Country and western singing ruled at the 10th American Idol television series this year. Sweet-faced Southern belle Lauren Alaina gracefully bowed out as 17-year-old baritone and Southern gentleman Scotty McCreery walked away with the honors for this season’s American Idol singing competition. Strangely enough, Twitter predicted the winner in an unexpected way.
It’s called the “Twitter curse,” where the number of tweets about a contestant has an odd way of predicting that contestant’s likelihood of being voted off the show. Sure enough, as you can see in the graphic below, Lauren Alaina received significantly more tweets than Scotty McCreery leading up to tonight’s finale.
In fact, using data generated by social TV iPhone app Yap.TV Pulse for Idol, in each of the last four weeks of the competition, whichever singer received the highest number of tweets was sent home. Surprisingly, there was only one week this season where the Twitter front runner was not voted off the show.
Could it be that Twitter users tweet more about contestants they don’t like? Not necessarily. For instance, in the case of Pia Toscano, a popular contestant voted off the show in early April, tweets about her were mostly positive, according to Yap.TV reps.
But take another look at the graphic from Yap.TV, and you’ll see that while Alaina received more tweets, at the same time she garnered more negative and neutral tweets than Scotty McCreery.
Things were different at Facebook, where popularity among its users more accurately predicted tonight’s winner. McCreery’s Facebook page has garnered more “Likes” than Alaina’s, and the Los Angeles Timesreports that according to Mediabase, his song “I Love You This Big” has gotten more radio airplay.
COMMENTARY: American Idol 2011 had great talent, but it also had one big moment of controversy when in the biggest shocker on American Idol this season, the judges’ favorite (and the expected contestant to win) — James Durbin— was sent packing May 12. What went wrong?
James, 22, has been one of the most consistent contestants throughout season 10 and we had him pegged to go all the way through the end. Not only does he have the vocal talent of a rockstar, James won us over with his plight: he has both Asperger’s Syndrome AND Tourette’s … talk about beating the odds.
HollywoodLife.com‘s reporter, Russ Weakland, was in the audience during the live taping and said James handled his exit like a champ.
“The audience was booing the decision really loudly, but all James did was go over to Scotty and say, ‘You better win this; you have to win this…”
Russ added,
“This is when Scotty started balling and couldn’t control his emotions and was crying heavily.”
Here's a few videos of James Durbin performances on American Idol 2011. You be the judge who should've won.
James Durbin singing "Don't Stop Believing" by Steve Perry
James Durbin singing "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" by Carole King
There was also a whole lot of eye candy and booty shaking on the finale of American Idol 2011. When you have Beyonce and JLo on the same program, well you can just use your imagination. Here's what I am talking about:
Beyonce sings "1 + 1":
Jennifer Lopez shakes her booty while latin singer and husband Marc Anthony sings and watches. I read this morning that JLo was criticized by many parents whose kids were watching this spectacle.
Lady Gaga sings "Edge of Glory". I didn't like Lady Gaga's head dress and that blue lighting.
The girls of American Idol Finale 2011:
Scotty McCreery a.k.a "The Cabbage Patch Singer", is the winner of American Idol 2011. It's hard to believe just from looking at his boyish looks that he has that he possesses one incredible baritone voice. He's the closest thing to Tim McGraw. I am not a fan of country and western music with the exception of Garth Brooks who I loved dearly and sings at the Wynn Las Vegas. I can see why Scotty won. His future is secure and he will become famous. Here he is singing, "I Love You This Big", a wonderful C&W love ballad.
After listening to Lauren Aliana sing "Maybe It Was Mephis", I think she's the real deal and should've won. This young lady's voice remiunds me a lot of a real young Dolly Parton.
Here's the Fox video when they announce the winner and the post-show interviews of Scotty and Lauren.
Also performing on the American Idol 2011 finale were Carrie Underwood, Tim McGraw, Tony Bennett, Jack Black, TLC, Lil Jon, Judas Priest and that obnoxious Steven Tyler . IF you would like to watch those videios, click HERE.
I hope you enjoyed American Idole 2011 as much as I did.
Courtesy of an article dated May 25, 2011 appearing in Mashable
If the clean energy economy takes off, then access to rare earth metals needed for electric vehicle batteries and wind turbines is critical. And China is the primary source.
A new report, Pike Research’s “Rare Earth Metals in the Cleantech Industry,” examines some key issues related to the materials, which the Chinese appear to have a stranglehold on current world supply.
While segments of the clean energy industry object to trade practices that have led to a formal complaint before the World Trade Organization, the rare earth metals issues has gotten less attention. That may not be the case much longer, as demand for the materials is expected to skyrocket and access may be constrained.
China’s monopoly over the global rare earth metals market has come under increased international scrutiny following recent efforts on the part of the Chinese government aimed at consolidating its domestic rare earth metal industry. Accounting for 97 percent of worldwide rare earth metal production, China’s new export quotas, introduced in July 2010, have seen prices for rare earths skyrocket, the report says.
“The short term picture for rare earth metals in the clean technology industry will be characterized by a significant supply risk brought about by China’s strict new export quotas,” says research analyst Euan Sadden. “This will almost certainly influence the adoption and commercialization of certain technologies across the cleantech industry. That said, there are a number of positive initiatives that offer the potential for alleviation of this risk in the longer term.”
Rare earth metals have been identified as a troubling area of potential risk for a number of prominent clean energy technologies including wind turbines, electric vehicles, fuel cells, and energy efficient lighting.
According to the Pike Research report, demand for rare earths in the cleantech industry will reach 12,920 tons per year by 2017, up from approximately 9,000 tons annually in 2011, which could place an increased strain on global supply for these emerging applications.
Rare earth metals demand will be the highest for utilization in the manufacture of nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries for hybrid vehicles, followed by wind turbines. Among the eight rare earth metals covered in the study, Pike forecasts that by 2017 demand will be greatest for:
Yttrium - 6,088 tons annually
Cerium - 2,441 tons annually
Lanthanum - 1,867 tons annually
Others - The need for other rare earth metals such as neodymium, praseodymium, europium, terbium, and dysprosium will be somewhat smaller, but still significant portions of the overall mix.
Potential sources of alternative supplies do exist and markets are responding to the high price climate. Mining projects outside of China, like in Mountain pass, California, are coming online. Other companies, particularly in Japan, are exploring the viability of recycling rare earth materials and developing technologies that require less of them.
At any rate, the supply risks are real and the cleantech industry needs to find ways to respond.
COMMENTARY: I have no doubt that China has sinister designs on controlling rare earth metals for their economic benefit, and said so much in a blog post dated February 7, 2011. When I did the research on rare earth metals for that blog post, I could not believe what I was reading If you haven't read that post, I highly recommend it, so that you can draw your own conclusions.
I believe that you can only come one conclusion--economic blackmail--a deliberate attempt by China to use their control over rare earth metals as a way to inflict economic damage on America and the West.
In the above blog post, I cited a Forbes magazine article that China has raised prices dramatically and limiting exports of rare earth metals the U.S. and the West, in order to force them to open plants in China. It's economic blackmail. It's very similar to the way the Middle East has driven prices of oil to such heights that this cannot but hurt the American economy, just when we are showing signs of improvements.
Courtesy of an article dated May 26, 2011 appearing in RenewablesBiz
While big brands and national advertisers are embracing social media in highly visible (and not always competent) ways, the real evidence of its long-term utility is the high rate of adoption by small business owners, who are ramping up spending to reach potential customers in local markets, according to Webs, which offers a do-it-yourself service for Web site creation.
Small business usage as follows:
69% of small business owners surveyed by Webs are using social media -- including Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and blogs -- at their companies.
13% said they plan to begin using social media in the next three months.
68% of small business owners used Facebook as their primary social network, saying it is the social media tool they use most for their businesses.
That's the good news. The less-good news is that -- just like big national advertisers -- small business owners are still trying to figure out how to use social media, which remains very much an "experimental" marketing tool. Of the small business owners surveyed by Webs,
59% said social media has "not met" or only "slightly met" their expectations as a marketing tool.
43% said they currently allocate 10% or less of their marketing budgets to social media.
But its basic utility for marketing is indisputable, even if practitioners are still tinkering: thus 77.5% of the Webs respondents said they plan to spend more of their marketing budget on social media in 2011 than 2010.
Not surprisingly, Webs discovered that social media adoption rates varried by the small business owners age group.
25-34 year old business owners using social media for business - 72.9%
35-44 year old business owners using social media for business - 68.9%
45-54 year old business owners using social media for business - 58.4%
COMMENTARY: I thought it was very important to point out that Webs reported they acquired Facebook Page Builder Pagemodo on February 1, 2011, and that their research about social media adoption by small business owners would be a great way to promote their new Facebook page building service, but their findings really conflicted with the findings of American Express OPEN and published by web analytics firm eMarketer on April 26, 2011.
There is much research on social media adoption rates among US small businesses, but the disparity was so wide in this particular instance, that I felt honor bound to provide more than one source before the small business owner dives into social media without knowing all the facts. You can make whatever judgements you wish, but I have not seen Webs report, and it would be nice if they furnished information as to how they compiled the information for their survey.
According to eMarketer, small businesses are continuing to increase their use of social media marketing, and now nearly half are using it to find new customers, according to one survey.
The spring 2011 edition of the American Express OPEN “Small Business Monitor” found the use of social media for marketing was up over previous years. More than a third (35%) of US small businesses reported using online social networking for marketing, up from 15% in fall 2009. In addition, 12% of respondents were using blogs as a social tactic, nearly double the figure from fall 2009.
The leading reason for using social media, according to the September 2010 edition of the survey, was to increase the exposure of the business, and American Express OPEN found that more small businesses were turning to social media for customer acquisition. By spring 2011, 44% were using social media to help their businesses, up from 39% in September 2010. They were focusing on the top social networking sites for those efforts.
Usage of Facebook for customer acquisition was up 8 percentage points, while LinkedIn was up 6 points. Twitter usage also increased, holding third place. At the same time, usage of “other” social media was cut in half, suggesting that small businesses are not experimenting with sites out of the social media mainstream.
The small businesses surveyed expressed a need for social media expertise. Asked what new hire would most help their business, 9% said a social media expert, making it the second most popular choice after bookkeeper.
Courtesy of an article dated May 26, 2011 appearing in MediaPost Publicationis The Social Graf and an article dated April 26, 2011 appearing in eMarketer
Facebook has partnered with Spotify on a music-streaming service that could be launched in as little as two weeks, sources close to the deal have told Forbes.
The integrated service is currently going through testing, but when launched, Facebook users will see a Spotify icon appear on the left side of their newsfeed, along with the usual icons for photos and events.
Clicking on the Spotify icon will install the service on their desktop in the background, and also allow users to play from Spotify’s library of millions of songs through Facebook. The service will include a function that lets Facebook users listen to music simultaneously with their friends over the social network, one of the sources said.
The partnership is another indication of how Facebook is moving towards becoming a hub for media like movies and music. Last March for instance, Warner Bros. announced it would make movies available to stream and rent through Facebook using Facebook credits.
It has yet to be decided if the new service will be called “Facebook Music” or “Spotify on Facebook,” but it will only be available for Facebook users in countries where Spotify has a presence, excluding the all-important United States.
While news reports have suggested some success to Spotify’s recent negotiations with music labels about bringing its streaming service to the U.S., those talks are still ongoing. Once completed, however, Facebook’s Spotify will be launched Stateside too.
A Spotify spokesperson claimed to have no knowledge of the new music deal with Facebook: “We have a Facebook integration. We’re continuously working with them to make that as good as it can be. But that’s the extent of our relationship.” Spotify’s co-founder Daniel Ek did not wish to comment.
Spotify already has Facebook Connect integrated into its own desktop interface, allowing users to see what their friends on Facebook are listening to, and opt to have music choices show up on their news feeds. The new service on the Facebook platform will have similar social features.
No money is changing hands with this partnership, but the benefits to both are obvious: Facebook gets the music service it has wanted for years, having reached out to the likes of Last.FM and others way back in 2008. And while Spotify won’t get a cut of Facebook’s ad revenue, it will reach millions more users, offering them the option of its premium service which costs £10 per month in the U.K. and 10 euros in parts of continental Europe like France, Spain and the Netherlands. Spotify has a free service, but it only allows 10 hours worth of listening time per month.
The partnership with Spotify signifies how Facebook is flexing its muscles in the media space, offering services that keep people within the social network, rather than scouring other parts of the web for content. With movies and now music being integrated into the social network, TV shows are bound to find their way in too, as people become more inclined to consume their content in a social way. (Why listen to a great new song by yourself when you can hear it with your friends too?)
Facebook initiated this social aspect of entertainment with social gaming, to the benefit of some games developers. Zynga, which makes the wildly popular social gaming app FarmVille, is now a $10 billion company on the road to an IPO, in large part because of its successful integration with Facebook. Spotify will be looking capitalize on Facebook in a similar way.
Zuckerberg is a fan of Spotify; picture via TechCrunch
The company’s challenge till now has been raising money through advertising and premium subscriptions, to offset the costs of royalty streaming payments to the big four music labels: Sony BMG, Universal Music, Warner Music and EMI. Hopping onto the platform of Facebook should significantly boost its chance of picking up more paid-for subscribers. As the service gets licensed in more countries like the U.S., Facebook will help it compete with other existing music services like Shazam and Last.FM with a unique social element.
Facebook and Spotify share a number of investors: billionaire Li Ka Shing has a stake in Facebook and Spotify. Yuri Milner’s DST Global, which owns roughly 10% of Facebook, is also in negotiations to buy a stake in Spotify. Facebook’s founding president and Napster founder Sean Parker, sits on the board of Spotify.
Facebook’s ability to stream music will also fulfil a long-held dream of Mark Zuckerberg, who was working on a music streaming service around the same time he was first developing Facebook in the dorm rooms of Harvard. Zuckerberg, who has publicly professed his admiration for Spotify, launched a peer-to-peer file-sharing service called Wire Hog in 2004, which was designed to sit on top of Facebook like a software application. Sean Parker allegedly killed the service, which was thought to be ahead of its time.
COMMENTARY: Dude, this thing is happening. Facebook needs more entertainment content besides those silly social games. Digital music in the U.S. is a $4 billion industry, and $12 billion worldwide. Apple iTunes dominates that sector. This is a marriage made in heaven, Spotify enters the U.S. market with the ability to tap into Facebook's 150+ million U.S. members. The fact that Facebook and Spotify have common investor's, you can almost consider this a done deal. It's a win-win for both sites, requires no acquisition, and very little development on Facebook's part. If Facebook is to grow it needs to add more revenues stream. I assume that Spotify will pay a 30% commission to Facebook for each paid download and Facebook will make additional money by using Facebook virtual currency. Digital music is where it's at. Zuck, you finally did something right. China next?
Spotify is currently working on extending many of their premium services including the creation of the iPhone and iPad app and opening them up to non-paying members. As well as this, Spotify has begun trying to convince users to use the Spotify software as an iTunes alternative and has told users to use it over the iTunes software.
Spotify currently has 10 million users round the world, although only around 1 million of those use the paid Spotify services. Spotify now plans to close in on iTunes market dominance by allowing users to use the Spotify services on their mobiles as well as update the Spotify software. It is thought that the Spotiiy software will soon allow users to sync all of their music into the system including songs that were purchased from the iTunes system as well as allowing them to sync to their iPhones and Android phones.
Many analysts have questioned how far Spotify will get with this ambition as iTunes and Apple currently dominate the market heavily and have so far been impenetrable by other companies.
I thought Zuck looked up to Apple CEO Steve Jobs as a sort of mentor, and that Jobs saw something "magical" in Zuck, so he decided to take him under his wing. For a while, many people thought Apple might acquire Facebook. They did get chumsey last year. I even wrote about that weird "father-son" relationship. I guess the "son" just turned on poppa. Zuck you did it again, screwed a friend. And, the two of you sat next to President Barack Obama at John Doerr's house earlier this year.
Courtesy of an article dated May 26, 2011 appearing in the Forbes
A rare opportunity to sit down with the man who defined what Apple could be -- decades before Jony Ive ever turned on a computer.
Few living designers command the cult following of Dieter Rams. The 79-year-old and his ethos of functional simplicity continue to inspire today’s crop of design purists, including Jasper Morrison, Konstantin Grcic, Sam Hecht, and of course, Apple’s Jonathan Ive. Count us among Rams's groupies whose hearts raced at the prospect of meeting him on his way through town to celebrate the 50th anniversary of his iconic 606 shelving system for Vitsoe. (A relatedexhibition is on view at Vitsoe's Manhattan showroom until the end of the month.) Rams, sensing our anxiety, exuded more avuncular kindness than overbearing ego. To meet one of your heroes is rare, but to make it through the meeting with your crush intact is rarer still.
So what is it about Rams that inspires such doting admiration? For starters, he invented the stripped-down, intuitive language for consumer electronics -- decades before Steve Jobs churned out his first Macintosh. During his 40 years with the German manufacturer Braun, Rams produced household products that conveyed their function to their users simply and honestly: control switches, buttons, and dials were reduced to a minimum and arranged in the most logical manner. Hi-tech stereo systems were packaged in modular, perfectly proportioned units that could be stacked horizontally or vertically. In short, Rams made innovation accessible and chic. From a business standpoint, he pioneered the template of having a design team plugged straight into the boardroom -- a template that would also be mirrored by Apple.
And his designs, many dating from the ’50s and ’60s, still hold up: They’re as beautifully uncomplicated and elegant today as they were when they first came off the production line. In the foreword to the forthcoming book Dieter Rams: As Little Design as Possible (Phaidon Press, $90), Ive writes, “So profoundly good is his design of music players, cameras and kitchen tools that it somehow transcends their technical capability.”
That’s in part due to Rams’s unfailing adherence to his own ten commandments -- the holy grail of Rams devotees -- which he first articulated in the ’80s. In our exclusive interview, the master discusses his time at Braun, Apple, the importance of entrepreneurs in driving design innovation, and the role of sustainability.
With just about everything bearing the "designer" label, Rams finds the mantle empty and prefers to be called an architect, reflecting his training before joining Braun.
Here, Rams talks about being bum-rushed at a party by Philippe Starck, who exclaimed, "Apple is stealing from you!" But when it comes to Ives and Apple, Rams subscribes to the adage "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Here, Rams bemoans that more companies don't privilege design and he argues that for design to have a truly great impact, designers have to be insulated at a company but report to high-level management. That was the case with Braun, and that's the case with Apple now.
What would Rams be doing today, if he was once-again a rambunctious young designer? Figuring out new solutions for sustainability. Rams talks about the importance of finding alternative energy sources, but wonders if there are better solutions than the wind farms that ruin the landscape.
Sailboats are generally examples of good design: They fulfill their function even in dangerous situations. Asked what design he's most proud of, Rams demurs, but later, when the camera is turned off, he points to a picture of his P1 pocket record player (for 45s) and T41 radio, which could be combined and carried by a leather strap. The duo debuted in 1959; Rams refers to them as the "first Walkman."
COMMENTARY: There is a lot of truth that design is everything. When you look at the market leaders, whether in technology, furniture, apparel, shoes, or whatever, they all share one thing in common: Great product design. Brands like Apple, Braun, Ferrari, Samsung, Nike, Levi's, Harley-Davidson and Bosch all share the same thing: Well designed products and legions of brand evangelists.
Apple founder Steve Jobs once advised Nike CEO Jeff Parker to "Just get rid of the crappy stuff and focus on the good stuff". That's sound advice.
Dieter Rams stands head and shoulders above the elite in product design. If you have an invention or new product, don't fudge on product design. As a consultant, I have seen lots of great product ideas, but many of them were poorly designed. If you want to impressive somebody, put yourself in their shoes. Does the product stand out? Does the product design complement ts functionality? Does the product design create a visual explosion and long-lasting impression? If you want to raise capital, you must have this and many other things to make it in today's marketplace.
Is there still big green to be made in green tech?
A few years ago, investing in green technology companies in Silicon Valley was as de rigueur as vertical social-media sites. Those sites went away, but money continues to pour into clean-tech ventures as world events dictate a serious look at alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and electric cars.
"It's not alternative: We think of it as mainstream," says Alan Salzman, CEO of VantagePoint Capital Partners, an investor in electric-car maker Tesla Motors, which went public last year, and BrightSource Energy, slated for an IPO in 2011.
It's hard to put a price tag on the potential market for clean technologies. Several venture capitalists interviewed say it could be hundreds of billions of dollars if not more when adding up various slices, such as wind (estimated $60 billion) and solar ($20 billion to $30 billion).
There is little doubt what VCs think: They poured $4.9 billion into domestic start-ups last year, up 40% from 2009, says market researcher Cleantech Group.
The numbers suggest "strong long-term VC interest," says Sheeraz Haji, an analyst at Cleantech Group who notes that an increase in the average size of deals shows a "continued bias towards later-stage deals."
Clean tech is as hot as the rest of the tech industry. Start-ups are raking in record amounts of investments. Large, established companies such as Intel are pursuing partnerships with up-and-coming companies. Promising start-ups are being snapped up as acquisitions. Initial public offerings are sprouting like vegetables. In other words, expect the momentum to continue.
World events and economic factors have thrust early clean-tech companies into the positions of being potentially influential trendsetters in battery technology, solar energy, wind power and electric cars, says Erik Straser, general partner at Mohr Davidow Ventures, an investor in Nanosolar, Recurrent Energy and others.
"Each of these companies is an exciting little story that, put together, creates a huge, transformational picture" in energy use, he says.
Who's in on the green wave
Everyone, it seems, is going green or thinking about it:
During a speech in Seattle earlier this month, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said the U.S. mustinvest in energy technology. Last year Gates helped start the American Energy Innovation Council, which hopes to persuade the federal government to spend up to $16 billion a year on research and development of clean-energy technology.
More than a half-dozen clean-tech companies have filed to go public this year, and U.S. venture-capital investment in pre-IPO clean-tech companies rose to $1.75 billion in the first quarter, up 21% from the same quarter of last year. Last month, BrightSource Energy, which makes solar-thermal power systems, filed for an initial public offering of up to $250 million of its common stock this year.
Google on Tuesday said it is pumping $55 million into one of the world's largest wind farms in Southern California, the latest in a recent string of investments in wind power and other alternative generation technologies by the search-engine powerhouse.
The electric vehicle is ready to merge into the mainstream after decades of stalls and sputtering starts. Tesla Roadsters, Chevy Volts and Nissan Leafs are on the market, with several more in the pipeline from major automakers.
Ford Motor is using Google technology to help it come up with new ways to optimize energy efficiency. Google's Prediction API, for example, would let drivers of Ford hybrid automobiles turn off their engines to limit pollution based on their past driving habits, says Ryan McGee, a technical expert at Ford.
In another sign that traditional energy companies are betting on solar power, French oil giant Total last month said it plans to buy a 60% stake worth $1.38 billion in SunPower, Silicon Valley's dominant solar-panel maker.
Intel signed a year-long consulting agreement with MiaSole, to help the solar start-up boost production.
Harvest Power in March said it raised $51.7 million in Series B funding, which will help it ramp up construction of facilities to turn yard and food waste into methane, the principal component of natural gas. The new funding brings the total equity financing raised by Harvest Power to roughly $70 million, CEO Paul Sellew said.
"Instability in the (oil-producing) Middle East, oil at $100 a barrel, the nuclear fallout in Japan they all play into this," Haji says. Cleantech expects a record $9.5 billion to be invested in clean-tech companies this year, up 20% from in 2010.
The increase in investments reflects how big companies such as Total, Chevron and General Electric are aggressively jumping into clean tech, Haji says.
Indeed, the number of American businesses with green programs grew 54% last year, based on research from Buck Consultants, a subsidiary of Xerox. Of about 120 businesses surveyed including hardware and other technology firms, government offices, consultancies, non-profits, hospitals and the makers of consumer packaged goods 69% said they took deliberate measures to improve their environmental and social impact in 2010.
More than 90% cited savings from going green. More than half said they used renewable energy in their buildings last year.
World events and trends
Energy companies have traditionally scrutinized new forms of energy to diversify their product portfolios as people gobble up oil and electricity. Now, there are "just more options" that happen to be clean, says Jennifer Fonstad, managing director at VC firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson, an investor in LEDs, light-emitting diodes. One of its clients, Intematix, could be an IPO candidate.
Clean tech's rising wave of IPOs and mergers and acquisitions is likely to continue for years as prices for traditional fossil fuel escalate while those for renewable energy, such as solar, decline, says Tim Keating, CEO of Keating Capital, a pre-IPO fund that invests in companies primed to go public.
"The most important issue for alternative energy has been: 'Can it be price competitive with fossil fuels?'" says Keating, who has invested in four clean-tech companies, including BrightSource Energy.
"This is an exciting time for clean tech."
And a necessary one. Japan's nuclear crisis, political conflagration in the Middle East, exorbitant gas prices, the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the coal mine disaster in West Virginia last year have helped intensify interest in alternative energy.
"Japan caused every country to do a reset on a review of their energy strategy," Keating says. "The BP spill put a pause on offshore drilling. Japan has done the same for nuclear energy."
Says Salzman, bluntly: "Did you get the message, guys? Maybe we should think of ways to make energy without killing people in the process. And use it more intelligently without the waste."
Case in point: Total one of the world's "Big Six" oil and gas companies, with 93,000 employees in more than 130 countries sees its SunPower investment as a major piece of its plan to enhance its renewable-energy activities, especially in solar and biofuels.
At the same time, Chevron is evaluating the technology of seven solar companies at a testing facility in Bakersfield, Calif. Project Brightfield, which houses 7,700 panels on 8 acres, is one of two solar projects. The other is near Taos, N.M., where the sun is abundant more than 300 days a year.
"We're a technology company that happens to produce energy," says Des King, president of Chevron Technology Ventures, the oil giant's emerging-technologies business unit. "When you look at the world's energy demands, in 2030 it will need 20% to 40% more energy."
"We need it all: oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear and renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels), which make up just 2%." (The International Energy Agency expects that to jump to 4% to 8% by 2030.)
From 2002-2010, Chevron spent more than $4 billion on renewables and energy-efficient improvement.
Investing in the future
No less a corporate player than energy giant General Electric intends to lead the clean-tech march.
"We see an incredible challenge and opportunity," says Mark Vachon, vice president of General Electric's Ecomagination business strategy. "The world is rebuilding its infrastructure with increasingly more finite natural resources (energy and water)."
Since its launch six years ago, the GE initiative has led to $70 billion in revenue from products and services things such as energy-efficient engines for aviation, gas, wind and water; tools for the power grid; and battery technology and charging stations. At the same time, GE saved $135 million in energy costs.
Over the next five years, Ecomagination hopes to double its R&D budget to $10 billion and reduce its energy footprint.
Perhaps no start-up is more emblematic of the ever-green wave than Tesla. The Silicon Valley automaker, flush with $50 million in funding from Daimler in 2009, capped 2010 with a wildly successful IPO. It says sales of its Roadster electric car are brisk. (More than 1,650 units of the model starting at $109,000 have sold in more than two years.)
Most of Tesla's $49 million in first-quarter revenue came from sales of Roadster and partnerships with Daimler (batteries) and Toyota (co-design of the electric version of the RAV4), says Tesla spokesman Ricardo Reyes.
"These are major issues for utilities and all corporations," VC Straser says. "None of this stuff happens overnight. These companies have to plan decades in advance to change their global structure, and invest in technologies."
COMMENTARY: In a blog posted dated April 4, 2011, I commented that green techniology had raised $2.6 billion in venture capital during Q1 2011, a near record. I agree that we need all sources of energy to meet our future needs, as the era of peak oil has arrived, and there is so much uncertainty surrounding supply of oil due to the upheavels in the Middle East and North African nations. Solar and wind are very capital intensive and continue to rake in most of the venture capital. There is still some doubt about the adoption of electric vehicles. Electric car battery technology will have to take a quantum leap, and the prices of electric cars needs to come down substantially. Click these links to read my blog articles about green technology and venture capital.
Courtesy of an article dated May 26, 2011 appearing in USA Today
Nearly six of 10 Americans — 57% — say they won't buy an all-electric car no matter the price of gas, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.
That's a stiff headwind just as automakers are developing electrics to help meet tighter federal rules that could require their fleets to average as high as 62 miles per gallon in 2025. And President Obama has set a goal of a million electric vehicles in use in the U.S. by 2015.
The anti-electric sentiment unmasked by the poll shows that pure electrics — defined in the poll question as "an electric car that you could only drive for a limited number of miles at one time" — could have trouble getting a foothold in the U.S.
Such cars "are very much niche vehicles. They find acceptance among a core group of passionistas, but too many questions remain for mainstream consumers," says Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. He says consumers worry about range per charge, recharge time and battery replacement cost. Electrics also are priced thousands of dollars more than similar gasoline cars.
"It's not for every consumer," says Maurice Durand, spokesman for Mitsubishi, which is to start selling a small four-passenger electric called the "i" in the U.S. in November. The "i" can go about 80 miles on a charge, and at $27,990 plus shipping, could be the lowest-priced electric.
Electric-car buyers also could qualify for a $7,500 federal tax credit, and some states also offer credits.
The only mainstream pure electric now on sale is the Nissan Leaf, EPA-rated at 73 miles on a charge. It starts at $33,630 before any tax credits.
Researcher J.D. Power and Associates projects sales of pure electrics this year will be 10,727, rising to 95,939 in 2015. Industry estimates for total 2011 light-vehicle sales are in the 13 million range, rising to about 14 million by 2015.
The poll of 1,024 adults nationwide has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. It was done May 12 to 15, when the average gas price was about $3.98. It's now about $3.83.
Nissan interprets the poll numbers as a good sign, pointing out that "as many as 40% are considering driving electric vehicles." Nissan sold 1,044 Leaf electrics through April since its introduction in December, according to Autodata.
COMMENTARY: The USA Today poll numbers may be pretty accurate judging from Nissan's sales of Leaf electrics since December. Mitsubishi is not selling many of their "i" electric either. I saw both the Leaf and "i", and the Leaf is more luxurious, if there is such a thing, and a far better looking car.
It's a bit too early to cast final judgement on all-electric cars. Electric cars are still very early in their product life cycle. Most of the buyers are early adopters. Mainstream adoption will determine the fate of electrics, but unit sales will have to be high enough to bring down prices to affordable levels. Potential buyers are standing on the sidelines waiting to determine any problems with electric cars, before they make a decision.
It does make you wonder: If only 40% of the automobile buying public would consider buying an electric car when the price of gas is nearly $4.o0 gallon, what does gas have to be to push that number to 60%. Pike Research (see below) believes that number is about $5.00 per gallon.
In a blog article dated March 3, 2011, I reported that Pike Research was forecasting that in the U.S. only 358,00 would be sold by 2017. Most of the sales will be concentrated in the large metropolitan markets located in California, New York and Florida. Pike also reported that electric car sales by 2015 would hit 1.2 million in the Asian/Pacific region, and that world-wide sales of electrics would be close to 1.6 million.
If Pike's forecasts are correct, U.S. sales of electric cars will fall far below President Obama's goal of a million cars by 2015.
Courtesy of an article dated May 25, 2011 appearing in USA Today
Yandex has become the latest Internet company to enjoy a significant pop after going public. The Russian search engine made its debut on Nasdaq on Tuesday, with shares surging from an offer price of $25 per share to as high as $42 before settling in the mid-30s.
At a price of $35 per share (around where the company was trading as of 2 p.m. ET), the company is now valued at more than $11 billion. Although its shares didn’t spike as much as those of LinkedIn, which more than doubled in their first day of trading last week, Yandex is the biggest tech IPO of the year, having raised $1.3 billion in the deal.
Yandex’s revenue totaled $439.7 million in 2010 and $137 million (with a profit of $29 million) in the first quarter of this year. The company holds 65% of the Russian search market compared to the 22% share Google has amassed.
At its current valuation, Yandex trades at about 25 times its 2010 revenue. LinkedIn traded at about 36 times its 2010 revenue after its IPO (and is still trading around that valuation). Chinese search leader Baidu, which may be a more apt comparison to Yandex, trades at 32 times its 2010 sales.
COMMENTARY: Yandex is the leading internet company in Russia, operating the most popular search engine and the most visited website. In 2010, Yendex generated 64% of all search traffic in Russia and was the largest Russian internet company by revenue. In March 2011, our yandex.ru website attracted 38.3 million unique visitors.
Yandex also operates in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Yandex's mission is to answer any question internet users may have. The site utilizes their knowledge and capabilities in applied mathematics and data analysis and their in-depth knowledge of the languages, cultures and preferences of internet users in their various markets to develop advanced search technology and information retrieval services. Yandex also aggregates and organizes extensive local, national and international content and offers a broad range of additional services. Yandex searches and many of their services are location-based and are available in versions tailored for mobile and other digital platforms and devices.
Benefiting from Russia’s long-standing educational focus on mathematics and engineering, Yandex has drawn upon the considerable local talent pool to create a leading technology company. For over 20 years, the founders have been developing and optimizing search technology, which has formed the core of their business and helped Yandex become one of the best known brands in Russia. Users are their first priority, and they are committed to advancing their technology to continuously improve their internet experience.
Yandex's homepage attracted 24.7 million unique visitors in March 2011 according to TNS, provides a gateway to the wealth of information available online. Users can find answers to their explicit questions through their search box, as well as their implicit questions through current news, weather and road traffic reports, TV and movie schedules, personal email and other services. Our homepage can easily be customized by users to address their individual interests.
Yanex derives substantially all of their revenues from online advertising. They enable advertisers to deliver targeted, cost-effective ads that are relevant to their users’ needs, interests and locations.
Text-Based Ads - Most of the revenues are derived from text-based advertising, which uses keywords selected by our advertisers to deliver ads based on a particular user query, the content of a website or webpage being viewed, or user behavior or characteristics.
Display Ads - Yandex derives a smaller portion of its revenues from display advertising, which principally consists of graphical ads that appear on specific webpages. Ads are clearly marked and separate from their organic search results and from the content of the webpages on which they may also appear. They do not serve intrusive ads, such as ‘‘pop-ups,’’ that might detract from the overall user experience.
Third-Party Website Ads - In addition to serving ads on their search results and other webpages, Yandex delivers ads to thousands of third-party websites that make up their Yandex ad network. Through their ad network, they generate revenue for both their network partners and Yandex and this extends the audience reach of their advertisers.
Yandex.Direct service, the largest automated, auction-based system for the placement of text-based advertising in Russia, serving many small and medium-sized businesses throughout Russia and other countries in which they operate makes it easy for advertisers to bid for desired keywords and to obtain the best price for their ads.
According to their SEC Form F-1 Registration Statement results for the full-year 2010 and 1st quarter 2011 were as follows:
1st Quarter 2011:
No of Advertisers: More than 127,000 advertisers were served compared with 92,000 in the first quarter of 2010.
Revenues: $137.0 million.
Net Income: $28.8
Year Ending December 2010:
No of Advertisers: 180,000 advertisers in the full year 2010 compared to 131,000 in the full year 2009.
Revenues: $439.7
Net Income: $134.3
Yandex listed the usual list of significant risk factors in its SEC registration statement, but the ones that stood out include:
Competition: Google is their principal international competitor. As of the first quarter 2011, Yandex and Google had 65% and 22% shares of the Russian search market respectively Mail.ru is their principal domestic competitor.
Decline in Advertising: Over the last three years, Yandex derives 97% of its revenues from advertising within Russia, 3% outside the country, and could be negatively impacted by a reduction in ad spending by advertisers, ad network partners and seasonal fluctuations in advertising spending.
Slower Gowth Rates: Yandex expects growth in advertising revenues and profitability in Russia to slowdown somewhat due to maturing markets and an ever increasing competition from Google. It obviously needs to expand its revenues from outside of Russia since only 3% are from outside the country.
Yandex is trading at very high price multiples compared to Google.
Revenue Multiple: Google: 5.67 - Yandex: 25
Earnings Multiple: Google: 19.70 - Yandex: 82
However, when compared to LinkedIn's IPO, which occurred on May 18, 2011 (see my 9-part "Inside The LinkedIn IPO" series, Yandex's price multiples actually look reasonable, since they are churning out higher revenues and earnings, and their revenues per visitor are $11.50, about half that of Google.
Overall, I believe that Yandex will be able to eventually justify its high price multiples, but will need to diversify its revenue streams like Google, and expand internationally to increase its ad revenues.
Courtesy of an article dated May 24, 2011 appearing in TechCrunch
Groupon has already conquered the daily deals market--now they're trying to take over all other deals, too. But they may be missing one big piece of the puzzle: a social network. The Chicago-based discount startup just launched Groupon Now, a service that offers nearby deals on-the-go. Hungry on the way to work? Open up the Groupon app, which might suggest discounts on a burrito--along with other options for food, fitness, entertainment, and nightlife--all in a several block radius.
Groupon Now is sure to impress users--after all, the service is currently composed of $1 deals on everything from concerts to yoga classes. But for merchants--the intended beneficiaries of the service--Groupon Now is missing a huge component: a social network.
Competitors in the deals space already offer similar features as Groupon Now, but with a social layer built on top. Launch up Foursquare, for example, and you can find any number of nearby rewards and deals. The same goes for Facebook. But using these deals is an inherently social process, and will more often than not correspond with a check-in or status update.
In other words, deals on Facebook and Foursquare are more likely to be shared, turning a routine discount on coffee into an advertisement for a local merchant that flutters out into one's social network and brings in more potential business. On Groupon, the butterfly effect is not present--it's a personal purchasing decision that looks to go unshared. Groupon's ad for the service perfectly captures what we're talking about: A consumer walking alone down the street checks out a deal. No big groups of friends filling up the burger joint's seats--just a one-on-one interaction between consumer and merchant.
Groupon has managed to get by so far without a social network: The steep discounts and nature of their group deals were enough incentive for the service to spread to friends by word of mouth. But Groupon Now, which is made up of deals you have to jump on immediately, loses that edge--users won't have time to get their friends involved for spur-of-the-moment purchases.
Solution? Groupon needs to push out more social features for the service to be worthwhile for merchants.
Or, heck, the company could use some of its nearly $1 billion funding to purchase Foursquare or GroupMe. Looks like we aren't alone in thinking like this.
COMMENTARY: Groupon is reportedly in partnership talks with location-based leader Foursquare.
"The arrangement is likely to see Groupon deals targeted to Foursquare users' check-ins. Mobile app users who tell their friends that they're in the vicinity of a venue offering a discount are obviously prime customers."
Only last week, Groupon announced a deal to distribute its new Groupon Now real-time offers with Foursquare competitor Loopt. Loopt users now receive alerts when they're close to a local deal, without even opening the app.
"The move fits in well with Groupon modus operandi -- they are known move fast and be extremely aggressive to stay ahead of the competition. With all of the Groupon clones and competitors lining up in the daily deals market, Groupon has to try and stay a step ahead."
"Groupon Now is so vital to the company that internally it's known as Groupon 2.0. That's why we're not surprised to hear Groupon is in talks with Foursquare to integrate daily deals into Foursquare's app. It's a smart idea where everyone wins."
"It was only a matter of time. The check-in app and daily deals spaces continue to merge, and this time it looks like the poster children for both spaces are joining forces."
Adds All Things D,
"Social distribution could help Groupon move beyond email lists to a more precise and targeted audience, "And Foursquare wouldn't mind the revenue it would get from these leads."
Adds Business Insider:
"From a business perspective, both Foursquare and Groupon are about bringing together the internet, small local businesses and consumers, albeit in completely different ways."
Groupon has mobile apps so that its users can view daily deals on their mobile phone, but has always needed a true social networking element. However, if they really wanted to do it right, they should incorporate location-based technology into their daily deals offerings, and the only way to do this is to distribute their daily deals through a third-party location-based check-in service like foursquare and Loopt (already signed on with Loopt and negotiating with foursquare), develop it internally or acquire an LBS check-in service company.
There has already been a suggestion by Mashable that Groupon should acquire fioursquare. This makes sense both functionally, marketing wise and strategically, since foursquare already has a solid foothold in the LBS check-in space.
In a blog post dated January 23, 2011, I analyzed and commented on Andreesen Horowitz's plans to invest another $20 million into foursquare (already invested $20 million in June 2010), placing a value of $250 million for foursquare. As far as I know, I calculated that foursquare would run out of cash by the end of 2011, so it still needs to raise the funds. It would certainly appear plausible that Groupon, which raised $950 million capital on January 10, 2011, has the financial means to make such an acquisition, but I have a feeling they will wait until after their IPO, which is scheduled later in 2011. Those plans will probably be speeded up, after LinkedIn's highly successful, albeit controversial raise of $371 million earlier this month.
The deal with Groupon will certainly help foursquare increase its traffic and revenues from location-based daily deals, and give Groupon an opportunity to evaluate the technology and its effectiveness.
Courtesy of an article dated May 23, 2011 appearing in Fast Companyand an article dated May 23, 2011 appearing in MediaPost Publications Around The Net
“Yes, this is Ashton Kutcher. You may remember me from such roles as the dim-witted pretty boy Michael Kelso from the hit television series ‘That ‘70s Show.’”
“Yes, yes, hi Ashton. Big fan. This is technology entrepreneur and venture capital superstar Marc Andreessen. Would you like to be part of our investment in Skype?”
While that may not be exactly how the conversation played out, it’s a fact that Andreessen asked Kutcher to invest in Skype in 2009 when his venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, was part of a group that bought a majority stake in the voice, video and chat service from eBay Inc.
Kutcher, who achieved celebrity through his work as an actor, has emerged in recent years as a savvy player in the start-up ecosystem and now rubs shoulders with co-founders as often as co-stars.
Kutcher, speaking Tuesday at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in New York, said Andreessen invited him into the Skype syndicate for his branding and marketing expertise.
Skype wasn’t Kutcher’s first investment. In 2004, he was an investor and part of the management team for voice-over-Internet-protocol start-up Ooma Inc.
Since that time Kutcher has managed to run alongside some of the most recognizable names in venture capital. On stage during his interview with Charlie Rose, Kutcher name-checked his “friends” Andreessen, Y Combinator founder Paul Graham, prolific angel investor Ron Conway and “the folks at Sequoia,” referring to venerable venture capital firm Sequoia Capital.
Kutcher also runs his own investment vehicle with pop singer Madonna’s manager Guy Oseary called Grade-A Investments, which has backed companies like social shopping site Fashism Inc., ticket price forecasting site SeatGeek Inc. and Twitter application company UberMedia Inc. Kutcher has also backed hot companies like AirBnb Inc., Foursquare Inc. and Path Inc.
He mentioned that his recent decision to return to television on “Two and a Half Men” was in part motivated by the regular hours that accompany that job, allowing him to devote more time to start-up investing.
Kutcher fully intends to be involved in the future of online media.
“I have some expansive social media reach,” said Kutcher, who counts more than 6.8 million Twitter followers. “But, what I’ve become relatively good at is bringing things that aren’t mainstream…into the mainstream.”
COMMENTARY: I would not call Ashton a major blockbuster star, in fact, he has often been knocked by Hollywood critics for doing nothing major, although he starred as the goofy character Kelso in "That 70's Guy", and starred and produced "You Just Got Punk'd" a popular TV sries where he plays outragous tricks on celebrities while filming the whole thing. Just before things get too out of hand, Kutch appears from out of nowhere to the surprised look of the celebrity, while exclaiming, "Dude, you just got punkd".
Kutch is slated to take over Charlie Sheen's role as the star of "Two And One Half Men" a.k.a. "2.5". The contract with Warner Bros is for only one year, and pays Kutcher $750,000 per episode. Charlie made twice that. I think he's a great pick because he is a natural actor/comedian.
So why the one-year deal? If CBS decides to renew 'Men' beyond Season 9, then Warner Bros. could either renew Kutcher's contract or could look for a replacement. A short deal also gives Kutcher an escape clause in case he decides to quit the show after one lucrative season.
Most people know Kutch from his two previous TV series, but Kutch was also quite a prolific male model, with quite an impressive six-pak, and has done TV commercials and photo layouts for magazine ads.
However, one of Kutch's most impressive accomplishments is landing and marrying cougar goddess Demi Moore, Bruce Willis' Ex (What was Bruce thinking). With Willis out of the picture, Kutch was there to fill that void. Kutch and Bruce are even good friends.
I have always known that behind Kutch's youthful male model good looks was quite an entrepreneur spirit since I read an article titled "Mr. Social: Ashton Kutcher Plans To Be The New-Media Mogul" that appeared in the December 2009 issue of Fast Company magazine. The article talked in depth about Katalyst Media a production company he founded in 2000 to capatalize in the opportunities in TV and films and the emerging digital media industry. Clients include: Pepsi, Nikon, Intel, Yahoo!, Levi's, Google, Nestle, Microsoft and HP, to name a few.
In January 2008,Prime Capital invested $10 million in Katalyst Media. Katalyst Media was started by Ashton Kutcher and Jason Goldberg, a TV and film producer. The company has been responsible for TV shows such as Beauty and the Geek and Punk’d, and movies including Guess Who and The Butterfly Effect.From the looks of things, Kutch has been very active, investing in anything digital.
In 2006 the company signed a deal with AOL to produce five programs, each with at least 20 mini-episodes, to be distributed on AOL.com and AIM.
Katalyst is a new media production company, and producer of Katalyst HQ a web-based video series. The program is a collaboration between Katalyst; Slide, a Web company founded by Max Levchin of PayPal fame; advertising titan Publicis Groupe; and Nestlé, which owns Hot Pockets. It has been a huge hit, with millions of reposts of the videos on Facebook, each one reaching an average of 65 friends.
The Katalyst HQ series illuminates what Kutcher's production company wants to become: not just a home for his television and movie projects but also a go-to source for brands looking to deploy what's called "influencer marketing," a squishy hybrid of entertainment content, advertising, and online conversation that finds its audience via video, animation, Twitter, blogs, texts, and mobile. Says Kutch,
"Entertainment, really, is a dying industry. We're a balanced social-media studio, with revenue streams from multiple sources" -- film, TV, and now digital. For the brand stuff, we're not replacing ad agencies but working with everyone to provide content and the monetization strategies to succeed on the Web."
Kuthcer also gave a speech at IdeaJam, a symposium for young entrepreneurs.
Click To View Video
Katalyst co-founders Ashton Kutcher and Jason Goldberg lead a speed-round of original pitches from 48 attendees, and narrow these down to the top 6 that will be chosen for production. Sort of reminds you of "Shark Tank" without the drama.
Click To View Video
Katalyst co-founders Ashton Kutcher and Jason Goldberg lead a speed-round of original pitches from 48 attendees, and narrow these down to the top 6 that will be chosen for production.
“He came to me and said Skype could use some help with being more popular in the U.S. and we would like to bring you on to do that,” Kutcher said.
Recent Comments