Truth and Lies: Facebook, Offers, Scams, Farms and Fish

There’s been a bit of a firestorm recently (at least in Silicon Valley) about the nature of revenue for companies like Zynga, Offerpal, and the use of “scammy offers” to make money.

For those not in Silicon Valley (and even for some who are here), this brings up some interesting questions:

-Who is Mark Pincus and Zynga, and are they scamming Facebook users?
-What is Offerpal and Why Does it Matter?
-Are all Offers Scams, or is there a Legitimate Advertising Channel Here?
-How do web 2.0 companies make money?
-What the hell is an offer, anyways?
-Does anyone (other than Silicon Valley types) really care about this story?


The recent media firestorm started when a TechCrunch (for those out of the valley, this is kind of like a local gossip blog/newspaper, where local entrepreneurs, vc’s, bloggers and other technorati all compete to be the “big man, or woman, on campus”, as in: “Hey guess who tech crunch talked about today? Let’s fund them!”) reporter questioned Anu Shukla, the (then) CEO of Offerpal, about whether the monetization of social games was an “ecosystem from hell”. She answered rather colorfully (“that’s shit, double-shit, and bullshit!”). You can read the original article and the dozens of follow-ups, not to mention and hundreds of comments at: www.techcrunch.com, just search for Zynga or Offerpal or Facebook.

He was referring not only to these three companies: Facebook (as the leading social network and social game platform), Zynga (the acknowledged leader, at least in terms of number of users and revenue, of social games which sell virtual goods and virtual currency, like Texas Hold ‘Em Poker and Farmville and Mafia-type games), and Offerpal (the leader in using offers rather than cash to pay for these virtual goods). Other companies like MySpace, Playdom, Adknowledge and Double-ding were also being implicated as well.

Within a few days of the Techrunch article, Zynga issued a sort-of apology, first reduced then (at least temporarily) shut down all offers, and Offerpal replaced its CEO. Were these events related?

With all the rumors and blog posts floating around about the key players, including Mark Pincus (CEO of Zynga), Anu Shukla (CEO of Offerpal) and Michael Arrington (TechCrunch blogger) - it’s hard to know what the hell is really going on here?

So why am I weighing in on this? Turns out I do know a little bit about this – I was an angel investor in Offerpal, and helped them build their Facebook strategy back in 2007.

-First of all, who really cares?

The general public? Not likely - I bet you could walk down the street in any major city in the US (that is not San Jose or San Francisco) and while most people would have heard of Facebook or MySpace, very few, if any, would have any idea who Zynga or Offerpal are, two of the companies front and center in this controversy.

How about Facebook users? Incredibly, probably not. While many Facebook users play games from Zynga and other 3rd party game developers, less than 10% of those users actually spend money on virtual currency within games, and less than 1% of those actually fill out 3rd party “offers” – (i.e. 1% of the 10%).

My guess is less than 5% of those (OK we’re now down to the 5 percent of .1% of the total users in a game, a number small enough that I can’t do it in my head) probably filled out the offers which have been called “scammy” in the recent firestorm.

The bigger complaints you’re likely to hear from Facebook users are the “spammy” notifications they keep getting like: “ Jane just beat Fred in a game of Texas Hold ‘Em – You should play Texas Hold ‘Em as well!” This is something Facebook has been cracking down on and has very little to do with the recent offer controversy.

What about Facebook game developers? Yes, these are the people who really care - because “offers” has become a primary mechanism for making money from their games, which are all free to play.

Mostly, though, this is a story that is interesting to Silicon Valley insiders (and wanna be insiders), since Zynga and Offerpal were two of the fastest growing companies here over the past few years, riding the wave of growth of social networks like Facebook, and the Virtual Economy (virtual goods sold inside games).


-Are all offers scammy?
The answer is no.

“Offers” refers to some action that a customer must take to sign up for a service, to buy something, or to fill out a survey to see if they’re qualified for some promotion.

It turns out that many offers are pretty legitimate – for example sign up for Netflix, or Blockbuster, services that are well known. These are usually referred to as CPA advertising (“cost per acquisition” – where the A could mean acquiring a lead, or acquiring an actual paying customer) as opposed to CPM (cost per impression, used for banner ads) and CPC advertising (cost per click, used by Google and others to make money).

CPA advertising has been around for a while – in direct marketing even before the web (remember those “sign up for Columbia House DVD club and 6 movies free?”).

What Offerpal and other companies did was tie CPA advertising to a “virtual reward” – you get a reward in the virtual economy – virtual poker chips, or “Farmville dollars”, which can be used inside games, for filling out the offer.

-So Who’s fooling Who? And Where’re the Scams?
I’m getting there... in my own slow-paced way.

Incenting people to do things is also not new - there were a bunch of companies, for example, that were giving away “free ipods” for filling out offers in 2000-2003.

These sites were “scammy”, in my opinion, because it was almost impossible to ever get your reward – you would go through what’s called a “regpath” – where they show pages and pages of crappy offers, and you got so frustrated that you gave up – never getting your ipod. Not only was the user frustrated, but these companies hid their identities behind vague domain names like “freeipod.com”, so there was no one to call or contact. Their whole business model, which we now often call “incentive 1.0” was built on users NOT getting their reward.

Offerpal and other “incentive 2.0” companies tried to clean this up – they wanted the user to get the rewards (in this case a virtual reward), and so they actually gave you an email address and a phone number to call if you didn’t get a reward for taking an action.

The system was meant to be self-policing, sort of like eBay – if advertisers (not just Blockbuster or Netflix, but thousands of individuals advertisers) were trying to defraud users, Oferpal would start getting lots of complaints from users, and would shut down that advertiser.

If users were defrauding the advertisers (i.e. signing up for Netflix, getting their reward, and then cancelling prematurely), then advertisers would stop paying per user, and they wouldn’t use this form of CPA advertising.

So which way do you think the complaints went? Was it advertisers taking advantage of users, or users taking advantage of advertisers?

Actually, while individual users had issues with some offer or another, it turns out that most of the fraud was from users defrauding advertisers (buying things and returning them, signing up for items they never had any intention of using) and Offerpal, as an example, had to "block" these users.

In the middle, though were the hundreds of legitimate advertisers, and millions of users who filled out offers happily, bought something, and got their rewards.

-So what’s the brou-haha about? Or, why can’t we “save the children” from the evil moneymakers?

The real issue happened when some advertisers didn't display their terms and conditions clearly.

Some advertisers, for example, asked users to submit a phone number at the end of a quiz. Then, users received a text message with a code in it – the user had to enter that code at the end of their quiz to get their results.

The charge was that users who did this were unknowingly signing up for $9.99 per month premium SMS service, which was billed to their cell phones. After signing up, users would start getting text messages each week with random stuff like “interesting facts” or “your horoscope”, depending on what they signed up for.

Was this a problem? Some advertisers hid the terms and conditions in very small print on the screen. This led to allegations that kids were singing up for premium SMS subscriptions billed to their parents cell phone bills.

Sounds like a legitimate complaint. So I tried a few of these myself to check this out. Turns out some of the fine print on the screen is very small. Most of them, after you enter your phone number, send you a text message with a code, like this: “Enter PIN CODE: 1234. $9.99/month. Txt STOP to stop”.

Honestly, if the twitter generation can’t figure out that this means that 1) they have to enter the pin code somewhere, 2) that they will be billed $9.99 per month if they do enter the code and 3) that they have to text “STOP” to stop the monthly billing, then I guess I understand what the fuss is about. More likely their parents are the ones that can’t figure it out.

Honestly, this might actually be a bigger issue around mobile premium SMS services that goes well beyond Offerpal and the social gaming ecosystem: is giving someone a cell phone like giving them a credit card?

But back to the main attraction:

-So, who did what when?

When investigating Watergate and any good conspiracy, you’ll be told to “follow the money”.

In this current in-the-valley mini-controversy, I’ll give you similar advice: “follow the platform”.

The real story is that Facebook, well before the TechCrunch article, put out very stringent guidelines for advertisers inside Facebook apps, and they threatened to shut down apps which were showing offers which were “misleading” – namely ones where the T&Cs weren’t clear, or cryptic.

Companies like Zynga and Offerpal (and their competitors), spent over a week scrambling to reduce the number of offers in their system to those which followed the new strict guidelines, clearly displaying T&C’s.

Many brand name advertisers like Blockbuster, Netflix, and others, had no problems at all. Some of the premium SMS offers, particularly some of the Quizzes which required typing in a code (like the example above), didn’t meet the guidelines because they weren’t clearly letting users know what they’re getting into. It’s also important to note that other mobile SMS offers passed these guidelines and are running fine on many other Facebook apps.

The reason Zynga (and Offerpal) were able to change their offers within hours of the original TechCrunch article was because they’d already started changing them the previous week (because of the actions of Facebook).

The reason Zynga shut down all their offers this weekend was again, because of the actions of Facebook, which shut down one of their games (which was running offers from Double-ding, an Offerpal competitor that Zynga itself was funding).

Having a game shut down is a disaster for a gaming company, so I guess maybe they’re justified in over-reacting by shutting down all offers for a time. Offerpal did a reasonably good job of getting rid of offers that were “bad” and keeping the ones that were “good”, but took the brunt of criticism in this story anyways, though the new CEO, George Garrick, added a post to their site about Offerpal's own role (www.offerpalmedia.com)

Techcrunch is of course taking credit for “exposing this story”, and they do get some credit for focusing the spotlight on what’s happening, but it may have spun a little out of control well beyond big companies in this space, affecting the little guy: making facebook users pay cash for virtual goods they could've gotten via offers, and reducing revenue of small independent 3rd party game companies struggling to stay afloat by making them afraid to show offers.

But as usual in Silicon Valley – you have to take what you hear with a grain of salt to get at the real story: Mostly TechCrunch has been following the real story, not “instigating it”.

As I said earlier, the people who should really care are other Facebook game developers (of which there are thousands in Silicon Valley alone). That whole industry is freaking out because they’re not sure how to make money by giving away free games anymore if they don’t have offers (Welcome to the Internet, by the way, this was the same problem we faced with Web 1.0 back in the 90’s).

In this case, the answer is not that difficult though: just use the legitimate offers that Facebook has approved.

And what did all of this have to do with changing the Offerpal CEO a few days after the orginal TechCrunch article? My only comment is that you don’t decide on a CEO for a company like Offerpal in a few days. A search can take many months.

For those who do care to see where this story will go next, my advice is: “Follow the platform, not the press.”

For the rest of the world (outside Silicon Valley) I doubt many of you were even aware of this little mediastorm, so...I guess... Life Goes On!

Filming, Blogging, Novel-ing, and Ranjan has Died

Many of you have written me about not keeping my blog up to date since graduation from Stanford Business School back in June.

Thanks for your gentle nudges – I’m taking your advice and resuming my blog postings, starting with a very long one about what I’ve been up to since business school, and some very sad news I received today about an old friend and one of the biggest movers and shakers in the Indian software industry, Ranjan Das.

But first, what have I been up to?Read More Here...

Turquoise Makes the Wall Street Journal

As many of you know, I have a pretty strong interest in films and film-making (the two don’t always go together).

A few years ago I was an investor and Executive Producer of my first feature film, called Turquoise Rose, shot on the Navajo reservation in Arizona. For me, as usual, I stumbled into this role by helping an aspiring young, determined and talented film-maker, Travis Hamilton, create his first feature film.

Turquoise, shot on an ultra low budget (even by startup or indie movie standards) never made it onto the national circuit, so you probably didn’t see it. But, through the determination of the film-makers it was shown in limited theatrical release across the southwest.

It was a resounding success with its intended audience, Native Americans. It may have been the first feature film whose world premiere was on the Navajo reservation. Sometimes whole families would go to see it, multiple times. Of course, Hollywood rarely sees the merits of a little film like this, so we had to distribute it ourselves.

I also inadvertently found myself as one of very few investors in independent film who made a profit on my very first film investment. I know, Films are Risky Shmisky. So are startups.

So I’m now a member of a group of angel investors, called Film Angels, which invests in independent feature films and is located in the Bay Area. The idea is to use a Silicon Valley style of investing and bootstrapping to put out quality films at low budgets.

The Wall Street Journal wrote about Film Angels recently, and it turns out that Turquoise and my own investments were mentioned very prominently. Here’s a link:
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/10/12/angel-group-likes-lights-camera-and-action-of-indie-films/

The full version of the article (on WSJ.com) which has to be accessed through Google News also mentions two upcoming films I’m involved with: Raspberry Magic, a small low-budget film about an Indian-American family (www.raspberrymagic.com) [look for it in 2010] and a big budget film series based on the Gap Series, a best-selling science fiction series from author Stephen Donaldson [look for it – well, I’m not really sure when yet].

Sid Searches for Enlightenment

One reason I haven’t blogged much this summer is that most of my writing energy has been directed to finishing a novel I’ve been working on - tentatively titled: “The Enlightenment of Sid: A Modern Quest For the Cure to Sickness, Old Age, and Death”.

It’s nominally about Spiritual Seeking, Buddhism, and Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam.

It follows the adventures of the main character, whose full name is Mohammad Siddhartha O’Leary (and who likes to be called, in fact insists on being called, simply Sid), whose parents were Pakistani and Irish, and who met at a Buddhist meditation seminar. Sid is going through a bit of a mid-life crisis, and finds himself compelled to go on a Quest.

The novel is inspired a bit by the famous novel Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse, about spiritual seeking, and a bit by the novel “The Lost Horizon” by James Hilton, which is about finding a Shangri La and was inspired by the Hunza region of Kashmir in Pakistan.

Sid takes place in the modern world and asks the question, is there really a literal answer to the questions that Buddha went to seek – i.e. is there a literal answer to the problems of Sickness, Old Age, and Death? If so, how would we find it today?

It also poses an important question: Do we need to turn to teachers to find our spiritual path – or is it something we can find on our own?

In the novel, Sid, while learning about the life of the Buddha and the Prophet Mohammad during his own search for enlightenment ends up in the mountains of Kashmir with a surprising dilemma.

There aren’t many books that are about both Buddhism and Islam – for good reason: at a simple glance the religions seem very far apart. But if you look closer, particularly in Pakistan, where tombs of Sufi saints are commonplace, you start to see similarities in mystical/experiential traditions.

Sufism, though not an organized sect of Islam, refers to many sects of Islamists which emphasize personal experience over simple ritual. Sufi sects were led by iconoclasts like Jalaladin Rumi (who is well known in the west for his poetry), Ibn El Arabi (who is not so well known in the west), and Lal Shabhaz Qalander (who is virtually unknown outside of Pakistan), among others.

Anyways, that’s what the novel is about. I felt compelled to start writing it last year when I took a walking tour in Ireland (what a beautiful country) and when I visited Pakistan during December of last year, the novel took an important turn. [Yes, both countries play a big role in the novel].

Now that it’s “done”, when should you expect to be able to read it?

Well, if there’s one industry that recognizes small, quality projects even less than the traditional film industry, and is even slower, it would be the traditional publishing industry...so keep your fingers crossed - i'm sure it'll happen within this lifetime.

Ranjan Is Dead … Long Live Ranjan!

Speaking of religion and Death, I received some news that struck me very hard today. I guess Facebook is good for something other than making money for app developers, since several of my old college friends sent me messages on Facebook.

One of my closest friends from my years at MIT, Ranjan Das, passed away suddenly today in Mumbai, India. I won’t say much about his career in my blog, though he had a very successful one, as outline by this article: http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/22/tech-sap-india-president-das-passes-away.htm

I don’t know the exact situation, other than it had to do with a heart attack. In fact, I haven’t seen Ranjan in quite a few years, and didn't even know that he'd moved back to India.

Nevertheless, I still found the news devastating.

Why?

Not only because Ranjan was such a talented, smart, witty guy ( think about this: in 1992, only two students from the entire country of India, which had a population of some 800 million at the time, were admitted to MIT, and Ranjan was one of them).

Not only because he was a great friend during my college years. During those years, Ranjan was the informal anchor for a rag-tag social group of misfits that included, at different times during our four years at MIT, a Sri Lankan, a White Guy from Jersey, One or more Bangladeshis, Indians, Pakistanis, a Nigerian, a German, a Nepali, and even one ABCD (that would be me as the resident American Born Confused Desi of the group, even though technically I wasn’t born in America and never considered myself confused!).

And it hit me hard not only because I felt guilty that I hadn’t seen my old friend in years. When I moved to the Bay Are a few years ago, I had always planned to get in touch with Ranjan and spend some social time together – rather than only talking about work and software and startups. There were still so many things to discuss and laugh about.

How many other close friends from those years haven’t I seen in ages? How easy it is as we get caught up in our own lives, our careers, that we don’t make time for those who have added something to our lives.

Not only because he was in the same age and to use a cliché (something Ranjan, a creative writer in those days, would never want me to do), it makes us face our own mortality. All of us, my old classmates and I, are approaching that mid-life age of forty. Hearing about Ranjan has really made me pause and think about things.

If death can strike like a lightening bolt so quickly, so unexpectedly, then shouldn’t we make sure we’re spending our lives doing the things we really enjoy, the things we would regret doing if it were to happen to us?

Mainly, though, I was devastated because, though I hadn’t seen him in years, I can still see him so clearly in my mind’s eye that it doesn't seem real. Even though he was nearly forty when he died, I can still still see him so clearly as he was 20 years ago, when we were twenty.

Whether we were having late night conversations about Xeno’s paradox (umm, it’s a physics thing), working on problem sets late at night for differential equations (Ranjan made up his nickname for me when he discovered that while I was pretty good at taking tests, I was never very good at completing problem sets on time. “Hey scholar!” he called me for the rest of our years at MIT, “you can copy my answers for the problem set,” while we called 783-BIRD or Domino’s to order late night food), or taking the bus to Wellesley to try to meet some girls (umm, don’t think we ever really did meet many girls from Wellesley though) or when we were carrying our little brown suitcases filled with home-made computers for our Computer Engineering Class at MIT (6.004) to computer lab in the middle of a snow-filled night in Boston.

The suitcases housed makeshift computers that we built up during the semester – they were called “Maybe” machines. To this day, I can still hear Ranjan singing his rendition of some old song, as we trudged through the snow, hoping our “Maybe” computers would work when we got the lab, “Come on Baby…. Don’t say Maybe…”

At that time, I didn’t realize that Ranjan was a trailblazer who was inspiring me in way inspiring me in many ways.

Amidst a sea of engineers, he was the rare creative, wrote short stories in both his native tongue and in English. When I visited him in the Bay Area a few years after college, he told me about a writing group he was in. A few years later, when I was writing more seriously, Ranjan inspired me to start my own writing group.

Among a wave of scientists who didn’t believe much in religion, he investigated them using logic and clarity of mind, and even got me interested in Buddhism well before I did any exploration of it on my own and (even though he wasn’t a Buddhist).

In a time when I was appreciating only Hollywood blockbusters, Ranjan taught me to appreciate off-beat indie films and quality filmmakers (Barton Fink and Fellini, anyone?).

Of course most of these memories are from long ago and they go on and on. This makes me realize the biggest shame of all, is that though I knew Ranjan quite well as a young man, I didn’t know him in his thirties, a successful business executive.

Even so, I can see him more clearly than ever, in whatever dimension of reality he’s moved on to, amused that all of his old friends have suddenly come out of the woodwork to appreciate him on the news of his death. He would be standing there, making up nicknames for all of us and for all of his recent colleagues, as he sings some rendition of some old song, changing he words to amuse himself, and to comfort his wife and family to not be sad, that he’s OK…he’s just moved on to the next thing…

Ranjan has died, but Ranjan lives on!

Stanford Sloan, Entry 22: The Last Entry: Final Finals, Ethics in B-School, the World According to Pixar

Tis the eve of our final final (approximately 11pm when I stared writing this), and throughout the b-school campus, not a mouse is stirring. Well, that’s not entirely true – many MBA’s are out at the final FOAM of the season held at some club in Palo Alto.

As for Sloans, we have our final final exam tomorrow morning, our very last bit of academic nonsense (er, rather, I mean our last serious academic endeavor) during our Sloan year: the HR final exam. The HR class (as per my past post) is one of two Sloan required classes in our final quarter.

Today was officially our last day of class at the GSB, but like many Sloans, I didn’t have any classes today. While many of us were busy studying for our final tomorrow, I took a trip up to San Francisco to wander around a little bit.

Read More ...

Our other Sloan required class, Non Market Strategy, had a professor who decided to give us our final exam last Thursday. In hindsight this seemed like a brilliant move, because it allowed us to enjoy the beautiful late May/early June weather without stressing about academics last weekend.

This also meant that two of my courses were officially finished last Thursday (the required class, Non Market Strategy, and my elective class, The Business World: Moral and Spiritual Inquiry through literature).

Yesterday (Monday, June 1st) I had my last session of the Leadership Entertainment Industry class (more on this, including our visit to Pixar and the visit of David E. Kelly later). Which means three out of four classes are done, and in less than 12 hours, my academic experience at the Stanford Sloan program will be complete!

As I sit here, I should be cramming for this final exam in HR, I can’t help but reflect what an odd class ithe HR class been. In this class, doing data regression about HR was often emphasized more than actual HR strategy, and cases that we wrote about our co-workers companies seemed much more interesting than the “official cases” from Harvard and Stanford Business School that we were supposed to be learning from. Oh well, learning from our peers has been one of the keys to making business school worthwhile, so I guess this shouldn’t’ surprise me!

Ethics and Morality in Business?

One component of the our Non-Market Strategy class that came up over the past few weeks was the “ethics” component. Despite being a little philosophically abstract (Kantian vs. Utilitarian, anyone? I think I’d rather debate Tastes Great vs. Less Filling!), there was some valuable self-reflection this class forced us to do, at least for a few minutes.

In the wide world, MBA’s aren’t generally perceived to have any ethics, really. Just a constant stream of number-crunchers coming out of business schools who calculate the path to maximum profits with the least weighted average cost of capital, and always recommend the path of most borrowing at the least interest rate, regardless of the long term consequences.

Case in point: our recent financial crisis.

Well, I can’t really argue that this isn’t what business school teaches us. It actually is, for the most part, what we learn in our finance classes. But, there are bright spots of moral reflection in our other classes too, which shouldn’t be overlooked.

In our Non-market class, we were presented with some ethical dilemmas and asked our opinion.

Our professor called it Trolley-ology. A trolley is coming down the track and it is very likely to kill 5 people who are on the track. You have the option to change the track the trolley is on, to another track where only one person will get killed.

What do you do?

OK next step. Forget about the second track. Suppose you are on a bridge overlooking the trolley that is rolling towards killing 5 people. There is one person on the bridge with you. You could push that person off the bridge, which would kill them, but would stop the trolley, and with certainty save the lives of the 5 people down the road.

What would you do now?

Hmmm. If you’re like me, I don’t know that these hypothetical ethical dilemmas about Trolleys really impact our day to day decision in the business world, however much they do help illuminate how we think about ethical issues.

I’m sure that most MBA’s who were involved with institutions that spear-headed the financial crisis (as well as earlier excesses like Enron and Worldcom) probably had ethics classes like this one, but it’s not clear that they did any good.

More interesting and impactful on my long term view though, was my Moral and Spiritual Inquiry Through Literature class. This class, which was taught in seminar format, put a much more textured and personalized spin on these kinds of moral dilemmas.

By reading a fictional story (a novel a week, mind you) of a character who, for example, is staunchly anti-corruption at the beginning of the novel, but succumbs to taking a bribe by the end of the novel, we move beyond platitudes and abstract philosophy and hopefully gain some insight into human nature.

When Ivan Ilyich, described as a career corporate ladder climber in mercilessly accurate prose by Tolstoy, is about to die prematurely and reflects on what was missing from his materially oriented life, it’s not much of a stretch to see the comparison between this late 19th century Ruppy (Russian upwardly mobile professional) and the corporate climbing business school student of the twenty first century!

By being forced to discuss the nature of ethics and the role of religion and spirituality in our lives (and our work), we get, I think, to a much more personalized view of how we as human beings with vying impulses including greed and self-sufficiency might act in a materially obsessed world.

Moreover, by writing a 4000 word essay on how these books had an impact on my own views on morality and spirituality in the business world, I was forced to think through these issues at a deeper level than even trolleys would allow.

For those of my readers who wonder why I’m taking a class on Literature in Business School, I can only say that I wish everyone who had gotten an MBA over the past 10-20 years had to take this class (Moral and Spiritual Inquiry Through Literature), since it’s taught me more about reflecting on what’s important in life and business than all of my other classes combined.

The Law Acccording to Pixar

As always, I like to write about my Entertainment Industry class. Why? Not only because it’s a fun class, but because everyone likes the movies.

Last week, we went on a class visit to Pixar, which is, as we’ve learned the only major studio which has not had a box office failure. The visit was very eye-opening, not just because there statues of one-eyed monsters in the lobby (from Monsters, Inc), but because it made me (and the rest of the class) think about creativity, business, and the importance of modifying stories (whether in business or entertainment) until we get them right.

Pixar is a very creativity driven place. This comes across from the conversations we had with the CFO of Pixar, and from Andrew Stanton, who was the writer on the Toy Story movies, and the writer/director of Finding Nemo and Wall-e.

The first thing that strikes you when you walk into Pixar these days is that it’s all about one film: Up, the new movie that was just released this last weekend. I loved this movie, and it looks like it’s going to be a commercial success, despite analysts ravings that a movie about “a grumpy old man and a fat kid” has limited market appeal and no toy merchandising possibilities.

The thing about this focus is that for much of its history (going back to Toy Story) the folks at Pixar focused almost exclusively on one film. This is contrary to what we learn at business school and contrary to what almost every major studio in Hollywood says – that you need a diversified portfolio of films every year because you never know which of them are going to be successful.

But, as Andrew described to us their process – it can take 4-5 years to produce a Pixar film, one of their reasons for this success became apparent. Pixar is a mixture of Hollywood and Silicon Valley (Steve Jobs was the CEO and investor for many years, and Pixar grew out of Lucasfilm, and was a technology company for most of it’s life). They focus incessantly on the story for the first 2.5 years of this time – recording the whole film using hand drawn sketches and only when/if they get the story right, do they invest in the very costly 3d animation for which they are known.

They also allow for a certain amount of honest creative tension. While the director has the final say, the Pixar brain trust watches early screenings (of hand-drawn sketches with employee-recorded voices) and they “duke it out” with each other for ideas on how to make the story better. According to Stanton, after some painful disputes, they almost always emerged with a better story, which really has been the key to Pixar’s success I think. I could continue writing about Pixar forever, since it's such an interesting company, but will have to leave it at that!

We also had David E. Kelley visit our Entertainment Industry class. He was the creator of such hit television legal dramas as The Practice, Ally McBeal, and the more recent Boston Legal.

I won’t say much about his visit, except that it was also very insightful about the creative process in general and how television works in particular. Two things he said that surprised me?
1) that James Spader didn’t want to work with William Shatner at the beginning of Boston legal (though this changed quickly when they started working together), and
2) the head of the TV network programming (I think it was ABC) thought that the show ‘Lost’ was the “biggest piece of shit” he’d ever seen and he only let it go on the air because he had to contractually (the same executive later happily took credit for what became one of the biggest successes in the networks history).

Sign Off: The Last Entry

This is probably my last entry of the Sloan academic year in this blog. It’s been great fun writing this blog, even when it’s done in the middle of the night before an important exam.

I’d like to remind everyone for posterity that these have been my own personal impressions and rants of a thirty-something software entrepreneur who decided to go back to school and relive his high-school dream of attending Stanford University.

Several of next year’s Sloan’s have told me that they heard about the program or decided to join the Sloan program at Stanford because of my blog (or maybe it was despite my blog?? – just kidding!). For those of you who’ve been reading it regulary, I thank you and feel free to drop me a note any time.

From now on, I’ll be heading back to the world of work, dipping my toe in Venture Capital, and continuing to work on my organization, BayView Labs.

As for the blog, I’m going to go back to writing about entrepreneurship, zen, personal growth, and of course, the movies!

So what did I learn about succeeding in the business world in business school?

Well, speaking of the movies, perhaps the best way to sum up what I learned in business school is also in fact the best way to sum up my class about the Entertainment Industry.

This line, which was quoted to us by both David E. Kelley and our professor (Oscar winning documentary filmmaker Bill Guttentag), was from the book “Adventures in the Screen Trade”, by William Goldman.

Goldman summed up his own experiences in Hollywood with the very simple line: “Nobody knows anything!”

Stanford Sloan GSB, Entry 21: The Spring Quarter, Star Wars, and the Class of 2010

The Class of 2010

We just met members of the Stanford Sloan Program class of 2010, who are having their orientation this weekend, as I write this. We gave them a “welcome” presentation (“The opening ceremonies for the class of 2010”, as our Master of Ceremonies, Tim, Tim, described it), in Bishop auditorium, the main auditorium at the GSB.

In the words of Darth Vader from Star Wars (more on the Star Wars theme later in this blog post): “The Circle is Now Complete”.

It’s hard to believe that it’s been a year since we sat in Bishop, watching the Sloan class of 2008 give us their wacky and informative presentation about what life was like in the Sloan program, amidst the MBA's at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

I can remember sitting in the theater, with my then future-friends/classmates, watching these guys and wondering: “Wow, these guys seem to be such good friends and having such a good time – I wonder if our class is going to gel like that?”

Read More ...

I remember the 2008 class members, with their private jokes about texting each other at night and hurrying to a restaurant, bar, or social gathering in Palo Alto. It was clear they were having a good time, and I doubted whether we'd be like that in under a year's time.

I sat with my own personal combination of excitement, anticipation, and even anxiousness, about how I’d fit in to the Stanford GSB. I wondered if I’d like taking classes again (it had been 15 years since I’d been to school), wondering if I’d get along well with my classmates, and more importantly, whether I’d be able to relate to any of them personally.

The Sloan program, after all, consists of a very diverse group of people, from a large number of countries, at very different stages of life (from single Sloanies to families with 4 kids) and stages of work (from entrepreneurs to unemployed to Employed for Life).

As I sat in the audience yesterday, that question was finally answered. We have gelled as a class and it was funny to see in our skits and videos just how well we’ve gotten to know each other (and the faculty and administration, who several members of our class played during the skits). Particularly hilarious was our classmate Bree’s imitation of the director of the Sloan program, Marie – who knew we had such a good impersonator in our class?

The experience turned out to be more emotional for many of us than we expected - Of course our first priority was to welcome the new class with open arms and to give them a preview of what they might be like a year from now – which we did. But it also brought forth the realization that we have come full circle and our year at Stanford is almost over! In fact, there are only 4 weeks of classes left, only one big Sloan party left (The Latin party), and then finals, and finally graduation in June.

Many of us are going on the international study trip to South America, though some of us are more concerned about what we’re doing afterwards, with the job market and economy as it is and won't be attending.

What a year it’s been and what great friendships we’ve formed. I find it funny that even those classmates who I didn’t always get along with, or those I didn’t relate to very much during the school year - have become trusted friends that I’m looking forward to seeing sometime after graduation.

The Spring Quarter
Several of the new members of the class told me they’d been reading this blog regularly (one even said that was how he learned about the program), and asked why I hadn’t written any entries lately.

Honestly this last semester has been really busy – not so much with academics, but since it’s my last semester at Stanford, I’ve been trying to meet with as many interesting folks on and off campus, and figuring out exactly what I might be working on next that academics have fallen to a “lower priority”.

Which leads to a piece of un-asked for advice that I’d give to the new class: Think about why you’re coming to Stanford and what your priorities will be. Of course, there will always be academic, social, and professional aspects of your year here, and in the fall quarter they will be all mixed together. But come January, I would suggest it’s important to have a sense of what you’d like to get out of it – is it more experience with Finance? Is it to meet a team (MBA’s, Engineers) that you’d like to start a company with after the program? Is it to get to know professors that you want to keep in touch with? Is it to break into a new industry? Is it to socialize?

Whatever it is, you've got to focus on what's right for you!

Spring Electives
So to give our future Sloanies and others who are interested in classes at the Stanford Business Schoool, here’s the low down on the classes I’m taking this quarter.

I decided to take only four classes this quarter. There are two required core classes (as part of the Sloan curriculum). I took two electives this quarter, which should (fingers crossed) give me the right number of credits to graduate. I intentionally took a light load this quarter (I had 5 classes in the winter quarter, several of which were very demanding). Again, this gets back to priorities – one of our classmates is taking 6 classes this quarter, because it’s our last quarter at Stanford and he wants to take as many classes as possible.

The core classes:

•Non-market strategy.
This was a term that I hadn’t heard before. The idea of this class is that while most business focus on the “market strategy of a firm” (what are competitors doing, what is my product strategy, m&a, marketing, etc.), many firms (particularly big multi-nationals) have to deal with things that are not directly market-related. What things? A big thing called the government is a good example – many firms are in industries that are regulated, that might face environmental issues, that are attacked by citizen groups, and on and on.

As an example, our first case was about Shell and greenpeace and the media. More recently, we spoke about patents, trademarks, and intellectual property protection. Last week we did simulation based on the Microsoft anti-trust case – where one study group (my study group) played Microsoft and another study group played the Department of Justice and we argued whether Microsoft had violated anti-trust laws or not.

The best thing about this class? It makes me think about things I really don’t think about much. The worst thing about this class? It’s at 8:00 am in the morning – I call it my “sleep killer” class.

• HR class.
This class is about HR-related issues and how to structure personnel and compensation based on the strategy of the firm. Some cases we studied include Southwest Airlines, the Portman hotel, and InfoSys, to name a few.

I like the general theme of this class, because I don’t always think about HR issues as being strategic, but rather operational. However, contrary to my expectations, all the assignments in the class are data regressions, which has cause more than one of my classmates to wonder: “Is this a class about financial modeling, or Human Resources?”.

It seems like many professors here at the GSB in what I would consider “soft subjects” (HR, organizational behavior, marketing.) really want to hammer in the point that business-school in general and their field in particular is about data analysis and quantitative techniques – i.e. that it’s not really touchy feely, but rather quanty-crunchy.

I remember our negotiations instructor, when someone said "negotiation is more of an art than a science". She got very upset and yelled at him: “what have I been teaching you? This is a science, not art!” Of course anyone who’s done complex negotiation in the real world knows that it is as much (if not more) of an art involving personalities as it is a science, so I ask you: what gives?

It seems to me that teachers of soft subjects want to portray their subject as “real science” in order to get “academic respectability” from their peers and of course, to get tenure (can't say I blame them). I remember our Organizational Behavior professor’s grading of our final papers, refusing to acknowledge that the case that he laid out for us had more than one way to come up with a “right answer”.

Oh well what can you do? How about running a data regression on it and see if what I say can be backed up with empirical data LOL!!

Best thing about this HR class? The case discussions. Worst thing about this class? The data regressions, and the fact that it’s a “3-day weekend killer” class – it’s on Friday afternoon and Monday afternoon.

My two electives:
Of course everyone has taken different electives this quarter. I’ve taken two classes that I really like and help me to branch out in my own thinking:

• The Business World: Moral and Spiritual Inquiry through Literature.
It might seem funny to be taking a literature class in business school. But this class has been hailed by many MBA’s as a class to take in your last quarter of business school because it provides a good way to “cap” your experience and to think about larger issues of life, purpose, and where we’re headed in our lives and our careers.

I can’t agree more. Each week we read one book, and then we have our three hour class session on Thursday to have a discussion/debate about the book and the themes that were raised by the book, and how/if they have any relevance in our own lives and careers.

We started off by reading F. Scott Fitzgerald (the Last Tycoon) followed by two well known US plays about salesmen – Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, and Glengarry Glen Ross, by David Mamet. We then read a novel that had very strong elements of Jewish-American culture post WW II in it – The Ghost Writer, by Phillip Roth. Then we read a novel about post WW II Japan – An Artist in the Floating World. We’re now reading a spiritual novel about a Japanese characters who travel to India on a spiritual quest – Deep River, by Endo. We have a few more international readings, ending a Tolstoy story..

This class might seem like a lot of work, because we’re supposed to read an entire book every week. But, the books are all pretty small (especially compared to the 800 page Tome we have in Non-Market Strategy) and very easy to read. In fact, I can honestly say that this is the only class in my entire business school experience for which I expect to do 100% of the readings – Why? Because they’re all classic works of literature and all very well written.


• Leadership in the Entertainment Industry.
My final class this term is about the entertainment industry – yes – film-making and TV. Given my interest in the film industry (I have been an executive producer and investor on a few indie film projects in my spare time), this is one of my favorite classes. It is taught by an Oscar-winning documentary film-maker (it was cool to go to Blockbuster after we’d started the class and see Professor Guttentag’s name on a movie there).

Each week, we have speakers from the entertainment industry come by and give us a talk, after which we pepper them with questions. This is definitely the fun part of the class. For example, we had the head of Fox TV channel come by and talk about the issues facing the entertainment industry as it goes on line (they funded Hulu for example, but haven’t figured out how to make advertising profitable online). He talked about the history as well. I tried to get him to tell us if Fox was going to renew “Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles” but he was mum on the subject, since he hadn’t even told the producers yet.

We also had Alexander Payne, the director of the film Sideways come in and talk about directing and his experience in the film industry. He was particularly terse in his answers. It kind of made me laugh when one of us would ask some high-minded artistic question and ask his opinion of it and he’d just stroke his chin and say “I don’t know. Never thought about it. Next question.”

Of course the class has more than speakers – it has field trips, which are particularly fun.

The House that Lucas Built
Last week we went to the Presidio in San Francisco and visited Industrial Light and Magic, the company built by George Lucas after the success of Star Wars.. There are actually several companies housed in this gorgeous complex built on a very large park area on San Francisco Bay.

Anyone who is a fan of movies know about the Star Wars films and George Lucas. It was incredible to be able to go the company and see how people work and how the offices are laid out. We were told that they don’t generally do public tours, so we were very lucky to have gotten a tour. The hallways are lined with artifacts from movies that ILM has worked on. This of course, included props and costumes from the Star Wars films – including Stormtroopers, Darth Vader, Yoda, C3PO, and even Han Solo in carbonite!

ILM also did the special effects for the Indiana Jones movies, and (unbeknownst to many) the Star Trek movies, among many many others. In fact, they did all the special effects for the new Star Trek movie that’s coming out next week. There were artifacts from all these movies strewn throughout the hallways - it was so cool! My favorites turned out to be the Matte paintings that were used as backdrops for scenes in the film. Needless to say a classmate and I "got lost" on this tour, and had to be picked up and led back to the tour!

The complex actually houses several of Lucas’ companies – ILM (the special effects company), Lucasfilm (which is the film production company which owns the Star Wars films), and LucasArts (the video game company). We got a private Q&A with the heads of these companies, which was great. One thing that was interesting to me was the key role of the video games in this entertainment empire as it moves forward.

Since this trip wasn’t listed in the syllabus it came as a surprise to all of us, and definitely contributed to making this one of my favorite classes at the GSB.

We have one more field trip scheduled in the Bay area, which also relates to George Lucas in a roundabout way:

'In the 1980’s Lucasfilm/ILM had developed some animation rendering technology which was spun out as a separate company and was funded by a famous Silicon Valley entrepreneur. That company worked on 3d animation and rendering technology, and eventually used that technology to make animated 3d films. I’ve heard that they don’t give public tours either, but we’re going to visit them the week after next. The company? Pixar!

Now who says Business school isn’t cool?

Stanford GSB, Entry 20: 9 and 1/2 weeks, Google, CitiBank, Fannie Mae, Big Brother, and Keeping the Talent Happy

Only Ten Weeks Left. Wow. This year has moved quickly.

We just started (on April 1st) the Spring Quarter, the third of our three quarters in the Sloan program at the Stanford GSB. I guess that means only 9 and half weeks left.

It seems just yesterday we were sitting on the fourth floor of the GSB wondering how long it was going to take us to get used to being in school again, and how/when we might meet some of the MBA students.

And now, already there is talk of Graduation (ordering your caps and gowns, making sure you have enough units to graduate, and oh yeah, did you apply to graduate?).

Not only that but we’re already making preparations for the Orientation at the beginning of May for the next Sloan class – the Class of 2010.

I guess that’s the nature of a 1 year program, but it’s strange to be talking about next year’s class when we’re not done with this year’s class ☺

A lot has happened since my last blog entry. I’ll fill you in on whatever I can fit in: Read More

Eric Schmidt, Google, and the arrival of Big Brother

Before the end of the winter quarter, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google came and spoke at the GSB. Now, he’s already a guest lecturer for one class here, so it’s not that big of a deal, but it was one of the most highly attended talks I’ve seen since Steve Ballmer came to visit.

Bishop Auditorium, where the bigwhigs usually speak, was full and many of us had to go to an overflow classroom, which showed Eric talking on a big screen in the front of the room.

Now, generally speaking, I’ve been a fan of Google, and they’ve been the anti-establishment company for a long time now (Eric is also the only big company CEO who’s attended Burning Man, for example).

But I have to say, Eric’s talk creeped me out, and I wasn’t the only one.

He spoke about the future of Google, and how they can use the intelligence gained from what you’ve searched for to link to mobile devices and let you know when you’re passing a shop that has something in it you might have searched for.

Only with your permission, he slipped in, perhaps noticing that there might be some privacy issues being raised there.

Moreover, Google can monitor what search terms are coming from an entire community. So for example, if a community starts to have an above-average numbers of searches for “flu”, Google could take action, alerting the government that there might be an epidemic there.

Of course, he slipped in, very casually and almost as an after-thought, Google would only do these things with your permission.

A few of us in the overflow room started shifting in our seats. The big talking head at the front of the room was telling us that he knows what we’re thinking, what we’re buying, what our neighbors are thinking, and he has the ability and technology to alert the government to this.

Hmmm. I looked over at a classmate of mine, and his expression was as puzzled as mine. “Did he really just say what I thought he said?” Was this the twenty-first century equivalent of “I know what library books you’re checking out" ?

Now it’s funny, because when we think of “loving-to-hate” a nerdy looking, very wealthy white guy on a big screen in charge of a monopolistic technology company that may have grown too powerful, a different image usually comes to mind.

There’s a great TV mini-series, Pirates of Silicon Valley, from a few years ago, which tells the story of Microsoft and Apple (among others) in the early days of the PC revolution. At the end of the mini-series, Steve Jobs is speaking at MacWorld, and behind him, on the screen, in streaming video is Bill Gates head (oversized) smiling and looking down through his glasses at Steve. Microsoft has just rescued Apple from the clutches of bankruptcy, and Steve is grateful.

The last scene was meant to evoke the image of “Big Brother” from George Orwell’s 1984. It was also meant to evoke the image of Big Brother in the famous Apple commercial from 1984 (when IBM and Microsoft were Big Brother). Big Brother had arrived, and his name was Bill Gates, the mini-series seemed to be saying.

I couldn’t help but feeling, as I sat in that room at Stanford, watching an oversized talking head telling us he know what we’re thinking that maybe reports of Big Brother’s identification were greatly exaggerated.

In fighting the old Big Brother by supporting companies like Apple and Google in Silicon Valley, we (meaning myself and many other well-meaning consumers) may just have created an opportunity for the real Big Brother to arrive.

To quote another George Orwell novel, Animal Farm, about what happens when power shifts from one powerful group to the ones that overtook them: Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better.

Finals and End of Winter Quarter

Just after that interesting experience, we had our final exams and papers for the Winter Quarter. Our two Sloan core classes, Marketing and Accounting both had final exams, while two of my elective classes had final projects. One other elective class, finance, had a final exam as well.

As I sat there, getting ready for the our East Coast Study Trip (which happened during Spring Break), I was trying to get a handle on how to calculate net present values in two different countries using various exchange rates, interest rates, and discount rates. I think that was the moment I decided it’s probably better not to take a finance class in my last quarter at the GSB.

Grading at the GSB continues to mystify me. Classes that I thought I might not do well in, I did very well in. Classes that I thought I was doing really well in, I did only OK in.

Go Figure. Oh well - I still stick firmly by the anonymous assertion (which I repeated in my last blog entry) that grades in the GSB are guaranteed to be accurate, but with a plus/minus margin of error of two letter grades.

East Coast Study Trip

After finals we had our “Spring Break”.

I put “Spring Break” in Quotes because it wasn’t really a break. We had our East Coast Study Trip to Washington, DC and New York City. Because the Sloan Program is a one-year program it feels like we have a lot of mandatory stuff crammed in.

Despite having to dress up in a suit and tie (every single day), and despite having to get up to board the bus by 7:15 am on most days, and despite being herded around like sheep from place to place, the trip was actually quite interesting.

I always get asked what we do on study trips. Well, other than get up early, dress in a suite and tie, and get herded around from building to building like a flock of sheep, we usually get a talk by a senior member of the company we’re visiting. In some cases, it’s the CEO of the company, which is very cool. They give us a little lecture, and then we are able to ask questions of them.

So here are some people and places we visited, and some random things I remember about the visits:

• Smithsonian. We had a talk by the head of the Smithsonian. I found this to be one of the more interesting talks, mainly because I didn’t know much about the Smithsonian (other than they run a great Air & Space Museum, which I visited). Turns out they run 19 museums and have collected something like over a 100 million scientific specimens over the years. There was a British guy in the 1800’s (Smithson) whose will said that if his only surviving heir (his nephew), didn’t have any heirs, then the money should be donated to the “United States of America” for the "Establishment for the increase & diffusion of Knowledge among men". That’s a pretty vague mission statement, and the government (under Andrew Jackson) they really didn’t know what to do with the money, until they established the Smithsonian as a scientific quasi-governmental organizations. Other things I didn’t know: that on the Board of Directors of the Smithsonian are both the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Vice President. Memorable Quote: “When raising money for a non-profit, you still have to have a sales pitch”

• Senator Kent Conrad and the Capitol. We had a tour of the Capital Building visited the office of Senator Kent Conrad (D), of North Dakota, who was in the charge of the Senate budget committee. He only had a few minutes with us, because that week he was on TV a lot, and was overseeing the senate’s work with President Obama’s budget. Obama won’t get everything he wants in his budget, said the Senator to us, and then alter that night many of us saw his name being referenced again and again by the talking heads on TV. Little Known Fact About the US Capitol: there is a room called the crypt, which was meant for the Tomb of George Washington (he wasn’t buried there, he was buried at Mt. Vernon), and there is a compass on the floor of that circular room, which is the point from which all addresses in Washington DC get their name. Little Known Fact about me: I lived in North Dakota for a few very formative years, even started high school there – Mr. Conrad might have been my senator! Memorable quote: “I have to go meet with the Obama administration in 15 minutes. Now in the 14 minutes I have left… Now in the 13 minutes I have left, I’d like to talk about… Now, in the 12 minutes I have left, “

• Postmaster General of the United States. We met the postmaster general of the United States of America. He started off as mail clerk in Boston and is now in charge of one of the largest organizations in the US. He reminded me of the guy on Cheers (the mailman) a little bit. His biggest challenges: How to make the US Postal Service profitable when the volume of mail has been decreasing every year. They are required by law to have post offices in every single zip code, even if those zip codes have something like 100 households in them. Little Known Fact: the Postal Services biggest customer is its biggest vendor is its biggest competitor: Federal Express. Memorable Quote: “If there’s one thing that everyone has a strong opinion about – it’s the mail!”

• Chairman of the Federal Reserve. We were supposed to meet with Ben Bernanke (who used to be a professor of Economics at Stanford), but who had to go testify in front of Congress that day. Why? The AIG bonus scandal (more on this later). Instead we met with Kevin Walsh, who is the youngest of the 12 members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Q: How did he get his job so young? A: He was a protégé of Bernanke so BB pulled him in on his coattails. He seemed like a pretty smart guy (also a Stanford alum). My question for him (hey here’s one thing I learned in my last finance class): With all the talk of the Fiscal bailout, there isn’t much talk about the monetary bailout underway –with the Fed buying up trillions of dollars in assets, and increasing the available money supply, aren’t they worried about devaluing the currency or inflation?”. His answer: “Under Chairman Bernanke, We’ve been aggressive about buying up assets; but that means we have to be equally aggressive about selling those assets when things stabilize.”

• CEO of the NY Stock Exchange. We met with the CEO of the NYSE in New York. What struck me most about this meeting was just how “calm” this guy was in the middle of one of the biggest financial crises in the past 50 years. In fact, he was a little too calm. The NYSE has been around a long time, he seemed to be saying with his demeanor, and has weathered other storms and it’ll weather this one too. But then we learned the real reason for his equanimity: “When stocks go up, I don’t necessarily have a good day. When stocks go down, I don’t necessarily have a bad day.” The unspoken message: He makes money either way, as long as there is a lot of share volume. Wow- nice business model, dude! Other memorable quote, when the first two questions asked were from our two Russian classmates, “Are there any questions from students who aren’t from Russia today?”

• Fannie Mae and Citibank. I put these last two together, because as those of you following the financial markets will know, both of these institutions had to be bailed out using billions of dollars of US Government money (i.e. our money, the taxpayers). At Fannie Mae, we met with two people: the CEO (relatively new) and the Chief Economist. At Citibank, we met with Vikram Pandit the CEO of Citibank. These meetings were very surreal – it felt like these guys were living inside bubbles (called their companies in particular, and the financial services sector in general) that were pretty disconnected from the rest of the world.

The other thing that these two organizations had in common? They were both upset about the AIG bonus scandal. Now, let’s get this right, they weren’t upset that AIG, which took billions of dollars in aid from the Federal Government was paying multi-million dollar bonuses to its management team members. They were upset that th taxpayers and the government would have the audacity to ask for it back!

They were of the opinion that the bonuses being paid by institutions like themselves were necessary for “retaining the talent” and that the Government has no business meddling in the internal affairs of these companies.

All I have to say is that both were pretty out of touch with how the US Public was feeling that week, when this was the biggest story in the news and individual taxpayers were upset about the million dollar bonuses.

One more thing that both CEO’s said, almost verbatim: “The People that were part of the problem are gone; the people that we have left here are part of the solution, not part of the problem”. It was so verbatim that I wonder if there was a “federal bailout CEO phrasebook” that they shared.

This of course begs the question, where did those people, who were part of the problem, go?

Moreover, the CEO of Fannie Mae said that he’d agreed to pay bonuses last year to his senior people, including some 7 figure bonuses. Let me repeat that, 7 figure bonuses were paid by Fannie Mae after being bailed out by the Federal Government. If they didn’t pay these 7 figure bonuses, he said, the “talent” would leave and go elsewhere.

Which brings up my next question: “What bank or insurance company has a mortgage business that has so much money that they are willing to lure away Fannie Mae executives by paying them 7 figure bonuses?”

I can only think of one: AIG.

Stanford GSB, Entry 19: Rainy, Foamy, Fuzzy, and Right-Wingy: Profs, Secretaries, Do-gooders, and criminals

Wow it’s been a while since I’ve written. I guess I got so caught up in winter quarter stuff that I haven’t really been keeping the blog up to date – so there’s a lot to write about.

So what’s been going on? Well for one thing, we are almost completely finished with the winter term – only one week of classes is left!

It seems like it was just yesterday that I was taking my accounting and my finance midterms. How did I do? Well, the engineering background continues to pay off; since they were both based on solid concepts which can be taught (and learned), I did pretty well.

So what does the end of the winter quarter mean at the GSB?

For one thing, rain. So much for the illusion that attending Stanford means going to school in “Sunny California”! It’s been raining almost non-stop for the past month (or so it seems). Today the sun came out for a few minutes, which was nice.

Yes I know, California is suffering from a drought, California needs rain, so I shouldn’t be complaining, but couldn’t it rain, like every other day, instead of every single day?

It’s enough to make my thoughts turn to Southern California. Or maybe Arizona. Or maybe even Las Vegas. Ahh, to feel the sun shining on my face again…

Which reminds me - Vegas FOAM is next week. FOAM, for those of you following the blog will know is the Tuesday night partying done by the MBA’s (joined by an occasional Sloan or two), since we don’t “officially” have classes on Wednesdays at the GSB. It stands for Friends Of Arjay Miller (Arjay Miller Scholars are the ones who get good grades).

Usually, Tuesday night FOAMs are held at a local establishment, but next week everyone (well not everyone, but many) will be flying to Vegas after classes on Tuesday, spend the night partying there, and flying back on in time for the non-existent Wednesday classes, or at the very latest, in time for Thursday classes.
Click to Read Full Post

Fuzzy Logic

The other two things that end of the term means are “Final Exams” and “Final Projects”.

The thing about group projects in Business School that I find odd (and perhaps a little bit scary), is that in our fuzzy classes, a very large percentage of our grade (in some cases up to 50%) is based on the final project.

This week, I had thee final project due for my entrepreneurship and VC class, taught by Professor G., a 30-plus veteran of the Venture Capital industry. In that class, we had to write a 20-page business plan); I think we wrote a pretty good one about using iPhones for building communities based on popular TV shows.

How do I know that it was good? I’ve written a plan or two before and it seemd OK.

On the other hand, we also had both a final project and a final exam for our Marketing class.

I can say that I honestly have no fracking idea what the professor was looking for in our final paper, and even worse, many classmates feel like the final exam is going to be a complete mystery. (Any science fiction-oriented readers will will recognize the Battlestar Galactica reference there – for the rest of you, never mind!).

Which brings me to the subject of fuzzy grading. Fuzzy can be a good thing, as in “warm and fuzzy”. More often than not, at least where the GSB is concerned, a fuzzy class is one where the grading is “arbitrary, capricious, and highly subjective”.

There’s a joke around the student body that in many GSB classes (at least the fuzzy ones), your grade is guaranteed to be accurate within 2 letter grades of what you actually get – up or down! (do the math – it basically means that grades in fuzzy classes are pretty meaningless). I have one classmate who got an H, the highest grade possible, for participation in a class where he felt he didn’t participate that much at all – go figure! Good thing Stanford has a policy of not disclosing grades for MBA’s!

Doing Good

Speaking of classes, especially here at Stanford, grades certainly aren’t everything. In fact, there are quite a few things set up to help local charities. A few weeks ago, we had the White Party, which held an auction for everything from Dinners with famous VC's to yaching with groups of MBA1 girls, with all the proceeds going to charities.

Several of my classmates set up a website for their Social Technology class, which aims to use the web as a vehicle for helping out needy causes.

The site, Education Dream Lab, will help educational projects raise money online using the power of Web 2.0 social networking technologies. (See http://educationdreamlab.org/blog/). For their first project, they are helping students at the Phoenix academy in East Palo Alto (which is generally thought of as being more economically needy area than Palo Alto) with a scholarship fund.

Way to go guys!

Right-Wingy

In the past few weeks, we’ve had a number of illustrious visitors and it’s always fun to give the outside world a glimpse of who we get to see.

This Monday, Colin Powell gave a talk on campus. It was a big event – tickets were sold out I think. (Due the rain, though, not everyone came; the seats weren't quite as full as you might expect for such a famous guy).

In person, Mr. Powell was pretty engaging and articulate, and even came across, dare I say, passionate. Which is pretty different from his TV persona.

He told quite a few funny stories. For example, he told us one about when he was National Security Advisor and took his then 21-year old son to buy his first car. As a negotiating tactic, he picked up his brick satellite phone (remember those?) and said things like “Yes, Mr. President, I’ll be right there, Mr. President”, even when the President wasn’t on the phone. Why? To show the car dealer he was ready to walk away and they’d better settle on a deal very fast!

Unfortunately, Powell, who came across very as very likable during this talk, avoided the tough questions – no students were allowed to ask questions. California in general and Stanford in particular is a pretty liberal place, and I couldn’t wait for someone to ask him about his “performance” at the UN convincing the nation to go into the military adventure in Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, guess who also arrived on campus this week? In fact, her first day was the same day that Colin Powell gave his speech.

Who else but his successor as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. She got her PhD here at Stanford, was a professor and a provost here (I have no idea what a provost is, so don’t ask), before she was recruited by one called “W.” to make the trek up to Washington.

Thus far, no speeches on campus from Condi (though she did give an interview to the Stanford Daily). Now that she's back on campus, I’d be happy to interview her for this blog! I’ll keep you posted.

Speaking of former Secretaries of State, we (the Sloan class) had a private audience with George Schultz, who was Reagan’s Secretary of State in the Eighties a few weeks ago. Speaking of eighties, Schultz is in his late 80’s (89 if I’m not mistaken), but was in very good form for our event.

He sat on a very old-fashioned chair in front of our class, spoke a little bit about wanting to rid the world of Nuclear Weapons, and then proceeded to answer every one of our questions. Come on Colin and Condi, if an 89 year old guy can take questions from students, so can you!

Schultz told us some stories of his days with Reagan, and meeting the leaders of foreign countries. One of the most memorable was about Deng Xiopeng of China.

“People in that part of the world, “ said Mr. Schultz, when asked his impressions of Deng, “sometimes get a reputation of beating around the bush and not being direct. Well let me tell you, Deng did NOT have that problem. He was probably the most blunt person I’ve ever met - He told you exactly what he was thinking without wasting any time.”

In other words, he wasn't Fuzzy at all!

Crazy Eddie

One of our more entertaining speakers thus far came to our accounting class. Yes, you heard that right, I said accounting.

We had Sam Antar, the former CFO of Crazy Eddie’s, which was a well-known electronics retailer in the New York / New Jersey area which went public in the 1980’s. I had never heard of Crazy Eddie’s, but it turns out it was one of the hottest stocks when it IPO’ed, well before the dot com boom, climbing from 8 to 80 very quickly based on it rapid earngins growth.

The only problem was that it turned out to be one of the biggest securities frauds to hit Wall Street up to that time. Sam and his cousin Eddie, the company's founder, had been skimming money off the top, falsely reporting inflated earnings, laundering money, and doing all kinds of unsavory things to defraud investors and keep their stock climbing.

Sam is a convicted felon, and he explained some of the schemes they used in duping the IRS, his auditors (KPMG), and the public. He also explained how white collar crime was usually about making people comfortable so they overlooked the details - it was more about distraction than obstruction, he said.

With the recent Madoff scandal on everyone’s mind, this made for a very colorful presentation.

But do you know what the real crazy thing is? While Eddie went to prison and the Antar family had to pay like $90 million back to investors and to the government, Sam got off scott free – no civil or criminal penalties against the millions he’d made as the deceptive CFO of the now defunct electronics retailer.

Not just that, but he got to keep the $20 million or so he’d made from stock during that period, and now he’s giving talks at Stanford Business School!

Wow. Now that’s pretty crazy...

Stanford GSB, Entry 18: Mid-terms, Sticky Ideas, and Governor Meg Whitman?

Mid-Terms and Socializing

On Thursday of this week I lifted up my backpack and found that it was lighter than it had been in a long time. What was missing?

It was “Libby, Libby, Short”. Or to be more precise, it was our 800-page accounting textbook, written by the accountants who bore these three odd-sounding names.

Yes, we had our accounting midterm on Wednesday, and after carrying the very thick textbook around campus with me for the last week, I was glad to finally have “Libby, Libby, Short” off of my back! Literally!

This was our first and only midterm of the quarter for the required Core Classes in the Sloan program (there are two required classes – Accounting and Marketing). Since I had skipped more than one accounting class (surprise, surprise, given that this is my 8 am class!), I figured I had better study hard and do well on the exam to make up for my morning somnambulism (that's a word I learned for my GMAT when applying to business school, hopefully I used it correctly!).

How did I do? Read more...

I’m not sure – the results will be handed back on Monday, but we received an email from the professor that the average score was something like 26 out of 30, which is pretty good. That's great news for the class ("All for one, and one for all") but I’m still trying to figure out whether that’s a good or a bad thing for any if us personally, given that we’re all graded on a curve?

Unfortunately, I have one more midterm coming up. My next mid-term is called something like “International Financial Management” – but I just call it my “currency trading class” because that’s what it’s effectively about.

Along with mid-terms, the busy Sloan social calendar marches on. Last night (Friday) we had one of our first international parties – this one was themed on India. Many classmates bought Indian outfits and there was Indian food as well as Indian dancing and culture. I ended up not going (No, not because I’m Pakistani and there are India-Pak tensions in the air these days LOL), but because of family and other commitments. I’m looking forward to the next international party, though.

Making Ideas Stick

At some point this quarter, I’d like to write about each of my classes so you can get a sense of what they’re about. One of my more fun classes is called “How to Make Ideas Stick” and it’s taught by Chip Heath, one of the authors of the book, “Making Ideas Stick: Why some Ideas survive and Others Die” ( the other author is his brother, Dan Heath).

The basic premise of the class (and the book) is that in the human world, some ideas are memorable and persist on their own, whether they are true or not, while others do not. For example, urban myths persist on their own – you only have to hear them once and then don’t have to worry that you’ll forget them. Not only are they easily remembered, but they are repeated again and again virally, with no effort from the people that started the myths (if we could even track down).

Some ideas have persisted across cultures – for example the saying “An apple a day keeps the doctor away” is not only repeated here in the US, but as a quick survey of our very international class of Sloans and MBAs found, has its equivalent in many, many other cultures, ranging from Japan to South America to Europe. Whether the idea is true or not seems to have very little to do with whether it survives in people's minds.

The idea of the class is that brilliant marketers, speakers, and writers use this knowledge of how and why some ideas “stick” to their advantage – either knowingly or unknowingly. And that many of us, who will have to make pitches or market products in the business world should have practice in making ideas more memorable, likely to be repeated - i.e. to “sticky”.

The formula the brothers Heath have found for these ideas is abbreviated SUCCES – Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotional, and Stories.

The way to learn to do this is to practice it, which we do in almost every one of our classes, focusing on a different aspect of this formula. As an example, this week our group had to come up with an example or pitch that would make sense out of whether the following was possible or not: In 2002, Venture Capitalists raised something like $204 billion of capital. In order to justify an 18% return (which is a historical benchmark for VC’s) they would have to return some $1.3 trillion in market value over 10 years.

Our intuition was that this wasn’t very likely. But our group (and others) struggled with a way to make these big numbers (Particularly the $1.3 trillion) “sticky” to an audience of financial investors, etc. Finally I remembered from my Entrepreneurship and VC classes that there were something like an average of 100 IPO’s per year during the height of the go-go 90’s. And in 2008 there were less than 7 total IPO’s, and in the last few quarters of 2008 there were exactly zero.

I also vaguely recalled that there was something like $100 million returned per successful IPO (we looked it up and Google told us it was something like $120 milion returned per IPO).

So we came up with the idea: For this to be possible, there would need to be 3 IPO’s per day, on average, every single day for the next 10 years for the VC’s to return this kind of result! How likely is that given the IPO rates we’ve seen in the past (even in the best VC years there were 100 or so IPO's per year)? Not very likely.

We took a big number, made it concrete, unexpected, and compared it with a yardstick (the 1990’s) that they would all know, and this was a good way to “present” this idea. The class is really about how to “present” ideas to make them more sticky. You can see why it’s fun too!

Meg Whitman – the next governor of California?

One of the entrepreneurship classes at the GSB had a very well known visitor this week – Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay. Meg spoke to the class and then stayed afterwards while the students had lunch for an informal Q&A. Even though I wasn’t in the class, I was able (with the professor’s permission) to slip into the class to hear the end of her talk.

During the Q&A session, she not only talked about her experiences at eBay, but also her future career plans. There has been a lot of speculation (on and off what the republicans call the Internets) that Meg Whitman will be running for Governor of California in the upcoming campaign as a republican. She did after all spend most of the last year working on John McCain’s campaign.

Well, in front of a group of Stanford GSB students, she told us definitely whether she will be running for governor or not, even though a formal announcement has not yet been made. She also said that an announcement would be made formally on Monday, so far be it for me to spill the beans on my little Stanford GSB blog, but it’s kind of fun to at Stanford and at least in this case, to be “in the know”.

Check out www.megwhitman.com on Monday and you’ll be in the know too!