Montreal-based Transcontinental Media announced quietly last week the launch of weblocal.ca - an online search site for finding and reviewing local businesses, products or services in communities across Canada. Weblocal.ca is driven by content shared by users such as recommendations, ratings and reviews, as well as pictures and videos.
Sounds a lot like ZipLocal - "Canada's new online search directory that provides a rich, user-defined local search experience. ZipLocal provides relevant search results from over 1.3 million businesses with maps and capability for users to review, rate and tag business listings."
The Canadian local online directory space is certainly getting crowded. Don't forget that Yelp is now North of the border and BrownBook.net has crossed the Atlantic.
In the case of weblocal.ca vs. ZipLocal, we're looking at David versus Goliath. ZipLocal was formed in August 2006 from the merger of redCity Search Company and Zip411.net and is currently trading publically on the TSX. As of today's close, shares are at 1 cent with a total market capitalization of just over $750,000.
Transcontinental Inc. is a Billion dollar company.
I'm cheering for scrappy upstart but with Transcontinental’s established local sales force of over 400 reps and an online portfolio of over 125 websites - it's not going to be easy.
ZipLocal is the difference between getting advice from the phone book vs. your trusted friends and neighbours. ZipLocal makes it easy to find what... [more]
weblocal.ca is a local search company offering research and information about businesses in Canada. Information has been collected from throughout... [more]
UK-Born Brownbook.net has landed in Canada and they're building their wiki business directory one entry at a time. I had the pleasure of talking to their Canadian Community Manager, Basil Berntsen, earlier today and he's excited about their progress across Canada to date.
Brownbook.net is the free local business directory that anyone can edit. We're building a global business directory and anyone can participate. You can add business listings, update them, and review businesses free and instantly. It's an ambitious project and one that you can contribute to.
Brownbook.net launched initially with over 2.2 million UK business listings and has quickly expanded to add over 25 million listings in USA, Canada, and Australia. According to Berntsen, there are currently 1.2 Million Canadian businesses in the directory.
Wikinomics Blogger Denis Hancock profiled Brownbook.net last week and was very impressed after interviewing Brownbook.net Founder Marc Lynne for his piece. Of course Hancock is always proud when a wikinomics-enabled company is successful but he seems particularly intereested in their business model and new User Earnings program.
The business model for the company is straight forward. Businesses can pay a small - and I do mean SMALL - annual fee to “claim” their company listing on the site, and thus control the messaging (users can still post their own reviews, etc.). They can also get additional services like notifications when reviews are added, videos, search priority, etc. This fee is many, many, MANY times (I can’t emphasize this enough) lower than what a company would pay to be listed in (say) the Yellow Pages - and could more or less be considered trivial for most companies. But if Brownbook can scale globally, the potential revenue for them is not trivial at all.
FYI... by small, Hancock is referring to a $10/year fee.
Last week the company rolled out their “User Earnings” program. It’s very simple, and quite compelling. Any time a businesses comes and “claims” a listing (i.e. pays for control of it), the last prosumer to have made a significant change is rewarded. This reward is 20% of the lifetime value of that customer. That’s where my clever title of “getting prosumers invested for life” comes from.
Sounds like a pretty compelling way to build up a business. If you're interested in learning more, check out Berntsen's recent demo from October's Montreal NewTech Meetup and Lynne's launch of their User Earnings program. Brownbook Limited is privately funded and incorporated in the UK.
Brownbook.net is the free directory that anyone can edit. We put the power of peer produced content to work for the business directory market. Add,... [more]
Do you want to increase the chances of your Startup's success? If so, you need to sign up for Startup School this weekend!
Startup School is a practical, how-to course about starting, financing, marketing, hiring, growing, and exiting your startup. It is taught by Michael Sikorsky, CEO of Cambrian House and poster-child for the global Crowdsourcing Community.
The thing I like about MJ's approach is that he is not there to inspire you over the two day course...he is there to significantly increase your chances of being successful. Two full servings of reality smothered in steaming facts.
Another great take away are the take aways...Michael provides most of the files, documents, spreadsheets, termsheets, grant applications and presentations he has created over the last 12 years...including ones that worked and ones that didn't. He's raised over $10 million for his ventures so I'd consider this information priceless!
Much more info and how to register can be found on Michael's site here.
Launched in 2006, Cambrian House began as a crowdsourcing community using a wisdom of crowds based approach to discover new business and technology... [more]
Web 2.0 is the future of communicating social responsibility. Not everyone knows it yet, and only a few are practicing it, but Web 2.0 will revolutionize how social responsibility is practiced.
The International Association of Business Communicators Conference in Vancouver on communicating Social Responsibility, held on October 16th – 17th, hinted at the potential of Web 2.0.
The interest in social responsibility continues to increase even in today’s environment—it is part of the landscape regardless of economic gyrations. What is social responsibility? It is defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as: the “responsibility of an organization for the impact of its decisions and activities on society and the environment through transparent and ethical behaviour.”
James Hoggan, President of PR firm, Hoggan Associates noted that the environment became the #1 issue in late 2005 and still remains important today. One of his initiatives was to set up www.Desmogblog.com. DeSmogBlog exists to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change.
Hoggan’s view is that an overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming - the world's climate is changing - and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame. According to the site, “We know that the risks are incalculable and, increasingly, we understand that the solutions are affordable.” Hoggan wants to get that message to the public.
Robert Safrata, CEO, Novex Couriers, aspires to be the greenest courier company in the world (they offer Vancouver-area same day courier). He wants his company to be an engine for change—and at the same time be a profitable business. His triple bottom line focus is people, planet and profits.
His website is largely an open book. His business plan is online (just short of showing his EBITDA). Part of his open disclosure is the use of “See-it” “a real time sustainability reporting system.” All of Novex’s stakeholders can see their environmental initiatives online; this has replaced the traditional sustainability report
William George of PR firm Edelman Canada, noted that consumers want to do good through their spending. People are mobilizing to say good things about companies; in the past they got together only to complain.
George pointed out how the online environment changes how people form decisions. The Globe & Mail is useful as a way to keep up to date for some one who has already formed a view. However, if a person is doing research and hasn’t form a view yet, then they are more likely to go online.
Further, people give direct sources more credibility. A blog can become a powerful way to create a peer or direct relationship, much more so than reading a newspaper article. A blog facilitates interaction.
Of course, not all companies are paying attention to conversations going on in the online environment. Companies may struggle with giving up control when they open up an online conversation, but it is necessary to create trust. This concept was explained masterfully in The Clue Train Manifesto a number of years ago.
William Azaroff, Director, Online Banking & Engagement, Vancity, spoke about corporate social responsibility as a key differentiator for companies. We are moving to “the social age.” People want to do good and be connected.
One of their initiatives is www.changeeverything.ca. They originally thought of a Facebook page, but couldn’t figure out how to add value in that environment so they went with their own site. This site has garnered much traffic and attention and has had an overall positive return for Vancity.
Azaroff noted the challenges of getting a presence online. People today have “profile fatigue,” so it is hard to get them plugged into yet another site. In addition, the site has to truly get the public involved. A key point is to ensure that people who are commenting are not part of the company otherwise credibility is gone.
James Tansey, Associate Professor, UBC, explained that businesses have to change the way they operate; today’s markets are more connected to consumers. Likewise, social responsibility has evolved over the last 10 - 20 years from being a “fig leaf” application to part of a deliberate strategy.
Tamsey is also co-founder of Offsetters.com which provides “carbon offsets.” These are investments in projects that prevent greenhouse gases from being emitted into the atmosphere. A company can purchase carbon offsets to counterbalance it own direct emissions.
Tim O’Reilly is among the most influential thought leaders in the Web 2.0 field. O’Reilly has been referred to as one of the gurus of the participation age. His firm coined the term “Web 2.0” and they host pivotal summits and expos in the Valley and around the globe.
When it comes to the crowd, O’Reilly uses the terms “collective intelligence” rather than “crowdsourcing.” What does that mean? O’Reilly has identified a couple of important concepts that are connected to the idea of harnessing collective intelligence.
First, is the idea of what he has called the open source paradigm shift. In today’s environment, there is a process of commoditization where the value is going out of many classes of software that people used to pay for. But there is still value; it is a question of where on the stack the value is located. This led O’Reilly to rethink the nature of the web and to come up with some new ideas around what is now referred to as “Web 2.0.” Moving up the stack includes using the internet as a platform, software as a service and harnessing collective intelligence.
By contrast, there is what O’Reilly calls moving down the stack, such as “Data is the Next Intel Inside” concept. This analysis is based on what Clayton Christensen calls “The Law of Conservation of Attractive Profits” (I discuss this in e-Preneur in the discussion of Christensen’s writings in Step #2 under “Classic Insights on Innovation”). The basic point is that every time you see something for free, then something else is becoming expensive. The impetus for this development was Linux and other types of open source software, which was a disruptive force that changed the game. Open source software leverages the power of network effects, enlightened self-interest, and the architecture of participation. But the trend didn’t stop there. O’Reilly noticed that many of the most successful websites were also harnessing user participation and the network effects that ensue.
Second, the internet is the platform. O’Reilly explains that once you realize that we’re in a new platform era, you have to ask yourself what makes for success on that platform. On the PC, it was all about building applications for individual user productivity. On the network, it’s about building applications that enable shared activity. But that’s not just explicit collaboration. It also includes implicit collaboration.
O’Reilly’s view is that to the extent that any Web 2.0 company uses network effects to their fullest potential they have harnessed collective intelligence. Google’s realization that links were a kind of user generated “voting” on the best site for a topic (i.e. Page Rank) and could be used to deliver better search results was arguably the real beginning of the Web 2.0 revolution. But each in their own way, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, Craigslist and Wikipedia all are showing different ways to harness collective intelligence to add value. Amazon, for example, has doggedly and persistently pursued the notion of users adding value. They didn’t have a built-in architecture of participation, but they worked on it.
O’Reilly explains that, “the key is to work together; harnessing creative intelligence is the heart of Web 2.0.” O’Reilly notes that the key question for companies to get involved in Web 2.0 is to ask, “what can we do on a shared network?” The objective is to build networks that get better as more people use them; this is the basis for the next generation of internet companies.
TechCrunch managed to post another incorrect story over the weekend. Serkan Toto made it to the last paragraph before he misspoke, calling Cambrian House “now-defunct”. Let me tidy up some facts: VenCorps, for those who follow these things, is a site built by the not-defunct Cambrian House.
Luckily, the “not-defunct at all” Cambrian House team was on top of the situation and released this blog post to combat the misinformation. This post contains an official letter from their counsel, a detailed FAQ, and the wit and humor we have come to expect from the Calgary company.
Thanks for clearing things up... again!
Launched in 2006, Cambrian House began as a crowdsourcing community using a wisdom of crowds based approach to discover new business and technology... [more]
What is Web 2.0? Is it a sideshow for small companies or a worthwhile strategy for the mainstream? KPMG hosted a session last night in Vancouver on The Corporate Adoption of Web 2.0. The evening session introduce some of the core concepts behind Web 2.0 for an audience that may be familiar with the terms but not with the core principles and whether they have value for large companies.
One featured speaker was Mike Sikorsky, CEO, Cambrian House, Calgary who addressed, “How crowdsourcing is changing the way companies do business.”
Sikorsky, in his inimitable style, explained the difference between two ways to tap into the crowd: “implicit” is by people clicking on links and “explicit” which is by deliberately voting in response to a posed question. Thus, people may be contributing to the wisdom of the crowd without being aware.
He distinguished different methods of pplication: from tapping the wisdom of crowds (which can be quite passive), to participation (which requires a crowd of interested people) and commerce (where there is some potential to make money). Sikorsky gave examples of larger companies (such as Starbucks) that are integrated crowd participation into their websites.
Another speaker was Leonard Brody, a partner of Vancouver success story, NowPublic, who focused on “The truth about user generated contents and the future of news.” Brody gave his customary candid and insightful views on his sector and the web in general.
He noted that the news business has been devastated by the internet. The challenge for traditional news organizations, such as newspaper chains, is that the source of news is no longer controlled. Brody explained how it’s all about eyes and ears and experience. For NowPublic the assumption is there is almost always somewhere to record the news when it happens. Their objective is to build the next generation of Reuters/AP.
In this fast-changing environment it is hard to define new companies. NowPublic is a good example. They are often referred to as a “citizen journalism” site. Brody points out that this is a term invented by journalists. He explained that NowPublic is not in the news business - they are instead a “global news intelligence network.” They have cracked the code on how to gather information.
NowPublic functions because society has evolved from a “witnessing population” to a “participating population.” People are involved in the process. Brody notes that, “The events of our time will be captured by amateurs.”
Another insightful comment was that our society has gone from “hyper local” to “hyper personal;” in other words, geography is not the determining factor in what people are interested in. Instead, they want news that relates to their interests. As an example, Brody cited Facebook which dominates news feeds—people only get the news that they think is important.
One of the issues that come up around Web 2.0 is to determine why people are involved. Brody admitted that if it was just about money, then the tasks of companies would be easer. However there are varied motivations. The list according to Brody: money (this is the smallest); vanity and ego; discussion about a specific issue; accidental bystanders; and people who are simply nuts (the last was a crowd favourite).
This KPMG event session is a positive development that reflects how web principles are seeping into the mainstream. This is a standard method of the diffusion of innovation. The new ideas typically appear on the fringes and then work their way into the mainstream. This is the path to “intrapreneurship”—innovation within larger organizations.
As with innovation generally, it may be a game changer in some contexts and in others it can be an additional tool. As I point out in ePreneur, Web 2.0 principles, such as crowdsourcing, may be the basis for a company (such as Cambrian House or NowPublic), but they can be a strategic tool of implementation for other companies.
NowPublic is a participatory news network which mobilizes an army of reporters to cover the events that define our world. In twelve short months,... [more]
Launched in 2006, Cambrian House began as a crowdsourcing community using a wisdom of crowds based approach to discover new business and technology... [more]
I recently interviewed Mike Sikorsky on some of the lessons learned from the creation and development of Cambrian House, a pioneer in crowdsourcing. By way of disclaimer, Mike and I have since become partners.
Rick: As you look back over two years of founding and operating a crowdsourcing company, what are some of the things that you are most proud of?
Mike: First, I am most proud of that fact that we are a fairly small team sitting here in Calgary, Alberta that became thought leaders in what I believe that is going to be a part of every single company going forward.
Second, we were really proud of our launch. It is true that most companies have no idea if anyone cares about them. I was really proud that we could compel people to look at us because they thought it was meaningful.
The third thing for me, and the entire team, was to see the development of individuals in our community who have been able to develop their entrepreneurial passion.
Rick: As you look back over the past two years, what would you have done differently?
Mike: I can bluntly say that there were just some things that we were just dumb about it. That’s part of the entrepreneurial learning curve, however, particularly when you are venture into uncharted territory such as crowdsourcing. The things that we screwed up the most were things that were to some extent forecast-able. We had the organizational design wrong in the beginning. I think we had it right on the community side, but wrong on the inside.
Then you throw in the fact that we are a really flat organization. What we realized—and this is the key learning principle—was that even though we wanted a flat hierarchy, we couldn’t have a flat hierarchy of communication. We had to have a hierarchy around our communication. So changing our hierarchy of communication and putting the right corporate structure around each of the opportunities was our saving grace for the company.
Rick: What advice do you have for entrepreneurs looking at Web 2.0 opportunities?
Mike: The first piece of advice I give to anyone I ever meet is to, “just do it and shut up.” Thunder in the mouth and lightning in the hand—stop talking. No matter how many books you read, no matter how much stuff you’re going to think about, if you don’t decide to do it, you’re already dead anyways.
Second, do not work on things that no one wants. I know that sounds so stupid, but the number of companies that I know that build inventory that no one want to buy is so high that it’s phenomenal. That is why the crowd part to me is so powerful. If you can’t get a crowd around your idea, how else are you going to get traction around your idea? I think if you just do it and not focus on building inventory, you’re probably okay.
Third, you are probably going to screw up one or twice anyways, so you might as well start screwing up or blowing up whatever it is right now. I am not trying to evangelize this idea of not being prepared and not reading, but I also don’t want to evangelize this idea of people who go away for ten years before they want to start their company. It’s like saving sex for old age.
Entrepreneurs are always worried that someone is going to steal their idea. Or they’re worried that they’re structuring their capital deals wrong. I tell them, “what are you worried about?” Of course you want to plan—but don’t over plan.
Launched in 2006, Cambrian House began as a crowdsourcing community using a wisdom of crowds based approach to discover new business and technology... [more]
A soon-to-be-published Oxford Internet Institute study concludes that companies they analyzed are not tapping the wisdom of the crowds. Instead, “the wisdom of these networks seems to be located in the intelligence behind their management.”
Oxford, as one of the leading universities in the world, is built on serious research. As I noted in e-Preneur there is a minimal amount of research on crowdsourcing; the field is growing faster than the ability to analyze it.
I recently met with William Dutton, Director, Oxford Internet Institute, who shared that a report on the study he had led, entitled The Wisdom of Collaborative Network Organizations will be published this September. Dutton and his research team tackled issues related to the notion of the “wisdom of the crowds:” how do you manage networked individuals and capture the value of their activities?
Dutton’s team conducted a number of interesting case studies of what he calls “collaborative network organizations. One company is Sermo, a community-based knowledge ecosystem of 50,000 licensed physicians in the US. Physicians can ask and answer questions and surveys posed primarily by doctors and pharmaceutical firms. The Sermo community identifies interesting health trends, case and other novel health insights for the benefit of multiple stakeholders.
They also examined distributed news aggregators such as Digg which, of course, display stories based on user rankings. They looked at conditions under which the crowd is smart and analyzed the bias of several modes of information aggregation and assessed the risk of mob behaviour. Another news aggregator, not covered, is Vancouver-based NowPublic.
They also looked at A Swarm of Angels which supports open content film production. The project is based in Brighton, England but the company extended its open source model to movie making so that it could bring distributed collaborators into the film project.
Dutton then distinguished these collaborative network organizations based on three levels of progressive performance: sharing, contributing and collaborating.
In sharing, individuals contribute to the creation of the information product and the benefits are reputation enhancement, influence and, in some cases, fees. An example is Innocentive which matches researchers (problem-solvers) with problems (problem seekers). It is a means of finding problem solvers rather than collaborating on work.
In the contributing scenario, a company or organization will set up a platform for soliciting and processing contributions. The company’s costs involve the creation and management of the platform for generating and managing community input. The benefit to the company is the licensing or sales of the platform or network (i.e. advertising or third party access). Sermo is a good example of Web 2.0 trends as it offers user-generated content. Physicians can remain anonymous but their answers can be rated.
Finally, there is collaboration with the outcome being co-created products.This results in the creating and management of a co-created product (i.e. software, films). The benefits capture is the licensing or sale of information projects; non-monetary benefits are training, status, notoriety. An example is “A Swarm of Angels” where shared information is central to the co-production process.
Dutton’s team reached a couple of key conclusions based on this study. First, organizations may think they are tapping the wisdom of the crowds—but they aren’t. Dutton explains that, “the wisdom of these networks likes primarily in the intelligence behind their management” and the channeling of contributions. His case studies uncovered “a variety of network management levers that can yield more useful outcomes.” These levers include architecture design, degree of openness, the controls employed and how management organizes the tasks.
Second, who benefits? Individuals perceive benefits by reducing their costs through participation or something as intangible as reputation enhancement. The benefits for the organization include reduced overall costs and often facilitate a greater sense of group identity.
As I pointed out in my recent book, the analysis of crowdsourcing, the wisdom of the crowds and related concepts is in its infancy.Serious academic research is welcomed as further progress towards having companies understand the true potential of how to apply crowd power for positive entrepreneurial outcomes.
