How Consumers Interact With Brands on Facebook [STUDY]

People interact with their favorite brands on Facebook far more than on any other social network, according to a recent study of online consumer behavior.

The study, conducted by Constant Contact and research firm Chadwick Martin Bailey, analyzed the behavior of 1,491 consumers ages 18 and older throughout the United States and revealed a number of details about how people interact with brands on the world’s largest social network.

When it comes to “Liking” brands on Facebook, the reasons are varied, but for the most part, respondents said they “Like” a brand on Facebook because they are a customer (58%) or because they want to receive discounts and promotions (57%).

SEE ALSO: 13 Best Practices for Restaurants on Facebook Being a fan, for the most part, is a rather passive activity. A whopping 77% of consumers said they interact with brands on Facebook primarily through reading posts and updates from the brands.

A measly 17% of respondents said they interact with brands by sharing experiences and news stories with others about the brand, and only 13% of respondents said they post updates about brands that they Like.

The study also pointed to a number of encouraging stats for businesses, including:

  • 56% of consumers said they are more likely to recommend a brand to a friend after becoming a fan on Facebook
  • 51% of consumers said they are more likely to buy a product since becoming a fan on Facebook
  • 78% of consumers who “Like” brands on Facebook said they “Like” fewer than ten brands

Contrary to another study published in February that stated that 81% of consumers have either “unliked” or removed a company’s posts from their Facebook News Feed, this study reports that 76% of consumers said they have never “unliked” a brand on Facebook.

For brands looking to make the biggest impact on Facebook, it is essential to share compelling content, minimize marketing messages and refrain from overwhelming readers with too frequent updates.

View the complete study here:

How Consumers Interact With Brands on Facebook [STUDY].

An article posted by Mashable

21 Things for those who Starting their own Business

Starting A Business

Presentation Transcript:

21 Things We’reLearning At Fab.com 10-12-11

  • 130 Days Ago Fab.com Didn’t Even Exist.
  • Now, We’ve Got 750,000 Members, 3M Visits/ Month, $100K sales days.
  • It’s Humbling.
  • It’s Exciting.
  • It’s Challenging. We never imagined we’d grow so fast.
  • Here are 21 Things We’re Learning As We Go:
  1. Do 1 Thing. Find 1 thing you can do really well and focus entirely on that one thing.
  2. Say No! Don’t do any thing else except for yourone thing. Say no to meetings, ideas, proposal, b.s., outside of your core 1 thing.
  3. It’s Always All About The Product. Our virtual products (website & apps) and physical products (design objects) must delight every day.
  4. Keep it Interesting. No one comes back to check out the same thing every day. Keep it fresh, exciting, and unpredictable.
  5. Make People Smile. We’re not in the design sales business, we’re in the design inspiration business. Inspire people and the sales will come.
  6. Service Matters More Than Sales. Sales go up and down. Service lasts forever.
  7. Do Whatever It Takes To Make Customers Happy. Get it right and they’ll tell their friends. Get it wrong and they’ll tell the entire world.
  8. Make Mistakes Take risks. Move fast. Learn faster.
  9. Recover Quickly.
  10. Apologize. Own your screw-ups.
  11. Strive to Have Your Customers LOVE Every Interaction With Your Company. Push your team to live this dream.
  12. Celebrate Your Challenges. Force the team to focus on why you suck, even while you’re growing.
  13. Don’t Focus Too Much OnThe Vision. Winning is all about execution.
  14. Be Transparent. The more people know, the better.
  15. Measure Everything.
  16. Grow Your People. Coach your team to scale with the opportunity.
  17. Fill Your Gaps. Bring in new talent to spur further growth.
  18. Hire Smarter. Hire people who are better at their jobs than you ever could be.
  19. Maintain Perspective Success is fleeting.
  20. Say Please & Thank You. People do things because they want to, not because they have to.
  21. Have Fun. Life’s too short to do it any other way.

How to become successful Sales Representative

Selling isn’t about Relationships, really? Ask any sales leader how selling has changed in the past decade, and you’ll hear a lot of answers but only one recurring theme: It’s a lot harder. Yet even in these difficult times, every sales organization has a few stellar performers. Who are these people? How can we bottle their magic?

To understand what sets apart this special group of sales reps, the Sales Executive Council launched a global study of sales rep productivity three years ago involving more than 6,000 reps across nearly 100 companies in multiple industries.

We now have an answer, which we’ve captured in the following three insights:

1. Every sales professional falls into one of five distinct profiles.

Quantitatively speaking, just about every B2B sales rep in the world is one of the following types, characterized by a specific set of skills and behaviors that defines the rep’s primary mode of interacting with customers:

  • Relationship Builders focus on developing strong personal and professional relationships and advocates across the customer organization. They are generous with their time, strive to meet customers’ every need, and work hard to resolve tensions in the commercial relationship.
  • Hard Workers show up early, stay late, and always go the extra mile. They’ll make more calls in an hour and conduct more visits in a week than just about anyone else on the team.
  • Lone Wolves are the deeply self-confident, the rule-breaking cowboys of the sales force who do things their way or not at all.
  • Reactive Problem Solvers are, from the customers’ standpoint, highly reliable and detail-oriented. They focus on post-sales follow-up, ensuring that service issues related to implementation and execution are addressed quickly and thoroughly.
  • Challengers use their deep understanding of their customers’ business to push their thinking and take control of the sales conversation. They’re not afraid to share even potentially controversial views and are assertive — with both their customers and bosses.

2. Challengers dramatically outperform the other profiles, particularly Relationship Builders.

When we look at average reps, we find a fairly even distribution across all five of these profiles. But while there may be five ways to be average, there’s only one way to be a star. We found that Challenger reps dominate the high-performer population, making up close to 40% of star reps in our study.

What makes the Challenger approach different?

The data tell us that these reps are defined by three key capabilities:

Challengers teach their customers. They focus the sales conversation not on features and benefits but on insight, bringing a unique (and typically provocative) perspective on the customer’s business. They come to the table with new ideas for their customers that can make money or save money — often opportunities the customer hadn’t realized even existed.

Challengers tailor their sales message to the customer They have a finely tuned sense of individual customer objectives and value drivers and use this knowledge to effectively position their sales pitch to different types of customer stakeholders within the organization.

Challengers take control of the sale. While not aggressive, they are certainly assertive. They are comfortable with tension and are unlikely to acquiesce to every customer demand. When necessary, they can press customers a bit — not just in terms of their thinking but around things like price.

We’ll discuss each of these capabilities in more depth in our upcoming posts, but just as surprising as it is that Challengers win, it’s almost more eye-opening who loses. In our study, Relationship Builders come in dead last, accounting for only 7% of all high performers.

Why is this? It’s certainly not because relationships no longer matter in B2B sales–that would be a naïve conclusion. Rather, what the data tell us is that it is the nature of the relationships that matter. Challengers win by pushing customers to think differently, using insight to create constructive tension in the sale. Relationship Builders, on the other hand, focus on relieving tension by giving in to the customer’s every demand. Where Challengers push customers outside their comfort zone, Relationship Builders are focused on being accepted into it. They focus on building strong personal relationships across the customer organization, being likable and generous with their time. The Relationship Builder adopts a service mentality. While the Challenger is focused on customer value, the Relationship Builder is more concerned with convenience. At the end of the day, a conversation with a Relationship Builder is probably professional, even enjoyable, but it isn’t as effective because it doesn’t ultimately help customers make progress against their goals.

This finding — that Challengers win and Relationship Builders lose — is one that sales leaders often find deeply troubling, because their organizations have placed by far their biggest bet on recruiting, developing, and rewarding Relationship Builders, the profile least likely to win.

Here’s how one of our members in the hospitality industry put it when he saw these results: “You know, this is really hard to look at. For the past 10 years, it’s been our explicit strategy to hire effective Relationship Builders. After all, we’re in the hospitality business. And, for a while, that approach worked well. But ever since the economy crashed, my Relationship Builders are completely lost. They can’t sell a thing. And as I look at this, now I know why.”

3. Challengers dominate the world of complex “solution-selling”

Given the first two findings, it might be reasonable to conclude that Challengers are the down-economy reps and that when things return to normal, Relationship Builders will once again prevail. But our data suggest that this is wishful thinking.

When we cut the data by complexity of sale — that is, separating out transactional, product-selling reps from complex, solution-selling reps — we find that Challengers absolutely dominate as selling gets more complex. Fully 54% of all star reps in a solution-selling environment are Challengers. At the same time, Relationship Builders fall off the map almost entirely, representing only 4% of high-performing reps in complex environments.

Put differently, Challengers win because they’ve mastered the complex sale, not because they’ve mastered a complex economy. Your very best sales reps — the ones who carried you through the downturn — aren’t just the top performers of today but the top performers of tomorrow, as they are far better able to drive sales and deliver customer value in any kind of economic environment. For any company on a journey from selling products to selling solutions — which is a migration that more than 75% of the companies I work with say they are pursuing — the Challenger selling approach represents a dramatically improved recipe for driving top-line growth.

 

Why you should you read this article?

You should read If you;

  • are interested in making strategic sales
  • like to know what kind of sales person you need to be
  • are going to hire sales team and need to know kind of sales people your company need
  • want an insight of present sales trend and tactics
  • like to improve and update your sales strategy
  • want to be successful sales representative

 

This article is a courtesy of Harvard Business Review

Steve Job’s Speech at Stanford University

Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death itself — at the university’s 114th Commencement on June 12, 2005

Best of Tech World (Startups/Products/Ideas)

Best Overall Startup In 2008
Amazon Web Services
Facebook (winner)
Android
hulu
Twitter (runner-up)
Best Application Or Service
Get Satisfaction
Google Reader (winner)
Minted
Meebo
MySpace Music (runner-up)
Yelp
Best Technology Innovation/Achievement
Facebook Connect (runner-up)
Google Friend Connect
Google Chrome
Windows Live Mesh (winner)
Swype
Yahoo BOSS
Best Design
Animoto (runner-up)
Cooliris (winner)
Friendfeed
Infectious
Lala
Sliderocket
Best Bootstrapped Startup
BackType
GitHub (winner)
Socialcast
StatSheet
12seconds.tv (runner-up)
Most Likely To Make The World A Better Place
Akoha
Causes
CO2Stats
GoodGuide (winner)
Kiva (runner-up)
Better Place
Best Enterprise Startup
Amazon Web Services (winner)
Force.com
Google App Engine (runner-up)
Yammer
Zoho
Best International Startup
eBuddy (winner)
Fotonauts
OpenX
Vente-privee
Wuala (runner-up)
Best Clean Tech Startup
Better Place (runner-up)
Boston Power
ElectraDrive
Laurus Energy
Project Frog (winner)
Best New Gadget/Device
Android G1 (runner-up)
Ausus EEE 1000 Series
Flip MinoHD
iPhone 3G (winner)
SlingCatcher
Best Time Sink Site/Application
Mob Wars
iBowl
Tap Tap Range (winner)
Zivity
Texas Hold Em (runner-up)
Best Mobile Startup
ChaCha (runner-up)
Evernote (winner)
Posterous
Qik Skyfire
Truphone
Best Mobile Application
Google Mobile Application (runner-up)
imeem mobile (winner)
Pandora Radio
rolando
ShopSavvy
Ocarina
Best Startup Founder
Linda Avery and Anne Wojcicki (23andMe)
Michael Birch and Xochi Birch (Bebo)
Robert Kalin (Etsy)
Evan Williams, Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone (Twitter ) (winner)
Paul Buchheit, Jim Norris, Sanjeev Singh, Bret Taylor (FriendFeed ) (runner-up)
Best Startup CEO
Tony Hsieh (Zappos)
Jason Kilar (Hulu) (runner-up)
Elon Musk (SpaceX)
Andy Rubin (Android)
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) (winner)
Best New Startup Of 2008
Dropbox (runner-up)
FriendFeed (winner)
GoodGuide
Tapulous
Topsin Media
Yammer


Courtesy of Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

8 Crucial Elements of Startup Success

1. Hire Great Coders

If you don’t have the skills to code, make sure you find someone with a solid programming background who can implement your idea. You want to make sure that person has built successful websites with features similar to your own vision. That way, you know they have the right skills for your startup. An inefficient coder will take a long time to launch the site, wasting time by making minor changes and fixing bugs. You will lose valuable time and potentially miss the opportunity to capitalize on first-to-market advantages.

2. Launch Your Product Site Quickly

Sometimes you’ll encounter a last-minute opportunity to add features to your product. However, this can delay the launch. You might consider it worth the wait, especially if the added features will further engage customers. However, make sure to launch as soon as possible with the critical functionality. You can always make later changes to improve your site and product. Furthermore, you’ll be able to start gathering valuable feedback from your customers. If you’re insecure about a hasty launch, let customers know they’re viewing the beta version of the site, and they can expect improvements soon.

3. Identify Your Users

If you’re developing a product, make sure you truly understand the needs of your end users. You might assume that potential customers are seeking your particular solution, only to discover after launch that your product might be too expensive or doesn’t precisely repair the problem. Make sure that you take some time to understand exactly what your users need, and what they are willing to pay for.

4. Don’t Target a Small Niche

Solving a problem for a targeted niche is not a bad idea — the smaller the niche, the less competition you may face. The downside is that you might not gain enough users to render a profit. Make sure to perform market research to understand the scale of consumers interested in your product. Also, plan to expand the niche once you service its need. When you evolve your original idea into adjacent markets, you will increase the probability of exponential growth.

5. Raise Enough Money the First Time

As most startups know, determining how much money to raise is difficult. Raising enough money in your seed round will carry your business through inevitable growing pains and redesigns, but it’s important to retain enough money to develop the final product your users will love. You don’t want to spend all your time convincing investors to sign that next check that will keep the company afloat. Investors would rather you spend it further developing the business and getting them a timely return on investment. You want to raise enough money initially so that you can hit a major milestone and have something to show investors.

6. Don’t Waste Money

As obvious as this one sounds, startups waste money every day. They often overspend on things that can wait until later, or on a tool that doesn’t get them the expected results. By outsourcing a variety of activities, however, startups are now becoming less expensive to launch. One area in which startups waste money is hiring too many employees too fast. You need to make sure you can fill up the entire day of each (indispensable) employee. Early on, only hire people who add required functionality that cannot be fulfilled by current staff. You should also determine whether a person can be hired as a short-term, temporary resource (i.e. outsourcing), or whether hiring a full-time employee is the right, long-term solution. Employee salaries contribute to high overhead expenses, and should be carefully controlled at the beginning of a successful startup.

7. Have Multiple Co-Founders

A startup can be very time-consuming. Although you envisioned its concept, you may lack the required skills to launch your idea into reality. Therefore, divide the work among trusted partners with necessary skills sets, and be able to bounce ideas off each other freely. Dave McClure states that the ideal startup has a hacker, a hustler and a designer. The hacker can code, the hustler brings in the business, and the designer architects the concept to make it appealing to a consumer or investor. You may have one or all of these skills, but often not enough time in the day to wear all of the hats. If you can’t convince a co-founder to come on board and fill a role, it may be a red flag that your idea needs tweaking.

8. All Or Nothing

We’ve all heard the saying “don’t quit your day job, kid,” but in the world of startups, any time spent focused on outside tasks is an opportunity for competitors to beat you to market. You need to focus all your time on your startup if you want it to succeed. And this may mean quitting your day job. If you’re building a product, targeting customers, and trying to attract investors all in your spare time, you don’t have your priorities lined up. If you dedicate all your time to your startup, you will have more drive to successfully get it to market, because now your livelihood depends on it.

 

Why game developers hate Facebook-Zynga marriage and how Google+ can benefit

Facebook game developers were furious when they found out about the tight relationship between Facebook and Zynga.

If Google properly channels that anger, it could find considerable support for the idea of making games that run on its new social framework, Google+. The question is whether that anger is justified – and the answer isn’t crystal clear.

Because Facebook appears to favor Zynga more than other game developer, including through an unusual growth-target agreement, those two companies seem to be just about joined at the hip. Developers of Facebook games might logically conclude that there’s no hope for them to compete with Zynga. They might instead focus on Google+, which is expected to support games in the future and is currently virgin territory.

“It’s an outrage,” said an executive at one Facebook game developer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, at last week’s Casual Connect game conference in Seattle, where the Facebook-Zynga deal (and a filing Zynga made with the Securities and Exchange Commission describing the deal) was the subject of much conversation. “It means we can’t move to Google+ soon enough.”

Dan Rose, vice president of partnerships and platform marketing at Facebook, acknowledges that some developers are upset and that his company is restricted about saying everything because of the IPO quiet period. But he insists that Facebook isn’t playing favorites, contrary to rumors of kickbacks or some special favoritism in exchange for Zynga’s adoption of Facebook Credits.

“It’s actually a level playing field,” Rose said in an interview. “Everybody on the platform is playing by the same rules, whether that is from an economic perspective or a distribution perspective.”

Trip Hawkins, chief executive of Digital Chocolate, which makes both mobile and Facebook games, was the only CEO willing to go on the record for this story. Hawkins described platform holders as “feudal lords” in a recent talk at our GamesBeat 2011 conference.

“We all knew Zynga had contractual advantages, but the extent of it makes Facebook a tough platform for everyone else,” Hawkins said. “Policy changes have made revenue and margins more challenging this year, so it is a bitter pill for all of us to find out that the market is neither competitive nor fair.  Their relationship could not be more complicated.  It’s like a bad marriage that is staying together for the money.  You don’t get the feeling that either side really feels happy or free.  Ironically, they could both use more real friends.”

Other Facebook partners are not satisfied with what they have heard so far. A different chief executive at a Facebook game company, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “The bottom line is those two need each other and Zynga got a preferred deal. It sucks for other developers. We have long-lived in a world where the playing field wasn’t fair. We knew that for a long time, and this doesn’t change anything. It’s annoying. We would very much like to participate in Google+.”

And still another chief executive at a Facebook game company said, “I fully expected they had a sweetheart deal from the beginning in order to get Facebook Credits to take off. They needed the biggest player to support it. Where it gets shady is where Facebook gives them growth targets. That makes me sick.”

The executives spoke with VentureBeat but didn’t want their names published in order to protect their business relationships with Facebook. That’s an indication of how little leverage these developers have, and how important Facebook remains to them. They might also one day be acquisition targets for Zynga.

“I think the tight relationship is positive for Facebook and Zynga, but places other game developers at a disadvantage,” said Lou Kerner, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, who has also spoken with developers about the deal. “All else being equal, other developers will seek out opportunities that offer a more level playing field. The agreement is counter to what Facebook has been saying about how it’s an equal platform for all.”

In conversations with game developers, Facebook is trying to calm developers down and explain that it really doesn’t favor Zynga in a way that is unfair to the rest of the development community. There were, in fact, times when Zynga hated the Facebook-Zynga relationship. A year ago, Zynga’s chief executive Mark Pincus told employees that Zynga planned to expand beyond Facebook and start its own Zynga Live web site as a portal for its own social games. That never happened because Facebook cut the deal on Facebook Credits with Zynga.

Zynga already has enormous advantages over other developers on Facebook, with more than 264 million monthly active users on the social network, more than the top 15 other game companies combined.

But what’s really making developers angry is a new disclosure by Zynga filed with the SEC, which shows that Zynga gets benefits that apparently no other game company gets. In the filing, Zynga said that it received a special deal when it agreed to support Facebook Credits, a new virtual currency from Facebook, a year ago. In that deal, Zynga agreed to give 30 percent of its virtual goods game revenues to Facebook, the standard fee for using Facebook Credits.

In exchange, Facebook agreed to help Zynga hit growth targets for its games. Facebook did not, as initially reported, agree to kick back revenue to Zynga from ads placed by Facebook alongside Zynga games on Facebook. Facebook said there was a deal to share ad revenue with Zynga if it chose to move its Facebook games off of Facebook, but that ad deal never kicked in, according to a statement by Facebook. The 30 percent fee is what every developer pays, and Facebook told developers that everyone was treated the same.

But other developers were upset about Facebook’s support of Zynga’s growth targets. Facebook reportedly (in a redacted section) promises growth by the end of the five-year agreement, according to a source familiar with the agreement. Those developers said they specifically asked Facebook last year if Zynga was getting a special deal when it signed up for Facebook Credits, and they were told there was no such deal. But the developers said there were no growth targets in their own agreements about Facebook Credits.

“Were developers misled?” said another source from a social-game maker. “The unequivocal answer is yes. In meetings with us, they told us there was nothing to the agreement that was not available to other leading social game developers. That’s patently not true. We look at the agreement and it does not allow a level playing field.”

From Facebook’s point of view, it is easy to see why the company entered into a special deal with Zynga. A year ago, there was a lot of resistance to Facebook Credits. Facebook charges a 30-percent transaction fee, whereas other virtual currency providers take as little as 10 percent. It amounts to a huge tax increase for developers doing business on Facebook. Facebook planned to make the virtual currency mandatory, but it needed to work out the kinks in the system with real-world trades. Zynga was prepared to expand its games off Facebook to its own portal, Zynga Live, and move to other platforms as quickly as possible. At the time, that was pretty alarming to Facebook.

So Facebook cut a deal to get Zynga on board. That deal was similar to other deals that console makers have made to get crucial support for their platforms, for instance when Sony was able to convince RockStar Games/Take-Two Interactive to publish Grand Theft Auto games exclusively on the PlayStation 2 console. Facebook’s position was that it would increase its overall support for the game ecosystem, but it would not arbitrarily help Zynga’s own games grow faster.

But for the smaller developers on Facebook, the Zynga-Facebook deal is a sign that Facebook isn’t being fair to all comers.

From Facebook’s point of view, the favoritism isn’t as bad as what some platform owners have done in the past. Console makers, for instance, typically have their own first-party (in-house) game studios that get access to information about a new console far earlier than third-party developers. That allows the first-party game makers to get a head start. Facebook has no such first-party studios.

Also, Zynga and other early adopters of Facebook Credits — CrowdStar, RockYou and Electronic Arts — had to start paying the 30-percent royalty to Facebook earlier than other developers, simply because they started using Facebook Credits earlier.

Zynga also had a major restriction. If Zynga hit its growth targets with Facebook, then Zynga’s games had to stay exclusive on Facebook. From that perspective, that part of the agreement may return to haunt Zynga. Now that Google+ is a viable platform, Zynga may want to extend its games there. But Zynga can’t just take the exact same game and move it over now, due to its contract with Facebook. Paradoxically, the lack of a special Facebook deal will give other game developers more flexibility to pursue Google+ games.

Rose at Facebook said, “Our focus is to grow traffic for games on Facebook. And the developers who build good games will benefit from the products we launch that are designed to grow distribution. That’s the way we run the platform. That is how we grow the platform generally. The best games will benefit the most because those are the games our users will want to play. We don’t apply the distribution mechanisms of the platform from one developer to the next in any way. The largest developers on our platform down to the smalllest developers on our platform operate on the same distribution rules. There are two ways to achieve a growth target. One way is to single out a developer and grow their traffic. Another way is to grow the entire platform and assume the developer that makes good games will grow with the platform. Our approach with any single developer is the latter, period.”

Developers aren’t necessarily buying that. It didn’t help that some sections of the Facebook-Zynga agreement were heavily redacted in the SEC filing, fueling more rumors that there were other special deals in place. In fact, in section 8.3 of the document, the agreement states the fee that Zynga has to pay to Facebook for the use of Facebook Credits. That section doesn’t say 30 percent. Rather, the actual fee is redacted. The SEC document also has a chart of the schedule for growth targets, but the numbers in the schedule are redacted. (Facebook says it said publicly in January that every developer pays the same 30 percent fee per transaction for using Facebook Credits, and that is still true now).

Developers have also heard rumors of other examples of favoritism. Zynga, for instance was reportedly allowed to issue more invitations to gamers to join a social game than other developers were allowed to send, according to one executive at a Facebook game developer. But Facebook’s policy on invites depends on whether the users embrace or reject the invitations. If users reject more invitations from a certain game, then the number of invites that game can send will be reduced, according to conversations that game companies had with Facebook.

Officially, Facebook says it supports the idea of more game companies and games on its social network. Sean Ryan, head of game developer relations at Facebook, said in a speech last week at Casual Connect that there are plenty of opportunities for game developers to make social network games in genres that aren’t crowded. While Zynga has a lock on city and farm simulation games, there are still plenty of opportunities in areas such as role-playing games, hidden object games and casino games, Ryan said. Facebook continues to invest heavily in its game ecosystem and will continue to offer new features for game companies in the future, Ryan said.

Ryan also said there were 376 games with more than 100,000 monthly active users and 80 games with more than 1 million monthly active users.

Google, as we noted in our other Google+ story today, has yet to come up with an applications programming interface, or API, which sets the rules on how to create a game that sits on top of Google+. Google would be smart to create a smaller royalty — perhaps 20 percent or lower (as is rumored) — to attract game developers who don’t want to share 30 percent of their revenues obtained via Facebook Credits.

“On Zynga-Facebook and how that impacts Google+, any substantial social platform without an established games ecosystem offers opportunities for new entrants,” said Tim Merel, managing director at game-focused investment bank Digi-Capital. “These must be offset against the risks of it being a new social platform. All the established games companies, particularly strong social players like Zynga, Wooga, Crowdstar, Playfish, Playdom and others should also be considering how to play the Google+ market.”

Hawkins said, “Google is a major force in the industry and could drive important innovations with Google+.  When there are alternatives and different approaches it makes things more competitive and keeps everyone on their toes.  These new industries are still in the first inning, so much remains to be decided.  Every major participant has great opportunity and will make many good moves, and also bad ones from which they will need to retreat or recover.  Whoever goes down their learning curve with a humble attitude will adapt fastest and be likely to win.”

Already evident from the trend at Casual Connect and our recent GamesBeat 2011 conference is the fact that many social game developers are moving into mobile, where the battle for market share is still wide open, since there is no dominant company. But they’re also looking around for any other platform that can give them large numbers of users.

“We’d love to move to Google+, but the only problem is that there isn’t anything to move to yet, and they will have a smaller audience for games than Facebook for a long time to come,” said one Facebook game developer CEO.

Courtesy Dean Takahashi

Entrepreneur vs Business Owner

Hello World!

This is my first blog and i would like it to be as good as possible. Therefore, am not posting here something that i have written but bringing a post from wonderful blogger & Entrepreneur Jun Loayza. Lets start reading it!

What is that 1 special quality that allows one entrepreneur to succeed over another?  Is it hustle, determination, persistence, leadership, or luck?  I have seen many startup teams who have received funding fail because they weren’t able to reach critical mass and ran out of cash.  I have seen many entrepreneurs fail because they had an entrepreneurial seizure and started a company without actually knowing what they were getting themselves into.

If you want to give yourself the best chance at succeeding in the startup roller coaster, then you need to come mentally prepared.  You need to know the edge that a successful entrepreneur has over a Business Owner.  You need to know what kind of entrepreneur you are.

The edge is the Entrepreneurial Mindset.  A successful entrepreneur builds systems and works ON his company, while a business owner works IN his company.  Lets dive into the two different mindsets to examine why the Entrepreneur has the superior mindset.

The Business Owner Mindset

Example: Tony, the SEO professional, excels at his job and works at a large SEO firm

Tony likes his job, is great at what he does, and gets paid a decent $65K salary.  Though he likes his job, he doesn’t like his boss because the boss makes Tony work long hours without getting paid extra.  Fed up with the long hours and the boss taking all the credit for Tony’s hard work, Tony decides to leave his job and start his own SEO company.

Tony’s thinking: “I’ll just start my own company, hire employees, and pay myself much more money than I was ever paid at my old company.”

Tony quickly brings over 5 clients from his previous company and picks up 5 more clients through his connections for a total of 10 clients.  He also hires 2 SEO professionals to join his company and trains them to do client work.  Tony does well for the first couple of months, but then unexpected problems begin to arise:

  • A client is late on a payment so Tony has to personally call the client to handle the situation
  • Tony conducts all of the sales calls because he doesn’t trust his team to sell the services on their own
  • Tony hires more team members, but doesn’t have the time to train them all properly
  • Tony spends time doing all of the logistical work like finances, setting up meetings, and human resources tasks
  • Tony hires more people but has to micromanage all of them because they don’t know what to do on a daily basis
  • Tony has to show up to work everyday to make sure people are doing what they need to do

Though Tony owns his own company, he is no better off than he was at his previous job; in fact, I would argue that Tony is worse off because he is working harder and working more hours and has less time for personal enjoyment.  Tony has become a SLAVE to his business.

The Problem with the Business Owner Mindset

The problem with the Business Owner Mindset is NOT the long hours or the hard work; on the contrary, the Entrepreneur will spend just as many hours working ON his company as the Small Business Owner spends working IN his company.  The following are the key differences between the two mindsets:

  • The Entrepreneur works smarter; The Small Business Owner works harder
  • The Entrepreneur builds systems; The Small Business Owner hires more people
  • The Entrepreneur removes himself from the day-to-day tasks; The Small Business Owner micromanages
  • The Entrepreneur spends time hiring the right people; The Small Business Owner feels that he’s the only one who can do the job the right way
  • The Entrepreneur understands that TIME is the most valuable possession; The Small Business Owner believes that MONEY is the most valuable possession

The Entrepreneur’s Mindset

Example: Same example and set up as the one above

Tony picks up 1 client that will allow him to sustain life for a period of one month.  During this period, Tony focuses on developing systems and processes that will allow him to scale his company and remove himself from day-to-day tasks.  By establishing the systems from the very beginning, Tony ensures that all future employees will become indoctrinated in the system-focused culture.  Here are some systems that Tony focuses on:

  • System for hiring and training employees
  • System for sales
  • System for project management
  • and many other systems that are specific to a company

Once the systems for project management are in place, Tony hires a project management team to do the client work.  This allows Tony to focus on sales and bring in more clients.  Once the systems for sales are in place, Tony hires a sales team and removes himself from all future sales calls.  And so on and so forth…

Just because you start your own company, it does NOT make you an entrepreneur.

Even though you may not own your own company, you CAN still have the entrepreneurial mindset.

It is very important to bring in sales and make money. However, I feel it’s more important to establish systems that will allow you to automate many aspects of your company.

I would rather make $50K/year and work 10 hours per week than make $100K/year and work 60 hours/week.

Entrepreneurship is not a career; it’s a lifestyle!

Courtesy Jun Loayza