Disruption
David Pakman's Blog www.pakman.com

As Big Media Goes Digital, Markets Shrink

Jan 16

Lots of debate, lately, about Big Media and their bumpy transitions from analog incumbents to digital providers. Over the past few weeks we have had debates around the proposed PIPA and SOPA legislation, Rupert Murdoch (that bastion of new media savvy) railing against Google as a “pirate” and @fredwilson chiming in on the predictable monopoly actions of his cable company, Time Warner Cable in their dispute with MSG Networks. Yesterday Fred posted his views on the weaknesses of Big Media extending their scarcity business models to the internet.

My long-time opposition to scarcity models for digital media content online is well established on this blog and before that at Apple, N2K and eMusic. One thing Fred mentioned inspired me to revisit this subject, and that is market size. Fred says,

[quote]But the studios themselves are likely to do better in a direct distribution model where they reach a broader market at lower effective prices to the end customer. This is what happens in digital distribution. Prices come down, markets expand, customers see lower prices and broader availability. Producers do better. Everyone else does worse.[/quote]

A bunch of things happen when analog media markets go digital. First, prices come down. The cost of distributing digital content is far less than physical goods that used to carry that content (printed books, plastic CDs and DVDs, etc.). Consumers understand that and expect prices to fall. The music industry hated selling songs for $0.99 when CDs used to sell for $18. But almost no one bought tracks for $3.49 when digital music was first sold online. At $0.99, consumers bought a lot. Next, bundles break. Consumers expect to pay to hear or watch only the songs or episodes they want. TV shows sold as 22 episodes on a DVD for $49 will fail when you can watch any episode for $0.99. Consumers don’t like bundles when they have a cheaper alternative. And then competition increases. Because the old guard doesn’t have monopoly distribution anymore, lots of alternatives enter the market. Consumers get more choice. These are all good things.

But finally, and this is where my view diverges with Fred’s, markets shrink. I used to posit that when content is offered widely online with few restrictions, more of it will be sold. But because prices fall, bundles break, and competition increases, I think the legacy content owners end up with smaller markets. They may reach more people, but in many cases they will ultimately make less money per title.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Since it costs almost nothing to distribute it digitally and the cost of online marketing is far less than on traditional media, content creators can still have great businesses and make lots of money. But the main reason, I think, so many legacy content companies resist the new digital markets and their new business models, is because their businesses will shrink. And that means significantly changing your cost structure. Fewer private jets and executive dining rooms with 4-star chefs (remind me to tell you about my lunch at News Corp a few months back…)

Because the new economics are scary, the incumbents resist it. But the startups embrace it. And this is why we do what we do. As digital media entrepreneurs, we are not working to preserve a legacy business model, we are hoping to create new ones.

Author David Pakman
Category Big media silliness, Startups, Venture Capital
Comments 5 Comments

Got Klout?

klout-logo-full-color expand
Jan 04
klout-logo-full-color

Marissa and I are pleased to discuss our latest investment (and our first one as a team). We are excited to join with fellow firms Kleiner Perkins and IVP in investing in the internet’s standard for measuring influence, Klout. As the internet moves from pages to people, Joe Fernandez‘s vision of the need for “Pagerank for People” is spot on. Klout’s algorithms score the actual influence of people as they share on the social web. They attempt to measure your influence by observing interactions on the social web. As we all work to build and manage our online identity and profile, Klout helps measure our reach and topics of influence.

In every other mass media, measurement provides a benefit to the advertisers who subsidize that media. Large companies have emerged based on, frankly, less than perfect measurements systems. In TV and radio, panel-based inference measurement somehow have passed as a legitimate way for advertisers to make decisions on where to spend billions in advertising. These incumbent measurement firms became standards for measurement within their domains. Klout has the benefit of being able to measure actual data, not inferred data. They aim to score the entire social web. They currently have scored more than 300 million users and are scoring and re-scoring a mind-boggling amount every day. With more than one billion people on the social web today, they are by no means complete. Nor are their algorithms perfected. Just as Google changes their PageRank algorithms hundreds of times a year, Klout will evolve their data science as the social web changes to provide the most accurate influence scoring on the web.

Klout has the distinction of being one of the few companies whose monetization plans actually benefit its users. Using Klout to identify influencers in particular topics, brands offer new products or special “Klout Perks” to you in the hope that you will like them and share your point of view with friends and followers. This relationship, unlike interrupt-driven advertising, benefits both parties. Klout has worked with more than 100 brands like Starbucks, Audi, Spotify and Microsoft and has hundreds more lined up to do the same. Joe speaks infectuously about his plans for taking Klout to “the real world”. He imagines restaurants knowing your Klout score when you call to reserve a table, airlines printing your Klout score on your boarding pass, and of course call centers knowing your Klout score when you call to complain. Already hotels are using your Klout score when you check in to decide upgrade policies.

Aside from this exciting vision and stellar progress, two other themes draw us to Klout. One, we hold a passion around seeing the relationship between a brand and a customers changed. We believe that the social web requires brands to respect us more. To take our point of view more seriously. To adopt policies consistent with good service and fair treatment. No human should have to sit on a plane for seven hours on the tarmac, of course. But also, utility companies should be held accountable for poor service, cable companies should be held accountable when we stay home from work for a day and the repair crew never shows up. Banks should be called out for imposing hidden fees in the dark of the night. And finally, our governments and elected officials should hear from more of us more often. In this age of declining influence of traditional media, Klout enables our individual voices to be more influencial with instutions who hold power. That is exciting to us.

And finally, Klout supports our view that we are shifting from an attention economy to a data economy. The last ten years of digital media on the web have been built on attention. Those web properties that amassed our attention (generally by stealing our eyeballs away from traditional media) and reached scale have been rewarded with great businesses. Yahoo! got our attention with email. Google got our attention with great search. Facebook gets our attention with photo sharing. We believe the next ten years will be built around data, and in particular, social data. We have invested in M6D for its leadership in social ad targeting. We invested in Singly for its leadership in building a social data locker and app platform. And now we are investors in Klout for its leadership in social influence measurement. We salute Joe and his team for amazing progress so far, and are pleased to be along for the ride.

Author David Pakman
Category Social Data, Social Media, Startups, Venture Capital
Comments 5 Comments

“Great” is Tough to Pick out of the “Good” Crowd

Dec 02

The following is a guest post by my partner, Bryan Roberts. (@brobertsvc) He is one of those legendary VCs who, at about my same age, has invested in many of the most spectacular healthcare companies created over the past decade. He has been the highest-ranking healthcare investor on the Forbes Midas List since 2008. He is wise beyond his years and a great mentor to me. I found this post quite inspiring and wanted to share it widely.

The oldest adage in start-up’s, for entrepreneurs and VC’s alike, is “the key to success is the quality of the people.”  Markets and innovative approaches are important, but my experience supports this notion unequivocally. I have had the good fortune to be involved from an early stage with several billion dollar companies, and most found success after a material pivot from their original approach – Athenahealth, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Sirna Therapeutics to name a few.  “I invest in people” is the start-up ecosystem’s version of motherhood and apple pie, but how do you identify “Great” prospectively?

Whether explicitly or not, everyone has their own answer to this question, and based on the success rates, those answers by and large stink. I don’t have a Magic 8 Ball on the topic, but two things make this the issue I wrestle with most: (1) the often-unpredicted success or failure of “nobodies” or “sure things” respectively, and (2) the outsized rewards for locating great, juxtaposed with the probability of abject failure when settling for good. The A+ entrepreneurs with whom I have partnered have come in unusual packages – simply put, there has been no central casting: a biology post-doc who thought about opening a microbrewery B&B; a large animal veterinarian who went to business school in his late 30’s; an x EMT who was also nephew to the President among others.  The best VC’s seem to show the same diversity of background.

I now focus on these attributes:

  1. Great talent finds a way to win… and is relentlessly driven to do so with a real sense of urgency.  They follow through and complete the task – starting is easy, finishing takes real will.  It is not that they think out of the box, there simply is no box.  They view ambiguity as opportunity, not risk. When things get uncertain is when they really perk up and start to pay attention because that is when real change is possible.  Most of all, they exceed expectations. They bend the space-time continuum in some fashion and their accomplishments are extra ordinary.
  2. Experience is overrated. By and large, the world is changed by the young and the hungry. Experience can be enabling or constraining, but it is not even close to the silver bullet many believe it to be.  If you are seeking a VP marketing or head of sales at a 100+ person company, absolutely look at a resume.  But to find someone with the passion and uniqueness to actually create an early stage venture, you have to spend the time: watch them and see what they do, talk to them and see what they think, ask around and see how respected they are.
  3. Balance exploring/driving with learning/listening. Great people have a very clear grasp of the their vision, while understanding that the world has a lot to teach them. They are humble students of the game, but very confident in their abilities, and never “do what they are told.” They don’t avoid conflict and will always bet on themselves rather than shy away from risk.  They ask questions and argue on facts, balancing their gut with innumerable data streams to get to what they believe is the right answer.
  4. Great people are magnetic. They are not only smart and driven, they attract resources when all the data suggests they should not – whether capital, people or partners – and thereby become larger than just their singular efforts.

While potentially controversial today, I have come to believe that great entrepreneurs and great VC’s are two sides of the same coin.  Both embody these characteristics.  They are maniacally focused on changing the way we live with innovations others thought were not possible. They are passionate about building a great company and put the company before themselves.  No great VC takes solace in having a portfolio when an individual company struggles – like entrepreneurs, this is deeply personal and about so much more than just money.  Their roles are complementary, like looking down opposite ends a telescope, but those different perspectives to a problem can be extraordinarily synergistic.  Great future entrepreneurs can look like great young VC’s, and vice versa – three of my recent investments are stellar companies started by these “crossover” folks.

All venture firms are simultaneously never, and always, looking for team additions.  I believe this is a direct result of how elusive it is to identify those who will be not only smart, passionate, personable and high integrity, but also successful in this ever-changing, ambiguous entrepreneurial world where what worked last time is no recipe for future wins – and more likely charts a path to mediocrity.   In fact, my own difficulties in finding conviction around potential team additions for our firm is what spurred putting these thoughts on paper.

Author David Pakman
Category Startups, Venture Capital
Comments No Comments

The Abundance of Scale

Nov 14

During last ten years of the web, people have focused on scale as proof of value creation. Given that advertising is the dominant business model of the web, it has been presumed that sites which reach web-wide scale are valuable. The presumption was that sites with enormous scale will be able to monetize themselves at big numbers because of their overwhelming access to the web’s users. It is true that in order for big ad businesses to be built online, publishers need scale. But something is changing. Thanks largely to a connected social graph, mobile access, and the web’s global penetration, it’s just not that hard to get to scale anymore.

In 2001, fewer than 33 web properties had more than ten million monthly unique U.S. visitors. Last month, more than 124 did. In 2001, around 70 web properties had more than one hundred million monthly US page views.  Last month, 307 did. [This data comes from Compete.com, which focuses on US only. If you double it, you usually get reasonable worldwide figures.] More and more web/mobile businesses are reaching large audiences very quickly. In its 18 months since launch, Instagram reached 12 million users (not sure if this is downloads, registrations, or active users. My bet is it is simply registrations. Still — it’s impressive for a team of under 10 people!) AppData shows 27 Facebook apps with more than ten million monthly active users.

With it becoming easier to reach such scale, there is no longer a scarcity of scale. This means the value of achieving scale is declining. As investors, if we bet on properties that have simply “become big”, that bet may no longer be enough to establish value. The next 10 years of the web will be about utilizing data on top of scale to build businesses. We are entering a period where the business model innovation will become more important than the innovation producing traction and engagement. It has always been impressive to see startups with incredible traction. But just using this traction to produce scale will not be enough to create the great companies of tomorrow. [Some of these thoughts were expressed earlier in my post "Confusing Traction With Value".]

Author David Pakman
Category Venture Capital
Comments 4 Comments

Thanks

Oct 27

I woke up this morning with a pleasant, warm feeling in my gut about how thankful I am for all the people around me in my life. In particular, I was thinking about the smart, inspiring people with whom I am lucky enough to interact most days. So much of who I am and what I know is a result of this meaningful people network. I started to write a post actually thanking so many of you by name, but as the list got longer and longer, I realized just how many people I depend on to help me learn, think and shape my view of technology, society and the world at large. Thanks to Twitter, this list includes scores of people whom I really don’t know very well but their thoughtful missives arrive on my desktop multiple times a day. Wow, I am lucky.

The past few weeks have been a pretty stressful time professionally (this happens any time a VC is in hot pursuit of an exciting deal) and have caused me to think about how I conduct myself professionally. Way back in 2000, before the first internet bubble burst, I got a really close look at some nasty professional (or, to many, perhaps unprofessional) behavior. Yahoo! had bid a lot of money to buy Myplay and AOL was blocking the deal. A few of the key execs at AOL, well-documented many years later, acted with inceredible impunity and dishonesty towards other companies in the internet ecosystem. They clearly believed life was a zero-sum game. In order for them to win, others had to lose. I was taken aback by that ruthlessness and really wondered whether I had to adopt such a view in order to be successful in life. For better or for worse, I concluded I probably couldn’t make myself behave that way day in and day out. I am a relentless competitor, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t act vindictively or intentional work to make others lose for sport.

Over the past few weeks, I have had another close look at behavior resembling this point of view. Again, for better or for worse, I don’t operate this way. Life is just too short. I work hard to win, and I want badly to win. But I also want to keep my head up high and work with great, decent people. Venrock is a firm that holds these principles in high esteem. And as I looked around me at those closest in my professional network, I found the same true of these people. It is these folks who inspire me the most and help me succeed in a tough but fun industry. And for all of you, I am thankful.

 

Author David Pakman
Category Venture Capital
Comments No Comments

Is Social Data The Next Investing Frontier?

Oct 19

Much of the excitement around internet startups over the last five years has been around social services. From Facebook to Foursquare, from Twitter to Instagram, from Yammer to Zynga, significant investment dollars and entrepreneurial effort has gone towards capitalizing on the fact that we are all linked together by connected devices. These connections present great opportunity to disrupt the traditional ways of attacking markets like shopping, travel, communications, media consumption, gaming, etc. There are plenty of other big investment themes, of course, like local commerce (Groupon) and cloud services (Cloudflare and Dropbox), but social has been the dominant theme. The first wave of social companies were social utilities and social media (including gaming).

I believe that is shifting and has been for some time. Other agree. We have been pursing alternate investment themes these past few years and the largest recurring theme for us has been data. This is also not a new theme, but it is growing in prominence and awareness, punctuated by this week’s Web 2.0 Summit whose theme is “The Data Frame”. We have invested deeply in data-based businesses whose efficiencies disrupt their less-efficient or less powerful legacy brethern. AdTech is one such area. Healthcare is another. Payments is a third. Security is a fourth. And soon, the consumer web is likely to be further transformed by businesses based not on social utility, but on social data.

Plenty of consumer startups use data to make product decisions. That is not what this post is about. It is about consumer businesses actually based on the value of our individual social data. Through the use of so many exciting social utilities, we are creating more data about ourselves at an increasing rate. This data becomes more valuable to us when developers can access it in an aggregated and trustworthy way.

Today, an investment we seeded back in March called Singly is making its intentions known at Web 2. Their vision is audacious; individuals must be in control of their social data. I blogged a little bit about this opportunity here. Today Singly emerges as a developer platform to bring that vision to reality. John Battelle blogs about it here. I think their emergence shines a light on the investment opportunities around social data as well as the opportunities to launch open personal data platforms.

Jeremie Miller, Singly’s Co-Founder will present today, Wednesday October 19 at 2:20pm PT/5:30pm ET. You can catch the livestream here.

Author David Pakman
Category Big Data, Social Data, Social Media, Startups, Venture Capital
Comments 1 Comment

1.4 Billion People Cannot Read Your Website

Jul 27

It’s just a fact. Eighty per cent of internet users don’t speak English. In the US, we see that usually about half of most sites’ traffic is from outside the US. The competitiveness of the tech startup scene has never been greater, so the risks you take launching an English/US-only product is pretty great that, if you are successful, someone else will beat you to launching in most other markets. European tech startups appreciate this and almost always launch their site with multi-language support. But here in the US, we often punt on worrying about translation for a few years. In the meantime, we leave room for competitors to capture market share from the larger community of the non English-speaking web. It’s also important to note that all of the growth of the web is happening outside the US.

Why do we punt on translations? Because we used to only have brain-dead options. Working with technologically unsophisticated service agencies who over-price translation relative to ROI. Also, there were no web-friendly solutions: real-time, low-touch, clean API, etc. That all changed when Smartling launched.

Now companies simply manage their English site and Smartling does the rest, in real-time.

I have discussed them previously, and I am an investor in the company. I wanted to report that the company is solving the translation problem elegantly for scores of well-known big sites like Foursquare, IMVU, SurveyMonkey, Scribd, EventBrite. They have launched a self-service product for long- and mid-tail sites. By allowing companies to get their site translated in a few days or a week, there becomes very little reason not to launch your web business as a multi-lingual product on day one. With professional translation or crowd-sourced translation options, I am excited about the multi-lingual web they enable. Others are excited too: Smartling just announced they raised $10M to enable every site to be fully translated in a matter of days or weeks.

Author David Pakman
Category Venture Capital
Comments No Comments

An Obvious Security Hole − And Google Could Help Fix It

Jun 27

One of my most geeky pet peeves is web application developers who store our passwords in clear text. You would think this sort of thing is uncommon, but I find it more often than I want. First. some password 101:

Any website who requires passwords generally writes their own code as to how to handle and store them. For decades, the best methods of storing user passwords has been to first one-way encode them using something like an MD5 or the much-preferred SHA2 algorithm. This means that a password like “hello123″ gets stored in the site’s database as something unreadable like “ff0d34e29aah” (or, if using SHA256, “0x d7a8fbb307d7809469ca9abcb0082e4f8d5651e46d3cdb762d02d0bf37c9e592″). No one at the company, not even the CTO or a disgruntled customer service worker can look up your actual password. When you type in your login credentials, the password you enter gets run through the same encode algorthim and is then compared to “ff0d34e29aah”. If they match, you are in. If you ever forget your password, you are sent a link to re-set it and are forced to enter a new password. This is because the site doesn’t actually know your password and can’t send it to you.

If you have ever forgotten your password at a site and they sent it to you in an email, you can be sure they are storing your password somewhere either in clear-text or in an encrypted form that CAN be decoded and looked up by people at the company. “No one does this,” you say? Well, that’s not true. Sites as prominent as Reddit.com have been caught with their pants down, their password database stolen and had to reveal that they stored all passwords in cleartext. Why is this bad? Let me count the ways.

Many people use the same one or two passwords at countless numbers of sites around the web. If someone figures out your email address and password, they can probably login as you at Amazon, Netflix, eBay, iTunes, Gmail and may other places, make purchases and wreak havok. Hackers routinely attempt to locate the password file on servers and see if it has been stored in a readable form. Of course there are other ways for hackers to figure out account credentials even when passwords are one-way encoded, but if you have a long enough password (10 characters is highly recommended) and the site uses a salt + a strong encode algorithm, you are likely safe.

But what is to stop a disgruntled customer service worker who has access to the customer database and can see your password? Or what is to stop a database engineer from doing the same?

Very few web security standards exist to prevent this sort of insecure web development. As near as I can tell, sites with a Trust-E logo on them are not prevented from doing so. I believe the PCI standard at certain levels requires it, but users have no idea which sites adhere to PCI and at what level.

A simple solution exists. Google, with their huge market power in search (and soon, Facebook with their market dominance) could require sites to certify that they meet a minimum set of user security standards such as proper password storage before Google will agree to send traffic their way. Or at very least, Google could add an icon next to all sites who have certified themselves as well-behaving net developers.

Trusting tens of thousands of app developers out there to make architecture decisions and never tell the user what they decided can’t be the answer. We do need to create a more secure web. The recently announced DNSSEC efforts may help in this regard, but that is a long way off from solving this problem.

Author David Pakman
Category Venture Capital
Comments 2 Comments

The Best Part About “Social” is the Data

Jun 03

I agree with Mark Zuckerberg that everything is going social. All web (PC and mobile) experiences will add social elements to them or be enabled entirely by being social experiences. I like to think of this as making the web fully participatory. For Facebook, I think they take “going social” to mean we bring our identity everywhere, and they control the identity layer on the web. We also bring along our social graph, of course, and they own that too. A more participatory web is a more personalized web, and I think that is a good thing. And by bringing our social connections with us online, together we have disrupted the way content is consumed, being directed to good content by our friends, not by editors. That’s good too.

For me, the most exciting thing about everything “going social”, however, is the data. Our participation online leaves bits of data about ourselves everywhere we go. That data, I have long believed, is gold. It is highly useful for tailoring relevant advertising to us, for example. Advertising gets better if it can be marginally personalized and influenced by what our friends like. That belief led me to my investment in Media6Degrees, the leader in socially-targeted advertising. The ads they deliver perform fantastically well. Orders of magnitude better than contextually/semantically targeted advertising (e.g., “this artcile is about cars so we’ll put a car ad on the page.”)

Since that investment, I have been looking for other places social data will drive innovation and disruption. I am super excited about social travel and social commerce as two examples of categories likely to be disrupted by this shift. There are many more. This line of thinking also led me to believe in the need of a consumer- and developer-empowering social data platform. That is exactly what Singly is pursuing and why I am excited about our involvement with that company.

Author David Pakman
Category Venture Capital
Comments 1 Comment

The Power of a Transformative Idea: Presenting Singly

May 31

In the job of venture capital, one of the greatest moments I have found is hearing an entrepreneur present a truly transformative idea. We hear exciting ideas all day long, expressed with passion and unwavering belief. But a few times a year, perhaps, I have been lucky enough to hear an idea that is unquestionably an enormously important vision of the way the world should evolve. Over the course of last summer, two entrepreneurs separately presented to us their big vision of personal data and it, well, rocked my world. We invited one of them, Jason Cavnar, to take a seat in our Palo Alto office (in what we call “The Quarry”) to start fleshing it out. He introduced us to Jeremie Miller, the revered founder of open source XMPP/Jabber, who saw the world the same way. The two combined visions and forces, and Singly was born.

After about nine months of team-building, coding and developer community work, Singly is starting to emerge and present their vision for the future of personal data. I am happy I can share it publicly and get your feedback.

It is clear that all online experiences are becoming social. To me, this means sites and apps become more participatory. That is, we interact with them in personal ways and leave some data about ourselves there: we comment, rate, share, add friends, search, personalize, filter, select, check-in, post, etc. Right now, our personal data is spread across, probably, 20 – 30 sites and apps like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yelp, Foursquare, Netflix, Flickr, etc. Soon, as everything becomes social, our data will be spread across literally thousands of sites. That data is very powerful and useful. However, it is vey hard to pull back together. Over the past year or so, I have seen literally hundreds of entrepreneurs developing apps which utilize subsets of this data to provide value to users. The problem for them is they spend 4-6 months writing code to aggregate, normalize and clean up the data they need from a few services before writing the code that is valuable and differentiated. They would benefit from a centralized place where our data lives.

The other side of this coin is that we are spreading lots of data about ourselves all over the place. Some of us might care to know what we have spread out there, where it lives, and what developers are doing with that data. Enter Singly.

Singly began life as the open source Locker Project. TLP, available here for developers, is a container for personal data. It contains the core locker as well as a slew of open source connectors and collectors. Those connecters attach to (soon) hundreds of services to copy our personal data, in real-time, back into the locker. Collectors clean and normalize that data. Singly puts a nice API on top of all this data along with a permissioning and authentication interface. Singly also will offer hosted lockers in the way WordPress.com offers a hosted version of the open source WordPress platform. You can see a world where developers can start writing an app knowing, provided the consumer lets them, they have access to normalized and complete personal data for their users.

This vision offers a future where people *do* control their own data, where innovation can be fully unlocked for thousands of developers, allowing great new apps to appear for consumers, and creates an interface point for brands to interact with people and their information under a trust framework humans can understand.

The team has been making some exciting announcements this last week. Here are a few things to check out if you are so inclined:

[unordered_list style="bullet"]

  • A vision document from Jeremie Miller
  • A blog post from the team announcing the effort
  • Matt Zimmerman’s announcement that he is leaving Ubuntu to join the team
  • The Locker Project: website, GitHub, Twitter, blog, IRC (#lockerproject on FreeNode)[/unordered_list]

Incidentally, others have discussed a slightly different version of this future. Some believe aggregating personal data will lead to a world where marketers will offer to pay you for your data. I don’t see this happening. I cannot see consumers getting into the business of selling their data to marketers so they can see personalized advertising. Instead, I believe marketers will be encouraged to offer value to us in exchange for access to our data. The best example of this today might be the Nike Plus app. Nike gets access to highly personal health and wellness data in exchange for providing great utility around my exercise schedule. In any case, we know advertising is becoming more personal and is more effective when based on our social data. The Singly permissioning interface will encourage marketers to think a bit more like developers.

Author David Pakman
Category Big Data, Startups, Venture Capital
Comments 5 Comments
Newer Entries →
← Older Entries