Chris Sacca's 'What is left?'

Let's Stir It Up A Little

For the last couple of years, I have have averaged a couple of speaking events per week. From keynotes in front of sprawling crowds, to intimate gatherings in Spanish with recent immigrant families, I have the continually exciting privilege of speaking to an intriguingly diverse realm of audiences.

When the format calls for me to give a speech, I feel a strong sense of responsibility to deliver a compelling and entertaining address. After all, whatever I impart has to be more valuable to these folks than the aggregate value of an hour of each of them dealing with their inbox, replying to voicemails, being with their families, etc. I humbly try my best to rise to the occasion and hope that I can share something provocative and memorable each time I take the stage. The feedback so far has been very encouraging, and I have enjoyed the many chances I get to continue my learning in this area.

That said, when the agenda instead involves a panel discussion, the flow of the dialogue, and thus, the value to the audience are much less within my exclusive reach. I nevertheless strive to inject insight (on the rare occasion I have some), humor, and hopefully some potentially controversial nugget to keep the discussion lively. However, in the majority of my experiences, moderators usually have a pre-ordained conversational flow, and tend to the type of professional courtesy that cautiously avoids areas of uncomfortable questions. The result? Audiences snooze.

One factor that increases the likelihood of boring and valueless panel discussions is the increasing homogeneity of the panelists themselves. Over the last couple of years, the events to which I have been invited have increasingly staged me alongside an assortment of characters who, for the most part, share my views and core beliefs. You want to talk about municipal WiFi? Chances are that I, EarthLink, a forward-thinking city CTO, and Tropos are not going to disagree on much. Moreover, in an upstart space, even so-called "competitors" like MetroFi or Silicon Valley Metro Connect (IBM/Cisco/Seakay/Azulstar) are usually only going to have good things to say as we all aim to portray the industry in a positive light and there is more than enough opportunity for everyone involved.

Instead, if you want to keep your audience engaged, put me on the same stage with the folks who run the businesses that are widely perceived as competitive to municipal WiFi. Bring the licensed spectrum wireless carriers. Invite the incumbent fixed line ISPs. Apply medium heat and gently stir the pot.

I was on a panel at a GE event in the Spring of 2005 that featured Roger Gurnani, then the CIO of Verizon Wireless, Richard Alden, then CEO of Ono, the Spanish cable operator, and Brandon Burgess, then EVP of Digital Strategy at NBC/Universal. Skillfully moderated by Blair Levin, soon enough, off came the gloves.

The audience delighted in Roger's unbridled skepticism and disdain for WiFi when compared to his soon-to-launch EV-DO network. Richard asked rhetorically why he should allow a Skype call across his network if he is offering a competing VoIP service on that same pipe. Brandon publicly cast a wary eye on Google and questioned our ability and willingness to be a valuable partner to a traditional media company. Meaty issues were being tackled and there was some palpable tension in the air. It was a fantastic and genuine debate for the audience. We all learned something. Frankly, I think it brought everyone on the panel closer together as well. (We at Google soon went on to launch a partnership with NBC Olympics that was conceived at that very event.)

It is in that light that I was reviewing the agenda for a conference where I am participating on a panel on November 6th. Rutberg & Co. is hosting its annual Wireless Influencers event and the cast of characters scheduled to attend is first rate. That said, I must admit, I was less excited to see how some of the panels were composed. For instance, these two chats are happening side by side at the same time on Monday (click here for full agenda):

Will unlicensed services make money or undermine broadband economics?
Description: discussion among wireless carriers, municipalities, and hotspot service providers on the business models and implications of unlicensed WiFi or WiMAX services.

Jeffrey Belk, Senior Vice President, Strategy and Market Development, QUALCOMM
Donald Berryman, EVP, and President, Municipal Networks, EarthLink
Chris Sacca, Head, Special Initiatives, Google
Chris Vein, Executive Director, Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, City of San Francisco
Facilitator: Greg Richardson, Founder and Managing Partner, Civitium

Should wireless carriers allow, offer, control, or block IP and off-deck services?
Description: discussion among wireless carriers, content providers, and Internet companies on the strategies, business models, and risks of direct-to-consumer services, including implications to carriers' bucket data plans.

Chris Burke, Former Chief Technology Officer, Vodafone UK
Stephen Bye, Vice President, Wireless, Cox Communications
Roger Gurnani, President-West Area, Verizon Wireless
Jeff Treuhaft, Senior Vice President, Broadband Content Services, VeriSign
Facilitator: Mark Desautels, Vice President, CTIA

Thus, Roger is in the room next door while a bunch of us with generally aligned interests will be musing about how municipal WiFi might impact the economics of his EVDO service. Sure, the QUALCOMM guy would love the see the world eschew unlicensed spectrum and embrace his chipsets, but he ultimately stands to benefit from a diversity of network alternatives that necessitate multi-radio devices. Earlier in the day, at the same conference, audiences will hear from the CTO of AT&T, John Stankey. Why not also bring him to the stage and we can trade views on how these networks will impact residential fixed line business?

Similarly, for the panel in the next room, why not put a rep from Google, Yahoo, NewsCorp or fellow event speaker Suzan DelBene from Microsoft on the stage with all those operators to ally with VeriSign and explore the factors that keep wonderful programs like Google Mobile Maps (yes, I am biased, but it is truly an awesome app) from being widely distributed by the carriers. For good measure, bring someone sharp on the device side like Padmasree Warrior, CTO of Motorola, and ask the panel to dive into the the factors that led to the ROKR phone not being able to download music directly over the carriers' networks. That would kick it up a notch and I am certain we would all come away a touch smarter having heard from such contrasting perspectives.

All told, I am certain there will be no shortage of things to talk about, and I am looking forward to the conference. I appreciate Rutberg for gathering an exciting crew, and am always thankful for events with no press as I think it improves everyone's transparency and willingness to yap. Yet, as a guy who can never walk away from a challenging discussion, I just can't help but consider the opportunities for compelling interaction that may be missed.

 

Hey, Whole Foods: Let Your Talent Feed Us

I have been a loyal Whole Foods shopper since I moved to California in 1999/2000. I grew up spoiled by the wonderful Wegmans markets in Western New York, with their abundant quality produce and progressive emphasis on bringing a diverse realm of ingredients deep into cities that are otherwise ethnically homogeneous. So, arriving out here, I was excited to explore a market that aimed to improve our awareness of what we eat. By working with organic and local growers, Whole Foods established a company ethos that makes me feel good to be a customer, despite the fact that the prices reflect a certain premium to be paid for this peace of mind.

In parallel, Whole Foods has been able to attract a very high quality workforce. As you get to know their employees, you will find they tend to be highly educated workers who could choose from a range of jobs, but aspire to work for a company in which they believe. I can certainly sympathize with that, working at a company like Google which also has a well-defined positive company identity and thereby also attracts amazingly talented workers. To retain these quality contributors, Whole Foods pays well, offers full benefits, and caps executive pay at 14 times what the lowest paid company employee makes.

Yet, there is at least one major difference between our two workplaces.

At Google, the employees are encouraged to constantly innovate and create new and better products. Small teams are given the resources to experiment with new product ideas and have the freedom to launch new initiatives even at early stages in their development. There is very little centralized planning. Instead, innovation bubbles up from the engineers and product managers themselves as they dream up new ways to solve end-user problems.

The end result for you, the user? Well, when you visit Google, while you know you will be able to count on the core search offering being there for you, you can also expect a host of new offerings will await you across our properties. New features are constantly being rolled out and you can be to sure to find an assortment of novel experiments in our Google Labs.

In contrast, at Whole Foods, the prepared foods experience, while high quality, rarely evolves or changes. Despite CEO John Mackey's belief in empowered teams and local decision-making, these days, Whole Foods serves the same chow, every day, every night. Sure they may rotate something out seasonally, but it will be back next year in its same form to be sure. In addition, from store to store, there isn't much variation either. Their Sonoma Chicken Salad is predictably uniform whether you pick it up in Cupertino, San Mateo or San Francisco.

Thus, Whole Foods has all of these wildly talented and motivated employees, who are unfortunately confined to slinging a corporate-planned menu for literally years and years without variation. Ugh.

There must be a better way. In the current system, the customers suffer as we encounter the same damn food for sale in Whole Foods every single time we walk in there. The company eventually loses my business as I fatigue of eating the same food upon each visit. The poor employees are stuck merely replicating recipes and layout from a preparation and display chart cobbled together in a central office.

If Whole Foods were to return autonomy back to the chefs of individual stores and allow them the freedom to independently develop menus infused with spirit and creativity, I am confident, the consequences would be felt immediately. Customers would enjoy a new energy when visiting the store, discovering a wide variety of unique and intriguing dishes. They would feel compelled to come back often lest they miss something delicious. The store itself would see the repeat business tick up and would also benefit from the sales more Whole Foods products that patrons buy in an attempt to recreate many of these new dishes at home. Above all, the employees would feel that they are truly stakeholders in a local, community, creative effort to deliver a wonderful and healthy shopping experience.

I am sure there is a bureaucrat within the bowels of Whole Foods who will read this and want to convince me of the economies of scale that are achieved by centralized planning and others who will wax on about the increased liability risk that could result from anomalous menus. Humbug. Rediscover the roots of the company that made a visit to Whole Foods so special. Walk away from your excel spreadsheets and spend some time thinking about your customers and the employees that serve them and I think the next chapter of Whole Foods becomes obvious.

Hurry up, by the way. I am hungry. :)

Churchill Club 2.0

I recently accepted a seat on the Board of Directors of the Churchill Club. I was flattered to be asked to get involved with what I consider to be a wonderfully important organization and took the opportunity to reflect upon why I cherish my time at Churchill events.

Put simply, during the last bull market, good insight was hard to come by. No one was really blogging yet and podcasts were not to be found. While there were a host of cool tech magazines then, their content was certainly more oriented toward feature articles and lacked the spontaneity of intellectualism and debate the hallmark this region.

So, if you were a relative peon (not sure I had even graduated to peon status then, or now), but wanted to hear firsthand the raw thoughts and reactions of the men and women who were shaping the future of technology, you had two basic options available to you. You could essentially scrap your way into the room as a fly on the wall where the titans of tech were doing the cutting edge analysis and making the decisions that would impact us all, or you could go to the Churchill Club and see these luminaries in an engaging dialogue and then likely talk to them in person afterward.

The first option essentially involved being the human embodiment of the oft-cited premise "shit rolls downhill" as an associate in a law firm or an investment bank. In exchange for yielding any sense of purpose for a life entirely qualified by a time-clock and my billable achievements, I was infrequently granted the privilege of catching glimpses of the names and faces who were making Web 1.0 happen. Countless hours of flailing about in judicial gruel would provide the occasional fortune to experience John Doerr and his counterparts ruminating on the future of the Net. As entertaining and valuable as those interactions were, this was not a very predictable nor scalable method.

In contrast, I relished the opportunity to attend Churchill Club events. It was there that I could see a gaggle of these superstars all in one place, delving into frank and robust conversations about exciting and relevant topics. No filters. No editors. Just dialogue and exploration. Then, for the ambitious and enterprising, there was always the opportunity to lurk by the side of the stage and catch the featured guests before they left. There I would stand among many, business card holstered for easy withdrawal in the event it was requested, elevator pitch on the tip of my tongue, poised to convince them why they should spend two minutes interacting with a baby-faced loser who still owed six figures worth of law school loans and would soon be back at his desk collating the documents for a shareholder mailing.

Those were wonderful nights. I vividly remember running an idea by Vinod Khosla, getting some advice from Guy Kawasaki, and being intellectually humbled in a spontaneous hallway debate with Dan Gillmor. I will also never forget seeing Mike McCue's live demonstration of TellMe Networks over five years ago (it totally worked), nor the intensity of the tempest that is Steve Ballmer. (In fact, I loved these events so much that in the time after I left my law firm, and its regular paychecks, and was scraping by as an entrepreneur, I used to sneak into Churchill Club meetings through the side door. Shhhh.)

Yet, since those days, the entire tech community has evolved to be one of information access and sharing. Countless VCs blog their first-person thoughts (Brad Feld and Fred Wilson are among many I love) and my feedreader is bursting at its AJAX seams with insights and shared knowledge.

In that light, it has been particularly cool to see the Churchill Club evolve as well. Churchill continues to be a uniquely high quality venue for convening the brightest minds and talents from the realm of technology (excepting, of course, my recent appearance on a Churchill panel). It's also one of the best places around to meet and greet like-minded folks and accomplish a little networking. However, I am most excited to see how the Churchill Club is podcasting its events so that people far and wide can be entertained and enlightened by the discourse.

Let me know if you have any other ideas as to how Churchill can continue to grow and adapt. In the meantime, I hope to see you at an upcoming Churchill event soon.

 

Thanks be to Flash

This week, I installed the latest beta from Firefox. A bug in the process somehow resulted in Flash no longer working within my browser. I tried to fix it,to no avail and, thus, I surfed the Internet without Flash for the last few days. (Yes, I know. I could have just used Safari, but I am making a point here. :) )

For the most part, my experience wasn't that different. All sites loaded fine, thought every now and then a Flash-based header wouldn't come up. However, for a while now, most design gurus have advised against using Flash in front page user interfaces, so you don't encounter it much.

That said, what was most obviously missing from the Web for me during the last few days was video. Without Flash, there just isn't any video on the web. Sure enough, as I read through blogs, visited news sites, and combed my RSS feeds, there were big obvious holes where video had been embedded but didn't apparently exist without Flash running. It caused me to reflect back on the dramatic impact Flash has had on the realm of Internet video.

During the early days at Speedera, customers used to come to us to host their streaming media events on the web. We ran a large network of servers with lots of available bandwidth and could handle the peak traffic loads they expected. So, big TV networks, movie studios, sports leagues, and even tech and consumer product companies would come to us to ask us to dedicate our network capabilities to enabling massive amounts of user traffic to their streaming media events.

The way our payment for our services worked back then was that a customer would establish some traffic estimations and then commit to buying that much of our service. If they had user traffic above that amount they would need to pay extra. And, in the beauty that only results in inefficient markets, if they used less than that committed amount, we would keep the overcommitted money nevertheless.

The most intriguing artifact of this system is that we got deep insights into the variety of models our customers would use to predict their web traffic for the streaming media in question. For the most part, the estimates would take some sort of known number of off-line audience (e.g. how many people watched a TV show on a given night) and then discount that for how many of those folks would then visit the website and watch some streaming video. Invariably, this form of analysis would bring us customers who were absolutely convinced their streaming event would see 300,000 users.

It was 1999-2001. These were the heady days of the Net. Everyone knew its promise, and each company with whom we dealt had a VP of Digital Strategy who felt personally responsible for demonstrating this explicit potential to their stuffy gray-haired colleagues. These guys were tragically confident that they would put up record-breaking traffic numbers during the actual event. Much to the chagrin of some of our salesguys, we used to try to talk customers out of agreeing to unreasonably large deals. However, the customers often insisted on ponying up gargantuan sums, as if there were some pride on the line. No one wanted to be chatted down from the edge of an event that would surely land them a cover story in The Industry Standard.

Yet, the cold hard truth was that, though the technology existed to stream video on the Net, no one was watching it. Sure, Mark Cuban had traded Broadcast.com off to Yahoo, however, the mainstream was still not watching online videos. We used to joke that when a customer came in asking for a traffic allocation to cover X users, we should subtract three to four zeros from the estimate and provision for that infinitely smaller number. With only a couple notable exceptions (e.g., Steve Jobs keynote addresses, Victoria's Secret fashion show, both delivered by our competitor Akamai), Net video was just not being experienced by the masses.

Why? It was too hard. Remember those days? Multiple players spanning from Real to Windows Media to Quicktime. Did you have the right codecs installed? Were your clients assigned to the right filetypes? The right version of the player? Did your firewall allow a file to be streamed? Buffering? Still buffering? Timed out?! Argh!

Video on the web simply did not work. Content guys were doing deals to make features available, but it just didn't matter. Clicking on a link triggered an often unpredictable race of client software to open and attempt to play it. It was like rolling dice and very often you came up a loser. No clip to watch, just a broken experience. As a result, only the savviest users could be counted upon to watch online video.

This all changed with Flash. Kevin Lynch, now Chief Software Architect of Macromedia, once told a room full of us at Google that Flash is actually more ubiquitous than Windows. A Google engineer recently reminded me that, beyond that, it very aggressively auto-updates and prompts for installation if you visit sites with Flash on them. With Flash everywhere, it makes for such a wonderfully universal platform for rich media accessible by the masses.

The Macromedia folks seized this opportunity and built a wonderfully easy system to stream rich media. Flash video content could be seamlessly embedded in a page and just one click would allow it to play right there in context. Wow! Video finally worked! Flash made it so easy. No more downloading ugly incompatible clients. No more worrying about wacky DRM regimes and trying to keep versions current.

Flash showed that if you make it easy enough the users will follow. So, while there are many reasons to explain the success of Youtube, and I do I admire those guys, in the midst of all of this deal frenzy, I hope someone pauses to write a little thank you note to the Flash developers for making video on the Net finally work.

And technology for all . . .

I was invited last night to a gala fundraiser thrown by One Economy, a six year old organization dedicated to closing the digital divide in the US and globally. Their portal, beehive.org, is a wonderfully effective resource for poor people who are new to the Internet. The Beehive has helped millions of people obtain the information and help they deserve.

All told, these guys are social entrepreneurs in the truest sense and the stories we heard over the course of the night were nothing short of inspiring.  We heard the tale of one group in Greene County, North Carolina who, realizing their economy was dangerously dependent upon tobacco farming, collaborated with One Economy to launch program entitled "Beyond Tobacco" to infuse wireless broadband access, computers, and technology training into the community. They had a number of metrics by which to measure the success of this public/private partnership, but one in particular stood out for me.

Three years ago, in Greene County, 10% of their students applied to college. This past year, over 80% did.

As we work to get a free broadband wireless network built in San Francisco (remember, I don't speak for Google here), it is helpful and energizing to be reminded so vividly of why access for all is so important.