Author Archive for Gene Hoffman

What Does “Build Online Revenue” Mean Exactly?

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011

For a few years, Vindicia’s tagline has been sitting a quiet sentry duty. People read it, but it seems to me to be something they absorb without thinking – like those photos with surprise objects in them that everyone looks past. I wanted to stop a moment, take a step back, and explain what Build Online Revenue really means.

First, there is a very tactical answer to that question. Vindicia, since inception and even before we launched CashBox in 2008, was about creating a platform to enable digital merchants to increase their revenues. CashBox extends customer lives while bringing tools and efficiency to our client’s marketing team tasked with expanding the paying freemium or subscriber base.  We do this with our SaaS solution in conjunction with industry best practices.

At my previous company, I personally experienced how hard it was to manage through channel conflict, as physical became digital, while simultaneously dealing with piracy. Delivering software services that delight and allowing business teams to experiment is an essential part of what Vindicia brings to life. We continue to build on the ability to leverage data, both a client’s and our entire network of 120 million accounts and 80 million unique credit cards, to help clients explore the non intuitive world that involves marketing digital services directly to end users.

But there is something larger that Build Online Revenue means. It is an attempt to capture a conviction. I cut my teeth in a world surrounded by pundits exclaiming, “everything is going to be free, man!” Even the wizened opined that the only way to build successful internet businesses were to capture as many users as fast as you possibly could, getting paid be damned.

I don’t believe that. I believe that the advertising model has its place, but it isn’t the way the great intellectual works of human history get created. The services that will be critical to us, that will move us, that will inspire us and allow us to create – they’re going to cost money because they are worth every penny – even more than their public price. Vindicia wants to be the mechanism through which the next wave of digital creation creates wealth.

Vindicia wants to help the entire world Build Online Revenue.

Hosting Nexus in Texas

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

It’s always been a bit of a grey area about whether simply hosting servers in Texas exposed an online business to the obligations to collect sales and use tax for Texas residents. A recently enacted law that took effect in July aimed to clarify that if you’re only buying/renting software and hosting services from an internet provider in Texas and don’t have other classic components of nexus, then you have no tax obligation. This was passed to keep people like RackSpace and content delivery networks (CDNs) who host in Texas competitive. However, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts was out this week reminding online businesses that if they own hardware hosted in Texas, they have nexus.

Pity the digital service provider who has chosen to be PCI compliant on its own and hosts its commerce servers in centrally located and well connected Texas. With not a single Texas-based employee, the company will still have nexus because owning hardware (instead of renting it from, say, RackSpace) is a PCI necessity as the company has to able to destroy drives that have Cardholder Data on them.  As a result, he’ll also have to collect Texas sales tax for his Texas end users.

Did I mention that Texas has probably the most complex sales tax rate structure in the world?

Whose Fraud is That Anyway?

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011

Visa has issued new operating regulations regarding fraud chargebacks that took effect April 16, 2011.  The online regulations were just recently updated. Visa has their take on the changes to the chargeback process available.

In a nutshell, Visa has changed the rules to allow issuing banks to issue so-called “Fraudulent Transactions” chargebacks of reason code 83 without any requirement for documentation to be made available to merchants. Before these changes, issuing an 83 chargeback required the end-user to physically or e-sign a statement that there was fraud on their card, and provide a basic reason about why the charge was fraudulent.  In addition an issuing bank had to provide the cardholder’s name and details on other fraudulent charges that occurred in the same general time frame.  Now issuing banks can present type 83 chargebacks without even disclosing the cardholder name, much less the rest of the information that traditionally had been provided.

One might think, “these are just fraudulent charges so isn’t this more efficient?”  Historically, 60% of the chargebacks that digital services companies receive are in reason code 83. Over the two years prior to April 2011, we’ve generally found the need to dispute between 28% and 33% of reason code 83 chargebacks and we’ve won between 60% and 63% of the ones we fought depending on vertical. What that means is that “friendly fraud” in chargebacks marked with reason code 83 make up at least 11% of the volume of all chargebacks received by digital companies.  Since the average chargeback value is typically twice the average ticket of a digital merchant, we’re talking about issuing banks taking 0.2% of all digital services revenue and pocketing it by allowing their cardholders to get away with theft.

Of course those statistics were in a soon to be bygone era where merchants and Vindicia could hold issuers accountable. When the business imperative for the issuing bank is to retain the cardholder while they are talking with them on the phone, it should surprise no one that issuers will route many more chargebacks into reason code 83. With no accountability, they’ll be able to make their cardholder happy by allowing them to steal a digital service while extracting the cash from the merchant’s pocket and adding the additional insult of a chargeback fee!  Everyone but the digital leader wins.

We’re frankly not happy about this turn of events and think that it violates some fundamental rules of law. Stay tuned as we hope to be able to create some more fairness and accountability on behalf of our digital merchants.

The Guardian Changing Media Summit

Friday, March 18th, 2011

Next week Vindicia will be participating in the Guardian Changing Media Summit in London. We’re very excited about debating and sharing ideas on how media, content, broadcast and game publishers of all stripes can navigate the transition to digital business models.  As yesterday’s New York Times pricing announcement reveals, it’s still an open question as to what the right model should be to achieve what every media company cares about:  long-term customer loyalty.  Should it really cost more to get the standalone digital version versus the digital and print bundle? I’ve schlepped enough newsprint to the recycling bin…

Both my session and that of my colleague, Sanjay Sarathy, will focus on a variety of issues that our clients regularly face, including those related to business model decisions, the impact on customer retention, the context of demographics, and much more.  A recent online video provides some additional color on my views related to this area and while experimentation will undoubtedly continue, our existing clients like Boxee, Mind Candy, and Next Issue Media are proving the thesis that media companies who think about themselves as offering a service rather than just a paywall to content will be the ones who remain the digital leaders of tomorrow.

Think Different

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

Think Different seems to be the message emanating from the would be internet gatekeepers last week. Think your subscription service could be profitable – well, Think Different!

Apple, in requiring “mandatory 30% subscription cut” plans on the App Store have bitten off more than they can chew. Not only is the basic concept economically impossible for many media and content providers, it looks to drastically cut into the value of the iPad. Two of the most compelling applications on my iPad are Netflix and Kindle. Should both of these services be forced out of the App Store, I question whether I should move to the Android platform. I saw value in the iPad if it saved me buying a ebook reader and another television screen, but if those high value content sources can’t economically be available to me as an end user, the iPad starts to become an expensive third screen that my MacBook Air or Netbook outperforms (with no 30% blocker for Netflix and Amazon!) Late breaking word is that Mr. Jobs himself says that the 30% requirement doesn’t apply to SaaS, but that still leaves a lot of gray area in the content sector. Is Netflix SaaS and if it is, why isn’t a Kindle eBook exempt too but maybe Amazon is a publisher? Are only Magazine and Newspaper guys forced to Think Different?

That leads me to Google’s foray. Both services are talking about sharing customer data with content and service providers but if you look at the fine print all that’s shared is name, email, and address. Apple iTunes and Google Checkout maintain firm control over the customer as they retain the ability to bill the end user in the future and in Google’s case, actually control the user’s login and password credentials. Digital providers are left in the embarrassing world of having to beg their existing and probably already paying customers for payment details or a new login should Apple or Google decide they don’t approve of some future service direction. Today those disapprovals are folks like Playboy and European news magazines (OMG! women without shirts!) but what if your service violates some other new found sensibility of these companies. Google has surprisingly wide limitations on what you can sell with Checkout.  Make sure you don’t slander the Queen…

Google One Pass also highlights another issue that publishers need to be very aware of. One Pass takes the current news paradigm and simply attempts to assign a paywall to someone who views more than a few articles. Metering content is a painful business model that almost always migrates to flat rate subscriptions. However, in this case, the news business is only beginning to come to the realization that it needs to be thinking about its value to readers as a productized service instead of simply content to consume. I’ve long said that the news business incorrectly focused on news.google.com as a competitor when they should have focused on Google Reader. Those that add value to the news consuming experience beyond simply supplying the news will create sustainable future “news-as-a-service” offerings. One Pass remains in an old paradigm that forces people to keep asking themselves if they’re getting real value out of that next web page instead of whether their “news-as-a-service” program entertains and informs.

Serious Digital Leaders have to own their customer relationship. The shift to subscription is driven by the perceived drop in value of a digital version versus a physical version. Lowering the perceived average selling price by using subscriptions can succeed only because digital content and services can rely on the much longer average customer lifetime values that can be had in the switch to services. Handing control over the annuity stream profit (and much of the annuity in Apple’s case) is giving your business to a hardware company or a search engine. Maybe they’ll send you a nice T-shirt or an iPad for your trouble…