NSA’s Targeting Prowess Doesn’t Extend To Ads

2013-09-28_16h12_50

If the NSA only invited TechCrunch to its birthday party, it’d have to eat its cake alone. While we aren’t big fans of the NSA, it appears to fancy our readers, as it consistently advertises on our site.

This makes me slightly uncomfortable, as I have spent a good portion of my time these past few months excoriating and blasting the NSA for what I view as unconstitutional abrogation of our Fourth Amendment rights. And here is the NSA, spending dollars to reach our audience, through those very posts.

I suppose it is vaguely democratic to grant them part of our space to make their case, but as this is a financial relationship (they pay us, either directly or through a third-party), it’s not a question of free speech.

I’ve never felt a conflict of interest with an advertisement before, due in no small part to the fact that I tune them out like the rest of you. But to have the NSA directly hawking its wares on pages that sport my name doesn’t sit right with me.

Here’s the NSA advertising its career listings on our Microsoft subject page:

My name appended to a page that sports bright (lurid?) NSA branding. Please, no.

Today brought fresh revelations on how the NSA collects data on United States citizens. Here’s the New York Times reporting the tracking our social graph, based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden:

Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information […]

Because of concerns about infringing on the privacy of American citizens, the computer analysis of such data had previously been permitted only for foreigners.

Because of my distaste for the NSA and its surveillance programs, I don’t want it making payments (again, either directly or through some third-party targeting or retargeting) to any group that I have a financial relationship with. And as TechCrunch pays the rent, some NSA dollars have likely leaked into my own bank account. That’s revolting.

Also revealed recently is the fact that the Justice Department targeted Edward Snowden’s email provider the day right after he went public. That ended poorly. And the Senate just admitted what we already knew, that the NSA directly taps the core fiber cables of the Internet.

Oh, and one more thing. Have you checked out the NSA’s hybrid iPhone and iPad app? Probably not, as the current iteration lacks enough reviews to have an averaged score to display. The damn thing is comedy. A listed feature: “NSA videos and employee testimonials.” One more: “QR code reader.”

But the real kicker to the NSA’s iPhone app is that it promises not to track your location:

NSA Career Links 2 will not use location information from your device to create driving directions. All location information is used by a 3rd-party map application not affiliated with NSA Career Links 2 or the National Security Agency.

The joke is on us, however, as the NSA essentially admitted that in the past week it tracked the location of phone calls made by United States citizens. So yeah, I don’t believe you.

Top Image Credit: Martin Terber. HT Gripper for reminding myself and TechCrunch about the ads

CrunchWeek: Microsoft’s New Surface 2, BlackBerry’s $4.7B Buyout, Big Changes In Fundraising

Screen Shot 2013-09-28 at 11.29.30 AM

Happy Saturday! It’s time once again for a new episode of CrunchWeek, the show that brings a few of us writers together to chat it up about some of the most interesting stories from the past week in tech news.

This time around, Leena Rao, Alex “Warhorse” Wilhelm (I didn’t know that was his nickname until I saw it on his TechCrunch author page, but I dig it) and I spouted off our opinions on the new Surface tablets from Microsoft — and if they can make up for the lackluster Surface 1 sales, BlackBerry’s plan to go private in a deal valuing the company at less than $5 billion, and how the SEC lifting the ban on general solicitation already seems to be impacting the startup investment scene.

Advertising’s Logged-In User Revolution Is Brewing

logged-in-f1

Editor’s note: Jack Krawczyk is director of product management at Pandora. Prior to Pandora, he helped build Paid Discovery at StumbleUpon and was a founding member of Google+. Follow him on Twitter @jackk.

Native advertising may be the buzzword stealing the attention of the advertising technology landscape, though a much quieter revolution is brewing around the space: the fight for the logged-in user overtaking cookie-based advertising.

You see it manifesting itself from all corners: Google’s relentless investment in Google+, Facebook releasing Custom Audiences, and most recently Twitter’s acquisition of MoPub. Data management companies like Datalogix and Catalina Marketing are creeping up, matching what takes place online into offline purchases.

At the center of this brew: the logged-in user. An ever increasingly valuable asset in the world of digital advertising with an inherently limited distribution, the logged-in user is quietly becoming the lynchpin from which mobile advertising will blossom.

Cookies have historically been the little text file that can, producing a swarm of cross-publisher tracking data that have fueled the $40 billion+ digital advertising industry in the United States over the past 20 years. Monitoring your behavior from site to site, the cookie was able to compile unique information about your browsing habits across ad networks.

Cookies have historically been the little text file that can.

This meant that companies like American Express could drop a tracking cookie once you logged into their site to uniquely identify you as an existing Amex customer. Then while later browsing the Internet, Amex could work with an ad exchange to bid on all users that had their existing cookie. Voila: retargeting!

This approach has built the display advertising industry, but it’s facing two major problems: One, cookies from external sources are dying; two, cookies do not translate to mobile. Enter the logged-in user revolution.

The Logged-In User

Without trivializing the evolution of the ad unit driven by native advertising, logged-in users are rapidly becoming the asset from which mobile marketing will be evaluated for its efficacy, regardless of the format with which the ad is presented to the user. The reason for this? Logged-in users are uniquely keyed by their email address.

ROI has always been at the core for measuring ad spend. The logged-in user is driving us to improve the resonant impact of advertising on purchase behavior.

Traditional media formats like TV and radio have needed to rely on post-exposure surveys because they have never had ways to isolate unique ad impressions. TV and radio ad spend ROI has always been a best guess, as the Nielsen panel, which dictates the $60 billion+ spent on the medium, only pulls from 25,000 households (0.2 percent of the U.S.).

Google entered the picture and changed direct response advertising from an inferred impact model into a direct keyword to conversion ROI report. The limitation of search, however, is that consumers are most often not in the mindset of making a purchase.

For this reason, brand advertising has typically commanded two-thirds of marketers’ budgets. This comprises $91 billion of total ad spend in the United States each year. Dollars that search does not gain access to. Dollars that will be driven by the logged-in user.

The goal of brand advertising is to drive a lasting image, memory or emotion between a consumer and the brand driving the advertising. This resonance then turns to increase consideration of that brand, driving purchase intent and ultimately transforming into a transaction/purchase with that brand.

The challenge with the dollars spent to drive this resonance, however, was that the scale of information and data would often break down between initial exposure and ultimate transaction. Cookies would expire and surveys would be too narrow to follow, but that problem begins to disappear with the logged-in user.

Solving for the impact of resonant advertising is what makes the logged-in user so powerful. Each logged-in user is keyed against a unique identifier: Their email address. Transactions in both the digital and offline space are increasingly tied to CRM systems keyed off of an email. From beginning to end, advertising experiences that have a logged-in user have the data to close the circle on understanding how ad exposure leads to purchase behavior and evolution.

publishers with a logged-in user who can be anonymously quantified in ROI are beginning to enter the ad network game.

The new wave of ad tech companies poised to win are those who are set up to be privacy-friendly brokers of matching the data of publishers’ logged-in ad impressions against shifts in behavior in sales. Privacy and opt-outs are paramount to the success of these programs, setting the foundation for evaluating the impact of ad spend using mechanisms previously unavailable to advertisers.

The Facebook Exchange (FBX) has found that it doesn’t matter the ad unit, it’s about how you convert the user to a conversion event. Companies like Triggit have found that ROI is driven through effective targeting. Expanding beyond the FBX, Videology quietly acquired Collider to drive the idea that content isn’t so much king as the reporting behind who was the recipient of that content.

Taking this beyond the walls of their own experience, publishers with a logged-in user who can be anonymously quantified in ROI are beginning to enter the ad network game. Driving an understanding of the map between unique user identification and its value to a brand, acquisitions like MoPub allow Twitter to extend the reach of their most valuable asset: the logged-in user.

Partnering with large panel data services such as Datalogix and Catalina Marketing, consumer technology firms are poised to close the loop on the impact of advertising on their platforms. Combining point-of-sale data against email addresses, they are able to match ad impressions and engagement data against logged in users to determine the full picture of advertising ROI.

Native advertising formats are becoming increasingly effective at driving up front engagement with advertising, driving the activity to manipulate purchase behavior. This trend will continue for the near future, but as we evolve the native advertising discussion let’s not lose sight of what will ultimately drive the price of an engagement: its value to the advertiser.

That value? It will come from those publishers that own and understand the logged in user. The revolution is coming.

Disclosure: I do not own a financial stake in any of the companies mentioned.

[Illustrations: Bryce Durbin]

Good News: We’re Not Axing Net Neutrality. Bad News: US Gov Probably Shutting Down

Screen Shot 2013-09-28 at 12.28.54 PM

The intersection of fiscal politics, national crisis, and technology regulation is a silly place, as there should be no overlapping space between the three issues. And yet.

Good news: We’re not ending net neutrality. The bad news, depending on your politics, is that we’re likely going to shut down the United States government. That said, the current Washington dynamic has offered up a new fact: Technology policy and regulation is game for political football.

That’s a damn shame. Long gone now, it seems, are the days in which technology managed to steer mostly clear of politics. Perhaps there never was such a time, and we have merely invented it. But whether it did or did not exist before, it is certainly gone now. Let’s review.

A House bill that would fund the government, but remove funding for the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), was slapped down in the Senate. The House began to compile a bill to replace its first effort that contained a grab-bag of conservative wishes. One of those wishes was the ‘blocking’ of net neutrality.

So, tech policy was lashed aside fiscal policy as a gimme to House members who think that the regulation is somehow anti-Internet, and likely accept large donations from telco firms that are opposed to it.

Happily, that idea is dead. Instead, according to Politico and nearly every other political outlet, House Republicans will strap a one year delay of ObamaCare to their bill to fund the government. Senate Democrats and the President have flatly stated that any such bill is dead on arrival.

So, net neutrality managed to dodge whatever might have come its way, but the government itself is still hosed. I don’t see a way that we avoid shutdown. But Verizon won’t be able to charge Netflix exorbitant fees to send its content to its subscribers. That’s good. And other ISPs won’t be able to slow the content of rival companies, which is also a pretty decent outcome.

Anyway, that’s where we are at. It’ll be an interesting week.

Top Image Credit: House GOP Leader

NSA Uses Facebook And GPS Data To Identify Suspects In Networks Of Americans

FILE PHOTO  NSA Compiles Massive Database Of Private Phone Calls

The National Security Agency has slowly been mapping it’s own massive network of suspects with associations to US citizens. The New York Times obtained documents that reveals how the NSA is utilizing social data to map intelligence connections.

From the report: “Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.”

Since data leaker Edward Snowden originally revealed the NSA dragnet phone record and Internet surveillance program, it has been known that the government looks at citizens that are 3 network “hops” away from a suspect (a friend of a friend of a friend). It’s never been revealed what types of data the NSA used to prioritize which targets were most valuable until this NYT story. However, it’s no surprise that intelligence analysts use public and private data., including that from social sources.

Specifically, the data includes “bank codes, insurance information, Facebook profiles, passenger manifests, voter registration rolls and GPS location information, as well as property records and unspecified tax data, according to the documents.”

In response to the story, the NSA says that all mining “queries must include a foreign intelligence justification, period.”

There are several surveillance reforms packages proposed in congress. However, all reform will likely wait until President Obama’s NSA task force issues reform recommendations.

Should Facebook Start Its Own Version Of Google Ventures?

TechCrunch_-_Convo-2

Over the past year, Facebook has seen its fair share of departures from employees and executives who are either starting a VC fund or camping out at a firm to figure out what their next startup or company will be. In the past two weeks, product manager Justin Shaffer left, and rumor has it he is starting a VC fund. Facebook engineering and product lead Greg Badros announced his departure, and it sounds like he’ll be focusing on investing. Former Facebook exec Chamath Palihapitiya has been collecting technical talent from Facebook into his EIR program. And there are many more examples of Facebookers going to VC firms or starting to invest of late. Our question is, why doesn’t Facebook just form its own venture group so some of these employees could stay connected to the company?

There are many more reasons beyond just retaining talent for Facebook to form a corporate VC firm. Facebook has a substantial opportunity to do what Google Ventures has done in the VC world. Considering the interest its staffers now have in venture capital and advising startups, Facebook could build a new brand of venture capital. The social network has an enormous amount of talent that has been through the trenches of growth, parsing through large amounts of data, advertising, product development and more. As VCs become more hands-on, Facebook could tap its wealth of knowledge and experience to help portfolio startups. Similar to Google Ventures, Facebook could draw on its enormous base of employees to help grow startups. Facebook has already become an ecosystem with many former employees starting companies, so a company could easily grab great deal flow from its alums alone.

Facebook had already been participating as a partner in larger funds operated by other VC firms. The social network invested in Kleiner Perkins’s Fund in 2010, which was a $250 million fund dedicated to backing social startups. Facebook also helped administer the FbFund, a $10 million seed fund that was jointly funded by Founders Fund and Accel Partners to back startups developing websites and applications related to the Facebook Platform. Facebook discontinued the fund in 2010.

The opportunity for investing is so much broader than startups built on the Facebook platform.

From 2006 to the first half of 2012, Facebook alums had raised $271 million of venture capital funding since 2006. As of the first half of 2012, the Facebook mafia had pulled in $130 million in VC funding in 2012 alone. We’re sure that number increased significantly over the past year.

Facebook alums and current employees who landed windfalls in the IPO are already actively seed investing. If you take a look at AngelList, there are hundreds of current and former Facebookers who are angels. In Google Ventures’ case, Google is the firm’s sole LP. While Facebook hasn’t stockpiled the amount of cash that Google has, Facebook could do something slightly different with its employees who want to invest, such as make certain employees LPs of a fund alongside the company itself.

When it comes to talent, a corporate VC arm makes sense for Facebook when you consider a number of factors. First, talent that wants to potentially go into venture as an investor can stay within the Facebook umbrella. Clearly we see this happening as experienced operators and product managers at the network are starting to move over to traditional VC firms or start their own firms.

From what we’ve heard, a lot of Facebook’s top employees have been working there since college or right after graduating. Some feel they’ve “done their duty” to make the world more open and connected. It’s not that they dislike Facebook, but they want to try something new. If Facebook created a VC firm, it could be an outlet for taking on fresh challenges without leaving the company entirely.

“FBVC” could create a home for more than just potential investors. For example, Google Ventures employs a number of designers in-house to help its portfolio startups. Many of these designers came from Google. Facebook has had trouble retaining design talent lately, with departures of Instagram’s Tim Van Damme, Messenger’s Chris Kalani, and Facebook Stickers lead Sophie Xie all leaving in the last two months. Xie just completed a month of contract design work for ex-Facebooker Carl Sjogreen’s new startup Shadow Puppet. Perhaps a role as Facebook Ventures’ in-house designer could have let her dabble with different companies while remaining part of the Facebook family.

A Facebook venture group would also provide an alternative place for the company’s employees to park themselves for a year in an EIR role to figure out what they want to do next. Palihapitiya believes that talent needs this time to really determine what the next role could be. And this would give EIRs the opportunity to team up with other Facebookers to start companies. In the past year, Palihapitiya has been able to bring over a number of key product managers to his firm to simply network and figure out what they can do next. Best case scenario, these Facebookers will team up on a new idea or startup, and Facebook could grab some meaningful equity. Another talent benefit for a Facebook Ventures arm would be to create a second home for great talent that Facebook wants to pick up, but doesn’t want to work on executing product or business.

It’s worth noting that not every successful technology company has a VC arm. Yes, there’s Amazon, Google Ventures, Intel Capital, and Microsoft Ventures; but Apple doesn’t have a VC arm (Apple does apparently, have a fund that makes private equity deals). Apple’s general investment strategy has been to acquire talent and companies that fit its technology and product strategies, and the company has notoriously been a closed environment. Once you leave the company, you are closed off. Google is on the other end of the spectrum as it has created an ecosystem with its various offshoots, such as Google Ventures.

One complication Facebook would have to deal with if it entered venture is avoiding the perception that its platform favors companies it invests in. That could sour relations with the ecosystem it’s built around its login, sharing, backend hosting, and advertising services. Startups might be less enthusiastic to build on Facebook if they feel they’re handicapped unless they have Facebook on their cap table.

But as Facebook grows into a bona-fide Internet giant, it needs to do everything it can to avoid the type of stagnation that leads to disruption. For many companies its size, that means acquiring and acqui-hiring to bring in the best talent. And there are few better ways to get a close look at startups to potentially buy than by dangling cash to invest.

Facebook will ultimately have to decide whether it wants to go down the Apple route or the Google path. Perhaps it’s too soon, but the company is about to turn 10 years old.

Gillmor Gang: Sensorship

gillmor-gang-test-pattern_excerpt

The Gillmor Gang — Robert Scoble, Keith Teare, John Taschek, Kevin Marks, and Steve Gillmor — new iPhone + new OS = continued Apple domination. Twitter vacillates between NYSE and NASDAQ. Age of Context The Book ships as publishing gestation shrinks from 9 months to 2 weeks.

It is only toward the end of the show that someone in the chat notices @scobleizer isn’t wearing Google Glass. Apple keeps on piling up yardage, reminding us not only of Steve Jobs’ prophetic vision of the future, but his persistent hammerlock on our wallets.

@stevegillmor, @scobleizer, @kteare, @jtaschek, @kevinmarks

Produced and directed by Tina Chase Gillmor @tinagillmor

Live Chat stream

The Genius Of Twitter: A Paean

whale

It’s the first app I launch in the morning, and the first I install on a new phone, and my most-visited web site. Which is strange, because I don’t much like most social media. I’m on Facebook only reluctantly; 90% of my posts there are automatic reposts from my tweet stream. I want to like Google+, but I keep failing. Twitter, though, is the hub of my online life.

Now that Twitter is officially on track to IPO it’s being lavished with praise, which irks me. The implication is that an IPO is somehow a culmination and a triumph, whereas to me it’s pretty much a meaningless business-space phase change. I don’t really care about the business of technology, except inasmuch as the businesses are vehicles for the promulgation of new and/or cool and/or interesting and/or important technology; and if I’m being honest, I don’t think other people should care either.

Granted, the spectacle of venture capital and business machinations and public offerings can be appealing, and I’m sure it’s extremely interesting indeed to the small number of people in line to receive large sums of money1 or the enormously larger number who aspire to do so themselves some day. But what matters far more than money is how and how much you changed the world.

Now, I think that we can all agree that while Twitter is a pretty big deal it hasn’t changed the world as much as Apple or Facebook or Google, or (less visibly) ARM or Cisco. What I’d like to point out, though, is that Twitter is far weirder, much less inevitable, and way more out-of-left-field than all of the above. For that reason its accomplishment is in many ways more extraordinary than theirs.

Some company was always going to get huge and rich building routers, or smartphones, or the low-power chips inside them, or the world’s primary social network, or the world’s finest search engine and/or distributed computing network. Once the technology reached the point where such things were possible, they became all but inevitable. If Apple had gone bust in the 1990s (as it very nearly did), today’s phones wouldn’t be as near as slick and well-designed, but they would still basically do what they do. Who knows? Maybe BlackBerry would have taken up the torch of design.

But Twitter? Twitter was never inevitable. The world was in no way crying out for the platform that gave us @horse_ebooks, @DRUNKHULK, and @BoredElonMusk (to say nothing of @twentitled.) If Twitter had never existed, Facebook would still have eventually adopted its News Feed; blogs and RSS would probably have expanded; and maybe Google+ would have been a stronger competitor. But we would feel no aching Twitter-shaped void in our world. Twitter was always surprising, always the dark horse, always counterintuitive.

Hell, it’s still counterintuitive. I was talking to friends of mine not so long ago, both of whom are smarter than me (and better writers too) but who still fundamentally don’t get Twitter’s appeal. Of course they don’t. I didn’t either, until my sister somehow talked me into signing up for it five years ago. Thanks, Jen. Now I’d prefer not to imagine life without it.

To an extent Twitter is like the elephant examined by blind men, different things to different people. To me, at least, it’s where I simultaneously bookmark links of interest, keep track of scores of my friends’ lives, converse with those friends without knowing or caring where they are, share pictures and articles with them and with hundreds of people I don’t know, do research (“Dear LazyTwitter…”), and follow a small number of interesting people and/or news filters I’ve never met.

Of course I could do all these things elsewhere; but the whole appeal of Twitter is that I do them all at the same time, in the same place, with terse brevity. For me it’s like being able to dive into a sparkling river of (usually) witty, pithy, gem-laden conversation whenever I want to, engage with it however I like, and leave again at my leisure. People say we live in the attention economy; well, Twitter offers some of the best value-for-attention you can get. Like everybody else at first I thought that famous 140-character limit was a flaw. Now, though, I believe it’s their finest feature.

If we *really* cared about our users we would try to help them spend *less* time "engaging" with our site.—
Seriouspony (@seriouspony) September 18, 2013

So here’s to Twitter, and to their real accomplishment: not their IPO, but using today’s technology to give the whole world something that we didn’t know we wanted, and making it so delightful that it now seems very nearly indispensable. All this while trying to be, to their eternal credit, “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” I hereby call for a long, loud round of applause.


Image credit: Twitter’s fail whale has become something of an endangered species; truth be told, on the rare occasions I do see it nowadays, I find myself feeling more nostalgia than irritation.

1 Disclaimer/disclosure: while I don’t know for sure, I expect this number includes an acquaintance of mine who was/is a very early Twitter employee.

Bizness Apps Launches DIY Website Builder, Looks To Become A Full-Service Digital Marketing Suite For SMBs

website-builder

Once upon a time, if you wanted your own website, you either had to speak fluent Internet, or write a large check to someone who did. However, thanks to the laundry list of companies and services that have sprouted over the last five years — like Weebly, Wix and Squarespace, to name a few — the barriers to building a snappy website have vanished. Today, website creators are free, and the only technical skill required is the ability to locate the Internet.

Today, as smartphones flood the market, a similar story is unfolding in app development. With their customers going mobile, businesses are eager to do the same. A bevy of services emerged to meet the growing demand, offering businesses a quick and easy way to create their apps for iOS, Android and beyond. Bizness Apps launched in 2010 to do just that, providing companies with a low-cost way to build their own mobile apps and website without needing to know how to code.

But with so many options for DIY site builders, both mobile and desktop, these services have to differentiate themselves from the competition if they’re going to stand out — and survive. As a result, many choose to specialize, offering the same basic features as everyone else, while focusing on adding more features and value around, say, social networking, flier creation or shopping.

Like SnapPages, to differentiate itself in this crowded market, Bizness Apps developed a white-label program to allow both companies and businesses to build mobile apps for their existing clients or SMBs in their local area. Shortly thereafter, the startup added a CRM platform to help its white-label resellers sell apps and websites to startups and other SMBs, and today Bizness Apps is adding the last piece of the puzzle.

In a platform play that aims to round out its self-service development suite and sees it moving into the realm of the Weeblys, Wixes and Squarespaces of the world, the startup is today launching its own drag-and-drop, DIY website builder, called Bizness Web.

The website creation service will allow SMBs to quickly design and publish a fully-functional website for desktop, smartphones and tablets in under 10 minutes, says founder and CEO Andrew Gazdecki — regardless of technical skill. In an effort to provide businesses with a feature set that’s comparable to its competitors, the website builder will offer a library of hundreds of templates, designed to make it easy to get started, along with SEO tools, post-publish editing capabilities, social media integration, custom contact and lead form creation and analytics.

The new product intends takes a similar strategy and focus to its white label reseller program, which provides companies and individuals with the ability to launch their own mobile marketing businesses and develop mobile apps and mobile websites that can be customized and branded according to their client’s preferences. The white-label resale tool allows these pop-up app development businesses to set their own prices and provide services developing apps for their local small business market.

The reseller program has also been the company’s most lucrative product, driving the majority of its revenue, the CEO tells us. The startup raised a small, $100K round of seed funding after launch, but has been bootstrapped since and is now profitable thanks to a reseller-driven $8 million annual run rate, which the company expects to hit $9 million by the end of the year.

But what makes the CEO think that its new DIY website builder will find an audience and can compete with the most popular services, which today dominate most of the mindshare in the market? Gazdecki says that he sees the small business market existing in two segments, one of which is willing to use DIY marketing tools, and other, which would rather pay a premium to essentially, “hire a pro,” as they say.

While Weebly and Wix are mostly focused on the former, the CEO says that Bizness Apps wants to leverage its existing reseller network to provide a more hands-on approach to mobile and website development — even if that requires charging a higher price, and therefore the risk of losing looking for free DIY options. Furthermore, even though the company is playing in an “extremely crowded market,” he says, 58 percent of small businesses still don’t have a website and the chief reason for this is that they lack the confidence to build their own.

At its core, Bizness Apps’ mission is to allow anyone to start their own local marketing company and help local businesses get online, go mobile and manage customers through its three main products. “In the end, we’ve found that small businesses would rather have marketing services built into this kind of platform,” the CEO tells us, “even if it means paying an extra fee.”

Today, the company has 5,000 active resellers around the globe, hailing from over 50 countries and offering services in dozens of languages. Just as its reseller program aims to solve related pain points by giving clients the ability to learn how to market their business and how to approach and sell to small businesses — beyond offering branded apps and websites — looking forward, Gazdecki wants to include more features that help customers get more value out of the platform.

Its resellers often add custom features depending on the market and the client, like a mobile food ordering system, payment gateway and menu integrations for restaurants — so that they don’t have to fumble with receipt printer integrations, among other things. Down the road, the CEO says he wants the new website builder to incorporate features like online food ordering, reservations and eCommerce tools.

The company offers its original DIY app product for $59/month for each platform, which includes a native iPhone app, Android app, iPad app, Android tablet app and mobile website, and will be selling its website builder under a three-tier pricing scheme, starting at $10/month under its “small business” option. Its business tier will run $100/month, and includes 10 websites, marketing materials, sales training and a free Bizness CEM account, whereas its “White Label Reseller” plan includes all of the previous options, with the ability to create an unlimited number of websites.

For more on Bizness Web, find it here.

It’s Official, The Nirvanix Cloud Storage Service Is Shutting Down

blackcloud2

It’s official, Nirvanix is shutting down its business. The cloud storage company has scrapped its website, leaving a statement and how to get in touch with customer support.

The statement says customers need to actively participate in getting their data off the Nirvanix infrastructure. The company will also put its resources behind helping customers move their data to different services.

According to the statement, the company says it has an IBM team ready to help customers. It also states that it will provide higher speed connection with some companies to increase the rate of data transfer from Nirvanix to their servers.

For the past 10 days Nirvanix executives have kept mum about the future of the company after a leaked email to customers on September 17 explained that it would begin an immediate “wind-down” of the storage service by October 15.

Since then, company executives have been silent, not exactly stirring confidence in how it is perceived in the market.

But Nirvanix’s problems did not start 10 days ago. In March the company hired Zynga CIO Debra Chrapaty. She was the sixth CEO hired by Nirvanix in the past five years, signaling deep management issues with the company. The constant change in management had to affect the company, which never really went beyond serving as a pure cloud storage company.

By trying to play in the pure storage business, Nirvanix found itself in a market that, over the past five years, became increasingly commoditized by Amazon Web Services, Windows Azure and now Google Compute Engine, which have all been engaging in a price war. With no service to offer on top of its storage, Nirvanix did not stand a great chance of differentiating from such large competitors.

Those left standing have been cloud services brokers like Oxygen Cloud, which spent most of last weekend preparing its infrastructure to help its customers move off the Nirvanix infrastructure. Oxygen provides a cloud drive, which acts as a virtual hub that companies can use to connect other services.

Nirvanix’s demise shows how the cloud market has matured over the past few years. It is now dominated at the infrastructure layer by a few large companies that can compete on price for commodity offerings such as storage. The real differentiation will be SaaS and other services such as Oxygen that serve as a way to make personal files available in the data center but with the full flexibility that cloud services offer.

(Feature image courtesy of Tom Haymes)

Software For Auto Repair: With New Funding In Tow, Estify Sees Big Opportunity In An Unsexy Market

dashboard image

The collision industry probably doesn’t rank at the top of the “Sexy Markets” list for startups, but sometimes the most obscure, fragmented and pulchritudinously challenged industries can offer the most opportunity to those willing to grit their teeth and immerse themselves in the mess. Estify, a graduate of Amplify LA’s business accelerator, is doing just that. Co-founders Jordan Furniss, Derek Carr and Taylor Moss went looking for the most unsexy market they could find, with bonus points awarded for both size and level of inefficiency. They quickly found their Shangri-La: The collision and auto repair market.

But the co-founders are web developers and designers by trade, and, knowing that this put them at a disadvantage in an industry where engineers are scarce and trust is crucial, they immersed themselves. After months of talking to shops, owners, mechanics, parts providers and insurers and identifying the biggest pain points, they began developing Estify.

Sure, the startup may not become a billion-dollar company, but this is a great, quick lesson for entrepreneurs: It’s impossible to avoid failure, but before you start building an app or product, take time to understand the market you’re tackling, what it’s problems are and how its businesses work. Go be an apprentice if you have to; it’s the least you can do, and a step that points you in the right direction.

While the auto repair industry may be unsexy, Furniss tells us, it’s also probably likely that the town or city you live in has at least one auto repair shop. In fact, there are about 45,000 in the U.S. today, the co-founder says, and most of them are using the same tools for inventory, interfacing with insurance companies and data entry they have for years.

The company is also expanding its potential addressable market by not only going after the 45,000 repair shops, but by offering its service to the whole pipeline, Estify wants to reach the 200,000 shops, insurance companies, independent appraisers and parts providers out there. To do that, the startup has built a suite of cloud-based services that aim to help make shops, and related service providers a way to increase efficiency and save money.

By helping collision repair shops automate the data entry process, among other things, Furniss claims that the company’s SaaS product can save these businesses up to two hours on every estimate they process — something repair shops have traditionally done manually. The startup recently emerged from limited beta, and had been testing the product with a handful of early customers, so it doesn’t have many paying customers yet.

However, Furniss says that the company spent its long beta period attempting to validate its pricing model and functionality and has been encouraged by the feedback. In one weekend, he says, the founders received emails from over 100 different shops that wanted to use the product, with a handful of them offering to pay for a full year in advance.

To help it push forward with a full-scale launch, add to its current team of six and start selling more broadly to repair shops, insurance providers and parts dealers, Estify recently closed on a $800K round of seed capital, led by ff Venture Capital, with participation from Romulus Capital, REES Capital and Amplify.LA.

As to what Estify actually does? At launch, the startup will be offering a suite of web services containing three main products, which can all be managed and viewed through its web-based dashboard. The first tackles what Furniss says is one of the biggest problems faced by repair shops — called “rekeying.” Essentially, rekeying is the process of duplicating the estimate that the insurance company originally wrote into the collision shop’s own estimation processes.

“It’s almost hard to fathom for those with tech backgrounds,” he says, “but these two systems don’t communicate and there’s no data bridge between them, whatsoever.” The process can add up to two hours to the estimate writing process, so Estify tries to solve this by allowing shops to bridge the gap and eliminate the redundant work of “rekeying.” The second product, Reconcile, tackles a similar pain point, in that it helps repair shops be more efficient about how they deal with estimates and the interface with insurance companies.

Virtually every collision shop has to work with insurance company, Furniss says, since they are typically the ones paying for the work. Of course, insurance companies want to spend the least amount money on each repair as possible, while the shop generally wants to be as thorough as possible and get paid for the parts and work.

“There’s a whole negotiation process that takes place with every repair and then what the insurance company says and what the shop says,” the co-founder explains, “need to be reconciled down to the penny.” This is a tedious process and shops spend hours on it with each repair, because if they don’t, they stand to lose $1,000 per repair, on average. So, the startup gives shops software to reduce this process to something that can happen in seconds, allowing them to make more money per repair while saving time — at least that’s the idea.

The third area Estify attempts to help shops increase efficiency has to do with parts. When a car is being repaired, a shop gets its parts from various providers in the area, often dealerships, which usually happens via phone and fax. Naturally, faxing the list of parts a shop needs to dealers until finding the right part is, well, time consuming, slow and inefficient.

To help speed the process up, Estify’s service automatically pulls the list of parts from shops and sends them out to a network of part providers, geographically targeting the proximate dealers. Instead of calling or faxing, dealers can just respond online, saying they have the part and can send it by such and such a time. Besides helping repair shops get better answers more quickly, Furniss says, the idea is also to create new opportunities for parts providers.

To monetize, the startup has opted for a monthly subscription model, allowing shops, dealers and insurers to use any combination of the three, paying for what they use, with the monthly rate falling somewhere between $99 and $500. By the industry standards, Furniss says, “we’ll be able to do fairly well revenue-wise if can get a couple thousand customers on board — at least that’s where we want to start.”

It may be obscure and it may not be sexy, but as long as Estify continues to apply the K.I.S.S. principle to its software and product development, it could turn out to be a fairly attractive business. By removing some serious pain and friction from critical processes and operations these businesses deal with on a daily basis and doing that with a web-based solution, Estify can be scalable and potentially tap into some decent margins.

As it rounds out its feature set beyond repair shops — and builds out mobile offerings — it can expand its functionality and potentially reach a wider audience and bigger market. And one that isn’t exactly saturated with competitors. At which point the collision repair and parts industry doesn’t sound so bad after all.

Estify at home here.

Where Webvan Failed And How Home Delivery 2.0 Could Succeed

truck

Editor’s note: Peter Relan was VP of the Internet Division at Oracle, founding head of technology at Webvan from 1998 to 2000, and founder of the YouWeb Incubator program in 2006 and the recently launched 9+ accelerator program. Follow him on Twitter @prelan.

Webvan is well-known as the poster child of the dot-com “excess” bubble that led to the tech market crash in 2000. Business schools around the nation study Webvan’s overly ambitious rush to the biggest IPO to date in Silicon Valley, as a prime example of what to avoid doing while scaling. Ironically I recall guest teaching the first case study on Webvan at Stanford, the day before the market crash in 2000. While it’s true that the impatience to go public helped steer Webvan off a cliff, the once darling company made two other critical, but often overlooked mistakes.

Are those mistakes being repeated a dozen years later in the slew of activity — even excitement — in the home-delivery space? If not, why? Is it simply a matter of investors needing a decade to reconsider home-delivery plays? Or is there more to it? Are today’s home delivery specialists realizing that they can avoid these mistakes to slowly but surely conquer an untapped market?

Mistake No. 1: Wrong Target Audience Segmentation And Pricing

Webvan’s go-to market strategy in each city was: the quality and selection of Whole Foods, the pricing of Safeway, and the convenience of home delivery. In other words, it was a mass-market strategy (unlike Whole Foods which is an upmarket strategy). The target audience therefore was not selected to be “price insensitive.” If you advertise yourself at Safeway pricing, you will attract a price-sensitive audience. Whereas those who go to Whole Foods are more price-insensitive: They believe they are getting a higher quality of selection and product, so price matters less. 

The customers who would have made Webvan profitable were those who said, “Wow, I can get quality selection and products delivered to my home: heck I’ll pay anything for that.” Yes, that’s a smaller audience than a mass-market audience, but after all, even smartphones started out as a tool for stockbrokers and corporate executives before becoming mass-market devices. Webvan should have priced at least 30 to 40 percent higher and ignored the customers who didn’t want to pay those prices. A company must be clear on what it is providing and price for it – Webvan was providing a luxury; an ability to order sushi and organic fruits directly to the home, and thus it shouldn’t have tried to compete with Safeway’s prices.

Mistake No. 2: Complex Infrastructure Model

Webvan decided to build its infrastructure from scratch. I was responsible for the hundreds of engineers who built the software algorithms to make five miles of conveyor belts in our Oakland Distribution Center (DC) transport 10,000 totes around the DC daily. After conveying the item to automated carousel pods, which would spin like juke boxes to transfer the item in question into the tote, the entire process would rinse and repeat until the order was completed and integrated at the shipping dock. Additional real-time inventory management algorithms would make sure that if a customer ordered milk on the website, it was currently in stock; software algorithms would route delivery vans to multiple delivery stops while minimizing drive time; and software on Palm Pilots in drivers’ hands would deal with real-time delivery confirmation or returns. 

Combining mistakes Nos. 1 and 2 was a dangerous cocktail of the lower margins of mass-market pricing, and colossal capital expenditure associated with complex infrastructure. This cocktail, combined with mistake No. 3, pushed Webvan over the edge.

Mistake No. 3: Too Much Money, Expanded Too Fast

This is the more well-known and final mistake. Most people view Webvan’s capital raise of $800 million as excessive and ill-spent. The pressure to “grow big fast” in those days blotted out all other considerations. This desire for massive, immediate growth was so intense that we started launching in new cities on the thesis that the unit economics of home grocery delivery would be profitable. Our DCs and vans rolled out in the Bay Area, Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, and each city’s capital requirement was well over $50 million just to start. We touted our 26-city expansion plan, signing a $1 billion Bechtel contract to build several state-of-the-art warehouses worth more than $30 million each.

Today the most popular acronym in the valley is MVP (Minimum Viable Product). In the dot-com era it was GBF, or Get Big Fast. The problem was the Bay Area model was taking a long time to iron out, and in the meantime, all our cities were burning through the cash. Our entire strategy depended upon the reassurance that the Bay Area model would inevitably become successful. Maybe it would have eventually succeeded, but we would never find out: With the market crash of 2000, capital dried up and the company was starved into a forced asset sale to Kaiser Permanente in 2001. The infrastructure in Oakland, as well as the software systems, were bought by Kaiser in order to deliver drugs and supplies to its hospitals.

Are Today’s Home Delivery 2.0 Startups Doing It Differently? 

Instacart and Postmates are both avoiding the infrastructure model mistakes. They are leveraging the existing infrastructure of grocery stores, not building their own infrastructure. They focus on two areas, delivery and customer service, and concentrate their resources on excelling in those departments. Good start: Mistake No. 2 avoided. 

Instacart prices its items very cleverly. Rather than charging a delivery fee, they simply “mark up” the prices on the items so the “real” prices are not visible. In a certain sense they are following the target audience and pricing mantra I think Webvan should have used: They are focused on convenience-oriented customers who will ignore the mark-ups. Those who follow and remember the hundreds of prices of grocery items are not likely to be their target audience. Plus they charge a small delivery fee of $3.99, which in itself is not enough to pay for the unit economics, but along with the price mark-ups it probably works. And they have an Instacart Express model like Amazon Prime, which makes sure that if you order enough and subscribe for $99/year, delivery is free. Sir Michael Moritz of Sequoia was on the board of directors of Webvan, so he knows the math well and is an excellent adviser to Instacart.

From what I can tell, Postmates doesn’t directly mark up prices, but it recognizes that delivery economics is very central to overall unit economics. So they charge a delivery fee based on their proprietary algorithm for determining how “expensive” your delivery will be. It’s a classic “service platform” model, like AWS almost, where they build in a margin per delivery requested. That way they won’t lose money on orders overall, even though any particular order may not be profitable.

Instacart and Postmates have studied the history of home delivery. They are avoiding mistake Nos. 1 and 2 that Webvan made. Now only two questions remain. How profitable will their models be? And how quickly will they expand nationally. Stated otherwise, will they avoid mistake No. 3? Time will tell. I would love to hear your opinions.

[Images: Shutterstock, Flickr/Mark Coggins]

Chasefuture’s Platform Coaches Mainland Chinese Students On University Admissions

chasefuture-logo

The allure of top-tier Western universities isn’t lessening anytime soon for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese high school graduates emerging out of the country’s best schools.

That’s why a host of different startups helping mainland high school students with admissions like InitialView have cropped up in the last year or two.

Chasefuture, a one-year-old startup from serial entrepreneur Greg Nance and Han Shao, is looking to be the go-to place for students across mainland China to study abroad in the U.S. or Europe. They are a platform that connects alums and admissions officers from top-tier Western universities to serve as mentors for students across China.

“We basically bootstrapped our way to a top position in the study abroad consultation market,” said Nance, who moved to Shanghai a year ago after finishing up at Cambridge University’s business school.

Chasefuture, which has 450 paid clients, is aiming to 10X that year to more than 4,000. They connect applying high school students to real admissions experts and mentors who are alums of their desired schools.

Two-thirds of the company’s clients are in China, while the rest are mainly international students in the U.S. aiming for masters or Ph.D’s.

So far, they’re sending 17 students to USC, 16 to Columbia University, 16 to Imperial College in the U.K., 11 to the London School of Economics, three to Cambridge’s business school for a master of finance.

They have basic products that help with admissions essays and choosing schools, then higher-tier packages that can cost several thousand dollars depending on how much hands-on help a client wants.

But they’re also particularly picky about who gets to join the program, with a 10 percent acceptance rate. (One could argue, of course, that they’re cherry-picking the candidates with the best chances anyway.)

Nance says the company’s addressable market in China is maybe a quarter million students, who are looking to study abroad. To attract mentors, they look for alums or existing admissions experts who they pay about $40 an hour as a base. Nance says this is more than double what other competing platforms pay. If they are able to refer other quality mentors, they get a bonus as well.

JustFab’s Checkout Tactics Are JustShady

Screen Shot 2013-09-27 at 7.28.38 PM

This Hacker News complaint about JustFab scamming a user’s girlfriend — which gets resubmitted whenever JustFab raises money — is a little off, because JustFab is not a scam in the traditional sense.

The company is, however, abusing a tricky UI, loaded with dark pattern design gimmicks like forced continuity and sneak into basket – all in the name of getting customers to sign up for a JustFab VIP membership they may not have wanted.

Used at least lightly by many e-commerce sites, dark patterns are ways web designers use the irrationality and laziness of any given human in order to increase the bottom line. Many argue that they’re unethical. In fact, the EU has passed a mandate that its countries push through laws protecting consumers from misleading subscription interfaces, which Germany was the first to enact.

It’s pretty damning that the JustFab checkout looks like this in Germany.

And this in the U.S.

Not wanting to just take Hacker News’ word for it, I used my Aol credit card to buy a pair of shoes on JustFab earlier today, trying as hard as I could to avoid becoming a VIP member. The site makes you “check out as a regular member” if you want to avoid VIP, and that link is positioned to the right of the shopping basket in small, lighter-colored typeface. Not an accident.

When I finally maneuvered to a place where I could pay the full, non-member price for a pair of shoes, JustFab gave me this sneaky terms and conditions language: “I accept the terms of the Just Fab VIP Membership Program!” and a small check box.

Checking the box, which surreptitiously looks like a normal Terms and Conditions box, would sign me up for a VIP membership at checkout, something I purposefully was trying to avoid! Even if you do check the box, it’s not clear that you’ve signed up for a VIP account. This makes it very confusing, especially since you have to sign back in to skip a month.

And know you’re subscribed in order to make the phone call needed to cancel your VIP membership.

While I successfully managed to avoid becoming a VIP member, users who aren’t tech reporters might have a more difficult time doing so. And that’s a problem, even if those users are “a tiny minority.” For what it’s worth, comments on the site’s Facebook page are generally positive about the brand, though there are a few complaints. 

I later ran a second test, where I intentionally signed up for membership so that I could see how easy it would be to cancel the subscription. TechCrunch editorial assistant Greg Barto described the process of canceling VIP membership over the phone as a “2″ on the 1-10 scale of difficulty, though you have to remember to call. Unfortunately, I cannot cancel my orders of the Anitra and the Tami flats until I physically receive the items.

If all this “information is quite clear on the site,” as investor Josh Hannah points out in the Hacker News comments thread, then why did JustFab have to change its interface for Germany’s consumer protection strictures, as shown above? Because it’s remarkably easy to forget to log in every month to “skip” a committed buying period, or make a phone call to cancel, and JustFab knows it.

When does a convoluted user interface become outright manipulative? Should consumers either resolve to be intelligent and hyper-vigilant about the dark patterns among us, or avoid “too good to be true” online offers altogether? Perhaps the best plan is to forever shy away from all forms of e-commerce that include recurring charges?

And maybe it’s time for the U.S. and others to enact such laws for e-commerce before TechCrunch writer Steve O’Hear has to pay for Amazon Prime a third time, because he, yet again, forgets to cancel the free trial they give him every Christmas.

Update: JustFab’s co-CEO Adam Goldenberg gave us this statement in response to this story. It doesn’t really answer any of my questions, and conveniently forgets that I bought the shoes with full intent to return them:

“We are sorry to hear you weren’t happy with your JustFab experience. We have millions of members and 2 million Facebook fans who love our service. It is our high level of service and fashionable styles that keep our members coming back – in fact we sold over 4 million pairs of shoes to repeat buyers in the past year alone.

Customer satisfaction is a priority for us and by offering our VIP members items that would typically cost $60 – $100 retail at $39.95, we are giving our members a great value. VIP members are also not obligated to purchase every month. A member can choose to opt out, or “skip the month” and not purchase nor get billed a monthly credit.

We hope you enjoy your JustFab shoes and handbags and please let us know if you have any further questions.”

Palantir Is Raising $197M In Growth Capital, SEC Filing Shows

Palantir

Palantir, the big data company that has counted the NSA, the FBI and the CIA among its clientele, is raising up to $196.5 million in growth capital, according to an SEC filing.

The company declined to say who the new funding was from, according to Lisa Gordon, who handles media and government relations for the company. Another source close to the company says the round is also not finalized yet. Morgan Stanley is managing the deal, according to the filing.

Forbes reported last month that a round could value the company at between $5 and 8 billion.

Founded back in 2004, the company was the brainchild of Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, who believed that the payments company’s anti-fraud technologies could be used to fight terrorism.

Current CEO Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale (who went on to found Asia and Silicon Valley-focused investment firm Formation 8), Stephen Cohen and chief technology officer Nathan Gettings put together an initial product.

It’s now become an analysis platform that government agencies use to manage the war against terrorism and drug trafficking. Palantir’s platform pulls disparate reams of data and puts them together in a way that makes otherwise hard-to-detect patterns and connections much more visible to users.

It’s since grown into a business that Karp says may do $1 billion in contracts next year. It is not yet profitable, however.

The company’s earlier investors include Founders Fund, Yelp’s Jeremy Stoppelman and Ben Ling among others.