stuff/stevebanfield

Winning

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:06:46 -0700

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

Evening (when you attach the photo)

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:53:30 -0700

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

Evening

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:48:10 -0700

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

End of #digitalhollywood day one

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:21:24 -0700

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

Orange

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:28:13 -0700

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

59-0

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:06:15 -0700

I’m really surprised when people complain about the New England
Patriots beating the Tennessee Titans 59-0 on Sunday. These guys are
supposed to be professionals. If you don’t want to lose 59-0 then
don’t let yourself lose 59-0. Nobody gives you any breaks. Go big or go home. Run with the big dogs or stay on the porch. Put up
or shut up. If you don’t want to lose 59-0 then stop them from scoring
or get your own team in the end zone. This isn’t pee-wee football
where everybody gets to carry the ball and the teams get milkshakes
after the game.

And if you think this post is only about football, you’re already
behind and the clock is ticking. The same thing is true with business.
If you don’t want to get blown out, then make something happen. There
are no guarantees you will win but how you lose says just as much
about you.

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

Are You Playing to Win, Or Just Not to Lose?

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:18:42 -0700

Sitting here watching football has me thinking of the “prevent
defense”. John Madden once described it as only preventing the team
that deploys it from winning, though lots of teams still use it. There’s a startup version of the prevent defense: “playing not to
lose.” Second guessing your thinking, constantly waiting for more
feedback, another customer input, the next build, the next release.
You’re trying not to burn through your venture capital too quickly.
You’re trying to bring in the right folks, but not hire too soon. You
want to avoid the PR spotlight until after you’ve got all your
messaging and customer testimonials all locked down. It’s the “prevent
defense” of building a company.

I’m not suggesting a return to the spend like a drunken sailor models
of earlier startup eras I’m saying playing not to lose is a strategy
that will kill a company. Everyone — the team, the investors and the
customers — need to be energized and excited and playing not to lose
doesn’t do that. It’s an easy trap to fall into as you try to find the
right, best, unique plan for your company. So if playing not to lose is bad, what’s playing to win? It’s shipping
quickly and often, even if releases aren’t perfect. It’s hiring the
right team instead of trying to keep staff you have that aren’t the
best fit. It’s finding ways to rise above the PR noise and be talked
about despite a story that may be changing as you adapt to the market.
It’s believing that you’re working every day to win a customer, not
placate investors.

Screw the prevent defense. Do what works. Play to win. And if you
lose, you lose. If you are afraid of losing then don’t play in the
first place.

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

Starting fresh & Finding the balance

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:58:42 -0700

This is the first “real” blog post I’ve made in a long time. One of
the things I’ve realized since taking over as CEO at Mixercast is that
not only do I need to communicate even more than before, but I’ve got
to over-communicate in new ways. Somebody may be reading this now saying “Over-communicate? You’re
about 4,000 tweets too late for that. You’re already there!” Maybe,
but is talking the same thing as saying something? Is hearing the same
thing as listening?

If you know me well, or even know me at all, you know communication
isn’t a weakness. I’m big, loud, outgoing, talkative. I’ve had to
learn over the years to try and not overpower conversations, to not
suck all the oxygen out of the room. Unfortunately when I took over I overcompensated and struggled to find
the balance in communicating with the team. Sometimes I’d try to
divert complex or controversial topics behind closed doors where it
just seemed like I was trying to over-manage the conversation. Other
times I stayed out of the way probably too much when stepping in with
clear communication might have saved a lot of time and confusion. I
was good one on one, and I was good with the whole team but in that
middle ground I struggled between trying to add valuable input and
stepping on the toes of my executives.

Right now at Mixercast we’re a little short handed as we’ve dealt with
the transition out of a few of our team members (silver lining —
we’re hiring so send me your resumes to steve.banfield@mixercast.com).
Combine that with the perfect storm of a bunch of vacations and it
meant I had to step in today to help project manage the last builds of
a key customer deliverable (more on that early next week!). It was
truly eye opening. I knew that as a team we weren’t communicating well but until today I
didn’t really get to experience that up close and in a personal way.
Deadline pressure and poor communication will eat up a team from the
inside faster than anything. Even in a small team the breakdowns in
communication were tripping us up. However it meant I got to see some
of our key folks in action more directly than I’d ever had a chance
to, and some team members finally felt comfortable enough to share
some of their feelings and feedback with me directly.

That feedback was so deeply appreciated and it sparked me starting to
write this post. Lots of things are going to change within and
without. This is the first real blog post I’ve made in a very long
time (tweets and reposts of viral videos don’t count in my mind), but
it won’t be the last. I used to think it didn’t make sense to write
because “who was going to read it anyway”? Between my 1,000s of
Facebook friends, Linkedin contacts, 2,000+ Twitter followers and the
employees, investors and customers at Mixercast I imagine someone will
read this and find something useful it in.

Posted via email from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

The Cloud Consultant Spares No One - ReadWriteEnterprise

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:45:34 -0700

via readwriteweb.com

I saw the “Social Media Guru” version of this a few days ago and loved it, so I had to reblog this one. Genius.

Posted via web from @stevebanfield’s blog | Comment »

Your Social Media Guru Awaits | Redheaded Fury I just want to...

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:39:23 -0700

Your Social Media Guru Awaits | Redheaded Fury

I just want to sent this to anyone on Twitter or Facebook with “guru” in their description that isn’t teaching yoga.

Video

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:12:29 -0700

Batbug

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:14:10 -0700

Batbug

(via icanread)

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:54:38 -0700

(via icanread)

helyeahvetica: Double win. Want to share in the love? Send your...

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:32:50 -0700

helyeahvetica:

Double win.

Want to share in the love? Send your Helvetica photos & graphics to helyeahvetica@gmail.com.

Understanding Platform Business

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 05:00:33 -0700

patriciahandschiegel:

Where business is concerned, it’s important to look at the internet as if it’s a platform versus whatever feature or application sits on top of it. It’s not to say things like Facebook, Twitter, blogs, digital media, etc. aren’t important. It’s that their monetization and models are going to be subject to the same rules that have applied to platform business forever. That’s because at the end of the day, what a platform is determines how the applications that sit on top of it can make money. The failure to see the world this way is why so many people and companies are fumbling around with how to do business and make money online.

There are six major platforms in our world — PSTN (landline phone), Cellular (mobile phone), broadcast (TV), print (media/newspapers), radio and of course, the internet. These things exist for the sole purpose of providing information or utility to a public. The secondary element to this is that they can also provide entertainment. If you think the internet was created so you could social network, you’re nuts. The internet was created because it has the capability to marry all of those other platforms into one. There are other benefits but this is the core purpose.

The rules of platform business are simple. What makes the internet so complicated for people and business (among other things) is that it combines several different platforms into one. That means that some applications will operate by certain rules, others by other rules, and unlike any other platform in the environment, some will be subjected to both. This, however, doesn’t change the basic rules of platform business. In short form, here they are:

1. It is very difficult to interject an ad into a stream of conversation. That is why platforms that enable two or more people to communicate typically monetize through subscription services. Your phone company makes most of its money off things like voice mail and texting, not ad revenue. There is a reason for that. The web has actually been more flexible with this than any other platform, but it’s still very limited and always will be in regards to monetizing via ad revenue.

2. Platforms that exist for the purpose of distributing information generally can not rely on ad revenue alone. Unless the production and distribution is bare bones cheap, few can. It costs money for someone to write articles, create TV shows, etc. - even on the internet which lowers (but doesn’t eliminate) the cost. Few information outlets can live on ad revenue alone and produce the kind of quality content people want. Yes, some can, but not all — and certainly, there is not enough ad revenue even in a good market to go around. This is why subscription content exists. We willingly share the cost.

3. To succeed, you must marry audience to platform. When television was invented, it was unveiled at the World’s Fair with the President and demonstration of how to use it through displays that showed it in various environments consumers live in. This helped marry the audience to the platform. From there, television networks worked to marry the audience to them. With the internet, everybody seems to completely ignore this. I am not sure why. In what world would a product be successful if no effort to truly create a customer base was done? When I say “audience,” I do not mean “traffic” — there is a difference.

4. To accomplish #3, you must train the audience. We use the term “train the audience” in web business often because it’s essentially showing people what to do, or driving them to understand how to engage with your site. With my first startup, I knew if users had to set up a tripod or have someone take their picture, less of them would engage in the site. That’s why I took pictures of myself in the mirror. Once people saw this, they understood they could too and started doing it. TV wasn’t just dropped in front of people to figure out — they were showed how to use it. This is why it worked.

These rules have existed since long before the internet was created, going far back to the invention of radio and telephone. If nothing has changed in decades and decades, it has not and will not now.

Video

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:33:43 -0700

Video

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:28:24 -0700

(via CrunchGear) I may never post anything else again. Not sure...

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:02:12 -0700

(via CrunchGear)

I may never post anything else again. Not sure there’s something that can top this.

Then again, there’s always LOLcats.

Love this, assuming I could pedal fast enough for the pictures...

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:47:54 -0700

Love this, assuming I could pedal fast enough for the pictures to show up as anything interesting. Maybe downhill.

Video

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:41:12 -0700