Marcus Kuhn // I'm a 27 year old entrepreneur from Switzerland and co-founder of connex.io. I have an interest in both technology and business and try to connect those two worlds.
I have done it, instead of seeking regular employment with a consulting agency, an MNE or even a startup I have decided to go at it on my own. I will try my luck with connex.io which has the goal to automate the management of your address book. I jumped of the cliff! But what does this mean?
Quite some monetary costs are associated with trying to establish your own company. First of all there is the direct cost of scraping together the capital needed to fund at least the early stages of your own company. Then there are the indirect opportunity costs of the salary you give up by choosing to work for yourself. And finally there are other, non monetary, “costs” such as a reduced standard of living because of the salary one gives up etc.
Funding connex.io does not require a lot of capital but the loss of salary is quite substantial. This means I have to minimize my costs of living. This results in me living with my parents again and reducing all other expenses to a bare minimum (no vacation, no gadgets, no concerts etc.)
Besides the costs there are risks associated with the decision of trying it on your own. Only one or two out of ten startups become a monetary success, four just scrape by and neither make nor lose any substantial amounts of money. Such startups often are called the “living dead”, they just keep on existing because founders are not willing to admit that it would be much more productive to move on and tackle another project. The remaining four or five startups seize to exist rather fast. All in all this means that in my decision to go at it on my own I face the risk of failure and the consequences of failure. And I also need to avoid to get stuck in a “living dead” scenario.
Besides the costs and risks just described there obviously need to be benefits of choosing to fund your own company. The most important benefit is that I can do what I really like. At connex.io I work at the intersection between technology and business which is what I like to do. But there are benefits beyond that: I don’t have to work in a large corporation or sell myself and my values out to some corporate overlord. There also is the possibility to earn a lot of money if successful. By taking the risk of failure I also get rewarded with a potentially higher payout.
Therefore the decision basically boils down to a simple question: Are the costs and the risk of failure outweighed by the actual and potential benefits? For me the answer to that question had to be yes. Without any serious commitments and having just finished my studies the decision became much less painful and a lot less risky, my current situation mitigated the costs and risks.
Since two weeks I am now working around the clock to make my dream of making address book management an automated task happen and so far it feels good. But what happens if I fail with connex.io? Companies around the world are more and more looking for people that are entrepreneurial which means that this definitely will not be a waste and if it turns out that I like the startup game as much as I think I do I will probably just try again and again.
In my last post "Creating a Viral Marketing Campaign" I wrote about the viral marketing campaign I had launched together with a group of other students. I promised to keep you updated and am now doing so.
Our project to create a viral video faced many problems and we struggled quite a bit to get it going. To be successful we had to be able to get the video an initial push that would be strong enough for it to become viral. This process of "going viral" can be boiled down to a simple equation, the share ratio: How many people one person who has seen the video in average causes to watch the video. If the ratio is below one your campaign is dying. Conversely if the ratio is above the magical number it is going viral and the higher the share ratio the faster it spreads.
Being a class project we had a fixed deadline and unfortunately we did not achieve our goals by that set time. But we did manage to cross the line about two weeks later. We had set the goal to reach at least 10,000 people and that one major newspaper in Singapore would report about our campaign, today our main video has been watched more than 13,000 times, and the Straits Times, Singapore's largest newspaper, wrote about our campaign.
The experiment resulted in seven observations on Viral Marketing which I want to share with you:
Meticulous planning will help your campaign to succeed. Once the plan is nailed down it will change quite frequently while you have to adapt to reality and what is happening with your campaign. But if there is no plan you cannot adapt it and will be lost. Failure to plan therefore is a plan to failure.
With our campaign we fostered the power of Facebook and it became clear very early on that Facebook is amazingly powerful in sharing a message and promoting a cause. But in strong-tie networks such as Facebook with their closed nature it is difficult to reach people beyond your own circle of friends.
To successfully promote a campaign beyond the circle of your strongly tied friends you need to build a network of weakly tied influencers. You need to find people you share a common ground with, that is, people interested in the cause you are trying to promote, and convince them to help you in spreading your message. Only this way will you be able to escape the entanglement of your own social graph.
Most viral videos and viral campaigns in general have not gone viral because someone wanted them to, but because the material astonished people. Analyzing Susan Boyle’s “I dreamed a dream” or “The Battle at Kruger”, two of the most successful videos ever on YouTube, it becomes obvious that those videos touch people, they amaze people. This made those videos as successful as they are. But: This does not mean it is impossible to artificially create a viral campaign. It does however mean that the material must be either very creative or genuinely attention-grabbing.
To combine an online viral marketing campaign with an offline campaign that relates to people in real life can be a very powerful tool, especially to kick start a campaign. An offline campaign not only drives traffic but also might generate interest among multiplicators such as the press or bloggers.
Ask what your campaign can do for the people instead. People in general are egoists and need an incentive to become active on their own. If your video is not astonishingly good, and most videos, especially produced ones, won’t be, additional motivators such as a prize are needed. Such an incentive will cause people to help the campaign while helping themselves. You use people's behavior to promote your campaign.
Money can facilitate the process of getting a video viral. A professionally produced video, a highly optimized website, buying ads on websites dealing with the topic, or an offline advertising campaign are some of the things that money can buy and definitely make it easier to spread your message.
Thanks to Jenny Costelloe, Noah Gunzinger, Rajeev Batra, and Sunil Tulsiani for making this post possible.
As a project a group of five Students, including myself, set out to create a viral video. Before we could do so we had to come up with something we were passionate about, something we could help by raising awareness. After a lively debate we ended up with the environment. Sounds like cliché but it is something that was really near and dear to us and there was the small thing that the Copenhagen Climate Conference was happening at that time. We thought it would be a nice fit, riding the Copenhagen wave. Obviously we are too late now but the issue still is important, especially with the disappointing result of the conference.
As a next step we had to come up with our campaign and create a video, and we did.
We decided to let "Mother Earth" do all the work and let "her" scare people that are wasting energy. But see for yourself:
We have a Facebook Group and a website. Maybe you can help us by sharing those two things & maybe the video with your friends.
And once we are done with the project I will update you on what we did, what we learned and what we would do differently next time.
Who is seeing it as well? What do you think?
I hoped this ad would disappear but it didn't. It can be seen on billboards all over Singapore and is promoting the MRT. It is true that the MRT, though very reliable, isn't the fastest public transportation system...but trying to justify this way!? #fail
The big question has been answered... Even though it could have stayed up there a bit longer.
Today I held a talk on "Social Media & Business". Now I want to share the slides with you.
The talk was an Introduction to Social Media and shows how business can foster the power of Social Media internally (Enterprise 2.0) and externally as a tool to connect with existing and potential clients.
Feedback is very welcome.
A week ago the results of the vote on banning minarets, which was held in Switzerland last Sunday, were starting to pour in. Everyone was thinking that the outcome of this was clear, all the polls had suggested that the proposal made by the Swiss People's Party would get rejected. Everyone was wrong!
The building of minarets was banned in Switzerland through a phrase that will be amended to the Swiss constitution.
I wanted to know what people think about the result of this vote and asked a few for a statement. Three people were willing to write down their toughts. All of them are students, all of them are in their twenties. One of them is a Swiss citizen currently living in Germany, another one is a German who has been living in Switzerland for the better part of the last five years, and the third statement was written by an Egyptian muslim who has been living in Switzerland for a litttle bit over a year. Read what they think and contribute with your own oppinion. Additional perspectives and oppinions are more then welcome.
---
M. is an Egyptian student studying in Switzerland who was pleasantly surprised how he was welcomed in Switzerland a liitle more than a year ago and now is shocked about the result. But read for yourself:
When I was asked to write about the minaret ban as a Muslim living in Switzerland I had no idea where to start. Thus I decided to relay my own experience of living in Switzerland. When I first arrived in Switzerland at the beginning of September 2008 I had very different expectation from reality. My expectations were that I would find it hard to integrate and that I would be met with much more prejudice than I faced. At that time I was the beginning of the month of Ramadan. This is the Muslim holy month where the Muslim fast from sunrise till sunset. This sparked the intrigue of my colleagues that continued to ask me about Islam. I gladly explained and I tried to portray the true image of the Islam as a tolerant religion. As time passed I found myself forming strong friendships and all my expectations of integrations issue were proven wrong. Even though some of my friends were skeptical at first I felt that Switzerland was home.When I look back at the day when I found out that the Swiss voted for the ban I remember many feelings. I felt that I was being personally targeted by the ban. This seemed to me, and I am sure to many of the Muslims living in Switzerland, like a clear message ‘We do not want you here’. However as days passed I began to understand why did this come to pass. The argumentation for the ban is that if the minarets are built then this will be the first step to the creation of a Taliban like state in Switzerland. There were also claims that minarets are a symbol of political victory. Both are not true. The Muslims in Switzerland are the most moderate in Europe with only 13% practicing Islam. Minarets have no political meaning what so ever in the history of Muslims. The main reason for the result of this vote is the fear of the unknown and the SVP was able to manipulate this fear well. Fundamentalism has nothing to do with minarets those kinds of people can still meet at empty rooms. Thus the result of the vote is alienation of the Muslims living in this country and giving the Fundamentalist a reason to try to spread their message of hate by claiming that ‘they hate us’.Thus in closing all I would like to say is that the result of the vote is due to fear and ignorance of the true nature of Islam. I would like to also say that I am very proud of my Swiss friends for reacting the way they did and their show of solidarity and commitments to tolerance and democracy.
---
D. is a German student currently writing his Master's Thesis. He argues that Switzerland has to consider more than one perspective. They should think around the next corner:
I can understand them, really. Although the overwhelming majority of people I (and probably most of you) know voted no, the one person I know who voted yes, made a good point - at first glance: Why should the Swiss people adapt even at home? Everywhere Swiss people go, they have to adapt. They have to speak English, they won't find politics and everyday life based on consensus, and most probably there won't be decent cheese, bread and cervelat, either. Switzerland offered a shelter for many muslim refugees and it is glad to administrate Middle Eastern wealth, but at some point there got to be a stop. Minarets? No thanks, they will be able to live their belief without them.Many critics would (and have) pointed out that the Yes-Majority did not incorporate any thoughts on the economy within their decision. There might be boycots of Swiss products abroad or even some violent repercussions, demonstrations, you name it. The more striking feature, as one columnist of the German Handelsblatt pointed out today, is that the "man on the street" does not understand how "globalization cannot be divided". Most Swiss people are proud of the embeddedness of their financial and manufacturing industry in the world economy. Firms such as ABB, UBS, CS, Nestlé contribute to the Swiss wealth with revenues achieved mainly abroad. However, one cannot have this global outreach in economic terms and just "shut" the cultural and social door.Some Germans living in Switzerland might make this experience, too. It is widely known that e.g. the Swiss health sector in the meantime has come to rely on German staff to a large degree. Many of the bankers in Zurich are German, too. Nonetheless, from time to time one has the feeling that high German is a lingua non grata on the street. I myself find it already awkward how much high German is spoken if one walks through Zurich. This distinction between internationalization or globalization of the economy and the same process in society has to be made clear to the Swiss people as not sustainable.If Switzerland wants to be part of the global community it has to be ready to be that in more than just one aspect. Not in vain does the new Swiss constitution from the year 2000 begin with the intent "to strengthen liberty, democracy, independence and peace in a spirit of solidarity and openness towards the world, determined to live together with mutual consideration and respect for their diversity".Regardless of what the European Court for Human Rights or the UN might finally make of this initiative, the Swiss people and especially those who voted yes, should understand that globalization means more than just exports and tax revenues. Splendid isolation is no option.
---
N. is a Swiss student currently working on an internship in Germany. She tries to explain and takes up the cudgles for democrazy:
The oponnents of this ban have mobilized only weakly, and the result shows that their efforts definitely weren't sufficient. It might be the right thing to do to ban minarets in Switzerland (I truly don't want tio be woken up by a Muezzin) but to do so through an amendment of the Swiss constitutione is not the right way. The avarage citizen of course isn't aware of this, he just want's to achieve that the foreign minorities adapt to the Swiss way of life and not the other way around.
What the opposition to this initiative forgot to communicate was that a NO to this initiative would not heave meant that minarets would start appearing everywhere. They forgot to make clear that the fears the right tried to instill weren't justified.
Even though many people, myself included, don't agree with the result of this vote the majority has spoken and we have to accept this. This is part of democracy and to blindly deny the result, and start protesting, definitely isn't the way to go.
At the moment I live in Germany and a lot of people talk about the controversial result of this vote and surprisingly a lot of people support the Swiss decision. They admire the concept of direct democracy and that the people can decide on such delicate matters. An that decision in the end counts.
---
Once again I would like to encourrage you to contribute your view as well in the comments.
This blog post is written as an assignment for a Technology & e-Business class taught at the Nanyang MBA.
A lot of competition is going on in the search market. Google has dominated this industry over the last decade. Yahoo and Microsoft both tried to beat the company from Mountain View with their own offerings. Smaller companies such as Cuil have tried to capture a part of the enormously profitable market as well. Let’s have a look at a few search engines that everyone talks about to see if scale matters in search.
The largest user base
Google is today’s most successful search engine. The company won the first “search engine war” because it was able to deliver the best search results when it mattered.
With the help of PageRank and an uncluttered interface Google was able to deliver much better search results and a better overall search experience when it first became available. The knowledge about this new search engine with the silly name spread virally. And to remain at the top Google started a continuous improvement process. The software and platform powering Google’s search engine and many services are analyzed day in and day out and with the help of multivariate testing and other methods and improved based on the results. Google capitalizes in its user base to stay on top and grow even further.
Google was the best search engine when it mattered, it had a sufficiently large index, it assembled an incredible platform to power its systems, and it has grown an enormous user base. But will it be able to stay on top?
The largest Index
Cuil (pronounced like cool) was one of the more promising companies that tried to compete with Google. In 2008 the company was launched with a lot of hype. The buzz generated around the company, which was founded by former Google employees, promised a search engine that should have been much better than Google’s. The company touted that its index of website was much larger than Google’s and its search engine therefore delivers better results. The rest is history, the meager search result quality (in the beginning) resulted in no one using Cuil today.
Cuil wasn’t able to capitalize on its (allegedly) larger index and failed. A large index alone obviously isn’t enough to compete with current search engines. Also Cuil was able to build this index far cheaper than Google but it obviously impaired the quality of the results delivered
The largest competitor
Microsoft was online very early but it still missed the importance of this paradigm shift. The company grew large with Software created for the Desktop. Windows and Office made MS successful and rich. On the web it has been a slightly different story. Even though Microsoft’s web properties are fairly popular its search engines never could capitalize on this.
Microsoft has had many goes at creating a search engine that could beat Google’s and its newest try, Bing, is (at least partly) based on technology developed by Powerset which was acquired by Microsoft in 2008.
Bing shapes up to be Microsoft’s most successful search engine so far but it is nowhere near Google’s market share. It is an uphill battle for Microsoft. Microsoft just announced that it will be powering Yahoo’s search, a clear sign to Google, and the company hopes that the larger user base will help it to improve its search further to be able to continuously erode Google’s market share.
Being a humongous corporation and having almost unlimited funds so far hasn’t been enough. In general, Microsoft’s size definitely is an advantage because of the resources it can put into a project. But Microsoft’s size also has put it on the radar of competition watch dogs. They inhibit the company to use its size efficiently in promoting the engine through its other offerings (e.g. Windows or Internet Explorer), if this is a good or a bad thing isn’t part of this post.
The largest Portal
On February 1st 2008 Microsoft offered to buy Yahoo for $44 billion and threw the smaller rival of its feet. Yahoo itself probably doesn’t know what it wants right now. First it was a link-list, then a search engine powered by Google, then a search engine powered by Yahoo itself, and now a search engine powered by Bing.
Yahoo had been at the forefront of development of the Internet by doing almost everything right before the offer. The exodus of key personnel and the ever increasing insecurity about Yahoo’s future made the company lose its game. One CEO later Yahoo tries to focus on its core competency which the company defines as Content. Yahoo’s portal always had been very successful and its website is one of the most visited on the net. Its search engine’s success on the other hand had been minor for a long time. Yahoo wasn’t able to catch a substantial part of the worldwide search market anymore.
Yahoo had and has the eyeballs but its search engine still wasn’t able to succeed. Just having a large user-base isn’t sufficient.
So, does scale in search matter?
Scale affects many parts of search. Scale is a factor in the quality of search results as well as the the amount of money that can be made.
As I just pointed out there is scale in:
Scale definitely is part of the search business. Only by indexing a large amount of websites is it possible to deliver good result. Good results attract users and only if you have enough visitors can you make enough money to support an infrastructure which enables you to build a large index.
There now are different approaches such as a peer-to-peer based search engines that try to defy the paradigm presented before (see here & here) but it remains to be seen if taking out the infrastructure cost will be sufficient to compete with Google’s and Microsoft’s armies of engineers.
For now I have to disagree with Hal Varian! Scale is very important for a search engine to be successful.
