So impressed by this Korean retail revolution..
So for all the innovation that the retail industry is supposedly doing, as a consumer, how different is the shopping experience at an organized retail outlet, in say, last 5 years?? Or more, if you have also shopped in organized retail, outside India??
I would think the difference, if any, is marginal. At least perception wise.
Sure, there are more options, perhaps some innovation in loyalty programs (marginal again), etc. If anything, there are challenges as you shop. All the time.
Long queues at the checkout counter. Not finding the item you are looking for, as it is tucked into some inner shelf (because of space constraints, among other things), hassled shelves with products here and there, as people have handled them and the staff has not been able to rearrange them.
So yes, it’s pretty much the same-old-same-old. Retailers have not been able to really crack the code and make the shopping experience significantly better for the shoppers.
And then you see this amazing innovation from Korea:
A virtual store that is “real”!!
So sure, we had e-commerce. Where you saw a picture on a computer screen, small in size, not getting the perception of just how big a packing it may be, and then paying by credit card or whatever, and then waiting for the finite time to receive the products.
And it worked to an extent. But did not significantly dent the offline store business.
People, it seems, still wanted to go to the store and shop. And get a feel of the real thing. Pick up the bags and come back. Make it an interesting experience of walking around, window shop, see new things that have come, maybe talk to someone, and then shop. That experience still rocked! Compared to the computer screen one.
But this Korean way gets you the best of both ways.
Visualize this…
Put these LCD screens with full sized product shelves look inside your store. Beautiful back-lit screens with absolutely life-life images. In anything, better looking than the packaging!! Leave ample space for people to walk around. Except without the shopping carts.
Packaged goods are finally bought largely from the packaging, not so much from touch-and-feel.
Use QR code or some other device* to enable shopping.
She walks around, selects what she wants using the QR codes, and then lands up at the check out counter.
If technology of automated assembly is implemented at the back-end (like a warehouse management system that is used in busy warehouses), the customer’s selected order could be ready by the time she comes to the check-out counter, duly packed. She pays and picks up the bags and walks out. Since the entire billing process is eliminated at the check out counter, the queue also moves rapidly.
Seriously path-breaking, what?
And why can’t some retailer make a first move of this kind in India? I think all it requires is to be bold enough?!
Yeah, yeah… you will ask, “what about the non-packaged products like fresh fruits and veggies, or what about those packaged products that customers like to smell (soaps, perfumes, maybe..)?”
Okay, so a small hybrid model can still happen. All of the packaged goods lines, which do not require anything special (which will be what, 80% of the items at least?!) can still be the virtual LCD panel way, and then 1 or 2 aisles can have the rest of the stuff.
It will still have tremendous impact, and will be a “real” innovation, as compared to trivial ones that retailers love to talk about..
Guess someone’s got to make the first move? Looking forward to this..
(* “Some other device”? – how about giving a small hand-held scan unit to a person when he she walks into the store. Unit has it’s unique code, so whatever that shopper scans around, is recorded for HIS ‘virtual shopping cart’; the code does not have to QR or it could be. Alternate simple coding structures could also be adopted. Shopper brings the unit back to check-out counter and picks up his bags!)
The Amazing Breed of Young Indian Entrepreneurs
Recently I attended StartUp Garage, just for a few hours, but I managed to interact with several young entrepreneurs and wannabe entrepreneurs.
This was not the first experience for me. I make it a point to connect with this breed, at various other startup events and mentoring opportunities, including Headstart’s StartUp Saturday, at the MentorEdge Rendezvous sessions, and TiE’s mentoring events, amongst others.
And almost always, I come back feeling very impressed. By the entrepreneurial energy in the first place. And sometimes, by the quality of business ventures that some of them are working on.
I think back to the many years back, when we graduated from engineering school. I do not remember a single classmate of mine, who went out, straight from college, to start a venture of his own. There were few who went and joined their family businesses. Which is an entirely different thing. But none that I remember, who started new ventures of their own, straight out of college.
Years later, many of my batchmates are today, running successful entrepreneurial ventures. But they all started after taking a few years experience, working in industry. Typically.
As against that, I am seeing just so many keen final year students (of engineering or management schools, typically) and students who have just passed out of college, who are all set to get into a business venture of theirs, I am amazed by it all!
That one has the dare at the early age, to chuck job offers, and venture out on one’s own.
To take on the challenges, not just of giving life to your idea, but also to take on other accompanying challenges of finance, team building, marketing, etc.
So irrespective of how good or viable these ideas are, that we have so many attempting to create their own businesses, it is truly impressive.
Coming the actual quality of the plans though, perhaps 1 out of 20, are good enough (by my assessment – and I could be wrong, of course!) to potentially become decent successes.
But that is not a bad ratio.
I was completely impressed for example, by this one entrepreneur, who had finished college few weeks back, and who demo-ed to me, a completely working and commercially viable, SaaS based video conferencing tool, with some excellent features. He may still have some challenges to get the UI improved, and of course, to figure out the pricing model and the marketing, but he has a full-fledged working prototype out there. Obviously made, even as he was a student in college.
Now that takes some doing.
And there are more like that.
I have this one other group of students, from another engineering college, who have set up an e-commerce venture, for selling text books. Again straight out of college. And a business model that I think, is extremely attractive, and can become very successful, if they can execute it right. They interact with me once in a while, and I am very bullish about this venture.
Indeed, these are excellent times, for India’s economy, and this level of confidence and dare, amongst the youth, can only help propel the growth rates. I am very happy about the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the country now. And I am happy to have occasional run-ins with these smart youngsters, and also happy to share the occasional gray hair wisdom with them 🙂
Rediff.com does it again: wants to ape the next new shiny thing.. !
Why do they do this??
I have said this before and I say it again.
Because I have seen this before and I see this YET AGAIN!
Rediff.com always wants to be LIKE someone else.
And mostly like the best new thing that has happened out there, and is already established and famous.
And THEN, Rediff.com will come with its version of the same thing!
I have seen ALL of these transformations at Rediff.com:
1. Early on, they went and replicated virtually, the complete Yahoo.com look. Directory and news and email and everything. They wanted to be India’s Yahoo…
2. Ebay became big and Rediff invested in their own auction business, an Ebay look alike. Rediff wanted to be India’s Ebay then..
3. The Rediff.com interface was clustered like Yahoo’s or Indiatimes’. And then Google came along and showed what a clean, uncluttered interface can be like. And yes, we saw Rediff turning over into a clean and simple interface. No matter the fact that, where Google was fundamentally ONE big thing, viz. search, and it could offer that in a clean and simple screen, Rediff in fact, was a portal. And a portal needs to show more of its links and cater to users with different kinds of needs.
But then, Rediff wanted to be a Google that time!
4. Then came Facebook time. And after Facebook had probably gone past 300 mn user base or so, and was already the default, Rediff came up with their look-alike social network. Again Rediff now wanted to be a Facebook..
Once more, too little, too late.
5. And now they have done it one more time. In the space of daily deals and group buying, where perhaps, there are 32 players already, and the big daddy of the world, Groupon having come into India too, Rediff now wants people to do their deals on Rediff.
So Rediff now wants to be a Groupon!!
More than anything else, I feel sad.
Rediff.com really had a great opportunity, it was first off the blocks in India, it had a great start, it got the Nasdaq IPO (that’s the only reason its been able to hang on, by the way – the cash in the bank!) in time. It could have been India’s most prolific and default dot com address.
And yet, it chose to be a Yahoo, an Ebay, an Amazon, a Google, a Facebook and now a Groupon..
It NEVER tried to be a Rediff.com of its own!!
What do you think? Any alternate views??
Startup Founders: Better Alike or Different??
I spent a few hours at the recent Enterprising India Summit, organized by the Mumbai Chapter of TiE.
In the short time that I was there, I happened to catch a talk by Sachin Bansal, founder of Flipkart. As a part of his presentation, he talked about himself and his co-founder, and about how they were so alike that they could virtually replace each other. Well, at least on the work front. And of course, he was making it look like a great advantage that he had, in having two founders, with very similar backgrounds and skills.
I have wondered about this, though. Of course, not for Flipkart in particular, but for any entrepreneurial venture, in general.
It is an easier route often, for two (or more) classmates or good friends (with similar mindsets) to think about getting together, and starting an entrepreneurial venture. And quite likely, they may have the same background, skills, aptitude, approach etc. And maybe due to this factor, there is a fundamental comfort, as they may end up agreeing more than disagreeing. This may also make for good chemistry.
But is this good for the venture?
Think about it from these perspectives:
1. A startup is usually a lean organization. Each person of the startup team is contributing in his / her own way, so as to make the whole. There is usually no room for buffer and no room for redundancy. Then, having two (or more) very crucial members of the team, viz. the co-founders, to have similar backgrounds, is it not an expensive redundancy for the startup?
2. We have also read stories of the so-well-constructed founding team of Mindtree where they were absolutely clear of the kind of skills that were necessary to build Mindtree as a company, and how they looked for, and found and lured people in, to be a part of that founding team. Recent events have put a question mark on the company, but that apart, the effort at the time of founding, and the process, was exemplary. Is that a better way to go about it? Identify key skills that will be necessary for your mission, and then look for partners who can be co-founders in your venture??
3. When things are going fine, it is good to have people who ‘get along well’ and have a similar mindset. However at the first signs of challenge, what if the co-founders all, only think in one common way? What if there is no counter point of view? There is no challenge to the proposal? While different mindsets can sometimes cause potentially, the ship to go in different directions (however, that happens when there is a lack of maturity in the team), on the positive side, different mindsets or approaches give you multiple perspectives on the same issue. And at different times, there may be value and relevance of a different approach. In that respect, non-uniformity of thought, a certain diversity in fact, is a great asset to have, at the founding team level.
So I do wonder on the best approach here? I think startups need a mix, at the founding team level. Success of Flipkart may not be because the founders are so-alike, but in spite of it! Sometimes, we look at success and try to draw all inspiration from it. Try to ape the entire model. Flipkart may not have succeeded because the partners are so alike, but because of managing to do many other things right.
Also it may be appreciated that two or more people, going to the same college or the same program, do not necessarily make for identical people. Yes, their educational background would be same (and if technical skills are crucial, then this may again be a challenge – that all founders know only the one same thing!), but in terms of aptitude or creativity or other characteristics, they could easily be chalk and cheese.
So that is the crucial element. Have the chemistry to work together well, the maturity to respect each other’s points of view and take decisions only and only, in the interest of the venture, but yet be different enough, to bring variety of skills and approaches to the table, for the venture to get the best value!
What is your opinion on this? Are you a part of a co-founders team? What kind of mix you have in your founding team? Would love to know about his.
** This post is also cross posted in my personal blog, Random Musings. **
Why One More of the Same Thing?
I come across startups at variety of forums, like TiE, Mentor Edge, and also directly, when people reach out to me.
And it beats me as to how many times, I keep coming across the same (well, similar) business idea!
I am not referring to two entrepreneurs, coincidentally working on the same brilliant idea. I am referring to entrepreneurs working on an idea, where there are multiple dominant players already in place.
Like the 35th Group Buying business.
Ok, irrespective of my personal feelings about Group Buying (and which you can read in this blog, across more than one posts), assuming that it will be a successful model, what is the different thing you want to do, where as a 35th entrant, you still expect to come out successful / leader??
In the world, there may be examples to prove ANY theory.
So one would try and justify their entry by saying that wasn’t Google a late entrant in the search engine market, and did it still not come out on top?
Just the same way, people like to quote Apple as an example in many different arguments (“Apple does not do much of its own Social Media – the users create the buzz for it. Can we also expect that?” for example).
It needs to be understood that Google or Apple or their business models or their marketing strategies have been exceptions rather than the rule. Also that, fundamentally, both (and others of their kind) have a phenomenal product behind them, and even if they were to not do anything, maybe people would queue up outside their doors, with their cheque books open, looking to purchase!
So first of all, every entrepreneur must not think that he is a Google in the making. Without trying to reduce any ambition or aspiration of the entrepreneur, it is necessary to have feet on the ground, while planning the business strategy, and the positioning.
So while I have seen a bunch of Group Buying plans that did not differentiate from the many existing ones (at least in my mind), recently I came across another business model, that was similar to at least 4 other existing players. All 4 are reasonably well established, and this was the 5th one, entering the same space.
Basically a content vertical, largely ad dependent for revenues, significantly demanding to maintain (at least for good quality). The entrepreneur was trying to show me the differences that he had made in his model, vs the other prevalent ones. Even though he may be right, in pointing those out, to me (and I’d be like a typical consumer for his content), I could not spot those differences, without his explanation. And for a content heavy site, a typical user is not going to run over it, with a microscope to see those differences.
Why then, would a consumer change habit and come and read content here, instead of the others which he was familiar with? I was not able to see it. And I told the entrepreneur in as less discouraging a tone, as I possibly could.
Of course, entrepreneurs are optimistic, if anything. All of us are. We want to give it our best shot, we feel we have the way to make this happen, we reckon that all things being the same, WE are that difference! So I am sure he is going on with it, and my best wishes to him too. And in a few years, he could have gone past the incumbents and emerged number 1. Again, I would only wish the best for him.
But my point is for one who is planning a business. Where do you start? Do you look for existing successes, and want to try and do one of the same kind? Or you come up with something entirely new, something different, something that the world has not seen just yet?? But which you recognize, would have value?
It is often easier to look at existing successes, and which is perhaps the reason why we see more me-toos, than original ideas. It takes a different vision, a certain imagination, creativity, and then a significant dare, to get into path breaking new thoughts, new ideas, new businesses. And which is why these are rare.
I urge entrepreneurs to look to being different, being unique. More than being clones.
Especially in an online business.
In an offline business, due to various factors, including geographical relevance, many brands of the same business model, can survive. Perhaps be successful too.
Online, everyone’s just a click away. There is no compelling reason (like geography) that a user will land to your site, even when there is a better site, more known, more popular, already around! Have we found a serious second auction site, after Ebay? NO!! Because Ebay is a click away. Why would anyone go anywhere else?!
Think about it.. being different can be more challenging, but can also be more rewarding!
The Social Network: My Learnings from the movie
Yes, this is kind of a movie review, of ‘The Social Network’. And ordinarily, I post my movie reviews on my other blog, but I am writing this one here. This blog here, is more focused to budding and fellow entrepreneurs, and I usually review startups here. So what is a movie review doing here?
Well, the movie ‘The Social Network’ is an entrepreneur’s movie, if anything! And there are many learnings to pick up, for entrepreneurs, and hence, I felt that this was the right place for this movie review.
The story is supposed to be of Mark Zuckerberg, the youngest billionaire in the world, and the founder of Facebook. Well, there have been some liberties taken, and hence I state that this is ‘supposed to be’ Mark’s story. Be that as it ma be, even if it is close to being Mark’s story, it is fascinating to learn about the man behind the name. Biographies of successful people are always interesting from that point of view. Usually of course, these are written (or made into movies) when the person concerned, is of advanced age. But in this case, the person has achieved success – stupendous at that – at a very early age, and so you see a movie about him, while he is still very young.
And perhaps there will be room to add a sequel. For there is no mention in this one, about the Microsoft investment. Or for that matter, about the move to take Facebook beyond the schools and colleges, and out into the public. And of course, I am sure bigger things are in store. Be it his battles with Google, or building pieces to take on the likes of Twitter, Foursquare or Paypal, there are interesting new things happening in Mark’s life, and in his business, and a sequel few years down the line, could well be in order!
For now, lets look at this first film on him, The Social Network.
The story is engrossing, for understanding the drive and the passion that it took to make Facebook. Like my daughter remarked after she saw the movie, “he was coding non-stop for 36 hours”. Well, that was just a part of it. But a crucial part, where there was amazing conviction, and which was supported by the commitment to ‘make it happen’.
I was not aware of the Sean Parker connection, so it was good to see that part. About how his biggest contribution was about dropping the ‘the’ from ‘thefacebook.com’ and making it to what it is today, viz. simply facebook.com. Or how he showed Mark, the path to California, and how it was a crucial shift for Mark and for Facebook.
The conviction that he saw, where he realized that reaching 75,000 users, or even a million for that matter, was just about taking smaller steps to the very big goal that he had in his mind. Many, including his co-founder, could have got satisfied, felt that they had already achieved a lot, and tried to monetize early. And which would not only have meant the lack of further growth, but would have stunted what was already there, due to drop-outs on account of the monetization drive!
These, however, are the most crucial three moments that I picked in the movie, and which are my key questions to fellow and budding entrepreneurs. Whether you have got these moments for your business yet, or not?
1. After the short-lived success of Facemesh, when Mark is working towards the new project (what became Facebook), he learns from the Facemesh experience, that people jumped on to Facemesh, not to see hot girls (which can be seen at many other places), but to see girls whom they knew.
It is a very crucial observation, and a very critical one too. Do you pick these nuances, naturally, in your business too??
2. The second Eureka moment is what lead Mark to put the ‘relationship’ field in the Facebook profile. Where he was trying to replicate the physical Harvard experience on a social network, and he could have simply put all the physical activities and efforts into the virtual world, the important thing was about identifying the key driver. Sensing that ‘relationship status’ will be one such factor, was an excellent breakthrough.
Other Social Networks have replicated many of the standard features that work on social networks. Say,Orkut for example, has done that. But they have not picked those crucial driving moments. And due to which they have not struck the serious growth levels that Facebook has managed.
So have you got those defining aspects that can be the game changers, in your business??
3. The third crucial dialog is what Mark has with Eduardo, after he has blocked the account. That money is required, to ensure that business flows without slightest interruption, to ensure the servers keep chugging away. As he says, “Facebook cannot stop. These are friends who know friends and so on. Even a few moving out, can be like a domino effect!”.
Well, against this obsession, we also have Twitter where fail-whale is a regular occurrence. And yet, it has managed to hang in there, as a business. But I would call it the exception!
The obsession of Mark to do all he can, to ensure that users get an uninterrupted, perfect experience, is what all businesses should strive for. It is more crucial perhaps for Facebook, where people are friends, and as Mark says, few guys moving, could cause a domino effect. But in today’s connected world, this is true for ANY business or service. If you do not do everything in your means to keep your existing customers, and few start leaving, you do not know when you could have a domino exodus away from you!
Are you as obsessed as Mark is about keeping each and every customer of yours??
All in all, it is a fascinating story to learn about a successful person. And it is clear that he is brilliant, but also extremely focused on what can work, how he wants to provide clear value, and how he has a bigger picture in mind, to take Facebook to newer and newer highs!
Looking forward to see where the business goes further, and to a possible sequel to this.
And looking forward to entrepreneurs being inspired by the story!
Have you seen ‘The Social Network’? What did you think of it? Do share your thoughts in comments below..
What does it take to run a successful digital business in India?
This was the topic given to me, by the organizers at the Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, I I T Mumbai. Originally meant to be a panel discussion (would have been a very interesting one, I bet), it was later converted to a talk by me.
Even as I was preparing my thoughts for this subject, I posted the question on my Facebook page to ask my friends, what they reckoned, does it take to succeed in a digital business in India. And I got responses that included the need for velocity, passion, doggedness, understanding local nuances and culture, etc.
Which were all right, in their own way.
But I guess all of those factors, and many more, are relevant for just about any business, and not particularly digital businesses. So focusing specifically on digital businesses, and for India in particular, I put some thoughts together.
It was important to appreciate key words here, viz.
Success – not about winning a business plan competition or getting angel funds or even VC funds. Success, for this context, was about generating a sizeable business, making money (as against burning money), creating a brand, perhaps an IPO, etc.
Digital – every business nowadays has some digital component. So we are not referring to those. We are also not referring to creating applications for deployment on the digital space. Since creating applications is a software business, whether for online space or otherwise. So digital in this context, was about close to pure-play digital businesses, typically online types like e-commerce, services on a digital platform, portals, and the like.
India – for me, meant that the operations are based here. But that is not to stop serving a global market.
With that context, and focusing more on the business side and less on the technology side, this is what I put together (note that bullets are cryptic, as there was talk that supported these; so, not sure if all of the points get across – no, don’t have the time right now, to elaborate the points!):
Would love to have your views on the subject. Please share in the comments below.
Wanamo.com – Best Deals for Group Purchases!
I was pleasantly surprised when @sampad shared the link of wanamo.com one day, and I went and checked it out. The concept was so close to my heart that I loved it at first sight. The concept. The site, I still had to go over and see! So this concept that I have loved for long, and which finally sees the day in the form of wanamo.com, made me come out of Gray Hair Wisdom Hibernation, and restart my startup reviews.
Category: B2C -> E-commerce -> Group Buying / Reverse Auction
What is it?
Wanamo.com is an online business that offers great deals, provided large number of people are willing to pick up the deal. In short, it is a group buying concept, and in some ways, a reverse auction also, since more the buyers, the better the deal that can potentially get generated!
What more?
The site does not expect to deliver any products to you. In that sense, there is a “local” factor to it. At this time, Wanamo.com has deals to offer, for major Indian cities. The concept is that many individuals who do not know each other, may be considering making the same purchase around the same time. If they could somehow be got together, and they position themselves as a “group” to the seller, this group now has a buying power to negotiate best deals from the seller. Likewise, if this disparate group of buyers, individually, could have walked into different outlets to make their independent purchases. Now if some dealer offers the best prices, and all those footfalls are diverted to that one dealer, he in turn, is grabbing the market from the other dealers, who did not offer that great deal.
This in a gist, is what Wanamo.com enables.
My Quick Two Cents:
I am totally prejudiced to this business idea. In favor of the business concept, per se. So some of that will show in my thoughts here 🙂
Wanamo works for many reasons:
- It brings together people who want to buy the same thing, but did not know each other. And the group translates to discounts!
- The supplier of the product is transparent. The buyer knows what he is buying, from whom (traditional supplier) is he getting. Buyers get the vouchers directly of the brand / supplier.
- Products do not need to be shipped. Takes away the issues of shipping, handling, octroi etc. The costs and the pain! Once deal happens, the buyer prints the voucher, and goes and picks up the product / service from the supplier directly.
- Everyone loves a deal. And deal is what everyone gets. For a simple reason that it’s a quantity purchase each time, and which assures a deal!
All of these reasons are from the point of view of the business model. Then coming to the actual implementation and execution, it looks good, mostly. The concept is not easy to explain. This is the clear make-or-break. I think Wanamo does a reasonably good job of getting the message across. Also the implementation has been kept quite simple and straightforward, and that can play a huge role in the ultimate success.
And now for some Wisdom Nuggets:
There are things that can hasten the path to success.
- The screen, as you can see from the home page snapshot above, is crowded. If the aim is to reach a highly mature Internet user, who can understand the various links and blocks all over the screen, then its fine. However, I suspect, to drive numbers, Wanamo will need to reach a slightly lower common multiple of the user base, and that user may just find the screen too busy.
- Speaking of screen design, it is a fine balance between temptation (to put everything there) and restraint (to put nothing but the very necessary items there). In the day and age of Facebook, Twitter, etc., there are the Facebook Fan boxes, Twitter widgets, besides the feedback link, the subscribe to newsletter link, etc. that seem like good things to have on the screen. Ultimately these will impact transactions. If its your blog, Sampad, you can get away with it. It is not a transaction engine. Where you want people to transact, to remove their wallet and put in the advance payments, there, you want nothing to distract and turn them away. Least of all, a crowded screen. So think about it.
- The one-deal on the home page may be a good way to start, and may also be what is logistically possible to be achieved. But with one deal a day, it will be very very tough to scale. Users have very low attention spans, and very low patience. And very little time. If I get a link of Wanamo.com, and I reach the site. I see a deal. And that is all I see. And I am not interested in that one. Then, thats it. To get me to visit again, out of curiosity, is difficult. Unless there is a lot of money spent, and I keep seeing and reading Wanamo everywhere, there is a tough chance that I will go back on my own. Since I just have too many other things to do in life! Offering many deals across multiple products and categories is a way to interest more number of people.
- Finally, this is a great B2C e-commerce model. But the only way it will succeed, and succeed really really well, is if it gets scale. If there is even the slightest of satisfaction or relaxation perceived, with a few hundred participants or transactions, that is doomsday. One only needs to look at Ebay or Amazon, and see what kind of engines have been set up. In fact, Ebay should be the model to ape. And what is it about Ebay that should be aped? That you put up a great engine, keep investing in software and features, but then let vendors and customers go out there and help themselves. And you count the pennies that they keep leaving behind. And since these will be pennies that are left behind, you need a lot of transactions for these to count up to a lot of dollars. THAT is the only serious way to make this a business of massive proportion. If there is a large manual component in the transactions, or in pushing each vendor or customer, then I am afraid, it will grossly under-deliver to its potential. I mean, the founders will move from a small to a mid-size car or even a big car, but if they can set up their own VC fund in a few years or not, depends on whether Wanamo can look to be the Ebay of group buying-reverse auction, and churn out millions of transactions, or not!
All in all, a great business model. One of the best e-commerce plays that I have seen in recent days, and if all goes well, this is the one that we will hear a LOT about. Knowing what I do about at least one of the founders, Sampad, I know that he has huge determination and an excellent sense of the medium, and he and his team just need to stay on track, and deliver this well. Wishing them the very best!!
GRAY SCALE RATING: 4.0 / 5.0 (only because its early days and it can go up, as we see good execution too!)
ADDENDUM: By coincidence, noticed this Tech Crunch article just the same day that I wrote this review of Wanamo.com. And it is quite disturbing. I await the founders’ clarification, since Abhishek had already commented here. Where lies the mystery? If Wanamo is a copy-paste copy of Groupon, then its bad. If there is a legitimate tie up, same needs to be mentioned clearly!!
Inspiration
UPDATED INSPIRATION: Current date: March 9, 2021!
Below is the original note on the inspiration that I had to start this blog, some 12-13 years back. That was when I was tracking some startups and evaluating them. I had not updated this blog much in recent days. And now, the focus would be very different, in any case. At this time, the purpose of my occasional blog post here, would be to discuss and debate a business strategy or an investment idea, for purpose of interaction with other like-minded people.
Hope you find it to be of interest.
The original inspiration from 12-13 years back is as follows:
Attending a Bar Camp, Startup Saturday and the Entrepreneurship Summit, in the last 3 weeks, took me back to 1997-98 days when we were starting up for the first time, with Homeindia.com, along with few other first-generation dot com entrepreneurs in India.
I can see the same energy now, perhaps only magnified by the changes in the economy over these years, the emergence of India as a country to reckon with, the maturity of the ICT businesses, the far larger familiarity of the technologies for students climbing out of their campuses, and of course, the awareness now, about an ecosystem that can encourage entrepreneurship.
There is another change. Me. With 11 years of hands-on Internet experience, there is a larger “intuitive” feel on the industry, there is beyond the romanticism of the business, a better understanding of business realities, of markets, of revenues and results. As one young participant respectfully pointed out, there is the “gray hair” difference.
This has inspired me to start this new blog. To share my 2 cents worth, on new startups that I see coming up. Based only on information that is in the public domain (or shared by the company in public forums), and not based on any private information that entrepreneurs share with me. With an idea to give some new perspectives. Ultimately the business succeeds because of the entrepreneurs and they need to trust their gut. But “outside” views help sometime. And which is what I strive to provide here. With only one goal in mind: to enable the entrepreneur to SUCCEED!!
The Gray Hair Speaketh 