Yelp is Looking For Buyers

In reading the daily update on Stratechery by Ben Thompson, which I highly recommend, he discusses Yelp being on the market.  Yelp is definitely underperforming compared to other social network advertising platforms.  Their revenue is very small, $377 million in 2014 and the growth is not as large as it needs to be for a corporation the size of Yelp.  

What strikes me as interesting in the case of Yelp is their strategy.  Yesterday I commented on an article about strategy and how to assess if your strategy is valid.  I believe Yelp has a strategy that is destined to fail.  Yelp is running the same strategy as the market leaders, which is as an advertising platform.  

The issue I see with their strategy is it is not differentiated.  In fact, their offering is worse than the market leaders when it comes to their ad product.  One may argue their product is differentiated because if a customer is searching for example Mexican Restaurants, then as a Mexican Restaurant it can't get more targeted than an ad for someone looking for that kind of food in a small geographical area.  The problem with this is customers aren't looking for ads on Yelp, they are looking for advice.  An ad is the opposite of what they desire.

 I frequently hear in the tech community that Twitter doesn't understand its product.  They want the product to be something other than what it is.  I fear Yelp may be in the same boat.  Yelp is an aggregator of reviews, they are the trusted source of "where should I eat".  That trust comes from customers reviews.  

elp has the opportunity to differentiate their business.  Their strategy should be the opposite of the strengths of Google and Facebook.  

Loyalty

Yelp has a loyal customer base, however they do not take advantage of this.  Their product has not really changed much since its inception, especially in mobile.  With the advent of technologies, such as beacons, it surprises me that Yelp hasn't taken advantage of its loyal base and struck up deals with local businesses to do a loyalty program with Yelp.  Businesses rely on having great Yelp reviews and this can be parlayed into some kind of loyalty program with a beacon backbone that would identify if a customer was at the business and how much was spent using new location aware technologies.

Recommendation Engine

Because of the amount of data Yelp has it is surprising they haven't developed a more intuitive recommendation engine.  I am always looking for places that I would enjoy and it would be nice if an app told me where I should go and what I should order or what services I should buy.  Yelp is in such a unique position to deliver this.  

I believe they have the ability to enhance their product by allowing customers to rate something without writing a review.  This is something that doesn't have to count to the external rating of the restaurant, but as a means to gather likes of an individual.  This is easy and more customers would rate the businesses in turn.  They can then use this information to have the ultimate "lookalike" recommendation engine.  This is far more powerful than anything Google or Facebook can do.

Targeted Ads and Data

With this lookalike system in place, Yelp can then sell back to the businesses in the form of ads and data.  Since they will have information on all the buyers who are interacting with Yelp, not just the people who take the time to write a review, Yelp can then sell all the information about the customers back to the businesses for a fee.  The ads can then become more targeted because advertisers can get on the home screen of the app with a customer that is highly likely to enjoy the businesses offerings.  As customers see the recommendations are more accurate and they enjoy the businesses experiences, they will end up buying more items through Yelp advertising because of the accuracy.  This will drive higher ad prices for Yelp and bigger returns for the business as they can attract customers that will become more loyal.

I would love the opportunity to innovate at Yelp.  They are in such a unique position to do something different, but they are building the exact same monetary offerings as their competition.  The problem is they don't have the scale.  Just like Twitter, they have to be better and more accurate with their advertising.  This will drive advertising dollars their way because it is more efficient spend and that is what advertisers are looking to achieve.

Customer Experience Focused Company? Focus on Design

I was just reading Ben Thompson's latest member post regarding Cyanogen in India.  On a side note, if you don't subscribe to the daily update, it is worth every penny, great insights.  Anyway, he mentions how Cyanogen is focused on engineering around Android so they don't have to be reliant on Google.  Thompson then went on to say the engineering solution is not focused on the customer experience, so it will have a hard time competing in the consumer market.

This got me thinking about the different kinds of companies there are and to dominate in the consumer space, what should a company be driven by to succeed.  I'm sure I'm missing different types of companies, so feel free to let me know if I missed any, but there are a few different types of companies that come to mind:

• Engineering driven companies
• Sales driven companies
• Marketing driven companies
• Financial driven companies
• Design driven companies

I contend the design driven company is the only company that can truly have long-term success in the consumer market.  The design driven company can beat low-cost competitors and drive sustainable profits.  This is the Apple story.

Engineering Driven Companies

These companies are engineer focused.  They look at the world through all the cool stuff they can build, whether it be technology or buildings, the engineer rules the roost in this company.  The problem with the engineering focused companies is they forget the customer experience and focus on the technology.  The need to create something cool outweighs the need to solve a problem.  Samsung fell into this trap with the Galaxy's, especially 4 and 5.  

By not first looking at the customer experience and then trying to solve the customers problems, a company will create cool technology and then try to fit a customer experience around the cool technology.  This will not have sustainability in the consumer space.  The mass consumer will be confused by the technology and get frustrated with the experience.  Eventually that consumer will choose to churn and choose another product that focuses more on their experiences rather than cool technology.

Sales Driven Companies

These companies are focused on making the next sale.  They look at the world through the need to solve the next customers problem, not the customer experience.  A sales driven organization tends to try to be everything to everyone, and we all know how that story ends.  The need to sell the most and constantly focusing on acquisition drives companies to lose focus on retaining customers.  Microsoft was led by a salesperson for many years and while they had success for many of those, they were disrupted many times over.    

By focusing on selling the most of something, the customer experience becomes muddled.  To serve many masters, a company must focus on creating many different experiences at many different price points for the customer.  This creates no expertise in one area and allows for disruption to come from all angles.  Focus is the key to customer experience and the sales driven company has a hard time selling when everyone is not their customer.  When the focus is on the customer experience, a company can acquire and retain at the same time

Marketing Driven Companies

These companies are focused on making the company well known.  They look at the world through their message.  They focus their time to try and get someone to buy a product or position themselves in the minds of the consumer through advertising and social media.  The infatuation with their own creativity and messaging tends to put the focus on the company, not on the customer experience.

By focusing on branding and messaging, the customer experience becomes secondary.  The metrics of this company is awareness and likes, instead of on customer satisfaction and experience.  The marketing company believes they can convince anyone to buy and the power of the brand will hide all sins.  Customers in the long run will not be loyal to the brand if the experience is not up to par.  They may want to stay with the brand, but they will churn for the fact that being cool and hip is not satisfying their ultimate need for the best experience.

Financial Driven Companies

These companies focus on making as much money for their shareholders as possible.  They look at the world through profits and cash flows, leaving the customer as a means to an end for those metrics.  The desire to make the most money trumps the customer experience in all cases, unless there is a clear-cut ROI for that experience.  These companies get uncomfortable with words like experience, because it can't necessarily be measured or used to create a proforma.  

By focusing on profits, the customer experience tends to fall off in favor of saving expenses.  This company will question R&D and figure out ways to save money now, while sacrificing the future of the company.  Wall Street may like the short term gains of focusing on profits, but when the customer experience erodes and the customers start to churn 3-5 years down the line, it then becomes a marketing or product issue.  These may be the least sustainable businesses in the long run.

Design Driven Companies

These companies focus on the design of what they are producing.  They look at the world through solving problems.  The desire to take a customer experience and make it better trumps profits and sales.  The belief in a design driven company is that if the customer experience is better than all others, the profits and sales will follow. Design is how it works, not just how it looks.  

I used to think that Apple was a marketing company.  Of course I did, I was a marketer and Steve Jobs would get up on stage and do great keynotes and their advertising was second to none.  They had to be a marketing company.  If they were just a marketing company, then they would have already been disrupted.  The iPhone would not be a dominate player and they would be a niche product company with nice profits.  

The fact Apple is a design company has kept them from being disrupted.  Their products are designed with the customer experience at the forefront.  Being able to pay for something without having to pull out your wallet with the touch of your finger is a simple solution.  That solution is not coming from a space of engineering, it is coming from a space of design.  Apple looked at the problem and designed a solution that was easy for the customer to use and that is why people use Apple Pay, otherwise Google would have already been the owner of the space because they were first.

When a company is design focused they don't have to be first.  These companies want to truly solve customer problems, not be fast to market.  If the design company can't solve a problem, they won't enter that market.  A design company will be long-lasting and survive into the future because they care about the people paying money to use their products and services.  Those products and services are designed for the customers they serve, not to take advantage of a need of the customer, but to truly solve their problems.  That is true design.   

Microsoft Is The New Google, Google Is The Old Microsoft

Very interesting article which has great points.  History has a funny way of repeating itself, even though companies made it to the top by being different from the competitors they dethroned.  How do companies become the very thing they more than likely mocked years before?  I think the pressures of Wall Street and investors drive conservatism.  Companies have to be true to themselves and keep that spunk as they become market leaders.  Apple seems to be one of the only companies that do this, however that was Steve Jobs, will Tim Cook be able to kill the iPhone when the time comes?   

For Google the good news is it still has plenty of time to wise up. Microsoft is fighting from a long way back and Search, Adsense, Android, Google Maps and Gmail market positions aren’t going to be troubled any time soon. But it does beg the bigger question: does Google in its arrogance even realise it has a problem? After all it took Microsoft a decade…

Instagram and Youtube

People aren’t using Instagram for photos, WhatsApp for text, Line for stickers... they’re using everything for everything.

Seems to be dominated by the younger audience.  I look at my younger cousins and see their behavior with the apps.  They post and interact with many different social networks.  Not my cup of tea as much, but I use Twitter for most of my social network interaction, I post photos on both Instagram and Facebook so the family can see what's going on.  I use Linked In for business.

Is FB going to buy Whatsapp, Snapchat, Line, Kakao and the next ten that emerge as well? Sure, some of those will disappear, but it doesn't look like FB will crush the competitors the way it did on the desktop. On mobile, FB will be just one of many. 

I think this is the interesting thing about mobile also.  It is much harder to dominate like the desktop.  Moving between apps is so much easier than going back and forth between websites.  I think this is why the Chromebook is a flawed strategy.

Pricing and Apple

A lot has been made about pricing after this weeks event.  I saw three different groups of controversies this week, two involving Apple and one involving Tweetbot.  I think all three are interesting case studies in pricing in the hardware and software section.   

The iPad pricing was the most controversial thing coming out of the event.  Again it stems from every industry pundit wanting Apple to price their products to maximize market share.  Apple isn't in the business of maximizing market share, they are in the business of creating the best products and having quality over quantity.  As John Gruber stated this week:

As for pricing overall, I think concerns that iPads are “too expensive” are overblown. The same was said last year, and the year before that. The tech and business press frequently compare iPads’ prices and specs to those of high-end Android-based competitors — from Samsung, Google, and Amazon — and find the iPads lacking. How many pieces were written last year arguing that the iPad Mini, with its non-retina display and $329 starting price, was incongruously overpriced compared to Nexus and Kindle Fire devices with retina-caliber pixel densities and prices under (sometimes well under) $300?

But where these comparisons go awry is when they are conflated with tablet market share numbers showing Android devices, as a whole, making significant gains. As Benedict Evans argued this week, the rise in Android tablet sales has not been driven by the high-end would-be-iPad-competitors from Amazon, Google, and Samsung, but by profoundly cheap “$75-$150 black generic Chinese Android tablets” that are seemingly used primarily for video consumption. Evans calls them “the featurephones of tablets”, and argues they compete with televisions just as much, if not more, as they do with iPads.

The iPad does not have competition in the way that the iPhone does. Tens of millions of people use high-end Android phones — largely Samsung’s — in much the same way iPhone users use theirs. There just aren’t that many people — yet? — using Kindle Fires, Galaxy Tabs, Nexuses, or Surfaces as alternatives to the iPad. Thus the massive discrepancies between the iPad’smarket share and usage share numbers.

As John argues, even the market share argument is not a fair one compared to phones or PC's.  The Android tablets eating the market share of the iPad are not customers that Apple is interested in serving.  Apple is interested in customers that interact with their devices in meaningful ways; browsing the internet, purchasing legal content, listening to music, playing games.  Apple is not interested in customers that only browse YouTube or watch bootlegged movies.  These are not customers who will continually buy high-end Apple products, purchase apps to stay in the ecosystem.  These customers will also cost much more to service.  The hidden secret behind Apple's success is their service through the Apple stores.  Imagine even more customers coming through that channel.  Apple is building a high-end experience from purchase to consumption to service.   

The iPad also hasn't shown that it needs to come down in price.  Would I like an iPad mini retina for $329?  Yes I would, more than $399.  Is that $70 going to change my buying decision?  Nope.  What I am debating is the same thing John Gruber is debating in his article, which one to buy?  Or maybe both with T-Mobiles new pricing plan for cellular versions of these iPads.  

The second big pricing move from Apple is software pricing.  Where as the hardware pricing is being criticized, the software pricing is being applauded.  Everyone is saying it's an attack on Microsoft.  Look out Google.  

I look at it as a couple of different strategies at play.  First and foremost I believe it is a retention play on the part of Apple.  So much is made of their ecosystem in iOS and now I believe it just adds to that arsenal onto the Mac as well.  If all the software is free in the Mac ecosystem, then it makes the purchase price of a Mac more palatable.  It also prevents customers from jumping ship onto the PC.  The iPad also becomes a creation device on par with a PC.  And for free!  

The second part of this strategy is innovation.  When the customer base is moving ahead with Apple, the newest innovations in software are propagated throughout the ecosystem and everyone is using and showing it off.  This also makes for a compelling reason to choose Apple first for developers.  If the Mac can have the upgrade cycle that is seen in iOS, developers will be able to move their software forward without worrying about backward compatibility.  

The last big pricing controversy is Tweetbot.  They released their popular twitter client for the iPhone this week and they created a whole new app and charged for it.  Of course the world is a worse place because of this.  Someone had to forego their coffee at that price.  

Why has the world forgot the software model just a few short years ago.  You bought a piece of software, the next year a new version would come out, you would go to the store and buy a whole new version of the software.  Oh ya, this cost $50 every year.  If you didn't perceive the version was worth the new price, you forego the years version and kept using the old version.  This is what the market should be. 

So much is made of free software these days.  The problem is this ruins the business for many independent developers because they are playing a different game than the people offering free software.  The free software providers are either trying to be purchased by Google or Facebook, or they are the Apples and Googles of the world and these companies are using the software as a "loss leader" or a strategy to sell more hardware or advertising.  

I believe more developers should take the Tweetbot approach in the App stores.  Charge for new software every year, it's only a few dollars now.  This approach is much better than the freemium model pervasive now.  It also makes developers make the product they have a passion for much better.  If Tweetbot and others continue to give out free upgrades, these products become worse over time.  Why?  There are a set number of hours in a day.  Those hours have to be spent on something that will return on the time investment.  If Tweetbot never brings in more revenue, it doesn't make sense to spend time working on it, so it becomes stagnant.  Under the Tweetbot model, it makes sense to work on Tweetbot because that innovation can produce revenue in the future, which is why they are in business.  Hopefully more software developers start charging more often for their software and we see even more innovation in return.

Google, destroyer of ecosystems

The truth is this: Google destroyed the RSS feed reader ecosystem with a subsidized product, stifling its competitors and killing innovation. It then neglected Google Reader itself for years, after it had effectively become the only player. Today it does further damage by buggering up the already beleaguered links between publishers and readers. It would have been better for the Internet if Reader had never been at all.

I think the conversation here is what free does to ecosystems.  When businesses as big as google offer free services, they are killing the value of said services.  When the value of a service is perceived to be 0, it effectively puts everyone out of business who has to make money from a similar service.  Then, because a big company is making no money from the service and every company eventually starts looking for ways to improve bottom-line, they cut the service because it is nothing but a cost.​

I think we see this with the tablet market, even though tablets are being sold and not given away for free, they are being sold at a loss to gain market share.  Eventually that devalues the market for tablets and nobody wins.  The tablet makers who have the market share eventually get tired of selling at a loss and stop innovating and the tablet makers making money will get out of the business because they can't compete.  Of course Apple is more than likely the anomaly in this situation.​

Content providers on the internet already went through this.  They have now seen giving content away for free has devalued the content and trying to charge after the fact remains difficult to say the least.  ​

In my humble opinion I would like to see businesses compete on innovation instead of price (or lack of price).  In this case, everyone wins.  The best services, products and content survive and the companies that are producing them will be around for a long time because they are making profits.  Everybody wins.  Good for the customer, good for the business.

Amazon profits: They don't exist, but the company keeps on keeping on.

I totally agree with this article.  Companies like Amazon and Google are ruining innovation and stifling competition.  If they are going to compete in many markets at a loss, it prevents many other companies from entering the space because they can't compete and make a profit.  

I still don't understand the fascination with market share.  Market share without profit is meaningless.  The theory with Amazon is eventually they'll be able to bring some of that massive top-line to the bottom, but can they really?  Are customers loyal to Amazon or the price?  If they try to get more margin will they keep the business or have they just trained their customers to expect the service and goods at a discounted price and wait until they get it?  

It's about time Wall Street and bloggers start rewarding companies that make money and are growing longterm sustainable business models, instead of focusing on market share and number of non-paying customers a company acquires.  

Will Apple Repeat The Most Dangerous Strategic Mistake Leaders of Fast Growing Corporation Can Make? - Forbes

It amazes me how many companies, even Forbes, use Apple to grab headlines.  This article is about nothing.  The two arguments being used are litigation and switching maps?  Let me elaborate for a minute on each:​

The litigation against Samsung are a necessary evil.  Nowhere does the article mention that Apple was asking Samsung for license agreements pretrial.  ​Apple should defend their innovation, else we will get the refrigerator market, where every piece looks exactly the same and does the same thing.  This is good for consumers because manufacturers only compete on price, however in the long run it is terrible for consumers because innovation is non-existent.

The maps debate is getting old.  Apple had to make a move away from Google because of turn-by-turn navigation.  It was an easy talking point for Apple competitors.  Apple will now be allowed to innovate in the maps arena which should allow for greater maps from Apple and Google in the future.  This will be so much better for the consumer.  ​

In both these cases Apple is not making the mistake of these other companies.  Apple is looking out for the customer by allowing innovation and making it expensive to copy instead of innovate.  Both will lead to better customer experiences as time passes.​