MySpace's Achilles Heel(s)

There are very few computer-savvy individuals out there today that have yet to hear (let alone join) MySpace, the most popular social networking (and also roughly 10th most popular) site in the entire World, as per Alexa's Global Top 500 today. Throughout the business world, social networking has been on the rise for years, but it has only been in the past year or two that the 'MySpace phenomena" has skyrocketed straight to the top of the "it" charts. Yes, MySpace has tremendous appeal, which by sheer page views alone makes it an extremely valuable internet property, as evidenced for example, by the $580 million or so Rupert Murdoch's News Corp ponied up for it last year.

So what then, if anything, could possibly topple this mighty beast? The answer is that there likely isn't any one thing that could stop this new media powerhouse in its tracks. However there are several things which many observers and likely analysts as well might have missed.

I have been a member of MySpace personally for about a year or two, but in the past few months I've really been exploring everything the service has to offer. I have a few observations as to why MySpace is, and is not at the same time an amazing idea, for example:

1. Part of the allure of MySpace is the widespread availability of page-editing software, which lets users construct relatively complex profile pages without having to know a shred of HTML, flash, java, etc. The beauty of this is that giving users control over the design, display, as well as simply content of their 'myspaces', so-to-speak, brings users closer to the service, and it brings those users' "friends" on the site even closer to each other. To clarify, what I mean is that the way the site is designed allows/results in not just more active users, but users who are ever-more active, more of the time. Just to note, I'm not aware of any published numbers on click-through rates or other metrics for said ads, so simply using page-views, MySpace is definitely on the right track. On the other hand, as a MySpace member, and as a member of the target demographic of many internet advertisers, I can attest to the fact that a significant portion of my generation (at least the internet savvy ones) are often unresponsive to many (not all) web advertisements. With MySpace, this is especially true I'd imagine, since after a short while you know exactly when and where ads will appear, and basically ignore them almost subconsciously. It is partly a result of how MySpace is designed, that you almost ignore the ads, because you are so preoccupied with all of the content and interaction which the site enables and provides. I'm not at all saying internet advertising is a waste, the truth is after all quite the contrary, I’m just trying to point out something that perhaps might be lost amidst all the hype and hoopla.
2. While MySpace may be thriving the site does in fact have some shortcomings which I fear might be widely ignored. For example, by ceding so much control over personal profiles to individual users, MySpace has lost the ability to consistently deliver a quality user experience. Now I've only tried this using my 15" widescreen laptop monitor, but many users' pages are too wide to be fit the browser window. Also, many users choose to place rich media, such as mp3 audio, mpeg/QuickTime video, or flash animations in their profiles. This, when taken together with the extreme latency and pathetic server reliability (we're talking NOWHERE close to five 9's) results in what is often an annoying user experience, to say the least. The fundamental issue at hand then for MySpace management is to find a balance between giving users the control they want and the quality experience that keeps them coming back. Also, as I just noted, MySpace DESPERATELY needs to upgrade its servers to accommodate demand. Few firms have developed a successful web presence without designing robust, scalable systems from day one. Now I may not be peering into a crystal ball or able to read the stars, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that MySpace might not have what it takes to prove that trend wrong.
3. In my experiences, it seems that perhaps a majority of activity on MySpace is generated by a relative minority of users. I have several 'friends' who post bulletins, blog posts, photos, comments on other user's photos/pages, etc on a daily basis. (While it is beyond the scope or intent of this blog, some people I've met both in person and on MySpace sometimes seem to have more of a social life online than in reality, but I digress...) These people collectively also represent probably no more than 30% of my friends. While I'm sure this sample might not present an accurate representation of the greater MySpace population, I think it is still indicative of a larger trend none-the-less. If such is the case, then the value of each incremental user, on the average is less than perhaps previously thought.
4. A few short weeks ago I began getting inundated with spam messages in my MySpace inbox. Some messages appear to be from legitimate people, but attempt to convince the recipient to go to some other site, or even worse, informing you that that you have been pre-approved for a large low-rate loan and should click on a hyperlink to receive their money. Upon further investigation, I've determined that, just as with email, anonymous users are able to create what are basically fake profiles. Then, because of the extreme ease of finding targets for their spam, they represent themselves as legitimate people trying to often do you a favor or tell you about this great other website. As far as I know, MySpace uses no verification during the profile/account set-up process. This could potentially allow users with slightly less than honorable intentions to overrun (in the most extreme case) the site. Another possibility about which I've just today been informed is that unscrupulous users are using MySpace to deliver viruses and other malware. I have yet to confirm (I started this post 40 minutes after reading about this!) but my first inclination is that the distribution of such malware through MySpace is similar to the spoofing, phishing, etc which has become so widespread with regular email. In much the same way some viruses or Trojans, once they've infected your machine, spread to everyone in your contacts list, the same thing is at least theoretically possible with MySpace. Once one 'friend' gets infected, hackers and other malcontents could use the social network to distribute malicious code to unknown numbers. Perhaps I may be overstating the problem here, but until I'm proven wrong, I'll maintain the above as a legitimate possibility.

While this post might present a seriously cynical view of the leader in social networking, I'll be the first to admit that barring some heinous viral outbreak or something in the immediate future, MySpace is not going away anytime soon.

Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) and Utilities Were Born to Be Together....So Why Aren't They?

Few people outside the Telecom world have any idea what broadband over power line (BPL) communication technology is. Since I'm not going to write an entire thesis here, I'll keep it simple (better explanation is available here how-stuff-works BPL page) BPL involves using existing power lines to carry data, in much the same way (conceptually) as dsl uses existing copper phone lines.

The primary reason though why so few people are aware of BPL, let alone know anything about the business case (or lack thereof) for its development is that simply for residential/business broadband service, BPL really lacks the economic advantage to give it the edge over dsl and cable. And that is without even acknowledging the ever-increasing popularity of wireless broadband access such as WiFi, ev-do/hsdpa/other cellular, and eventually, WiMAX. At least that has been the case up until the past year or so. This past summer, Google, Goldman Sachs, and Hearst Media poured $100 million into BPL play Current Communications, a move some analysts, in my opinion, never saw comming.

I'm not going to focus here on BPL however for residental/commercal service, as I'll leave that for another post. In my opinion/analysis the real value in BPL technology exists in the realm of the many benefits it stands to deliver for electric utilities in various applications like SCADA (Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition) for load balancing, real-time distribution/transmission network monitoring, real-time demand management, outage monitoring, and the like. Basically, the utilities already own/have access to the wires, and the capex needed to implement the software and minor system upgrades necessary for BPL should definetly be offset by decreased truck-rolls and efficiency improvements, which in the end, boil down to, you guessed it, increased profitibality!

(Side Note: Many utilities margins' are capped by state regulations, however if they were implementing a system which would provide better QoS so-to-speak, its likely these margin limits would be increased accordingly.)

Why then have the big operators shyed away from adopting such a potentially beneficial technology? Well for anyone who's the least famaliar with the Utility industry well knows, Utilities are about as fast-moving as blob of molasses at the north pole. A bit of complacency here? You bet. And what eventually happens to complacent businesses, when, inevitably the market obeys the rules of survival of the fittest (and that darwin guy never even stood on the floor of the NYSE!)? Companies that are complacent, that for whatever set of reasons become stagnant will eventually loose out to faster-moving competitors.

Look at the airlines for example. United is coming out of bankruptcy for the what, second time in three years? The domestic carriers are getting slaughtered by faster moving, more nimble competitors with better business plans such as Southwest, who embrace innovation, who are constantly striving for operational and financial performance.

I'm not saying that the Utilities are in any grave danger of getting burned anytime in the near future. I'm merely pointing out the necessity for businesses, in all industries, to embrace innovation and change as a fundamental driver of increased profitability. Seldom, if ever in history has a firm thrived in the long-term without doing so and there is no evidence to suggest that this trend is likely to change.

Now more than ever it is absolutely imperitive for a company to be ever more nimble than its competitors. Those that aren't consistently and consciously trying to do everything in their power to improve efficiency and increase sales, while simultaneously reducing costs (among other actions/subactions obviously) are sheep, and sheep, as we all know, get slaughtered.

let me clarify...

Just to clarify the position I took in the previous post (Rescind Tracinda).

• I was writing the article for the individual investor. The point was that for said Joe and Jane Investorr, there are better risk adjusted returns out there today, not that Kerkorian has absolutely no chance. In fact, if (by some act of god) Jerry York and Kerkorian are able to turn the General around, they stand to make an absolute killing. And, when you're playing with as much $ as Kerkorian is, its alot harder to realize 100%+ gains.
  
• Since information on Tracinda is pretty sparce I'm not exactly certain, but I'd go out on a limb that a good portion of Tracinda's capitalization comes from Kerkorian's personal wealth. In general, however, investors in private equity/VC funds have different risk profiles than most individuals. Alternatively, private equity investors have similar risk/reward profiles as individual investors, just far larger piggy banks. For example, conventional wisdom for the individual investor often suggests individuals allocate roughtly 10% or so of their portfolio to risky plays, e.g. small tech companies, similar (although not exactly) to those in which VC funds typcally invest. CalPERS (the largest pension fund in the Country) similarly might have only 10% of its $200 billion portfolio allocated to VC funds. It would not be prudent though for CalPERS to throw $2 billion into small-cap stocks with capitalizations of only 50 million dollars now would it? From this perspective, its more a matter of asset class than of risk/reward combination. It is worth note that another major(if not the main) reason individual investors typically are shut-out of private equity assets is the relatively lofty minimum investments most PE/VC funds require, often in the ballpark of 7 or 8 figures.