Who is Farhan Lalji?

Intel, Cisco, Dell, Xerox and many other companies have set up corporate venture capital arms. I did some soul searching on this a couple of months ago, I didn’t get far with it, talked to friends in the VC game, talked to some senior execs, and at the end of the day decided that traditional corporate venturing doesn’t work.

So I was interested to see that there’s talk that Google will be launching a corporate VC arm. Google’s got a history of doing things well, so we’ll see if they can make it work. But I wouldn’t bet on them being successful with this.

I have three of four reasons for this, first exits. When you invest as a corporation you’re taking out exits by acquisition by your competition. Why would Yahoo! or Microsoft want to buy something that Google has funded but wants to sell off?

Second reason is people, the best VC people are usually working at a fund. Who wants to work at a corporate venture fund when there are serious funds around whose sole focus is on the venture market?

Third reason is rewards. How do you structure a corporate venture model that rewards the venture arm like other venture capital funds without upsetting other employees? VCs get paid well, and if they exit well, they get paid even better. A lot of employees of similar standing in the corporation will not earn as much as an exit reward incentive based package given to an employee in the VC arm.

Lastly, focus. The corporation has to focus on what makes them money, their bread and butter. Venturing takes focus away. Not a good thing.

Can GOOG make it work? Well I’m sure they have people who have considered this and are going to do things differently then the other corporate funds that we’ve seen.

I have some ideas on how to possibly make it work, but I’ll save that for a later post.

I’m reading subject to change by the good folks at Adaptive Path right now. It’s an interesting book that discusses features and design and why people like using what they like using. It’s all round good stuff.

At the same time I’m reading a lot about the credit crunch and how people are no longer spending as much as they used to how people are looking for a bargain and how places like Asda and Aldi here in the UK are gaining market share as users try to save more on their expenditure. That makes sense for every day goods that people need like bread and milk and other daily necessities, but it doesn’t hold true for the success of the iPhone 3G - which even Swisscom has run out of. If people are tightening their belts why are they spending on an iPhone?

Here’s my hunch, design is a powerful tool against downturns in the economy. When you spend a lot of attention to detail on design and build something that users want – and sure marketing and inventory controls probably have something to do with it – you’re likely to see off the headwinds and do okay. Building more features which ratchet up the price of a good isn’t a good strategy. Design is about making things simple and elegant, and during a downturn less is definitely more.

I wrote a post a couple of days ago on commenting on blogs when you write a post or an article. Today I came across a clear example of why this needs to happen.

An ad agency out of Portland called WK Studio did some work for Nike on a campaign called hyper dunk. One of the ads has a guy being dunked on and in the process getting a face full of crotch. The ad states “That ain’t right” over it.

WK studio posted about the campaign showing all the posters, they also made comments available and got a barrage of comments on the post, accusing them and their client, Nike, of homophobia. Many other blogs have weighed in on the controversy, and WK Studio has posted another post linking to the Gawker blog which accused them and Nike of homophobia with the title “hypersensitive y’all?”, again a barrage of comments none of which, as far as I can tell, from WK studio.

I’m not of fan of stirring up controversy for the sake of sales. And I’m even less of a fan of not addressing the feelings of commentators on blogs when you’re being accused of being homophobic. Regardless of whether or not the ads are in fact homophobic (I don’t think I’m in a fair position to comment on that) the studio and the brand are responsible for cleaning the air. Instead of fueling the fire, set the record straight, comment on the damn blog posts will you?

In my opinion, books on the latest theories in information or management work better when they have a dynamic living web presence along side them. A great example would be Freakonomics. I read freakonomics a year or so ago, but it’s on the top of my mind because I read the blog and regularly visit the site. This gives the author a channel to update stories, facts and figures, because time doesn’t stand still, so why should information?

Cathy went to a conference and picked up a book produced from the OECD on the “Participative Web and User-Created Copy – web 2.0, wikis, and social networking”. Decent book some good stats. But unfortunately the book doesn’t have an accompanying interactive website, whether a blog or a twiki, which allows the authors and the readers of the book to stay up to date, with changes to the content in the book – or to just continue the conversation.

Sure some books on some theories are timeless, Adam Smith probably doesn’t necessarily need a blog or a wiki, but some, especially those written about technology and other industries that are really dynamic definitely need to have an online presence to support the paper/book.

It’s really up to authors whether they want their book to have a one off hit for a short period of time, or something that is organic and changes with the time.

I find it interesting, actually make that I find it perplexing, yeah perplexing sounds right… I find it perplexing that people who write blog posts and articles don’t respond to comments that are put on the post or article. If you’re enabling your community to comment on your post then you should take the time to address what they have to say.

It’s been a long time pet peeve of mine, but it was highlighted today in an article on Vanity Fair around the media’s coverage of Obama. Dee Dee Myers wrote an interesting post which then had a number of comments within minutes. None of the comments were from Dee Dee. A lot of the comments bashed Dee Dee and called her out. As the number of comments increases the comments actually out weigh the post. It’s a shame Dee Dee’s not participating in the conversation around her article.

I try my best to address comments – even when they’re not on the topic I originally wrote about as tangents are sometimes good – as often and as quickly as I can. I started the conversation and the least I can do is participate in it.

Not respecting the comments can cause a real backlash as when one user disagrees, uses negative language or is abusive it can start a real tidal wave. As the writer there is a responsibility to facilitate the discussion. Why enable comments if you’re not going to stick around and see what people have to say about what you’ve said?

I was browsing through my rss feeds when I saw the headline “Why was witchcraft used on cows in the Scottish Highlands?” it made me laugh and I tweeted it. When I went to the bbc page I saw that they had changed the headline to “”Kirk papers reveal charmed cows”, by the time you go to that page it may be titled something different altogether. I found the first headline amusing and interesting, I clicked on the page tweeted it and even wrote about it. I wonder if I would have done any of those things had the headline been “Kirk papers reveal charmed cows” from the beginning? My gut tells me probably not.

I try not to re-write my posts too much, and sure sometimes this means that I have the occasional spelling or grammar issue, but it also means that I’m speaking from the top of my head and not over analysing stuff. Sometimes its crap and sometimes its interesting and engaging, but I’m not sure if editing really has any positive effects, other then preventing the occasional email, fbook message or comment from the Bee or others on my errors.

Its funny how after thinking about things, you can almost think about them too much. It kind of reminds me of Gladwell’s Blink – and how our first instincts can be best for decision making. Sometimes we edit too much, we think too much and don’t trust our instincts enough. The secret, I believe, is knowing when to edit, and when to go with the gut. I’m still working on figuring that one out.

Being big can be good if you want to stomp on something. Being small can be good if you want to run away from something. Big is good for credibility. Small is good for flexibility. Big is good for hiding in. Small is good for not being able to hide.

Seth Godin wrote a post on companies not being able to use being small as an excuse and I totally agree. Small is totally a weapon. Anyone whose used moo.com, or has a Moleskine notebook should know the attention to detail a small company can pay to costumers and suppliers.

Any anyone who has worked for a big company knows how frustrating it can be to get everyone to work in the best interests of the people who make us your community – i.e. the consumers, users, suppliers etc.

I would take David over Goliath any day, slingshots are fun.

I start my browser at home on Yahoo mail – as both the Bee and I have used Ymail as our email of choice for years (and not since I started working there). At work my Firefox browser starts on our intranet and my internet explorer page starts blank (as I use it purely for testing sites and sites that don’t necessarily work on FF).

I have bookmarks on Firefox at home, different bookmarks on Firefox at work and delicious bookmarks for reference. There are other bookmarks that are shared between the two locations (Yahoo! mail, Twitter, Y! sports, Facebook, etc) but generally I segment my internet usage by location and tasks.

This is why universal bookmark tools or integrated services don’t really work for me. Am I alone here? Do people really tie everything together so that their experience is the same regardless of where they are browsing?

So Elton Brand opts out so his team can sign Baron Davis and looks like a hero until he signs with Philadelphia. Kind of reminds me of the job Carlos Boozer did on the Cleveland Cavaliers a couple of years ago. Chris Kaman goes to the Olympics with Germany, something about his great grandfather being German.

Here’s my theory, sell out and you won’t win. Boozer sold out on the Cavs and next thing you know the Cav’s make the finals and the Jazz – in addition to having the most ridiculous name in Pro sports, Utah Jazz – never make it past the second round. And though Hargreaves has won a couple of titles with Man United saw the English team not qualify for the European championship. Guess we’ll need to see what happens with Brand and Kaman in the near future, but my guess is they won’t win.

Here’s my rationale, trust is integral to success, when a team trusts each other success is more likely. And if you show the world that you can’t be trusted then you won’t win. Whether in sport, in business or in life, integrity is a key to success.

Happy Canada day!!! As it is Canada day today and a glorious day in London and my cousin is visiting from Toronto and I’m hopping on a plane later today to look for flats in Switzerland later today I thought it would be a good idea to talk about places on the blog.

Richard Florida, who a friend of mine works with, has written a book called “Who’s Your City”, it’s sitting on my bookshelf waiting for me to pick it up, and after I finish the Bottom Billion it’s next on my list. I agree with Florida that where you live says a lot about you. But I also think with the world becoming a smaller place, where your networks are says a lot about you as well.

For me Toronto (born there, the Bee’s from there, went to school there and generally like Canada) and London (worked there forever, went to biz school there, lot of friends there) will always be anchors, but I’m hoping that I can cast the net wider into more of Europe, Asia and Africa as well as North America and the UK.

The Bee has a rule/notion that we shouldn’t spend more then 5 years in a place and I’m not sure if five years could be too long, too short or just right depending on the place. But I do agree that moving around is great and living in different areas of the world is exciting and makes life really worth living. I believe that part of my thinking is due to being brought up in Canada and living in the UK, both pretty international themselves. Part of it is due to being very multi cultural and mixed up myself. And part of it is just dumb luck. But all of it is a lot of fun. So happy Canada day, but remember that there’s more to the world then the couple of square miles you live in today.