Subscribe

Managed Video as a Service

The place to learn about and discuss Managed Video as a Service

Browsing in Uncategorized

Can you change your DNA?  This isn’t a riddle with some clever twist to it – the answer to this question will vary from company to company.  Some companies will be able to and others won’t.

 

If you look back at my prior post on this topic, I suggested that a company’s DNA was comprised of a number of things: people, process, language, values.  All of these can be changed – you can bring in new people, you can change your processes, you can use different language, you can even change your values (although this one probably requires changing people too)  So if you can change all of these things, clearly you must be able to change your DNA.

 

While it is definitely possible, actually pulling it off is a bit more complicated.  As an analogy, take the life-long smoker that wants to stop smoking.  It should be easy, right?  All you have to do is stop.  There is a great new TV ad campaign from www.BecomeanEx.org (I can’t find a clip – let me know if you can and I’ll add it here)  that highlights several of the challenges of changing your DNA.  If you haven’t seen any of the ads, the basic premise is that to quit smoking you have to relearn how you do even the most basic of things without having a cigarette.  The ads show a man struggling to get ready in the morning – he can’t figure out how to brush his teeth or put his pants on, he cracks an egg on the stove with no pan.  There is another one of a woman who can’t figure out how to get in her car – she ends up climbing through the back window and crawling over the seats rather than simply opening up the front door.

 

So how is changing your DNA like quitting smoking?

Check out this link to a news story about some thugs who use ‘thong’ underwear as their disguise in a robbery.  Their actions were filmed on video and have been shared with law enforcement.

     Thong bandits

If this was filmed using MVaaS, which provides you the ability to save clips, what do you name the saved file?  Thong?  Darwin Award Contenders?

In any event, I can think of quite a few clever but inappropriate comments.  I will only add that this is truly a sad day for pantyhose manufacturers…

By now you’ve had ample time to find the market capitalization for both General Motors and Salesforce.com.  Where you surprised?

As of this morning, GM’s market capitalization is approximately $9.8 billion (GM analytics).  Salesforce.com, by comparison, is $8.6 billion (Salesforce.com analytics).  Note that since market cap. is based on the current share price, the values may fluctuate second to second.

GM has a slightly higher market capitalization.  The reason that I asked if you were surprised is the manner in which I presented the information.  I was seemingly leading you to the “surprising” conclusion that Salesforce.com is larger.  But this is not the case – at least not yet.

What is most interesting to me is not that the two company’s have very similar values.  I developed the concept for the series of posts after researching Salesforce.com for the MVaaS business for which I work (Envysion).  Why not understand how the best are doing it?  And it is here that I learned of their impressive valuation.

Rather, I am most taken by the fact that few are shocked by this comparison in the first place.  Is anyone really startled by the parity?  The market places a high premium on technical solutions that they perceive are positioned to drive long-term growth.  SaaS companies, like Salesforce.com, are benefitting from this positoning.  MVaaS companies should benefit as well.

I have now employed several measurement techniques to answer our question.  But I am surely missing something important.  Isn’t there a more appropriate measurement of enterprise size than those presented?

Of course there is, and it is called market capitalization (Salute to Dan Caruso for answering correctly in the comments section).  Calculated as the share price times the number of shares outstanding, market capitalization is the measure of economic value that is placed on an enterprise by investors.

Now that this settled, care to guess who has a larger market capitalization, GM or Salesforce.com. . .

Yesterday I linked to two recent earnings releases, and asked the question – Who’s bigger?

If you answered “it depends”, you were correct.  It is not possible to answer this question without knowing the basis of comparison.

Should the size of an enterprise be based on reveneues?  How about profits?  Total assets?  Number of employees?  

In the first quarter of 2008, GM recorded $42.7 billion (with a “b”) in revenues.  Salesforce.com recognized only $248 million in their first quarter.  GM has 266,000 employees worldwide.  Salesforce.com is still under 3,000.  GM has nearly $149 billion in total assets.  Salesforce, on the other hand, has only $1.1 billion.*

GM is clearly the larger company, right?

But what about profitability?  GM has been posting recent losses, including a $3.3 billion first quarter loss.  Salesforce.com posted $18.4 million in income in their first quarter.*

So, Salesforce.com is the winner, right?

But haven’t I missed another important measure?

 

* Data sourced from either the earnings releases or annual SEC filings.

It is interesting to see how we culturally and socially react and adapt to technological changes, especially those that affect our everyday lives, even if in indirect ways.

Here’s an interesting use of video surveillance… I found this interesting tidbit on slashdot about an unusual method a band used to make a music video.

On May 21, 2008, Saleforce.com released its fiscal first quarter results.  A link to the news release is attached.

http://www.salesforce.com/company/news-press/press-releases/2008/05/080521.jsp

About three weeks prior, General Motors released its first quarter results.

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/earnings/index.jsp

Stating the obvious, these are two very different companies.  Salesforce.com develops and markets on demand application services, which includes Software-as-a-Service and Platform-as-a-Service solutions.  General Motors, on the other hand, develops, produces and markets cars, trucks and parts worldwide. 

About the only thing they have in common is that they were founded or came to prominance at the turn of ”a” century. 

Ever thought about which company is bigger?

In a previous post, I made the statement that there are three paths a customer can take when trying to deploy video throughout their company: Build, Buy or Subscribe.  The question is, what would drive a customer to choose one of these paths over the others.

In this post, I’ll give you my take on why a company would choose to build their own video solution, buying their own cameras, intalling their own service and maybe even building their own DVRs.

From my experience in the marketplace over the past few years, there are a couple of different cases where customes have decided to build it themselves.  If you fit one of these cases, maybe you should consider building a video system yourself.

You aren’t going to use it. You may think I’m being snide, but I’m not.  If you don’t plan on actually using your video system and you are really only looking to put up cameras as an insurance policy in case something terrible happens, then you can probably get by with a homegrown, quick and dirty system.  Go buy a couple cameras from Best Buy or another electronics store, use your existing PC and find some IP camera software somewhere, hang the cameras, pull the cable and you are good to go.  You get the added benefit of potentially detering bad activiity by having the cameras up there at all.  Since you are never really using the system you don’t care about remote access, about ease of use, about features or return on investment (because you know you won’t get one)  It is only an insurance policy and you are good with that.  Just make sure it is on all the time (See Michael Wilson’s post on checking the children)

You REALLY love technology.  This is a case that fortunately I’ve only encountered twice in my tenure in the industry.  I say fortunately b/c in my opinion this type of customer is not motivated by economics or logic as much as they have an emotional or philosophical bias to own that a service provider will struggle to change.  The clearest example of this was a well-known trendy hamburger franchise that put out an RFP for a video system for a couple hundred sites.  We were pretty excited about the opportunity until it became clear what they were doing.  They had scoped out the highest end system I had seen.  They wanted to buy everything themselves (high end Dell servers for the DVRs, top of the line Axis IP cameras, crazy amounts of storage, the whole 9 yards)  Normally I would say that all of this is a good thing for a MVaaS provider, as the value we provide is in the software and the network, not the equipment.  Unfortunately, in this case they had spent so much on this expensive gear that they had only a few hundred dollars per site left in their budget for the software.  They couldn’t find a software provider willing to provide them service with those economics so I believe they built something on their own.  (Side note: I’m not an audiophile, but this seems to me like buying the highest end speakers available and then plugging them into a do-it-yourself ham radio).  You don’t see a lot of these folks around b/c you have to have a lot of extra cash and the IT group has to have an incredible amount of discretion and control (not to mention resources) to be able to pull this off.

You have a need the market can’t address.  This sounds reasonable in theory, if the market can’t provide the functionality you think you need – just figure it out yourself and develop a solution that fits your exact needs.  Having said that, I would argue that only a few companies have the capability to actually do this.  You have to have a lot of resources and expertise to build new capabilities.  The only companies I’ve seen fit this even a little bit were really working with a service provider to get them to customize the providers solution to fit unique requirements, not really building it themselves from scratch.

If you can think of other reasons why a company should want to build their own solution, let me know.

Have you given yesterday’s post some thought?  What possible connection am I making between this film and managed video?

Should parents have cameras installed in their children’s bedrooms, made viewable from their favorite restaurant?  Should a public view monitor be made available to all babysitters so they can monitor the well-being of children in real-time?

This is not what I had in mind…although perhaps there is a niche here to fill for some video provider…

The connection I was suggesting has to do with the essence of the babysitter’s situation.  The caller exploited the babysitter’s vulnerability – namely the fear of the unknown.  This is not an indictment of the babysitter, but rather a reality of the situation.  She did not know how the children were at that moment because she hadn’t recently checked.  The children were sleeping upstairs.  She assumed that they were safe.  Only when the caller called did she realize that she and the children were not safe. 

An interesting question arises – Had the caller not phoned to taunt her, how long would she have gone before realizing the danger?

Customers of traditional DVR and VHS video systems must deal with a similar reality.  As long as nothing happens, why worry about whether all of their video systems are operational?  Assume everything is fine, right?  It is only when something happens that they find themselves hoping that their systems were operational. 

Traditional CCTV customers have reported that as many as 50% of their traditional video systems were not fully functional when they did an audit – rendering their investment useless.

A key element of Managed Video as a Service is the ability to monitor the status of all cameras and recorders in real-time, with proactive system notifications alerting the customers of any issues.  When the proverbial caller calls, customers of MVaaS know in advance that their systems are working.  This is something that Jill Johnson could have used.

In the 1979 version of When a Stranger Calls, babysitter Jill Johnson (played to perfection by Carol Kane) is repeatedly called by a person whom she does not know. The caller, in a calm and deliberate manner, continues to ask her “Have you checked the children?” Obviously concerned by the harassment, Jill Johnson calls the police for help. Who wouldn’t?

For those of you who have not seen the film, you may view the climax of the scene below. Great seventies film-making!

What you may not know is where this post is heading. What does this have to do with Managed Video? Any guesses?

When a Stranger Calls

Page 13 of 14« First...34567891011121314