Curated Insights 2018.11.23

No more “struggle porn”

I call this “struggle porn”: a masochistic obsession with pushing yourself harder, listening to people tell you to work harder, and broadcasting how hard you’re working.

Struggle porn has normalized sustained failure. It’s made it acceptable to fly to Bali and burn through your life savings trying to launch an Amazon dropshipping business. Made it reasonable to keep living on your parents money for years after graduation while you try to become #instafamous. Made LinkedIn into a depressingly hilarious circlejerk for people who look way too excited to be having their headshot taken.

Working hard is great, but struggle porn has a dangerous side effect: not quitting. When you believe the normal state of affairs is to feel like you’re struggling to make progress, you’ll be less likely to quit something that isn’t going anywhere.

Rule #1 of #StrugglePorn: if someone is bragging about how hard they’re working, you can be sure their business is failing. I don’t know anyone running a multi-million dollar business who follows struggle pornographers like GaryVee. They don’t need the feel-good reassurance that beating their head against the wall is worthwhile. They’re making money, not LinkedIn posts. They’re busy, not struggle busy.


How software is helping big companies dominate

Economies of scale are certainly part of the answer. Software is expensive to build but relatively cheap to distribute; larger companies are better able to afford the up-front expense. But these “supply-side economies of scale” can’t be the only answer or else vendors, who can achieve large economies of scale by selling to the majority of players in the market, would dominate. Network effects, or “demand-side economies of scale,” are another likely culprit. But the fact that the link between software and industry concentration is pervasive outside of the tech industry — where companies are less likely to be harnessing billions of users — suggests network effects are only part of the story.

Research suggests that the benefits of information technology depend in part on management. Well-managed firms get more from their IT investments, and big firms tend to be better managed. There are other “intangible” assets that differentiate leading firms, and which can be difficult or costly to replicate. A senior executive who has worked at a series of leading enterprise software firms recently told one of us (Walter) that a company’s ability to get more from an average developer depended on successfully setting up “the software to make software” — the tools, workflows, and defaults that allow a programmer to plug in to the company’s production system without having to learn an endless number of new skills.

Patents and copyright also make it harder for software innovations to spread to other companies, as do noncompete agreements that keep employees from easily switching jobs. But one of the biggest barriers to diffusion — and therefore one of the biggest sources of competitive advantage for the firms that excel at software — comes down to how companies are organized.

As Dixon, the VC, clearly recognized, these architectural innovations can create openings for startups. “Before [Lyft and Uber] were started, there were multiple startups that tried to build software that would make the taxi and limo industry more efficient,” Dixon has noted. If Uber had merely created software for dispatching taxis, incumbents would have been well positioned to adopt it, according to Henderson’s theory. One “component” of the service would have been changed by technology (dispatching) but not the entire architecture of the service. But ridesharing startups like Uber and Lyft didn’t didn’t just make taxis more efficient; they fundamentally changed the way the different pieces of the system fit together.

Lakhani’s answer is that Apple had the right architecture to bring phones into the internet age. Apple and Nokia both had plenty of the intangible assets necessary to excel in the smartphone business, including software developers, hardware engineers, designers. But Apple’s structure and culture were already based around the combination of hardware and a software ecosystem to which third parties contributed. It already had experience building hardware, operating systems, and software development kits from its PC business. It had built a software platform to deliver content to mobile devices in the form of iTunes. Steve Jobs initially resisted letting developers build apps for the iPhone. But when he eventually gave in, the app store became the iPhone’s key advantage. And Apple was able to manage it because of its existing “architecture.” Like any theory, architectural innovation can’t explain everything. If experience building operating systems and SDKs were so key, why didn’t Microsoft invent the winning smartphone? Apple’s particular acumen in product design clearly mattered, too. But architectural innovation helps explain why certain capabilities are so tough to replicate.

There is some good news: research suggests that cloud computing is helping smaller, newer firms to compete. Also, some firms are unbundling their advanced capabilities. For example, Amazon now offers complete fulfillment services including two-day delivery to sellers, large and small, on its Marketplace. It may be that Carr was right in principle but just had the timing wrong. But we wouldn’t bet on it. Some aspects of software will be democratized, including perhaps some areas where companies now derive competitive advantage. But other opportunities will arise for companies to use software to their advantage. One in particular stands out: even when machine learning software is freely available, the datasets to make it valuable often remain proprietary, as do the models companies create based on them. Policy may be able to help level that playing field. But companies that don’t invest in software and data capabilities risk being left behind.

Disney is spending more on theme parks than it did on Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm combined

Disney faces an enviable challenge: Even with steady price increases for peak periods — single-day peak tickets at Disneyland in California now run $135 — visitor interest often exceeds capacity at some properties. “You can only let so many people in a park before you start to impede on satisfaction level,” Mr. Chapek said.

So Disney’s expansion plan is more ambitious than building a “Black Panther” roller coaster here or introducing an “Incredibles” character there. The goal is transformation — adding significant capacity to Disney’s most popular parks (Disneyland, Tokyo DisneySea) and giving others major upgrades (Epcot, Disney Studios Park at Disneyland Paris) to help attract visitors more evenly throughout the empire.

In terms of attracting crowds and creating excitement, nothing quite compares to the “Star Wars” franchise. In 2019, Disney World and Disneyland will open matching 14-acre “lands” called Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge. On one lavish attraction, guests will board an Imperial Star Destroyer, where roughly 50 animatronic stormtroopers await in formation. On another, guests will be able to pilot an interactive Millennium Falcon.

Even so, Ms. Reif said she was pleased that Disney was spending so heavily on its parks. “It’s the highest return on investment that Disney has,” she said.

Disney Cruise Line will also nearly double in size by 2023. Disney has ordered three new ships costing an analyst-estimated $1.25 billion apiece. It is buying 746 acres on a Bahamian island to build a second Caribbean port. (Disney already has one private island port.)

Rocket Lab’s modest launch is giant leap for small rocket business

Advances in technology and computer chips have enabled smaller satellites to perform the same tasks as their predecessors. And constellations of hundreds or thousands of small satellites, orbiting at lower altitudes that are easier to reach, can mimic the capabilities once possible only from a fixed geosynchronous position.

A Falcon Heavy can lift a payload 300 times heavier than a Rocket Lab Electron, but it costs $90 million compared to the Electron’s $5 million. Whereas SpaceX’s standard Falcon 9 rocket has no shortage of customers, the Heavy has only announced a half-dozen customers for the years to come.


Self-driving cars will be for sex, scientists say

“One of the starting points was that AVs will provide new forms of competition for hotels and restaurants. People will be sleeping in their vehicles, which has implications for roadside hotels. And people may be eating in vehicles that function as restaurant pods,” says Scott Cohen, deputy director of research of the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at the University of Surrey in the U.K., who led the study. “That led us to think, besides sleeping, what other things will people do in cars when free from the task of driving? And you can see that in the long association of automobiles and sex that’s represented in just about every coming-of-age movie. It’s not a big leap.”

Of the many conclusions the paper drew about the way AVs will reshape urban tourism, perhaps the most surprising was that they’ll also revolutionize red light districts, putting prostitution on wheels. In Amsterdam, the industry (which is far from the regulated sexual utopia it’s often purported to be) was an $800 million business in 2011.

Is there a new debt crisis on the horizon?

Historically, the cycle of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve has been a key factor in the pricing and volatility of relatively risky and illiquid assets, such as fixed income securities issued and traded in emerging markets. If anything, recent turmoil in the global debt, equity and currency markets once again questions the viability and sustainability of the economic growth in some emerging economies and emerging financial markets.

If history can be a useful benchmark, three types of risks may emerge in emerging economies in response to interest rate hikes: 1. Capital flight; 2. Asset price fluctuation; 3. Currency devaluation.

Three charts that explain boom in Southeast Asia’s net economy

The region’s ride-hailing market will expand to about $7.7 billion in 2018 and is expected to reach $28 billion by 2025, underscoring the ambition of Go-Jek and Grab to become Southeast Asia’s super apps. Google and Temasek began including online food delivery in this category for the first time this year, given the growing importance of that business.

Online travel is the largest and most established among the four sectors of the internet economy, accounting for about $30 billion in bookings in 2018. About 41 percent of all travel bookings made in Southeast Asia were completed online, up from 34 percent in 2015. By 2025, 57 percent of the bookings will be made online when the market is projected to reach $78 billion.

Online shopping has been the fastest growing sector of the internet economy, reaching $23 billion in 2018. It’s expected to exceed $100 billion by 2025.

Box CEO Aaron Levie thinks big companies are responding to disruption the wrong way

But the root of where that innovation comes from, whether it’s Netflix, Amazon, Lyft, or Airbnb, is that these businesses are run completely differently than the incumbents. A lot of incumbents attempt to either buy, acquire, or partner with those disrupters, but that’s not going to get to the root of actually solving the problem over the long run, which is that your company has to fundamentally run in a different way in the digital age.

That’s the fundamental difference between how most people are responding to disruption and how you realistically need to in the digital age. Yes, the business model is important. Yes, the consumer experience is incredibly important. But the sustainable way to make sure you’re always able to keep up with that is by looking at your organization and your operations. That’s the thing that most companies tend to miss.


Why it’s easier to make decisions for someone else

We should also work to distance ourselves from our own problems by adopting a fly-on-the-wall perspective. In this mindset, we can act as our own advisors—indeed, it may even be effective to refer to yourself in the third-person when considering an important decision as though you’re addressing someone else. Instead of asking yourself, “what should I do?” ask yourself “what should you do?”.

Another distancing technique is to pretend that your decision is someone else’s and visualize it from his or her perspective. This can be very easy when thinking of famous exemplars, such as how Steve Jobs would make your decision. By imagining how someone else would tackle your problem, people may unwittingly help themselves.

Perhaps the easiest solution is to let others make our decisions for us. By outsourcing our choices, we can take advantage of a growing market of firms and apps that make it increasingly easier for people to “pitch” their decisions to others. For example, people can have their clothes, food, books, or home decor options chosen for them by others.

The unfair advantage of discomfort

The most uncrowded path to profound wealth is often subtle improvements in an existing industry so beautifully boring as to not attract attention from those attempting to sharpen a unicorn horn instead.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.