Archive for September, 2009
Regulate or Innovate
Posted by John in innovation on 30 September 2009
One of my favorite debating points in my MBA class is the limited usefulness of regulation to promote fair competition and stimulate economic growth at the same time. While competition is a good thing, achieving it through regulation usually stifles innovation. Of course, this is a complex area of economic policy that stirs up very intense reactions from people. In fact, when I quoted UK economic policy adviser and Professor of Economics, Stan Metcalfe when he says that “the best competition policy is innovation policy”, I had one MBA student tell me about Microsoft urgently needing to be regulated or software innovation would be severely inhibited. The student quit the course but as far as I can tell, five years later, open source software is sorting out Microsoft very nicely.
I’m sympathetic to Metcalfe’s view on the relationship between innovation and competition. Of course it’s an idea that can be traced back to Schumpeter and other Austrian economists but Stan’s views are more than just theoretical. During the 1970s he was an economic policy adviser to the UK government and a large part of this work involved regulating competition, particularly prices of goods and services. If Metcalfe is emphatic about innovation being the solution to fair competition it is because he has seen first hand how the command economy stymies innovation and growth. In his excellent book “Commanding Heights”, Daniel Yergin describes the extremes of regulation by governments in the 1970s. My particular favorite is the sandwich inspectors on US airlines who would measure size and fillings to make sure that “fair competition” was happening.
Every now and then I come across an industry where my gut reaction is to say “why doesn’t government do something about this!”. However, what initially appears to be a form of market failure is usually fertile ground for innovation.
I have been trying to move house recently, which has brought me into contact with the strange world of the real estate industry. If I detach myself a little from the stress of buying and selling and put my academic’s hat on, it’s another example of where innovation will succeed in reforming the industry where regulation would fail.
To start with, writing about this industry makes me a bit nervous. They definitely don’t like criticism. I’ll explain..
The Sydney Morning Herald hosted an online forum on peoples’ experience with financial planners a few months ago. Of course, the negative comments rolled in and the financial planning association protested. However, the SMH saw that the forum was getting a lot of clicks and consequently kept it going.
The next week the SMH thought it could generate more clicks with a similar forum on real estate agents. The response from SMH readers was even more vitriolic but by the late afternoon, the forum and the story had been removed from the website. Media Watch investigated this strange decision and it turned out that the real estate institute had told the SMH to kill the story, and they did!
The reason why the SMH had responded to the request of the real estate industry and not the financial planners is obvious. Real estate classifieds are one of the last solid revenue sources for newspapers. Freedom of the press is a nice idea, but it comes a distant second to the principle of “don’t bite the hand…”. If anyone can tell me of an industry that has more power over the Australian press, then please let me know.
After my initial surprise at the industry’s ability to control the press, I started thinking about why real estate classifieds were so important to newspapers. Surely the web had taken this market, along with every other section of the classifieds and newspaper advertising. I don’t actually know anybody who regularly reads a physical newspaper. So what’s the story with realestate.com.au (the dominant website for property listings)?
Well, it turns that realestate.com.au (REA) is 60% owned by News Limited with real estate agent businesses being the second largest group of shareholders. The ACCC actually approved a takeover of realestate.com.au by News in 2005. The decision cites the low barriers to internet advertising as one of the main reasons for approving the takeover. This decision looks a bit misguided to me. The trouble is that first mover advantage with internet aggregation is very powerful and there are increasing returns to scale. It’s a bit like Wotif.com. The bigger it gets, the higher the barriers to competition. The result is a fairly cozy relationship between the real estate industry and the print media. I have looked at Realestate.com.au and as far as I can tell there is no way that I can list my house independently from the real estate agent. The same is true with Domain.com.au , owned by Fairfax. If I want to have my house on realestate.com then I have to wear the 15k in commission fees. With the majority of buyers now exclusively relying on realestate.com.au and domain.com.au, its a goldmine to an industry where commissions are tied to rising house prices in a country that has one of the highest house price to income ratios in the world. Nice work if you can get it!
In return, the real estate industry continues to place ads with the newspapers. In particular, the little local newspapers (Westside News in my part of town-which arrives on my driveway every week whether I want it or not), also owned by News Limited, are about 25% real estate classifieds. The only reason why I can think that agents tell clients to write cheques to place advertisements in these suburban newspapers is that it promotes the agency to people who might list their house some time in the future. I just can’t imagine someone flicking through the free newspaper and deciding to buy a house in the local area as an impulse decision. Serious buyers go to the two dominant web sites because that’s where everything is!
But where there are people making money, there is money to be made. The reason why the real estate industry is so lucrative is that barriers to entry, in the form of internet advertising, have stopped competition.
In theory, what happened to the stockbroking industry in the last 10 years could also happen to the real estate industry, with new business models driving down costs. I can buy shares on the internet now for under $20 and it takes me about 30 seconds. About ten years ago I remember paying $80 for the same service where I had to phone a broker, go into an office and sign paperwork.
The temptation here is to say that government should force News Limited to sell realestate.com.au and prevent ownership by real estate agencies. That might work, but a better idea is to let innovation sort this out.
The best response to a monopoly internet aggregator position is to encourage a business with even greater potential to be an aggregator. Watch out for Google! In fact, Google is already listing properties on Google Maps- and private vendors can list their properties without agents getting involved. Predictably, the response from Fairfax and News Limited has been to threaten to not buy key search terms from Google. Good luck to News and Fairfax – they will need it! The difference is that Google has a viable business model, Fairfax doesn’t and News Limited’s newspaper business is looking for one. It’s just Schumpeter’s creative destruction in action. Incidentally, a major real estate shareholder sold their shareholding in REA (owners of realestate.com.au) the day before Google announced its entry into the real-estate advertising business. Something comes to mind about rodents and sea-going vessels….
more news business models
Posted by Tim in business models, innovation on 29 September 2009
Just gathering together a few loose ends concerning news business models… First off, I think that Steven Johnson’s ‘news ecosystem’ idea from his SXSW speech is a pretty useful way to think about things. Here’s one of the key quotes:
But I think it’s just as possible that all this innovation elsewhere will free up the traditional media to focus on things like war reporting because they won’t need to pay for all the other content they’ve historically had to produce. This is Jeff Jarvis’ motto: do what you do best, and link to the rest. My guess is that the venerable tradition of the muckraking journalist will be alive and well ten years from: partially supported by newspapers and magazines, partially by non-profit foundations and innovative programs like Newassignment.net, and partially by enterprising bloggers who make a name for themselves by breaking important stories.
That leaves us with something that looks like this:
Part of the innovation that we’re looking for then is how we can set up some combination of those functions into a unique model that will have some combination of free content along with a money generating mechanism. As I keep saying, in general the functions that seem to make money in these type of systems are aggregating and filtering – so I still think that the way to build such a business model is to include one or both of those functions.
Link to the video version of his talk
On a related note, Mark Coddington is compiling an extremely useful set of annotated blog posts that address these issues from the journalism angle.
One thing that I found through his site is this from Mindy McAdams – The Reporter’s Guide to Multimedia Literacy. The guide includes fifteen steps to take to become prificient at generating multimedia content for the web. It is aimed at journalists, but I have to think that these are skills that anyone creating content is going to need sooner rather than later. These are the things we’ll need to know to be digitally literate – and one of the best ways to adapt to change is to have extra skills. We should all be working our way through her outline, probably with some urgency.
innovation in plentiful times
Posted by Tim in innovation, time on 28 September 2009
One of they key drivers of an increasingly low price for many items is that we are now in a time of plenty. As the marginal cost of many technologies approaches zero, they become too cheap to meter, and effectively become free. This is another of the key ideas in Free by Chris Anderson, and he makes the case in this article from Wired as well. One of the things that this leads to is having too much stuff, upon which is an issue that Paul Graham picks up:
I’ve now stopped accumulating stuff. Except books—but books are different. Books are more like a fluid than individual objects. It’s not especially inconvenient to own several thousand books, whereas if you owned several thousand random possessions you’d be a local celebrity. But except for books, I now actively avoid stuff. If I want to spend money on some kind of treat, I’ll take services over goods any day.
I’m not claiming this is because I’ve achieved some kind of zenlike detachment from material things. I’m talking about something more mundane. A historical change has taken place, and I’ve now realized it. Stuff used to be valuable, and now it’s not.
Graham’s whole essay is well worth reading. I think it raises an important point though – when we’re thinking about innovation, are we making changes that actually do some good? If we’re aiming for sustainable innovation, we sure should be.
The shift from scarcity to abundance (at least in some markets, and in developed economies) leads to important questions. Those concerning which business model we should use, how we should price things, and how we allow for some parts of the packages we offer to be free are important. But so is the issue of time – we need to come up with ideas that will have some legs. If we all have too much stuff, why do we need whatever it is that you’re working on? To be genuinely innovative, you need a good answer to that question.
(hat tip to Fabio Rojas)
free news?
Posted by Tim in aggregate, business models, evolving economic entities, filter, innovation on 25 September 2009
I keep coming back to the idea of business models in news for a couple reasons. The main one is that we are seeing a major industry being transformed right in front of us, in real time. And a critical industry at that. We’re seeing all of the issues that surround the idea of free coming together in one place – and it’s leading to a lot of innovation, especially in the area of business models. This makes it a fascinating case study. (Here’s Chris Anderson’s take on these issues.)
Clay Shirky gave a talk this week at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy addressing the issues facing the news industry. Shirky investigates the idea that one of the key functions of newspapers is to provide ‘accountability journalism’ – reporting stories that keep powerful institutions in line. If newspapers cease to be viable, what mechanisms will we have to ensure accountability? Shirky offers a few ideas on this.
Joshua Benton has made a comprehensive post that includes a full transcript of the talk, the audio version as an mp3, links to posts discussing the talk, and some commentary of his own. It’s worth your time to read the transcript or listen to the full talk. Dan Kennedy is one of the people to pick up the themes of Shirky’s talk, and his summary includes this section:
“It may be that we’re seeing advertising priced at its real value for the first time in history,” Shirky said — and that value, he added, is a “tiny fraction” of what newspapers traditionally charged.
With newspapers supplying about 85 percent of accountability journalism, Shirky said that what we need are a large number of small experiments to try to make up some of the gap. He divided those experiments into three parts:
* Commercial: The traditional advertising model for newspapers, magazines and broadcasters.
* Public: News organizations funded by money unconnected to commerce, the prime examples being public radio and non-profit news sites.
* Social: Journalism produced mainly through donated time, including certain pro/am crowdsourcing initiatives such as Off the Bus, a citizen-journalism project that covered the 2008 presidential campaign for the Huffington Post.“No one is smart enough to get it right, which is why we need a lot of experimentation,” Shirky said.
There are two important points in this. The first is the idea that we might only now be seeing newspaper advertising priced correctly. One of Shirky’s contentions is that for a long time, newspaper advertising was substantially overpriced relative to the benefits provided, and that the extra revenues generated in this way were the primary drivers of investment in accountability journalism in the first place. I think that is in large part what has led to the news industry misunderstanding their business model. Identifying the current business model might make it easier to try to change it. Seth Godin’s post today gets at exactly this issue:
Authors have traditionally relied on publishers to bring them readers. The author gives up the majority of the income and the publisher brings them the readers. But then you see someone like Frank at Post Secret who builds his own audience for his (sometimes nsfw) content. He owns a platform, it’s not something he rents. Now, using a publisher is a choice, not a necessity. Just about every successful author going forward (except for the lucky exceptions like Dan Brown) will own her own media channel. Not just authors, of course…
The second key point is that we’ll need to innovate like crazy to replace the accountability journalism that will be lost if newspapers go under. There are a number of experiments taking place right now, and we’ll need a lot more. That’s part of what makes this transition so exciting to watch (from the outside at least – it’s clearly incredibly wrenching if you’re in the middle of it). One important issue here is that journalism in general, and accountability journalism in particular, has always been subsidised by the other parts of the news business model. This subsidisation will almost certainly continue in whatever new business models end up working for news – and being clear on this is essential to avoiding another breakdown in the provision of this critical public good.
As technology continues to drive the price of information down towards zero, I still think that two ways to make money with a business model that accomodates free information are through aggregation and filtering. The business model for politico.com is an excellent example. Their website traffic is driven primarily through the staggering amount of Washington DC insider information that is aggregated in one location. Most (but not all) of the news that they have is generated elsewhere – their primary service is to provide it in one place. This is typified by Mike Allen’s ‘Playbook’, released every morning:
It is often entirely undifferentiated news. The minor mixed with the game-changing. Since Allen is as close as you can get to real time itself, there is almost no filter. Since his goal is as close to 100 percent detail as possible, there is almost no distinction between the ordinary and the noteworthy. So, in that sense, he isn’t the news. Indeed, what he gathers is not really news. Instead, it’s something near the totality of available information.
They make some money off of website advertising, but the bulk of their revenue comes from the print editions that they sell in the afternoon. Again, there is not much that is novel in the print version – nearly all of the material there is available for free on the website. So why do people pay for it? Because it’s filtered. The morning ‘Playbook’ includes everything – but the afternoon print version only has what’s important. ‘Playbook’ aggregates, print filters. Both make money, but most of the money comes from filtering. And it’s doing these two jobs well that allows Politico to keep a fairly large staff of reporters that generate original content.
The content creation is subsidised by the two functions that are essential in the world of free – aggregating and filtering. So as we try Shirky’s multitude of experiments, I think it will pay to keep these two functions in mind when we’re building new business models for creating accountability journalism.
the price of free leads to innovation
Posted by Tim in book riffs, business models, innovation on 24 September 2009
I just finished reading Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson. As usual, Anderson takes ideas that have been out there a while and packages them in an insightful and valuable way. I’m a bit late to the party, so there has already been plenty of reaction to the book. Much of the discussion has been spurred by Malcolm Gladwell’s piece about the book in the New Yorker, which is strongly critical of Anderson’s ideas. This brought a reply from Seth Godin, and Mitch Joel has summarised a lot of the main points (with links to everything) on his blog Six Pixels of Separation.
The book builds on the ideas that Stewart Brand articulated at the first Hackers’ Conference in 1984:
On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.
This quote often gets shortened to “Information wants to be free” – this is the bit that Gladwell quotes – and I think that the shortening is the source of a lot of the misdirected arguments against Anderson’s book. If you only say “Information wants to be free”, then the big question around free becomes how do content creators get paid? If you take this angle, then even talking about free as a concept is tantamount to advocating piracy – so a lot of the people upset with Free are, like Gladwell, professional content creators, wondering how they’ll get paid once information becomes free. Actually, even more than content creators, a lot of the kicking against free as a concept comes from content filterers (newspaper publishers and record companies, for example).
I think that the way around this problem is to think about the full quote from Brand, as Anderson actually does in the book. The tendency towards cheap/free content is inexorably driven by technological advances – it doesn’t really matter if we like it, or if we want it to happen – it’s just the way it is. The question then becomes ‘how do we structure a business model that includes some free content?’ While this can be a challenging question for incumbent businesses with business models that are difficult to change, it also provides significant opportunities for business model innovation.
And in fact, we have many, many examples of business models that include some part of the intellectual content being offered for free. Just think of the longest running, most successful open innovation project in history – science. Watson & Crick published the structure of DNA in Nature in 1953 – for free. Subsequently, the entire industry of biotechnology has been built on the foundation they provided, along with many other businesses. And even though Watson & Crick didn’t get paid by Nature for creating that short piece of content, they still ended up doing ok financially…
The key to making free work is to consider both parts of Brand’s idea about information – especially the first part. Information wants to be expensive, because it is extremely valuable when it is adapted and applied to specific contexts. If you are creating worthwhile content, the key is to figure out how to find the people that control those contexts, and build your business model around making money off of them. There are plenty of ways to do this – Anderson’s original article about Free in Wired links to a how-to wiki that lists 53 different business models that include free as part of the model, but which also include revenue-generating mechanisms. Making money off of free is a pure business model problem, and the people and firms that are innovative in constructing their business models are the ones that will profit from creating content in the information age. To do this, don’t just think about how information wants to be free, you must also consider how it wants to be expensive.
Follow up post here.
Other free resources:
Steve Outing has a great article discussing how this might work for newspapers
As usual, the definitive bit of writing on the issue comes from Kevin Kelly
Chris Anderson discusses the book in the Authors@Google program
Mike Masnick has a good take on the issues
4 rules for managing your network
Posted by Tim in innovation, networks on 23 September 2009
Here are the slides with audio for the talk I gave this morning at the Brisbane AusBiotech breakfast meeting. Hit the green ‘play’ button in the middle to get it started. It runs for about 18 minutes.
Kate Morrison from Vulture Street Innovation Software & Services gave the second talk (her slides are here) on using ideation software (jams!) and collaborative innovation. As usual, she was excellent.
presentation innovation
Posted by Tim in innovation on 22 September 2009
I’ve been pushing Presentation Zen by Garr Reynolds and Slide-ology by Nancy Duarte to anyone that will listen for about a year now. The two books both advocate making presentations that are more than simply slide after slide of bullet points. This year, I’ve given my MBA classes the task of doing presentations more in the style advocated by Garr & Nancy. The first set were done in my weekend class, and they were fantastic! The thing that really made me happy was that I could tell that making the students think in terms of images actually made them think differently. All in all, I was very happy with the outcome.
Then today, this post came across the slide-ology blog – it has three videos of Garr & Nancy talking about presenting, including this one:
All three are worth watching. If we’re trying to get people to think innovatively, I think that being innovative in our presentations is a good place to start. I’ll give you an example of me putting my money where my mouth is in the next couple of days…
your new idea is ruining everything!
Posted by Tim in evolving economic entities, innovation, time on 20 September 2009
Here is a bit from a superb interview with linguist Dennis Baron about the impact of new technologies on communication:
Historically, when the new communication device comes out, the reaction tends to be divided. Some people think it’s the best thing since sliced bread; other people fear it as the end of civilization as we know it. And most people take a wait and see attitude. And if it does something that they’re interested in, they pick up on it, if it doesn’t, they don’t buy into it.
I start with Plato’s critique of writing where he says that if we depend on writing, we will lose the ability to remember things. Our memory will become weak. And he also criticizes writing because the written text is not interactive in the way spoken communication is. He also says that written words are essentially shadows of the things they represent. They’re not the thing itself. Of course we remember all this because Plato wrote it down — the ultimate irony.
We hear a thousand objections of this sort throughout history: Thoreau objecting to the telegraph, because even though it speeds things up, people won’t have anything to say to one another. Then we have Samuel Morse, who invents the telegraph, objecting to the telephone because nothing important is ever going to be done over the telephone because there’s no way to preserve or record a phone conversation. There were complaints about typewriters making writing too mechanical, too distant — it disconnects the author from the words. That a pen and pencil connects you more directly with the page. And then with the computer, you have the whole range of “this is going to revolutionize everything” versus “this is going to destroy everything.”
The entire interview is worth reading (and I intend to read the book that he is promoting as well). Baron brings up several important points for innovators. The first is that there are always people that will fight new ideas. It doesn’t matter how small your innovation is, someone won’t like it. You have to be able to fight through these objections. The second is that the hype cycle will probably always be with us. When you’ve got a new idea to execute, hype is fine, but in the long run you need to deliver substantive value.
The big point though is that you always get this resistance because innovations are always disruptive. The disruption caused by blogs is obvious (at least it is now – newspapers weren’t so worried about them when they first started out). But even if you’ve just figured out a simple way to make an everyday process better, it is going to require change. Consequently, someone won’t like it. When this happens within our organisation, we need to figure out the politics of getting around the objection. When it happens within a market, we have to figure out how to compete against the resistance. But one way or another, no matter how good our ideas our, someone won’t like them. And we’ll have to fight to get our ideas to spread.
(image from sparkmuseum.com)
rules for positive deviance
Posted by Tim in book riffs, innovation on 14 September 2009
Atul Gawande ends his latest book Better with a set of rules for positive deviance. This is building on the idea that performance in most fields follows a bell curve, and that if you want to end up in the good tail, you need to take steps to deviate from the norm in that direction. Since the book is about medicine, most of his examples are from that field, however, it is a pretty good roadmap for being a good innovator as well. His steps are:
- Ask an unscripted question – don’t just go through the script when you’re talking with people – ask them something (anything!) personal. “It’s not that making this connection necessarily helps anyone. But you start to remember the people you see, instead of letting them blur together. And sometimes you discover the unexpected.”
- Don’t complain – “The natural pull of conversational gravity is towards the litany of woes all around us. But resist it. It’s boring, it doesn’t solve anything, and it will get you down. You don’t have to be sunny about everything, just be prepared with something else to discuss: an idea you read about, an interesting problem you came across…”
- Count something – “One should be a scientist in this world. In the simplest terms, this means one should count something… It doesn’t really matter what you count. You don’t need a research grant. the only requirement is that what you count should be interesting to you… If you count something you find interesting, you will learn something interesting.”
- Write something – “It makes no difference whether you write five paragraphs for a blog, a paper for a professional journal, or a poem for a reading group. Just write. What you write need not achieve perfection. It need only add some small observation about your world… by offering your reflections to an audience, even a small one, you make yourself part of a larger world… The published word is a declaration of membership in that community and also of a willingness to contribute something meaningful to it. So choose your audience. Write something.
- Change – “Look for the opportunity to change. I am not saying you should embrace every new trend that comes along. But be willing to recognize the inadequacies in what you do and seek out solutions. As successful as medicine is, it remains replete with uncertainties and failure. This is what makes human, at times painful, and also worthwhile… So find something new to try, something to change. Count how often you succeed and how often you fail. Write about it. Ask people what they think. See if you can keep the conversation going.”
Gawande is a fabulous writer, and I think that these suggestions have general utility. Following these suggestions will make you better at whatever you do. Innovating is all about change, so the last poitn is obviously useful for innovators. But I’m also a big believer in the value of counting and writing – they feed a propensity towards action – which is another central part of innovation.
I’m going to give them a try. How about you?
business ecosystems
Posted by Tim in business models, evolving economic entities, innovation on 8 September 2009
One topic that is guaranteed to get my classes fired up is Apple. They’re great to use as an example because they elicit a strong reaction. Consequently, I’ve been giving some thought to some of the issues surrounding iPhones, particularly as they relate to other 3g phones, like Google’s Android-based phones. Whatever you might think about the technical characteristics of the iPhone, the business model that Apple is using with it represents a big jump forward for the firm.
There’s a nice post on the wikinomics blog which discusses how Apple has built an effective business platform surrounding the iPhone. The post points out that effective business platforms have a few key ingredients:
- They are not just products, they create an ecosystem surrounding the product. With the iPhone this includes all of the sub-contracted manufacturers, but more importantly it includes iTunes, the app store and app developers.
- This leads directly to the second point, which is that the business platform becomes strong through the encouragement of collaboration.
- This in turn creates a community of practice surrounding the business platform, as the collaborators learn how to make better things.
Why is this a jump forward for Apple? The way the story is commonly told these days, Apple lost the battle desktop computing because they didn’t create a collaborative business platform. Many people still see Apple as primarily a closed company, and argue that this approach stifles innovation. While Apple blocking the Google iPhone interface suggests there is definitely still a strong element of closed-ness in their approach, I do think that overall, the iPhone platform is substantially stronger than that of the original Macs.
This has several important implications for innovation. The first is that you always have to think about your innovation as being embedded within the economy. Everything is part of a business platform – and your decisions about which parts of the ecosystem you need to control are often much more important than those concerning which features to include. The second is that if you are competing against established products, the best angle to take is to compete on the business model, not on features. This is a point that Farhad Manjoo makes in discussing how to beat the Kindle in the book reader market:
The service matters more than the device itself. Every time I dismiss the Zune, Creative Zen, or some other MP3 player as an also-ran, I get letters from loyalists who insist that their gizmo far outshines the iPod. Sometimes they’re right—but what they miss is that the iPod isn’t a standalone device. It’s part of a music-delivery ecosystem, the most important feature of which is iTunes.
It’s so easy to get caught up in just making your really cool idea work. Unfortunately, it’s usually not enough just to do that – you also have to figure out how to embed that idea into the economy. Sometimes you can create an entire ecosystem around it, but a lot of the time you need to fit in with what’s already out there. Innovators that do this more effectively are the ones that are most likely to gain from their ideas.
Kevin Kelly got it right 10 years ago when he said:
Because the value of an action in the network economy multiplies exponentially by the number of networks that action flows through, you want to touch as many other networks as you can reach. This is plentitude. You want to maximize the number of relations flowing to and from you, or your service or product. Imagine your creation as being born inert, like a door nail off a factory conveyor belt. The job in the network economy is to link the nail to as many other systems as possible…. And that’s just for a stick of iron. More complex objects and services are capable of permeating far more systems and networks, thus greatly boosting their own value and the plentiful value of all the systems they touch.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for September, 2009
Metrics
Tim was named #5 in the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers in 2011 at Innovation Excellence.
Tim and John were both named in the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers in 2010 at Innovation Excellence.
Forex Robot
