Family, Friends & Fools

About technology, business & management issues..

  In the world of personal finance there is the concept of  FFF (Family, Friends &Fools) as initial funding source for anyone wishing to start a business or develop a project that will generate some wealth in a given time.

Interestingly, both in consolidated markets, such as the American or European who have developed  powerful stock markets and where, until recently,  had more than enough capital to risk. However, borrowing  money or finance your ideas with your parents, friends or any known, without fear of taking risks, remained the first choice of financing.

The reasons? Just the emotional factor plays a crucial role here. Family and friends are people who might be interested in developing your personal aspirations(especially your family) while friends see an opportunity to solidify your relationship as they could, tentatively, to have some sort of benefit. In either case a third party (fool) would be more interested in the factor of the potential financial rewards that helping you develop your personal desires.

However, it is the easiest way, without bureaucracy, without many formalities to access a modest amount of capital to start your business.

As with any risky investment, the latter could jeopardize your relationship with your family and friends in case things do not go well. You have to remember more than 80% of businesses do not survive beyond 4 or 5 years. Over 50% you will not have a higher life beyond 12 months.

In any case, any relationship will invariably be modified by entering the factor of money into the equaton.

Have to think twice if the journey is the reward after all.

www.clarensyst.com.mx

Feedback.

About technology, business & management issues..

      Last week  we started with the final testing in our web application named Carleon  which has been developed and will be part  of Clarensyst´s core Every.Cloud portal that will include some tools designed especially for the SME market in Mexico.

Consciously the web app was sent to multiple end users whose status ranged from friends, work colleagues, IT industry professionals, lawyers, vendors and ending with CEOs of construction and real estate companies.

As expected feedback has been mostly valuable because it allows us to understand how an end user can prejudice a tool based on their professional background and the objective that the user thinks that the tool should pursue.

We could classify the feedback in several categories, but the simplest is to group it like this:

a) Feedback  based on functionality.

Users who have previous experience on web apps relatively easily found the tool simple & intuitive to use. Although they suggested improvements they also had no trouble understanding its functionality. By contrast, users who are not related to this market found it hard to manage it

This is a clear example that you cannot design tools to serve "all the people all the time."

b) Users who are related to the industry quickly suggested improvements as to the information captured by the tool as it is  better deployed.

In this case the feedback is not based on the tool´s functionality but rather on the added value  perceived by users based on the  quality of the information managed by it.

As an example one could say that a salesman only needs to "monitor" the process of selling as systematic and simple as it should be but a lawyer would be more satisfied if the tool allows him to check out all the paperwork included in a closing sale.

In the end, as the old saying goes “one cannot meet the needs of everyone on the first try”. As a new-born baby, the tool provides an approach, a philosophy, an idea of ​​how to do things.

The problem is that whether or not this idea seems good enough for many people.

www.clarensyst.com.mx

Freemium.

About technology, business & management issues..

     Since the early eighties software developers began to look for ways to efficiently cover marketing and production costs for products and services delivered.

In those years it was easy to obtain “free” copies of computer games or basic-purposed enterprise software. The same companies "gave away" these copies as a way to advertise their products to their customers in hopes of them for eventually buying the "official" versions and thus generate relevant income for the company.

With the advent of the internet and specifically with the Web 2.0, this particular business model has started to rise again through the suppliers of products and technology services. Since the cost of generating these technology products is considered negligible compared to manufactured goods, technology gurus like Chris Anderson and Tom Evslin argued the benefits of it.

Specifically targeted for technology products, the model proposes, for example,  to develop business software deployed through a platform that could be used by hundreds of thousands of users (economies of scale), this software will have basic functionality that users can used without any problem.

In theory this approach will allow the adoption of the service / product by thousands of users without need to invest in expensive marketing campaigns and relying heavily on word of mouth advertising.

Eventually, as the user adoption was complete, it could offer an improvement (upgrade) in the service or functionality of the platform. The difference is that now, this upgrade would cost for the user. This service would be able to generate income.

It is easy to imagine and understand this model if you think of LinkedIn, the social network that brings together the professional profiles of millions of users around the world.

However, the model has its critics who emphasize the feasibility of opting for this type of model, in which high costs are incurred early in hopes of generating income in the long term. There are many venture capitalists who prefer a model scheme that focuses on generating revenue as quickly as possible.

Whatever the case, the model is here to stay. At least until the cycle of Web 2.0 comes to an end and the model has to reinvent itself.

Crossing the Chasm.

About technology, business & management issues..

    A few years ago Everett Rogers coined  the term "diffusion of innovations" which  has been much studied and debated over time to determine the stages of adoption of new technology, whether it is a business model, a gadget or  enterprise software.

In his book "Crossing the Chasm", George Moore discussed more in detail the ideas originally proposed by Rogers. Moore in this analysis focuses particularly in the point between the early adopters (enthusiasts) and the early Majority (pragmatists).According to Moore there is a space (gap) that most of the products or services does not seem to overcome frequently. Moore calls this gap as a chasm which is needed to successfully cross the product is adopted by a majority of potential users.

Unlike Everett, Moore proposes techniques and strategies to try to cross this threshold successfully. In fact the techniques are more focused on proper marketing, in this sense the theoretical framework of the 4 P `s (Price, Product, Positioning and Promotion) is totally admissible to achieve what you want to try to get an adoption of the public mainstream.

However, where  Moore´s suggestions to focus is on selecting a specific niche in which to apply these strategies. As Jason Fried of 37signals say people cannot develop products "to meet all possible needs" and ending with "not a product at all".

It is curious that this point is ignored all the time. No successful business or technology guru has ever first recommended not to launch the product / service aimed at a particular  niche market. This will allow you valuable feedback, so you can correct errors and provide better service to your customers in a particular market.

Time will tell whether the product will go to a more horizontal market and can be adopted by thousands of people. What is a fact that it is better to cross a relatively small gap to try to cross many chasms at the same time.

www.clarensyst.com.mx