Home            Blog
Showing posts with label negotiation strategies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label negotiation strategies. Show all posts

Friday, April 19, 2013

The Genius Of Google Fiber


The Genius Of Google Fiber

 posted 4 hours ago
The Genius Of Google Fiber
As Google picks up its pace on rolling out fiber Internet service - announcing Austin, Texas, and Provo, Utah in the past 10 days - one has to admire the sheer hubris of what it's doing. Just as in mobile, Google is forcing the industry to provide low-cost access to the Internet, where it stands waiting to reap the bonanza of advertising-based services. Competitors race to keep up, expanding their broadband or mobile offerings, thereby furthering Google's monetization strategy even as they try to thwart the advertising giant.
It's Google's world. We just get to live in it. And click on ads.

Free Fiber Internet For the Huddled Masses

According to Internet entrepreneur Jason Calacanis, the broadband Internet access game is already over, and Google has won. As he notes, "Google Fiber is not a test, it's a takeover plan." Calacanis argues that Google's real plan with fiber-to-the-home isn't necessarily the home broadband connection, but rather free wifi attached to each of the routers installed to use its broadband. With this free wifi network blanketing a city, it's game over for the traditional telcos:
"Google is going to kill AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and the cable companies. Kids don’t talk on the phone and they don’t have a ton of money. If they can be reasonably sure they’ll have a wifi network, then they are simply not going to sign up for AT&T or Verizon." 
While Calacanis insists that the free wifi component is "not announced, but it’s gonna happen," the reality is that it needn't happen for Google to win. (Underscoring Calacanis' point, however, Google has announced that it will offer free Wifi in its first fiber-enabled city, Kansas City, though this doesn't seem to be tethered to home broadband connections.) All Google needs is to spark competition, as has already happened in Austin. Within minutes of announcing Google Fiber there, AT&T declared that it, too, would offer 1 Gibabit Internet service to Austin.
Think Google minds? Not a bit.
After all, Google isn't in the Internet service provider (ISP) business. It's in the advertising business. All it needs to do is shame ISPs into offering better service, which service Google will co-opt to advertise against, not to mention use to provide a range of other "free" services like Voice, Apps, etc.

Google's "Free" Playbook

If this sounds familiar, it's because it is. Google has done much the same in mobile with its Android operating system. Worried that Apple would throttle access to the mobile Internet, Google built Android, released it as open source, and encouraged (even subsidized) its adoption.
A few short years later, Google chairman Eric Schmidt Schmidt this week told the crowd at the AllThingsD mobile conference that there will be 1 billion Android phones blanketing the planet by year's end, a number set to nearly double within a year or two. 
"Android is by far the primary vehicle by which people are going to see smartphones," Schmidt declared. "Our goal is to reach everybody."
But even if Google doesn't do this directly; even if Android reaches the masses through "competitors" like Samsung or Amazon, Google wins. Google wins every time people access the Internet, because odds are they will spend time with Google Search or other Google products.

Not Just An Advertising Play

Nor is free fiber and free mobile simply an advertising play. Google's free services often have a bigger goal in mind: amassing massive quantities of data. As Tim O'Reilly discovered from Google's director of research Peter Norvig years ago, the secret to improved translation services wasn't better algorithms, but rather more data. Google Fiber lets Google sit inside one's home, "collect[ing] information that users of your subscription provide, such as clicks on a Google Fiber TV remote to change the channel or search program listings," in addition to continued monitoringof how its Fiber customers use the Internet. 
That's a lot of data, roughly none of which will gather dust in some musty data center.
None of this suggests that Google is somehow evil for enticing consumers to give up data or clicks in exchange for free services. But it is a recognition that few companies can afford to play the long game like Google. AT&T may offer Austin gigabit Internet service, but AT&T's only current way of monetizing those services are through monthly access fees. Google can give broadband Internet away, confident that it can recoup that investment over the long haul with both advertising and more data.
It's ambitious. It's farsighted. It's genius.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
Tags: 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Just Who Uses Social Media? A Demographic Breakdown


Just Who Uses Social Media? A Demographic Breakdown

Ads by Google
Master's in Conflict Res. - Graduate in as few as 24 months. 100% online. Free program brochure!
ConflictRes.ACU.Edu
Dashboard Best Practices - IT Manager's Guide to Dashboards Download Your Free White Paper Now!
logianalytics.com/Dashboard-WP
Management Training - Management Leadership Training Classes in April. Don’t Wait!
eCornell.com/Leadership
Social-media-logos
You think you know social? How about who uses it? Well, you might not know it as well as you would have guessed.
A new study from the Pew Research Center and Docstoc shed some light on just who uses social and on what platforms. Some of the findings seem in line with what you would probably guess, but others were surprising.
If you think the smarter, more attractive sex is more socially prolific than us men, well ... you're right. Women use social media 9% more than men do. Despite having more distractions, people living in cities have the most social media activity, at 70% of the population. Perhaps it's the connectivity of large-city life.
In terms of racial and ethnic groups online, Hispanics lead the pack at 72% engagement, with African-Americans trailing at 68%, who are ahead of Caucasians at 65%. And in a strange twist, despite being somewhat economically disadvantaged, 72% of adults with annual household incomes below $30,000 use social networks, more than those with higher wages.
How about most popular social networks? That would be Facebook, with 67% of adults using the Zuckerberg-founded service. A distant second was LinkedIn with 20%, with Twitter coming in third at 16%, and Tumblr falling dead last at 6%.
Take a look at the details below:
Image via iStockphotohocus-focus

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

A Non-Negotiator's Guide to Negotiating


For most of my life, I was a terrible negotiator. I accepted lowball offers, I never demanded the raises I deserved, and I overpaid for everything. I knew that you needed to “drive a hard bargain” and “be willing to walk away from the table” if you wanted to get the best possible deal. I just never seemed to be able to do it, ever.
It reached the point that my husband actually forbid me from negotiating the price of a car, a home, or even a used toaster at the flea market. And while I wouldn’t usually take too kindly to being silenced, I had to admit that I saw his point. In a negotiation, I was the weakest link.
Two programs of research helped me to see what I was doing wrong – specifically, how I was thinking about negotiations the wrong way.

Epiphany #1

When people are about to enter a negotiation, they see it as either a threat or a challengeStudies show that people who see negotiation as a threat experience greater stress and make less advantageous deals. They behave more passively, and are less likely to use tough tactics aimed at gaining leverage, compared to the hard-ballers who feel negotiation to be more of a challenge than a threat.
This makes so much sense to me. My husband absolutely sees negotiating as a challenge. He looks forward to a good haggle. I do not. Reading about these studies, I realized that I have always seen negotiations as threatening, and just wanted them over with as quickly as possible, no matter what it cost me. Why prolong a stressful, threatening situation when you can throw in the towel and move on?
But why do I see negotiations as threats, and not challenges? To answer that, I needed…

Epiphany #2

There is more than one way to look at any goal. Some of us think about our goals as achievements or opportunities to advance – having what psychologists call a promotion focus. Others see their goals as opportunities to keep things running smoothly, to avoid loss, to do what you ought to do – this is called aprevention focus.
Promotion and prevention-focused people work differently to reach the same goal. When we are promotion-focused, we are creative, embrace risk, work quickly, and are fueled by optimism. When we are prevention-focused, we are more thorough and deliberate, more analytical, and better fueled by defensive pessimism (i.e., thinking things might go wrong if you don’t do something to prevent it.)
When it comes to negotiating, having a promotion focus will give you the clear upper-hand. The promotion-focused (like my husband) see negotiation as an opportunity to gain something, and studies show that this helps them to stay focused on their (ideal) price or pay targets. The prevention-minded (like myself) see negotiation as an opportunity to lose something – they worry too much about a negotiation failure or impasse, leaving them more susceptible to less advantageous agreements.
When it comes to getting what you want, it pays to focus on what you have to gain, rather than what you might lose, so that you can see it as a challenge (rather than a threat), and be better able keep your eyes on the prize.
Now, when I enter any negotiation, I make a deliberate effort to refocus myself beforehand. I stop and reflect on what I have to gain by getting a great deal, or by fighting for better compensation – the opportunities for happiness and growth they will afford me.
You wouldn’t believe the deal I got on our last toaster.

HEIDI GRANT HALVORSON

more posts →
Dr. Heidi Grant Halvorson, of Columbia’s Motivation Science Center, is an author and speaker.  In Succeed, she revealed surprising science-based strategies we can use to reach goals.  Her new book is Focus:  Using Different Ways of Seeing the World for Success and Influence.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Foreign investors play large role in U.S. shale industry


Foreign investors play large role in U.S. shale industry

April 8, 2013
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
13
Twitter
2
LinkedIn
20
Share
Investment in shale plays in the United States totaled $133.7 billion between 2008 and 2012, as part of 73 deals. Joint ventures by foreign companies accounted for 20% of these investments.
In early 2013, Sinochem, a Chinese company, entered into a $1.7 billion joint venture with Pioneer Natural Resources to acquire a stake in the Wolfcamp Shale play in West Texas. This investment highlights a renewed trend toward foreign joint ventures. Since 2008, foreign companies have entered into 21 joint ventures with U.S. acreage holders and operators, investing more than $26 billion in tight oil and shale gas plays.
Investment in shale plays in the United States totaled $133.7 billion between 2008 and 2012, as part of 73 deals. Joint ventures by foreign companies accounted for 20% of these investments. The rest of the investments were either part of outright acquisitions—such as the Australian BHP Billiton oil company's acquisition of Petrohawk Energy Corp.—or were joint ventures among American companies (such as Hess and Noble Energy with Consol Energy) and financial institutions.
Most of the foreign investment in these joint ventures involved buying a percentage of the host company's shale play acreages through an upfront cash payment with a commitment to cover a portion of the drilling cost. Foreign investors in joint ventures pay upfront cash and commit to cover the cost of drilling extra wells within an agreed-upon time frame, usually between 2 to 10 years. Both U.S. and foreign companies benefit from these deals. U.S. operators get financial support, while foreign companies gain experience in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that may be transferable to other regions. Plus, foreign companies can operate in a stable market with a sound legal system and low political risk. In addition, exploration and development opportunities are decreasing in much of the rest of the world. While foreign companies may pay sizable initial costs through joint ventures, these deals can be considered a cost of entry to the development of hydrocarbons through the latest technology.
Most of the recent joint venture deals with foreign companies shifted from the dry natural gas plays to more liquids-rich areas such as the Eagle Ford, Utica, and Wolfcamp—a trend similar to domestic operations. All shale plays contain some liquids, but those with a higher liquid-to-gas ratio are more attractive because of the higher value of hydrocarbons that have crude oil and petroleum liquids in addition to natural gas.
Graph does not include the proposed Sinochem joint venture, as it is still subject to U.S. government approval. Investment dollars refer to aggregate expenditures over the term of the entire agreement. Dollar figures are reported for the year the deal was executed. Map of Wolfcamp play represents approximate basin location.