Comments on: Selecting a Business Model, Part 1 http://blog.techcapital.com/2008/07/21/selecting-a-business-model-part-1/ A venture capital firm focused on building world-class technology companies Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:54:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Top Reasons for Entering the Deadpool — Tech Capital Partners Blog http://blog.techcapital.com/2008/07/21/selecting-a-business-model-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-1029 Top Reasons for Entering the Deadpool — Tech Capital Partners Blog Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:23:15 +0000 http://blog.techcapital.com/?p=42#comment-1029 [...] I’ve written 2 other posts that deal specifically with identifying a suitable business model: Selecting a Business Model, Part 1 and Selecting a Business Model, Part [...] [...] I’ve written 2 other posts that deal specifically with identifying a suitable business model: Selecting a Business Model, Part 1 and Selecting a Business Model, Part [...]

]]> By: Andrew Uminski http://blog.techcapital.com/2008/07/21/selecting-a-business-model-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-655 Andrew Uminski Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:01:00 +0000 http://blog.techcapital.com/?p=42#comment-655 What you think about another view onto the Google model (context-ads-driven) which is a in reality a 2-step-transaction? - Step1. Google "sells" search for "attention" of users (agents are: Google and users, goods are: search results and attention) - Step2: Google "sells" attention (bought in step1) for "money" of advertisers (agents are: Google and advertiser, goods are: attention and money) In each step Google looks like "Intellectual Landlord" but finally the entire picture is probably looking as typical "Intangible broker" (i.e. Google is just eBay but selling intangible assets - "attention")? Thanks. What you think about another view onto the Google model (context-ads-driven) which is a in reality a 2-step-transaction?
- Step1. Google “sells” search for “attention” of users (agents are: Google and users, goods are: search results and attention)
- Step2: Google “sells” attention (bought in step1) for “money” of advertisers (agents are: Google and advertiser, goods are: attention and money)

In each step Google looks like “Intellectual Landlord” but finally the entire picture is probably looking as typical “Intangible broker” (i.e. Google is just eBay but selling intangible assets – “attention”)?

Thanks.

]]> By: Tech Capital Partners Blog » Blog Archive » Selecting a Business Model, Part 2 http://blog.techcapital.com/2008/07/21/selecting-a-business-model-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-127 Tech Capital Partners Blog » Blog Archive » Selecting a Business Model, Part 2 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:46:46 +0000 http://blog.techcapital.com/?p=42#comment-127 [...] Selecting a Business Model, Part 1 [...] [...] Selecting a Business Model, Part 1 [...]

]]> By: Peter Frisella http://blog.techcapital.com/2008/07/21/selecting-a-business-model-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-39 Peter Frisella Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:44:46 +0000 http://blog.techcapital.com/?p=42#comment-39 Thanks David.<br>Regarding Google and Microsoft -- you're right, it definitely depends on which part of the businesses you are talking about. Especially in the case of a company with the size and diversity of Microsoft, you might cover 3 or more different archetypes. <br><br>What is also interesting but probably not surprising to you is that I was able to identify (as you'll see in part 2) quite a few ways to generate revenue that fit under the Publisher model and far less for an Attractor. This doesn't necessarily mean there is a greater share of revenue available one way or the other (look no further than Google) but I think it puts extra pressure on an Attractor to be more creative with their revenue generation since there are only a few options and a finite amount of ad dollars out there. Thanks David.
Regarding Google and Microsoft — you’re right, it definitely depends on which part of the businesses you are talking about. Especially in the case of a company with the size and diversity of Microsoft, you might cover 3 or more different archetypes.

What is also interesting but probably not surprising to you is that I was able to identify (as you’ll see in part 2) quite a few ways to generate revenue that fit under the Publisher model and far less for an Attractor. This doesn’t necessarily mean there is a greater share of revenue available one way or the other (look no further than Google) but I think it puts extra pressure on an Attractor to be more creative with their revenue generation since there are only a few options and a finite amount of ad dollars out there.

]]> By: davidcrow http://blog.techcapital.com/2008/07/21/selecting-a-business-model-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-38 davidcrow Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:51:54 +0000 http://blog.techcapital.com/?p=42#comment-38 Peter,<br><br>This is an excellent set of tools to look at business model archetypes. It's a great set of tools for thinking assets, transformations and what rights are being sold to whom. <br><br>It's interesting that using this model that Google and Microsoft are both Intellectual Landlords. Microsoft is a "Publisher" and Google is an "Attractor" (depending on which part of the businesses you are talking about). <br><br>Can't wait for part deux! Peter,

This is an excellent set of tools to look at business model archetypes. It’s a great set of tools for thinking assets, transformations and what rights are being sold to whom.

It’s interesting that using this model that Google and Microsoft are both Intellectual Landlords. Microsoft is a “Publisher” and Google is an “Attractor” (depending on which part of the businesses you are talking about).

Can’t wait for part deux!

]]>