Summary of “Should You Create a Company or Personal Blog?”

“Should I create a company blog or a personal blog?”.
Have you ever wondered which type of blog would serve you better – a personal one or a company one?
Some of you may be wondering whether or not there are any major differences between a company and personal blog.
Another plus is that a personal blog makes your brand transferable, meaning you can still retain your audience if you ever choose to launch a new company, partner with a different business, etc.
I will say that one downside to running a personal blog rather than a company blog is that you’re inevitably going to give your personal opinion.
Deciding between a company or personal blog is one of the first questions business owners will have when beginning their blogging quest.
While a company blog isn’t without merit, it often lacks the transparency, authenticity, and intimacy of a personal blog.
How would you decide between creating a personal blog vs. a company blog?

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Hack: Having a Media Company Mentality”

Never before have brands and consumers had the ability to create and consume content at scale.
Just 15 years ago, if you wanted to create a commercial to promote your brand, you would need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on media and marketing.
If you focus on content, and attempt to build brand, you will win.
Content and DistributionThere is ZERO excuse not to be creating content around your brand, your product, your service or your business.
If you are thinking like a media company and or a publisher, then you are going to start prioritizing brand.
Brand is everything if you are trying to create a business of value.
How can you attain consumer ATTENTION? Who in your space is relevant and potentially interested in promoting your brand.
If you don’t start thinking like a media company and prioritizing brand along with content, you are going to lose.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Power of Anti-Goals”

Last year, my business partner Chris and I sat down to think about what we wanted to achieve at Tiny.
We wanted to do something many successful business people seem to struggle with: we wanted to actually enjoy our time at work.
Over the years, we noticed that our days had started filling up with things we didn’t want to do.
We were doing business with people we didn’t like and doing everything on a schedule which was dictated by other people’s needs.
Earlier this year, we decided to figure out how we could make our days consistently more enjoyable.
To get there, we used a little trick that we learned from Warren Buffet’s business partner, Charlie Munger, who is fond of saying “Tell me where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.”
That it’s often easier to think about what you don’t want than what you do.
“Problems frequently get easier if you turn them around in reverse. In other words, if you want to help India, the question you should ask is not ‘how can I help India,’ it’s ‘what is doing the worst damage in India and how do I avoid it?”A lot of success in life and business comes from knowing what you want to avoid: early death, a bad marriage, etc.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Signal v. Noise”

The underpinning tenet of chasing exponential growth is that anything less than “All of it” is never enough.
If things are going well in business, growth happens.
One of the most common changes in a business that grows is the increasing distance between owners and product, owners and customers, owners and employees.
The more layers of delegation you stack to cope with growth, the further away you get.
Another explanation is that chasing growth is simply the fiduciary duty of a company, as a means to extract maximum profits out of the enterprise in service of its shareholders.
There’s a long parade of companies that placed growth above all else, got big, then never got to actually extract any profits because the market disappeared or self-inflicted wounds took them down.
Having reached a personal fulfillment of enough, having reached a business fulfillment of longevity and profitability, what would I give up to push any of that further? The answer is not much.
So the question is better presented in the form of concrete trade-offs, like, would I double the size of the business, if it required growing from ~50 to ~150 people? No. Would I grow the profits of the company 20%, if it meant having to spend millions of dollars in advertising with companies like Facebook? Again, no.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Invisible unicorns: 35 big companies that started with little or no money”

Entrepreneurs can prove out quite a bit with little to no capital.
Figure something out, then ask for money You don’t need venture capital to get started in most industries if you can solve a real problem for customers and charge money for it.
It’s more important to ask how efficiently those companies use the capital.
Many of the most impressive, successful companies that managed to grow without capital thrived by solving acute, if somewhat dry, problems.
We’ve seen companies with tens of millions in revenue, triple-digit growth rates and other advantages struggle to raise even small amounts of money.
Sydney-based Campaign Monitor didn’t have easy access to venture capital, so they bootstrapped the business and built a unique technology that offered superior email analytics to companies like Disney, Coca-Cola and Buzzfeed.
It’s possible to get a tech-enabled business off the ground with no capital.
It’s feasible to scale a tech business rapidly with very little capital.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How to Integrate Data and Analytics into Every Part of Your Organization”

The stakes are high, with International Data Corporation estimating that global business investments in D&A will surpass $200 billion a year by 2020.
D&A should be the pulse of the organization, incorporated into all key decisions across sales, marketing, supply chain, customer experience, and other core functions.
What’s the best way to build effective D&A capabilities? Start by developing a strategy across the entire enterprise that includes a clear understanding of what you hope to accomplish and how success will be measured.
One of the major American sports leagues is a good example of an organization that is making the most of its D&A function, applying it in scheduling to reduce expenses, for example, reducing the need for teams to fly from city to city for games on back-to-back nights.
Some organizations have D&A capabilities spread across functions, or rely on a few data scientists to provide insights.
In our experience, companies that build a D&A capability meeting their business needs have teams of data and software engineers who are skilled in the use of big data and data scientists who are wholly focused on a D&A initiative.
While structures vary, the team should be seamlessly integrated with the company’s existing providers and consumers of D&A, operating in cohesion with non-D&A colleagues – people who really understand both the business challenges and how the business works – to set and work toward realistic and relevant strategic goals.
In an age where data is created on a scale far beyond the human mind’s ability to process it, business leaders need D&A they can trust to inform their most important decisions – not just to reduce costs but also to achieve growth.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Amazon, Whole Foods, and the Future of the New Economy”

Does the transaction reflect how hard it’s been for Whole Foods to keep Wall Street satisfied with its growth and profits? Does the deal underscore just how expansive a vision Jeff Bezos has for Amazon, his dream of it becoming the “Everything store”?
To me the much more profound question, both substantively and symbolically, is what the deal says about the future of an approach to business, branding, and organizational culture that Whole Foods and Amazon have come to represent.
Here are my big takeaways on Amazon, Whole Foods, and the future of the new economy.
Over the last 20 years I’ve marveled at how Whole Foods has managed to grow so big, win over millions of customers to its point of view on nutrition and sustainable food, and still maintain its high-service, high-engagement, democratic culture.
One of the truly important contributions made by Whole Foods is how, thanks to its remarkable growth and visibility, the organic and nutritional sensibilities it championed have penetrated every aspect of the economy and society.
Whole Foods truly did change the game in an entire industry – which changed the stakes for Whole Foods.
Whole Foods and Amazon are icons of the new economy, but they’ve always represented opposite ends of the strategic and customer-service spectrum.
Now, Whole Foods has launched a line of smaller, lower-cost stores, called 365 by Whole Foods, with limited selection, fewer employees, and lots of automation.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Why Amazon Bought Whole Foods”

Amazon announced on Friday morning that it’s buying Whole Foods for just under $14 billion, the retailer’s largest acquisition ever.
Amazon needs food and urban real estate, and Whole Foods needs help.
Whole Foods offers the biggest name in yuppie groceries and a fleet of urban locations, which can double as Amazon warehouses.
In short, Whole Foods was in a free fall, and Amazon is the perfect net to catch it.
With Whole Foods, which will continue to operate under its own name, an Amazon Prime subscription might operate just like Costco membership.
“Amazon did not just buy Whole Foods grocery stores. It bought 431 upper-income, prime-location distribution nodes for everything it does,” tweeted Dennis Berman, the Wall Street Journal’s financial editor.
With Whole Foods, where wealthy families regularly spend $500 a month, Amazon could expect its richest customers to spend thousands of dollars a year through Amazon.
Several people on Twitter joked that between Prime and Whole Foods, Amazon may now account for a majority of some urban Millennials’ discretionary spending.

The orginal article.

Summary of “3 Things Are Holding Back Your Analytics, and Technology Isn’t One of Them”

During the past decade, business analytics platforms have evolved from supporting IT and finance functions to enabling business users across the enterprise.
We’ve found three main obstacles to realizing analytics’ full value, and all of them are related to people, not technology: the organization’s structure, culture, and approach to problem solving.
At the same time, the group eschewed traditional business norms such as checking in with clients, presenting results graphically, explaining analytic results in the context of the business, and connecting complex findings to conventional wisdom.
At one extreme, we see analytics groups that create overly complex models with long lead times and limited adaptability to changing inputs.
In light of these obstacle, we believe an effective business analytics organization balances functional knowledge, business instinct, and data analysis, with an operating philosophy to add complexity only when the additional insights justify it.
Knowing the languages of analytics and business, the embedded generalists also serve as liaisons between the independent data scientists and the business partners in their functions.
Heading up the nerve center? A chief analytics officer who brings the voice of analytics straight to the C-suite, where instinct tends to rule.
Modern business analytics has made it possible to extract new types of insights from vast volumes of data.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Local News Business Model – Stratechery by Ben Thompson”

Most local newspapers are simply not worth saving, not because local news isn’t valuable, but rather because everything else in your typical local newspaper is worthless.
To be clear, I agree with Rutenberg when he states that “A vibrant free presskeeps government honest and voters informed.” Local government needs oversight, which is another way of saying local news is necessary for a well-functioning democracy.
For newspapers, the analogies to equipment, ordnance, and personnel are physical infrastructure, business operations, and editorial staff; just about none of them are actually necessary for covering local news.
The 15~20% of revenue newspapers are paying for business operations has nothing to do with local news.
This is the biggest blindspot for those lamenting the travails of local newspapers: it may be obvious that printing presses don’t make much sense with the Internet, and most websites have moved to ad networks for the obvious reasons; in fact nearly all of the content in most newspapers is not just unnecessary but in fact actively harmful to building a sustainable future for local news.
A lot of this content has long since been standardized across newspapers, but the broader point remains the same: absolutely none of it has anything to do with local news, and it should not exist in the local news publication of the future.
I’ve already hinted at the general outline of a sustainable local news publication, but the critical point is the one I just made: everything must start with the business model, of which there is only one choice – subscriptions.
All too many local newspapers, built for an ad-based business model that calls for daily content to wrap around ads, spend their limited resources churning out daily filler even though those ads no longer exist.

The orginal article.