Archive | March, 2014

The Bloomberg Terminal and Decreasing Marginal Costs of Data

23 Mar

Matt Turck offers a great take on the competitive marketplace for business data. Bloomberg has been the gold-standard for financial data and, obviously, deserves all the praise that is heaped upon it. As many people speak of the decreasing marginal costs of data and information, Bloomberg is still a thriving business with 315,000 subscribers and will likely continue to be one for the foreseeable future. As Turck notes, the network effects are indeed one of Bloomberg’s greatest strengths.

Legions of financial analysts are trained to use the terminal and until something comes along that improves efficiency and ease of us, Bloomberg’s preeminence as the leading financial data resource will continue. What’s more, financial companies are unlikely to cancel their subscriptions until a proven product is available. As Turck posits, extracting the signal from the noise is probably the most possible technological advancement that could cause some headaches for Bloomberg.

Of course, these companies are still confounding the reality of dealing with big data and how to properly translate their analytical assessments into positive returns. Meanwhile, Bloomberg’s infrastructure is already positioned to adapt to those changing trends. The future of data is indeed an exciting one.

matt turck

In the eye of some entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, the Bloomberg terminal is a bit of an anomaly, perhaps even an anachronism.  In the era of free information on the Internet and open source Big Data tools, here’s a business that makes billions every year charging its users to access data that it generally obtains from third parties, as well as the tools to analyze it.  You’ll hear the occasional jab at its interface as reminiscent of the 1980s.  And at a time of accelerating “unbundling” across many industries, including financial services, the Bloomberg terminal is the ultimate “bundling” play: one product, one price, which means that that the average user uses only a small percentage of the terminal’s 30,000+ functions.  Yet, 320,000 people around the world pay about $20,000 a year to use it.

If you think that this sounds like a perfect opportunity for disruption or “unbundling” at…

View original post 1,385 more words

Advertisements

Tesla, Local Regulations, and the New Normal for Innovators

14 Mar

Tesla’s latest spat on its direct-sales model with the state of New Jersey is dumb, but it’s nothing new for the company or other rising start-ups. The case is another piece in a growing trend of local regulations stifling innovative companies. As the sharing economy has grown and technological innovation has made products electric cars affordable and reliable, local governments and regulators have found ways to impede their ability to reach consumers. Some research has discounted the impact of local regulations on start-up companies and entrepreneurs, while others havehighlighted significant regulatory burdens facing small businesses.

You cannot discount the real world examples of cases where state and local governments issued regulations that impair business operations of growing companies. There are Uber’s feuds with city governments and taxicab monopolists in Chicago, DC, Denver, Miami, Nashville, and San Francisco. Airbnb is facing its share of problems in New York City. California’s Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education is leading a crack down on ‘learn to code’ bootcamps. Let’s not forget the culinary innovators in local food truck scenes that are constantly hopping over regulatory hurdles.

In the case of Tesla, auto dealers are worried that this case will set a strong precedent for automakers circumventing dealers to directly sell to consumers. This despite the fact that buying a car is one of the least enjoyable consumer experiences. Tesla has faced similar issues in Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, and other states. In fact, Cornell University’s Journal of Law and Public Policy notes, “the franchise laws of at least 48 states ban or limit Tesla sales—get this—to prevent unfair competition. Franchise lawsrequire automakers to sell their cars exclusively through dealership networks.” There will be plenty of more battles down the line. Overall, these restrictions will hurt Tesla’s long-term viability to offer an automobile that will be more affordable in the coming years due to economies of scale and product innovation.

The surprising nature of these regulatory battles is that the come at a time when state and local governments are devoting significant energy and resources to streamline regulations and promote technological advancements to aid the local permitting process. What’s even more startling is that nearly every major city is supporting entrepreneurial incubators and vying to attract important venture capital funding to foster vibrant start-up environments. Yet local governments are doing all they can to limit the ability of start-up companies to grow and provide citizens with access to new services. Isn’t that a pity?