disparity there is between the PR professionals who have embraced new media and the laggards. Sure, I get the cultural issues of a profession that is built around language and people skills colliding with technology. And, yes, I understand that there is resistance in some circles to adopt technologies that seem to hand control of information flow over to the consumer,….but your not going to stop the transition. The traditional media outlets are losing viewers or subscribers at alarming rates, and consumers are becoming more technically savvy by the day. The technology is also becoming more approachable by the day, so blogs, RSS feeds and news readers are becoming more mainstream tools instead of serious information consumers….
Do communications professionals still need to use other vehicles to reach less tech savvy audiences? Of course, absolutely, but when 31% of the internet connected audience is using RSS, there’s an enormous opportunity missed if you can’t master the technology to get your message out through this new information channel. When every iPod toting business woman, can listen to their news and entertainment in a podcast or portable movie, you have just lost a meaningful vehicle if you can’t get on board.
One audience member commented “…but my audience wants to read a couple of paragraphs in a press release…” (rather than get their information through a podcast). If you’re sure that’s the only way that your audience wants to get its information, stay the course….
Many, many communications professionals have continued to evolve and have become new media mavens, but the disparity from earliest adopted to stubbornest luddite is remarkable.
