Alexander Clamor's Profile

Thank you for your thoughts, too! Much appreciated. 🙂

Hi Chun,

Interesting post! I definitely agree that visuals are important to live entertainment and that WaveVR can be one way for artists to augment people’s visual experiences at concerts.

But I have to admit, I’m a little skeptical! Perhaps it’s that I’m not in WaveVR’s target market, but if I were to be honest with myself, I go to concerts as a way to see the band, yes, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to be with friends. I do like the interactive and social elements to WaveVR’s vision that you mention in your post, but perhaps what’s missing is the ability to “meet up” with friends in the virtual environment.

Now, if there were a way for me to be in my apartment, go to a concert that is 1,000 miles away, AND go with a friend who is 2,000 miles away, THAT would be something worth paying for! Thoughts? Would you happen to know whether WaveVR is considering adding a similar feature in the future? Are there other VR platforms focused on live entertainment that may be doing this? What about NextVR? Just curious.

Again, great job! Thanks!

Hi Felix,

Great post! VR in the entertainment industry is so fascinating. 🙂

I agree with you – it’s a smart move for Baobab to go with short-films as it keeps costs down, allows Baobab to focus on the quality of the films, shortens the production cycle, and increases the number of iterations that can be done within any given timespan. Perhaps more importantly, it allows users to gradually adopt into not just a new type of technology but also a new behavior (I don’t think I my mind would be ready to be engaged in a virtual world for over an hour!). However, as individuals get used to VR, it will become more and more normal to watch VR for longer timespans.

On the topic of value creation, do you think VR will ever replace the 2D experience? I view VR content and TV/movie content as such different experiences. Surely, just because I purchase an HMD to watch VR content would never mean that I wouldn’t buy a TV.

I also wonder about the value capture model for VR content producers. While you mention it’s similar to that of 2D production companies, how do the costs compare? I imagine it would be more expensive to produce VR content, considering all the animation, interaction, and sound required; if so, how much more does Baobab charge companies to license out its VR content than what it might charge companies to license out the same content in 2D?

Lastly, I wonder how the parental ratings for these films will be affected. Even though the film in the post is animated, having a gun (albeit a cartoonish one) pointed at a child could instill heightened fears and anxieties that the child may not have experienced if the film were in 2D.

Again, great post. Thanks!

Hey Kyla,

Great post. I often wonder about the question you pose in your title. Maybe not so much about VR/AR, but in a more general sense: for how long will limited funding in the education sector hinder student achievement? It’s a good question for sure.

However, do you think VR/AR technology is ready for the education sector? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of implementing technology in classrooms! And I certainly think that, one day, VR/AR will be able to help all students, especially students with disabilities, develop critical life skills; but I wonder whether the VR/AR technology exists to justify its currently high costs.

On a personal note, a few years back, I taught in a classroom of students who were behind grade level. While in many respects we were under-resourced (not every child could have a math book), the school qualified for a significant amount of government funding each year, and a large portion of this funding went towards experimenting with new technologies in the classroom. I had a smart board, which was super high tech (at least, I thought so!).

Yet, while the technology was advanced, I can’t say it helped students learn better or even that it helped me teach that much more effectively. Actually, I would have rather the school allocate less money towards new technology and more money towards books. 🙂

There are just so many fundamental issues with education in the US that I wonder how much of them are attributed to not enough technology and/or can be solved by the implementation of new technology. If schools were to focus on implementing AR/VR in the classroom, in much the same way the high school I taught at focused on smart boards, would administrators and policy makers continue to forget that the biggest issue with our educational system is more fundamental than not having updated technology? Would getting access to fund technology such as AR/VR come at the cost of decreasing funding in other school budget line items? As the technology is today, with limited educational software and few piloted programs, is the value creation opportunity for AR/VR in education huge?

Just my two cents! Again, great post! 🙂

Hi LiDe! Thanks for your comment. In brief, yes, I do believe that WHOOP can become a health platform business, but I don’t think it will – at least not anytime soon.

First, WHOOP just released its second generation product a few months ago, and so data on the wearable’s health benefits (and, in general, the benefits of tracking HRV) are still coming in. Thus, even if the company wanted to say that the product reduces injury, it doesn’t yet have the data to back it up.

This runs into my second point. For WHOOP to be a healthcare platform, it needs to be certain that the device really does lead to health benefits. As you know, there are so many factors that go into people’s health – people’s diet, stress levels, environmental conditions, etc. How much credit can WHOOP really take for preventing injury? There are a lot of legal risks that come with entering the healthcare industry, and I’m not certain WHOOP has the results to enter into the industry unscathed.

Thirdly, the company has so much momentum behind it in sports, that, for good or for bad, it’s going to be difficult to convince its team of 50-100 people to change its branding from anything outside of a wearable for athletes. After all, the MLB just approved wearables for in-game use.

I do think your instinct to broaden its customer base is a right one, however. If it makes you feel any better, in the past, the company has explored other verticals such as the military; thus, there may be hope that it will branch out.

Finally, love your idea about lowering the price of older generations and marketing the product to non-elite athletes. Do you think that doing so may cause some sports team to purchase the less expensive devices? If this happens, would it reduce WHOOP’s brand as the gold standard, super accurate product for serious athletes? Other things I wonder is if WHOOP even has the capacity (in terms of number of employees and capital) to focus on multiple brands and devices.

Hi Ophelia! As usual, very well-written and well done. 🙂 This is all very interesting, but I must admit – and pardon me for my frankness – that your post leaves a big cliff hanger: what were the results from the Copenhagen Business School-IBM big data laboratory?

I’m curious as to how much value was created from the big data laboratory. I can certainly see cost-savings resulting from the use of big data and analytics at the Roskilde Festival, but aside from that (cost-savings) what other value is created pertaining to “sustainability efforts”? Indeed, an argument can be made that reducing waste is one form of “value” being created, but how much does this matter? A lot of waste at concerts is probably generated by food items, but what matters more for convert venues, burrito wrappers or dollars created from selling wrapped burritos?

The big data laboratory was created in 2015. What changes were made to the festival due to the use of big data in 2016? How did data analytics improve the user experience at Roskilde?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Again, good job!

Hi Napur! Great post. I think what’s curious is that Netflix doesn’t do pilots, but I’m not so sure if that’s a function of its confidence in its data analytics or more due to a company philosophy. As you know, Netflix doesn’t do pilots because its research has shown that pilots are not an accurate indication of whether viewers will like a show; according to Netflix, it can take several episodes into a season before viewers become attached to a series. Thus, Netflix doesn’t do pilots because it believes viewers need access to a show’s entire season, and not necessarily because Netflix strongly believes viewers want to see a show on political drama. Netflix won’t pilot a show regardless of what the data suggests is a popular genre among viewers.

What are your thoughts? You obviously know much more than me!! I’m just basing my thoughts on this article http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-uses-pilots-to-test-its-original-shows-2016-2.

I also worked at Amazon this past summer and was/am fascinated by Amazon Video, which in contrast to Netflix, believes heavily in pilots. I would postulate (and welcome debate!) that Amazon Video collects similar information to Netflix. Despite this, Amazon Video believes that pilots provide useful data about customer feedback, and that testing and reiterating is a better way to get a strong overall ROI across multiple shows (it seems Netflix is more focused than Amazon on per show ROIs). How did you all view Amazon Video as a competitor? How did you view Amazon Video’s approach to using data? Very curious to hear what you think!

Hi Daniella! Very interesting post. Certainly, Next Big Sound has gained a lot of clout with the Billboard Top Hits. Part of the company’s success comes from all the data and analytics it gathers across multiple sources. However, I’m wondering to what effect Pandora’s acquisition of Next Big Sound in 2015 has had on the company. Has Next Big Sound been able to maintain the same level of independency from Pandora? I would imagine, with access to Pandora’s database, Next Big Sound is able to tap into much more information. How has Next Big Sound leveraged its closeness with Pandora? Have the algorithms gotten better (for instance, was there a noticeable improvement in Next Big Sound’s ability to predict the next Top Hits in 2016 compared to 2014)?

More generally, how has Next Big Sound changed due to it being acquired by Pandora?

Hey Ravneet- Great post, as usual! Did you design the logo? Clever, and well done. 🙂 As someone who finds himself shy to use the weights at the gym, I can definitely relate to a lot of the pain points that you had mentioned. I do wonder, though, if I would pay to find a stranger come with me to the gym over muster up the courage to ask one of my friends myself.

I also wonder how easy this model would be for competitors to enter. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a wonderful idea! I can just see someone creating a similar product/app and not charging anything for it. I guess then it would depend on how awesome your gym rats are. 🙂

It’s great your reimagining the gym-space and addressing one of the biggest pain points for gym newbies. For some reason, I have in mind a Tinder-like app whereby gym newbies can view profile information on a gym rat and then swipe left or right. Sounds like fun. Ha!

Hi Scott- Great post! To Bipul’s point, the value of the data on customer interest / demand that Lego receives from these contests is huge. Are you able to provide any examples of how Lego has used this data to support a shift in strategy? I’m sure the data is used, but it would be interesting to know one or two concrete examples, if any come top-of-mind.

Second, what’s important to the success of contest-based crowdsourcing tactics is that there are clear incentives, yes, but also that users feel the selection process is transparent and fair. Many companies launch contests and are unclear about what they’re looking for in a winning entry, but not Lego. It’s actually quite impressive how Lego specifies what it’s looking for in submissions along with mentioning how important each variable is. I think this says a lot about how intentional Lego is with each contest-entry. The company knows the information that it wants to get from customers for each contest, which I think speaks volumes to the company’s management. Would be interested to know from someone who has worked at Lego whether the company is as mission driven as it seems.

Lastly, these contests are a great way for Lego to crowdsource its marketing efforts! One of the contests I looked at wanted people to submit creations “using stop-motion animation”. What a fun way to ask people to do part of your commercials. I wonder if the company has calculated the cost-savings this type of crowdsourcing generates for its marketing department.

Hi Natalie!

Great post! I hadn’t thought about the fact that Netflix doesn’t actually do previews. I read the source you referenced — very interesting. A key difference between viewing shows on Netflix versus on the TV is that when you view shows online, you get to view the entire collection! If the shows were on broadcast, you would have to wait at least a week to watch the next episode. It’s almost as if it’s easier to forgive one or two bad shows in a season on Netflix because you can simply keep watching the shows one after the other. Now that I think of it, Netflix’s strategy is pretty brilliant. Netflix seems to understand that some shows take longer than others to get people “hooked”. At the same time, I can see how Netflix’s strategy can be financially risky. I wonder if, by offering pilots, Amazon’s average cost to produce is noticeably lower than Netflix’s.

Second, I didn’t know about Amazon Preview. I wonder Amazon selects who gets to participate in this program.

Interesting post! Regarding the final point, my initial reaction is that you can never have too many users on these apps. 🙂 In fact, I think that Tinder has so many users over its competitors is a competitive advantage. But I wonder what the data says. I would guess Tinder has the most active users, but how many times more than, say, Hinge, okCupid, or eHarmony? Although I do agree with you that the Tinder’s competitors are trying to differentiate themselves in two ways: (1) emphasize people’s personalities over their pictures and (2) question the integrity behind Tinder’s emphasis on pictures over other qualities such as one’s personality. You definitely nailed it on the head when you mentioned that swiping on Tinder has now become a mindless activity that people do when they’re bored. Consequently, the objectification of people is a big moral dilemma Tinder may, or may not, choose to address in the future.

Also, I appreciated the history behind Tinder! I remember a few years ago when there was a very uncool, negative stigma around online dating apps. Fast forward to today, and it’s become the new norm! I was surprised to see this change in perception and social behavior after coming back from living abroad in Mali and Cameroon (where there was no Tinder) for three years. But now it makes a lot of sense. Tinder went after the “cool crowd,” much like Facebook did in the early days.

Lastly, I wonder how the algorithms differ across dating apps. Is one superior than another? For Tinder, one you swipe right, do you immediately pop up at the top of the list of the person for whom you swiped right? Or, does Tinder intentionally reserve some of these profiles for later (such as one or two weeks) to keep users engaged and increase the user life spans? Does Tinder save a certain number of profiles that you swipe right to for a boost, such that if people pay for a boost, it may be easier and quick for Tinder to find that person a match (thereby justifying the user’s boost purchase)?

Sorry for the duplicate posts! There was a glitch in which I was receiving an error that I had already posted but I couldn’t see my post. So I changed the last bit a little (added an emotion, lol) as a workaround. Come to find out, I really did post something before; there was just a bit of a delay.

Great post! To the last point regarding conflict with app stores, I wonder of Tapjoy is finding a workaround, or whether the result of apps taking in Tapjoy is due to the company’s strategy to target apps that are already top features. With so many top apps that have yet to have a monetization strategy, I would think these would be perfect customers for Tapjoy!

Also, what’s to stop developers from reaching out to advertisers themselves? It seems that Tapjoy would be great for apps that are just starting out, but for mature apps sitting on cash, wouldn’t these apps just develop the capabilities to advertise in-house? I don’t recall developers ever having problems finding enough brands to advertise on the platform, but I could be wrong! I thought that usually developers have to try to scale back on advertisements, fearing that too many advertisements may scare users away.

And just out of curiosity, do many dating apps use Tapjoy? The upgrade page across dating apps all appear to be similar, that when I read this post, it made me think that Tapjoy is behind them all. 🙂

Great post! To the last point regarding conflict with app stores, I wonder of Tapjoy is finding a workaround, or whether the result of apps taking in Tapjoy is due to the company’s strategy to target apps that are already top features. With so many top apps that have yet to have a monetization strategy, I would think these would be perfect customers for Tapjoy!

Also, what’s to stop developers from reaching out to advertisers themselves? It seems that Tapjoy would be great for apps that are just starting out, but for mature apps sitting on cash, wouldn’t these apps just develop the capabilities to advertise in-house? I don’t recall developers ever having problems finding enough brands to advertise on the platform, but I could be wrong! I thought that usually developers have to try to scale back on advertisements, fearing that too many advertisements may scare users away.

And just out of curiosity, do many dating apps use Tapjoy? The upgrade page across dating apps all appear to be similar, that when I read this post, it made me think that Tapjoy is behind them all.

Excellent job!

Wow- very interesting post, Kathy! Certainly, I have heard of WeChat, but I never knew of all its capabilities and functionalities. I wonder what WeChat’s relationship to the Chinese government is like. I would presume Tencent’s history and relationship with the Chinese government has helped fuel its success.

Also, I would definitely agree that WeChat’s “secret sauce” stems from its low-friction value capture model. The other day, I was purchasing an item on Amazon and remember thinking how the quick check-out process not only saved me time but also reduced the likelihood of me overthinking the purchase of an item. Consequently, I find myself much happier than before. In another instance, I found myself increasing my purchase of apps on Apple’s app store because of how quick and easy the process is to do so — you just verify your finger print!

I wonder what WeChat’s long-term strategy is. It seems that the company might be primed to have its own app store. If it does this, what’s to stop WeChat from going into hardware and developing its own smartphone?

Hi Sij (or Sijia?)- Very interesting. Gosh, that’s a really high rate! After writing this post, I guess it doesn’t surprise me that Pandora’s technology for advertisers underperformed / didn’t exist. After all, the company’s acquisition of Next Big Sound in 2015 suggests Pandora was in need of some serious help to develop tech that would better support marketers and advertisers. You would think that if you could build technology to predict music for users, you could also create solutions to measure ad efficacy. I’m wondering, though, how better marketing technology would have brought in more revenue. Since Pandora probably couldn’t have charged advertisers more, then the only way they could have increased revenue would have been to bring in higher volume — would free-tier Pandora users still have stuck around with more ads? Or, were you thinking Pandora could have upsold advertisers on different ad solutions (so not necessarily advertisements, but marketing analyses and reports)? Regardless, it’s amazing Pandora was able to get away with charging advertisers premium prices despite offering mediocre ad-based technology. Thanks again for sharing your experience at Tapulous. Very cool — would love to hear more about it!

Hi! Thanks so much for commenting. I wasn’t as fortunate as you were to get into SMICI, so I’m happy my post made some sense. 😉 Also, regarding your thoughts about Pandora not leveraging its data to create value for its concert-ticketing platform, I also wonder the same. I mentioned a few of my thoughts toward the end of my reply to Ian, but in essence, what the heck is Pandora doing with Next Big Sound, the music industry-focused data analytic company that it acquired in 2015?! Of course, they must be doing SOMETHING, but from an outsider’s perspective, it’s really hard to see. Thanks again for offering your insights from SMICI and validating my analysis!

Hi Hao- TERRIFIC. I loved your example, because as I was writing my post, I wondered if focusing on capturing value from free-tier users at the expense of creating value to paid-subs could ever be a winning strategy. In addition to your excellent example, there’s Facebook to think about too. How is Facebook able to capture value from advertisers and yet create so much value to users, who pay absolutely nothing. I thought that competition could play a role in thinking about a winning business model focused on free-tier users. That is, if a competitor to FB could offer a better social network experience (so, better technology) and monetize on it, then FB would be compelled to focus on how to capture value from paid users. If it continued to focus on free-tier users, then like Pandora it would lose focus on the fact its technology wasn’t as great as its competitor.

Maybe competition is a factor, but I think your idea about network effects is MUCH more compelling, and I like it a lot. Thanks for sharing your comment!

Hi Alex- Sorry for the late response. I loved your questions and just wanted to get back to you. As changeme_43 commented, Spotify’s revenue has always been driven by paid-subs. Here’s the information I was using: https://www.statista.com/statistics/245125/revenue-distribution-of-spotify-by-segment/. Also, sorry if it was not clear from the post, but I definitely think the main flaw underlying Pandora’s BM is its technology. At the same time, I am not so sure we can fault them for making bold bets on internet-radio. They entered into the market a few years before Spotify launched in the US, so it’s not as if on-demand music was a big deal then (at least not in the US). What I meant in my post was that Pandora’s focus on generating revenue to support free-tier users distracted them from realizing that, as you pointed out, their technology may not be creating as much value to customers as they originally thought it would. I think if Pandora focused on capturing more value from paid-subs (as Spotify does) they would have quickly noticed their technology wasn’t good enough to get people to pay. However, it seemed they made a bet on the free-tier, and by doing so, lost sight of what really drives their BM (the technology). Interestingly, they are just realizing that on-demand streaming may be the way to go. The company announced in December that they will be launching an on-demand product, Pandora Premium, to go head-to-head against Spotify Premium very soon (couldn’t they have been at least a little more creative with the name?). In case you’re interested, here’s the teaser: http://blog.pandora.com/us/coming-soon-pandora-premium/

Oh, and to directly respond to your last question about MGP, I don’t think it was a waste of time. Again, Spotify didn’t come into the market with on-demand music streaming until a little later, so I can’t fault Pandora for gunning after internet-radio if they didn’t even know there could be an alternative solution. At that time, using analytics to predict what customers want to listen to was really innovative! In fact, even today, I’d say Pandora’s algorithm is better than the one Spotify uses for their “Discover Weekly” feature or Stations (although, I must say, I’m a big fan of Discover Weekly — because when Spotify gets the playlist right, boy do they get it right!). Also, I want to confess that I’m not entirely convinced Pandora is going to go completely away. Their technology has been good enough to keep around a good number of users for while. If they can leverage the expertise that they’ve gained over the past several years, as well as their knowledge about customers, they may just have an amazing on-demand product — maybe Pandora Premium is just what the company needs to convert free-tier users to paid-subs. It should be interesting to see if Pandora will create a separate freemium model for its on-demand product, of if it intends to use their freemium model for internet-radio to upsell individuals on Pandora Premium.

Ian- First and foremost, excellent job writing your post and presenting in class. I really enjoyed learning about Trump’s digital strategy today. Regarding your comment, I totally agree — I’m surprised Pandora hasn’t done more with their TicketFly and Next Big Sound acquisitions. You probably know this, but Next Big Sound is a data analytics company that focuses specifically on the music industry. I don’t think it was coincidence that Pandora acquired a concert-ticketing company and a data analytics company at the same time, so I think they were on the same wave-length as you to carry-out some sort of vertical integration strategy in the live music space. The fact that they haven’t been able to put all the pieces together gives me pause about the company’s management and internal processes.

Hi Annie,

Wonderful post. Well done! The mozzarella sticks at the end made me hungry… 🙂

I think you’re on to something when you write, “perhaps they should be focusing more on partnering with studios to creating exclusive, first-look, premium digital delivery platforms”. Do you mean work with studios to create something like a Netflix service, but for new movie releases? If so, that’s an interesting concept! But what would stop studios from simply working with platforms that already exist (e.g. Netflix or Amazon)?

Also, while I love the idea of AMC focusing on “architectural innovation”, I wonder if there is still hope to revive the theater-going experience. The biggest inhibitor to going to the theaters, for me, is the price – it’s so expensive these days! I feel like my grandparents in thinking, “I remember when you could see a matinee for $5”. Those were the days. Anyways, what if the seats were cushy, spread out, and you could dine-in, AND the tickets were $7.50. Would you still not go to the theatres? Just wondering!

Hi Opheliac–

First, this is beautifully written. You certainly have a way with words. I also love the pseudonym. Very clever, and gives me ideas.

Now, about Legendary…

The idea of a “Moneyball for Hollywood” SOUNDS great, but at the same time, I wonder how many more of these marketing / data analytic companies the world really needs. Many organizations, large and small, now have their own internal analytic teams, and externally, you have everything from large consultancies to small boutique analytic companies that I’m sure have more than enough data to play around with.

Not only do I think the market is oversaturated with marketing / data analytic companies (this is purely speculative; I could be wrong!), but with the internet and open source platforms, I also think there already exists so much public data that companies either don’t know about or simply overlook.

I would like to see companies get more creative with the wealth of information that’s already out there, and I would like to see companies stop thinking about breadth (“let’s just get as much information as we can and then figure out what to do with it!”) and more about depth.

I thought that was the way LAA was going, until I read the part in your blog post about expanding the organization’s capabilities to carmakers and politicians.

Interesting how you can be so positive about LAA’s future. As a division of Legendary Entertainment, I suppose it won’t be going anywhere anytime soon. But if it were a standalone entity, would you still consider it a winner? And does scaling really enhance LAA’s value proposition? That is, does expanding LAA’s capabilities beyond entertainment differentiate it more or less from other data analytic organizations?

Excellent post— Price, no clear pain point, long replacement cycle, and technological fragmentation… I think these are all great reasons why Nest is having difficulties crossing the chasm. But I really wonder how much of Nest’s problems is attributed to the above versus its go-to-market strategy. You alluded to this at the end of your post, so it will be interesting to see what changes the company makes.

I just remember seeing these thermostats all too well in the store and advertised everywhere on TV. I think Google really went all out in pitching the product to consumers! But, as you had mentioned, there’s not really a pain point for thermostats – I can’t think of ANYONE who has ever thought, “yeah, I need to replace my THERMOSTAT some day”. So, to me, it seemed like a waste of dollars for Google to market to customers in the first place. My first instinct would be to target first home buyers; since this is such a niche market, I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to go B2B.

Of course, hindsight is always 20 / 20. I just wonder what Google’s thought process really was when they decided to advertise Nest like crazy. Surely they didn’t think mass market adopters would fly out of their homes for these things… (or did they?) 🙂

Edit:

“CONCLUSION

Pandora’s business model is attractive to free-tier users such as my brother, but underlying the model may not be a technology that’s good enough to convert free-tier users into paying subscribers. Spotify, however, focuses on creating value for paying customers, and in doing so, is able to offer individuals an incredible app with all the music that I love whenever I want it.”