Thoughtpick: A unique perspective of the Web and social media...
A unique perspective of the Web and social media...

August 15, 2009

How To: Organize Effective Brainstorming Sessions!

Did the good old days of meeting up to pool ideas, knowledge and thoughts in efforts to create unmatched outcomes through brainstorming sessions come to an end? How could brainstorming sessions be organized in such a way that brings about valuable results? What are the main things to be avoided during brainstorming sessions?

The following article is based on research in addition to my experience in brainstorming sessions in an effort to help you harvest the most from the group idea pooling you conduct at your company or organization.

Brainstorming, in a few words:

Brainstorming is a technique for creatively solving problems and breeding fresh and unique ideas. Despite the belief that brainstorming negatively affects productivity levels and causes distractions and lack of focus, well-organized brainstorming sessions, especially for startups, have the ability to make decisions, “boost morale, enhance work enjoyment, and improving team work“.

Monday's Brainstorming Session!

Monday's Brainstorming Session!

So what are the main elements of a successful brainstorming session?

Though some elements may vary depending on some internal and external factors, the main elements of a successful brainstorming session are:

  • Predefining Time Frame: People have a limited attention span, more obviously; people get bored! If you are trying to harness the unique thoughts and innovative ideas of those participating in a brainstorming session, it is always a good idea to pre-define the session’s time.
  • Allowing for Short Breaks: Especially when the session’s time exceeds 30 minutes, it is recommended to take a few 5 minute breaks to allow for side comments and even unrelated topic sharing. [read full article >>]

July 24, 2009

Startup advice: A Metropolitan 4-Layered View of the Web & Time Invested

Most people invest a great multitude of both time and effort into the Web. Some of them like to share thoughts and media content, while others seek to share their experiences through specialized blogs. Regardless of the effort any of us provides, every time we use the web, we expect something in return; whether it be self satisfaction, money or reach. With that said, for each level of effort invested, there is a different ROI that can be expected or even reached as a maximum.

Busy New York - by Amy Strycula

Busy New York - by Amy Strycula

Through extensive research and my humble experience, I was able to come up with an analogy of the Web’s contribution levels comparing it with a city made up of 4 different layers.

1. The Web Citizen:

The web citizen is the minimal level of web existence and it requires less effort, money and/or time in order to become a part of an online community. For example, uploading a YouTube video, posting a comment, or uploading a couple of photos to Flickr. There is no question that these events add value to the Web, and give personal satisfaction to the user. But can a user, with more time and resources, do more, and give back more to the Web?

That’s where the second level comes to play…

2. The Cafes & Restaurants of the Internet – the communities:

This is the community and social circles part of our city analogy including blogs, YouTube channels, Facebook and Twitter social circles. By creating an account on any of these, you build a community around yourself (or brand). Now, the effort you’re spending is more organized, benefiting more people, and in return benefiting you by allowing you to reach more people, and maybe make a bit of money if you add adverts to your Blog or YouTube channel. But information, videos and photos are so common, and there is nothing you cannot find online if you look in the right places.

The next level up is offering Web utilities and services…

[read full article >>]

June 23, 2009

Top 10 Web Startup Business Screwups!

Why do many new web startups, with great ideas, valuable assets and deep motivation, fail? What are the major mistakes startups commit leading them to failure? What can be done to prolong the life of a startup rather than bring its business life to a guaranteed end?

It’s sad: the percentage of failed startups. It’s almost depressing! Even years ago, going back to the 90’s, it seems that startups have been failing continuously yet more discretely since social media channels and Web 2.0 were not in play!

A Table of Web Companies that Vanished!

A Table of Web Companies that Vanished!

Now many of you out there will think: why should I consider opening my own startup when there’s a 50-50% chance that it’s going to fail? Why not just apply for a stable company and settle for being an employee with a steady income? I beg to differ, the remaining successful 50% could be perceived positively! What failing startups lacked is the ability to learn from the mistakes of the many others! Yet now, with the abundant availability of failure stories, both online and offline, it has become easier to learn from the mistakes of others and try hard to avoid them.

So here’s what I’m going to do for this particular post: I’m going to choose a list of startups that failed and point out their mistakes clearly, explaining how they could be avoided in future ventures.

  1. Simplicity Does Not Substitute for Functionality!
    • AlmondRocks (as we were able to conclude from the little resources we found) created blogs that were too simple that they were actually useless!
  2. Don’t Underestimate Competition:
    • TinFinger Took their competition, Wikipedia – one of the top ten websites worldwide- lightly. They also concentrated on the technical side of the interface (RDF triples and semantic web) rather than the friendliness of the user experience.
    • Feedster, a search engine which seems to have been resurrected then killed again, is yet another example of underestimating competition, in this case: Google! [read full article >>]

June 17, 2009

Startups Craving to be Acquired… A Big Mistake?

While skimming through the news, I came across “Are Silicon Valley Startups More likely to be Acquired” on TechCrunch. I took my time, read through the article as well as some of the many comments listed beneath it, and to my surprise, I was stunned to come up with some vital points of argument that were not even touched upon!

A Google Acquisitions Department Comic (click to enlarge)

A Google Acquisitions Department Comic (click to enlarge) - by Oliver Widder

Now, as the article clearly states, if you are a Silicon Valley startup, you have a better chance of being bought out. But why is being acquired such a good thing? Doesn’t it mean that you have created something that someone else can utilize, operate and master better than you? Doesn’t this mean that you gave up on your own creation? Is acquisition always the best deal for startups?

Granted, there are factors to consider and reconsider here:

  • The Financial Benefits: I can’t possibly deny the financial benefits startup owners would gain if their was to be acquired but the way I see it, a company can, on a long-term basis, make even more sustainable and continuous profits if it is able to maintain its image and grow its user base or community. Notice Zuckerberg’s bold refusal to be acquired by Yahoo for $1 billion – now it is evaluated at $15 billion!
  • The Potential Growth: Yes, being acquired by a giant such as Google for example, will probably allow for the startup to gain more recognition and in return attract more customers yet, the question remains to be: “who is getting the credit?”, not those who worked hard to grow an idea into a company on its road to a possible success!
  • The Employment Opportunities: It is highly possible that an acquired Silicon Valley startup will provide employment opportunities to its previous owners but I’d have to argue against that as well! Why work for others in a company that you have launched? Take GrandCentral for example, which was acquired in 2007,  and whose founders, Craig Walker and Vincent Paquet, are now employees at Google with high level salaries. Why not be the owners of GrandCentral and keep all the profit?

Finally, here’s something I’d like you to consider, Google started as a startup and was not acquired but look where it is now. So are new startups starting off on the wrong foot when building their “vision” around being acquired? And why run to be acquired, if ex-googlers are going backwards and opening up their own startups?