Technology As Innovator

The WSJ is reporting that Google is set to launch a venture fund to give it the option of investing in startups instead of just flat out buying them. The fund will be led by Google’s SVP Corporate Development David Drummond and Bill Maris, a long time business friend of Anne Wojcicki, Sergey Brin’s wife. Maris is a tech entrepreneur with a degree in neuroscience and worked with Wojcicki at a San Francisco-based for-profit company called Catalytic Health.

This hasn’t been confirmed by Google, and it’s clear they’ve been thinking about a fund off and on for years. From the article:

The move would make Google the latest technology giant to take on a more-formal role in seeding start-ups. Intel Corp. has had a large venture-capital arm for years, as have Motorola Inc., Comcast Corp. and many others. In the consumer-Internet area, Walt Disney Co.’s Steamboat Ventures has invested in a number of Web start-ups. So has Amazon.com Inc., which has funded a number of young companies without structuring a formal fund.

Their track records have been mixed. Corporate venture-capital arms have been hampered by challenges that traditional venture-capital businesses don’t face. Venture capitalists invest in private start-ups at an early stage, usually in hopes of a big payout if the company is sold or if its stock goes public.

Many start-ups fear that taking corporate money limits their options and comes with strings that could turn away other potential investors — such as a right to buy the company at a later date. Some funds with less competitive compensation have struggled to retain managers, and corporate venture funds often don’t allow senior employees to invest personal money in their funds, while other venture funds typically do.

This wouldn’t be the first time Google started a fund to invest in other companies. In June 2007 they launched Gadget Ventures, a pilot program that, in part, invests seed money in companies looking to develop for the gadgets platform. They have also previously invested through Indian VCs.

Source: TechCrunch

I hereby model a message delivery as an article. If a conversation/talk/speech were an article, how differently would people communicate?

The sample article

Let’s take a random article as an example.

The Heading-only style

The communication from this style only conveys the headings of the article. The communicator possibly either doesn’t want to spend more time explaining in details or expects the audience to understand upon hearing the titles.

Advantages

• Time-saving

Disadvantages

• Huh? What next?

The Wiki style

Lambrusco

Some of you may have heard me preach of lambrusco, the foaming, almost purple sparkling wine from the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.

No, not the semi-sweet fizzy stuff that was so popular in the 1970s, but the real, dry, earthy lambrusco, from producers like Medici Ermete, Vini, Vittorio Graziano and Villa di Carlo. Served icy cold, it’s wonderful with just about any simple dish, be it fried chicken or pizza or burgers.

But you say you want a real wine (as if lambrusco weren’t real enough)? You say you want an American wine because it is, after all, practically the Fourth of July?

Description

This style is exactly like a wiki page. The communicator mentions keywords of the article, with or without priority order. Each of the keyword then links to a whole concept from other sources.

For example, when the speaker mentions “organizational behavior”, s/he could point to a book on the topic and recommend her/his audience to read the book.

Advantages

• Inter-connections of information
• From the spoken conversation, the receivers can then search for the more details with the keywords from the message

Disadvantages

• Some audience who have not known the concepts might lose track of the information mid-way

The Ad-hoc style

The communicator randomly picks paragraphs from the article and give full details of the paragraphs without or with limited conclusion.

Next time: full details of another random paragraph.

Advantages

• The audience might extract the right information in details if asking the right question.

Disadvantages

• Very hard to assemble the comprehensive but scattered information into a complete article.

The Bottom-up style

Throw the conclusion on first, then explain if questioned.

Advantages

• Just straight to the point. Exceeding time doesn’t impact much as the audience has already caught (if so) what they need.

Disadvantages

• Surprise for unprepared audience

The Full-article style

Section by section, paragraph by paragraph, word by word till the end.

Advantages

• Every full details

Disadvantages

• Time consumption

Conclusion

What is your style?

What other styles do you add to this list?

What style do you choose for which situation?

Reference

The sample article is taken from The New York Times’ Reds on Ice? It’s Not Heresy

Until this entry is written, the list of international fast-food franchises in Vietnam has included: KFC, Korean Lotteria, Philippino Jollibee, Pizza Inn (a Korean company brings this American franchise to Vietnam). Café and soft-drinks category consists of Australian Gloria Jean’s, San Francisco Bud’s Ice-cream, Australian Baskin Robbins (no longer in Vietnam)

It’s a surprise McDonald hasn’t expanded their market to Vietnam yet though they’ve been to Vietnam’s neighbors Singapore, Thailand and China.

To my observations, there are a couple of possible reasons:

1. The herd of cattle in Vietnam is not sufficient for a sustainable supply.
2. In Vietnam, fried chicken is more desirable than hamburger. Even when major focus of Lotteria is hamburger, their chicken sales figure is higher.
3. One McDonald’s strength is its price (as compared to Burger King and other competitors in the US) while fast-food is still fine-dining in Vietnam.
4. McDonald’s strategy is to invest in real estate alongside their fast-food product. They buy the land and build their store on it rather than rent the place. After a few years if one store doesn’t sell so well the place can be sold and the increased value of land still make it profitable to. In 2008, one house at the corner in the central of Ho Chi Minh City costs at least 2 million dollars. Investment seems way to high.

What is your opinion? Is there other reason you have thought of? Or would like to see McDonald in Vietnam?