Upmarket Magazine

Crowdsourcing Versus Venture Capitalist: Determining Goals
What If The Purpose Of Your Life Was To Have Fun?
Are You Hiring Artists?

Crowdsourcing Versus Venture Capitalist: Determining Goals

Posted: 04 Dec 2012 05:00 AM PST

History is filled with examples of passionate people doing whatever it takes to turn their ideas into reality. That's the concept behind crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, and they're not going away. Essentially, aspiring entrepreneurs can post their projects on sites like Indiegogo and Kickstarter and ask a large number of people to each contribute a small amount of money to reach a certain goal (hence, "crowdfunding").

Even if the hype around sites like these dies down, there will always be enthusiasts – and their family and friends – who are willing to raise money for the ideas they believe in. This staying power raises a question: What does this mean for traditional venture capitalists?

Different Stakes, Different Games

The difference between crowdsourcing and traditional investing is a lot like playing poker. Many people play in a weekly game with friends where the stakes are low, and it's more for enjoyment than anything else. But a few play in the World Series of Poker, which has a sizable entry fee and is usually dominated by professionals. The stakes are higher[el1] and it requires a different type of commitment.

Similarly, traditional investing requires a completely different set of skills and risk tolerance than crowdsourcing. Those who throw all their chips into one pot and have good reason to believe they'll be successful tend to go after venture capitalistss with deeper pockets. People whose ventures are side projects that are just getting established prefer to seek investors who will let them fumble until they have two firm feet to stand on.

Ideas of Scale

Though it does have staying power, crowdsourcing will have little effect on venture capitalists and other traditional investors. With a few exceptions, the truly big ideas will most likely not be funded on sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. The entrepreneurs behind the next Facebook or Instagram will seek traditional investors who have more resources and the ability to scale – and who have the networks and experience necessary to help the entrepreneurs make it big. This is one area of entrepreneurship where self-awareness is more important than ever in selecting the right investor.

Different Markets

In general, venture capitalists seek out the next Dropbox or Twitter, and they're not looking for them on crowdfunding sites. Some ideas are just better suited to crowdsourcing, while others thrive in traditional investing environments. Venture capitalists want the entrepreneurs who would rather be backed by a few key people with vested interest in their company, rather than hundreds of thousands of people who have put in a few dollars. Companies self-select either to raise money on crowdfunding sites or via the traditional round of angel or venture capitalists; it's usually one or the other, not both. They're simply different markets.

Although crowdsourcing isn't going away, it bears few implications on the fate of venture capitalists or the traditional investing industry. It's not a fad, and it's not passing; it's just a different market than venture capitalists are pursuing. Traditional investors want to put their money into the projects of entrepreneurs who prefer a few vested backers and a large scale. On the other hand, crowdsourcing sites cater to those whose ideas will succeed with the support of many people on a smaller scale. Both have staying power in their respective markets – and neither has much reason to worry.

Image credit: Peasap

What If The Purpose Of Your Life Was To Have Fun?

Posted: 03 Dec 2012 03:20 PM PST

What a radical concept! Really, think about it for a minute with me here…what if the purpose of your life really was to have fun? What would that mean to you and to the people around you?

From where I’m standing, I see the vast majority of people going to work every day – whether as an employee or an entrepreneur – feeling stressed, weighed down by pressure and problems, and looking forward to the end of the day, the weekend or their next holiday when they can relax, have fun and feel lighter.

Yet ask yourself: Who is making the greater contribution to the world, the person who is weighed down and stressed, or the one who is actually having fun with what they are doing? What quality of energy is each one putting out into the world? What example is each one setting for their kids? Which one is likely to be in better health? Which one is likely to be full of vitality and fresh, new ideas??

When you actually look at practical measures like these, to me, it’s more of a responsibility than an indulgence to be true to what’s fun and enlivening for you in your work (as well as in the rest your life).

Look at someone like Sir Richard Branson, who has built his entire company on having fun and doing good in the world. Not only has he achieved staggering professional success, he’s also contributed enormously to social causes, and he’s done it all with a good dose of humor, and as an inspiring example of what’s possible when you follow what’s most fun for you.

What would it take to for our new standard to be having as much fun as we possibly can while we are working? To give ourselves that permission, and by our example, giving that permission to others as well?

What would our economy look like if we our measure of success was how much fun and happiness we were experiencing in our work lives?

What’s your perspective on making fun your #1 priority in your work?

Photo credit: source

Are You Hiring Artists?

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 05:00 AM PST

Right now there's a revolution occurring. And you probably don't even know about it. No I'm not talking about the Middle East, culture wars, or even the upcoming presidential election. I'm talking about something much more important: video games.

Thanks to a variety of influences (the terrible economy, the high unemployment rates, new technologies, the growth of the Wii, and the explosion of Apple products, just to name a few) video games aren't a neatly confined business model. It's not possible to simply release a $60 game and expect it to be successful.

This has everyone from Sony to Nintendo worried. And rightly so.

So in a disrupted economy, how do you survive?

In a disrupted economy, everything gets thrown out the window. What was once successful becomes this generation’s weakness. So what do you do when the economics of your industry is disrupted? In my view it all goes back to hiring the right people. I have long believed that you must bring your meaning to work, and far too many people simply don't do that. They look for a paycheck, a promotion, or prestige. And then when they look back on their career, they wonder why they are unhappy. This was, in many ways, the point of the book Good to Great.

In a disrupted economy this is even more important.

This is only going to matter more in the future.

Why? Because more and more jobs are becoming artistic jobs. In other words, more jobs are about creating on demand than running a machine that produces widgets. All too often we think of creativity as simply making art. But art in today's marketplace might be computer code. It might be your report to your boss. It might even be a new training product. Art is no longer confined to canvas or music.

Which means we have to look at the skills our employees have. Great employees aren't a cog in a machine. They aren't interchangeable. They are unique artists working at their craft. A great computer programmer is more like a skilled craftsman than a steel mill worker. A great trainer is more like an artist than a widget-producing assembly line.

Times have changed.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with working in an industrial factory. An entire generation of employees worked that way. But that's not the economy we're in today. And it's not how we should view employees.

Which brings us back to video games. The industry itself is struggling to understand how to make money. Companies like Activision (Call of Duty) and EA (Madden) are in trouble. People don't want, or don't have the money, to buy $60 games with $20 of additional content trickled out to them. So developers rush to switch their business model to "free to play", which simply means you play for free, but have the ability to buy new weapons, plays, armor, or teams.

But that's not going to work either. Why? Because neither addresses the fundamental issue of any industry: talent. I am more convinced than ever great companies don't develop great games, great designers do. And you know what? The same is true in your industry. Great artists matter. If you have great artists on your team, you will survive. If you don't, well, good luck.

So if you want to figure out what to buy, don’t look at the name brand, look for the great employees.

Photo Credit: dimsis

RssA1

marți, 4 decembrie 2012