Tag Archive for 'Mick Liubinskas'

The artist formally known as liako

Published on May 10, 2009 in Blog, with 0 Comments. Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Yesterday I switched over my blog to a new domain name: previously Liako.Biz, it now resides as a sub-directory off a domain with my real name (http://eliasbizannes.com/blog). Further more, I renamed myself on the primary micro-blogging tool I use (Twitter) from @liako to @eliasbiz. For most, you wouldn't see why that matters so much - but for those knee deep in social media, you'll understand how much of a big deal it can be. In the course of my decision, I realised a few things, so I thought I'd share it here.

Your brand - it matters
I created Liako.Biz in 2005 to document my travels. Although I was partly doing it to explore blogging as a concept, I never realised that my future would be in technology. A year after my trip, I relaunched my blog with a focus on issues I came across in the information and technology sector. The name "Liako" - which is a nickname for "Elias" in Greece and used by my brother and an ex-girlfriend - extended across the web as my online identity. With all these sites I would sign up to, I didn't think much of it. Turns out those sites now matter.

Due to my work in the DataPortability Project, the concept of online identity has always been on my mind, so perhaps I am a bit more involved in such thinking than most people and hence why I think it's a bigger deal. More recently however, I noticed Chris Messina have to go through this thought process as he renamed his Twitter profile. Rebranding yourself is a big deal, that I can understand why Messina hasn't got around to rebranding his blog. It sounds ridiculous doesn't it - changing your name on a service is a big deal. The question I suppose is why is it so?

All these technology tools are enabling us to stay connected with other people. Twitter as a case in point: I was pulled into that two years ago after Marty Wells and Mick Liubinskas told me it was critical if you are involved in tech.

We are seeing now beyond the tech community but in our everyday life, our reputations grow and develop based on our online activities. As relationships form and develop through these online tools, an emotional connection is attached with the persona of the person they interact with. As soon as I announced a name change on Twitter, I immediately got a reaction from friends - it wasn't just me, they literally felt like something had changed - validating the emotional connection people build with a brand.

Twitter _ @EliasBiz

Anyone that has a blog understands how hard it is to build up its credibility. You require hundreds of people to link to you, for your blog to even reach a credible level. So to create a new domain name, you effectively are throwing out all that brand value and starting again. It's like throwing money away for no reason.

Why it matters
Chris Saad and Ben Metcalfe convinced me I needed to drop my liako brand and go with my real name. It's just common sense to do that - as your profile in the industry grows, people need to know you by your real brand (your actual name), not some alias which in the flood of other aliases makes it even harder for people to remember and distinguish you.

Twitter as a case in point (again), to get value from the service, you should follow people you don't already know -which is how I know the people pictured below. These people created their own brand which is fine, but it's lost opportunity - as far as I am concerned, they are two separate people and unless I know them well I may not join the dots.

Twitter _ Home

Our online identities are no longer a play thing: they're now an intrinsic dimension to our overall identity. Identity is a crucial thing that we need to protect: it can affect our emotional health due to the standing we have in a community - and it can also affect our financial security due to people compromising it. It permeates our life in more ways than one.

Working in the Internet industry, I'm more acutely aware of the importance of my online identity as it directly relates to my career. But our lives are slowly being transformed by the Internet, and even if you don't have a career touching technology, your online identity is increasingly going to become an important part of you.

Privacy
From a personal branding point of view, it's obvious why you consolidate your names. You don't need to necessarily pick your real name, but you need to stick with one name that makes you unique. If you don't have a unique name, it makes more sense to pick a nickname. However, our actual names are the only brands that matter. We are not companies selling products; we are people selling ourselves.

But something that is worth considering are the privacy implications of using your real name on everything. A Google search for me will now bring up my real time thoughts on Twitter, which sometimes are about other people - not something I want happening in real time. Using multiple names actually can be a good thing, as I don't want some girl I meet in a nightclub to be able to instantly track me down online (which has already happened - jut because I meet someone doesn't mean I want to be permanently connected with them!). Separately, I've recently had some people harass me (non-stop communicating via multiple channels that I wasn't responding to) and stalk me (turning up somewhere uninvited), and it's frustrating to not be able to control the communication from them as you are everywhere and cannot really hide from them.

So why did I do it
Although I've developed some goodwill on the Liako brand over the years, I am aware my real break into the industry hasn't happened yet. So better to start fresh now - and do it right. My future is in the industry, and as painful as it has been to change over - getting it right now will pay off later. I've grown accustomed to Liako (my real world friends call me that now!), but using a nickname is exactly that. It disappoints the creative inside of me, but when we are talking about our identity - unless you're an entertainer seeking attention - it's worth being boring about that.

Postscript:

      people that subscribe to my blog via feed readers shouldn't be affected;
      all my posts have been fully ported here so nothing has been lost;
      legacy links will get automatically redirected to the equivalent new URL

The change brought by the Internet is a correction

Published on January 26, 2009 in Media, with 0 Comments. Tags: , , , , .

I was sitting at a restaurant with Mick Liubinskas of Pollenizer the other week, who I regard as one of the best minds in the Australian tech scene. Mick in a previous life used to run marketing at Kazaa, which was the music-industry's anti-Christ during the early 2000s. Kazaa was one of the higher profile peer-to-peer technologies that made the distribution of music so widespread on the Internet.

I said to Mick how one of the things that plagues my thinking is trying to work out the future business models for content. Naturally, we ended up talking about the music industry and he explained to me the concept of Soft DRM which he thought was one avenue for the future but which the record labels rejected at the time.

DRM

DRM or Digital Rights Management is the attempt by companies to control the distribution of digital content. Hard DRM places control over access, copying and distribution - while soft DRM does not prohibit unauthorised actions but merely monitors a user’s interaction with the content.

The basic difference, is that Hard DRM protects copyrights by preventing unauthorised actions before the fact, while Soft DRM protects copyrights by giving copyright owners information about infringing uses after the fact.

As I questioned Mick on this, he compared it to us sitting in that restaurant. What's stopping either of us from getting up and not paying the bill? The restaurant let's us sit, serves us food - and only at the end do we pay for the service.

Hard DRM is not congruent with our society
Part of the music industry's problem is that they've focused too much on Hard DRM. And that's wrong. They could get away with it in the past because that's how the world worked with controlled distribution lines, but now that world no longer exists with the uncontrollable Internet.

In a restaurant, like any other service industry, the risk that you don't get paid is real but not big enough to prevent it from operating. Our social conventions are what make us pay that bill, even though we have the ability to avoid it.

To insist on the Hard DRM approach, is going against how the rest of the western world works. Our society is philosophically based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Likewise, you pay after a service has been rendered - and you pay for something that has unique value (only scarcity is rewarded). What existed with the media world was unique over any other industry, but unique purely due to technological limitations, not because it was genuinely better.

The record companies (not the artists) are hurting
Artists practically sell their soul to get a record deal, and make little money from the actual albums themselves. This change for music is really a threat to the century-old record company model, of which the Internet has broken their distribution power and their marketing ability is now dwarfed by the potential of social media.

Instead of reinventing themselves, they wasted time by persisting with an old model that worked in the industrial age. They should have been reflecting on what value people will pay for, and working out the things that are better than free. Unfortunately, the entire content business - movies, television, radio, magazines, newspapers, books and the rest - have made similar mistakes.

The Internet is transforming our world and every object in our lives one day will be connected. In some ways, the great change brought about by the Internet is actually a step back to how things used to be (like it is for music where the record model was an anomaly in our history). Even the concept of a "nation state" is a 20th century experiment pushed after the first world war, where for our entire history prior to that, our world was governed by independent cities or empires that governed multiple ethnic nations - the Internet is breaking down the nation-state concept and good riddance because its complicated our lives.

Future

We need to clear the white board and start fresh. The Internet is only going to get more entrenched in our world, so we must re-engineer our views of the world to embrace it. With content, distribution was one of the biggest barriers to those industries to get into, and now it has been obliterated. Business models can no longer rely on that.

We should not let the old world drive our strategies for business because the dynamics have changed completely. If you are looking to defend yourself against an oncoming army - stop polishing the sword and start looking for the bullets to put in the machine gun.

Understanding entrepreneurs

Published on January 7, 2009 in Business, with 0 Comments. Tags: , , , , , .

Lachlan Hardy the other week was saying to Mick Liubinskas, myself, and others at the Sydney weekly Official Friday Drinks, that he doesn't like "entrepreneurs" or at least people that call themselves that because he thinks it's a silly term. We ended up having a lively debate and explored if there truly is value in an "entrepreneurs" degree. I thought I'd dig into what exactly an entrepreneur is because it's an interesting term as Lachlan and the boys got me thinking.

Kid entrepreneur

I've had the label 'entrepreneur' slapped on me twice before without me even realising I was. The first time, I was 15 and lining up in the bank after school. The fat uniform shop lady from my school told me that she needed to get ahead of me, as she obviously had a lot more money to deposit over what she probably thought was me emptying out my piggy bank of $50 in coins. When it finally got to my turn, the bank teller remarked where did I manage to collect all that money (I think it was $5000). I told her I was organising my schools semi-formal, and I was collecting the ticket money. Just after I said that, the fat uniform shop lady waddled past me and quipped: "no - it's because he's an entrepreneur" and gave me a look and smile as if to say 'you smart little bugger'.

The second time I was called that was at work. In 2006 I pitched a proposal to have social media technologies implemented into the core operation of my rather large firm, which two years on, has successfully occurred. Early on, maybe six months into the roll-out, my home business unit (who would eventually use the technology but had no idea what I was doing behind the scenes in other parts of the firm) gave me an award in front of a few hundred people. As my skinny business unit leader described the story he said the "networking" award which I was being awarded is not appropriate, and instead should be regarded as an "entrepreneurs" award because that's really what I am.

Weird eh? In the spirit of community, I organised a party for my school mates. Due to frustrations with my workflow, I attempted to make my workplace more efficient. Both those instances, were recognised as entrepreneurial. Fat lady called me an entrepreneur because I had a stack of cash in my hand; my stick-man boss's boss called me an entrepreneur because I managed to convince senior management though contacts I developed to implement my idea.

What's the common link?

What is this "Entrepreneur" that you speak of, sire?
According to WordNet, an entrepreneur is: "someone who organizes a business venture and assumes the risk for it". Or the Oxford dictionary which states: "a person who sets up a business or businesses".

This is very much in line with how people view the word - but there's a problem with this definition. Let's have a high-level look at the types of entrepreneurs.

Immrant entrepreneur

There's the glorified king of them all - 'The Entrepreneur' - who starts a business and then lists on the stock exchange or gets bought out for one-hundred million dollars and makes it as Times person of the year. WordNet and Oxford definition's through and through.

A second type, the intrapreneur, is an entrepreneur stuck in a big company but displays the same traits as a 'real' entrepreneur. The defining difference being they don't take the same risk of capital loss as their 'real' buddies. And correspondingly, don't get the same rewards.

A third type, is the social entrepreneur like my friend Donnie Maclurcan who started up Project Australia. This is an emerging type, but when people hear about them there's a bit of confusion. I mean, how does a non-profit venture yield, um, profit - isn't that what entrepreneurialism is about?

All the above are entrepreneurial, but they don't match the definition because of a misguided understanding: we are using money to measure it.

Entrepreneurialism is more like a combination of a risk-taker (different from gambler) and passionate expert, who generates value in our society. It's almost like a function in our society - some people are conductors, others are saxophonists, and others play the violin. Different people pick their specialty: the violinists are playing music according to their function and develop accordingly; the conductors similarly according to their function. Extend the definition with people that love to be employees, and others that love to be managers. There is a different skill class required, and quite often, people in one class don't want to be in the other (like how some computer developers who love their trade, get pulled away from their passion into management which they call admin). An entrepreneur, like an bridge engineer, is someones who's flagged 'I'm on the lookout to build structures of value' except the former is building structures for markets as opposed to the latter who is building structures for transportation.

The traditional definitions we use are inconsistent. How can you describe something using such a one-dimensional view as finance when really what we are describing are components to a job function or perhaps even a type of labour class. They are almost like an artist, trying to perfect the synthesis of the four factors of production: land, labour, capital, enterprise. With the rise of the corporation as the dominant institution in our society, we've forgotten that our society was built by individuals who would otherwise be called an entrepreneur: sole traders selling to a market. We now group ourselves in a collective (a company) for the apparent 'economies of scale', as we can minimise our transaction costs.

Here's an illustration with how the definition is at conflict with how we use it from the "risk" point of view. Most family businesses, like the local fruit-shop when they started, raised capital in the form of a bank loan. They very much are taking a risk there (the risk of bankruptcy) - but we probably don't spare a moment in thinking the risk they took makes them "entrepreneurs".

Contrast that to people innovating in technology. Typically a college kid comes up with a great new idea, and he then goes and raises funding from angel investors and then venture capital. What's the risk there? If the venture fails, the money does not get enforced on the entrepreneur to be paid. People simply pack up shop with low heads and that's it. In the upside, sure the entrepreneur needs to share profits. But if the only loss they face is the feeling of disappointment and perhaps, the $2 in capital they contributed to start the company, does this mean they are not entrepreneurs?

A better definition
This definition is from my favourite Frenchman, or at least, the guy that made me stop hating the French - and that's saying something! (Greek waiters and French chefs do not work well under the same roof!)
Twitter _ Loic Le Meur_ _entrepreneur_
Loic says it's simply someone who moves resources from lower yield areas to higher yielding ones. The man that coined this was an admirer of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" but felt Smith underplayed the role of an entrepreneur in capitalism. So if you have a fan in your house cooling a room where no one is sitting, it's moving that fan to the room where there are 20 people that are boiling hot due to the hot weather. It's a person who has the initiative to reallocate a resource to where the demand and appreciation of that resource is. Bringing it back to economics, entrepreneurs are one of the major reasons our market economy works - and the market economy, despite it's weaknesses in some areas, is a brilliant system at organising our society.

The WordNet definition is the typical interpretation of an entrepreneur in society, whilst the Loic interpretation is truer to the source of the word. Reconsidered in this light, I've now come to appreciate that as annoying entrepreneurs can be (it takes a certain kind- very much a me, me, me view on things; mavericks who upset the order - which sounds heroic but the reality is that they are a real pain in the arse; and the "shut-the-hell-up-Ive-already-heard-you-talk-about-that-idea-a-hundred-times" trait), we certainly shouldn't diminish their role in society. And if someone identifies themselves as one, I would say they are simply flagging their place in the personality tree: don't mock it, be aware of it.