As a New York pizza snob, it’s not easy for me to complement Domino’s. However, I love this idea. The question is: can they properly execute? Here are some thoughts:

First, timely pizza ads work – or at least they work on me. I can easily be coaxed into an impulse pizza purchase when either sitting down to a movie or sporting event. With this in mind, one opportunity is careful placement of the ads alongside targeted pay-per-view, on-demand or pre-recorded movies/shows. Perhaps a Domino’s link should appear just as a viewer is sitting down to catch up on past recorded episodes of Entourage, or even at 1PM on Sunday just as the NFL week is kicking off. Relying heavily on passive means, such as waiting for a normal Domino’s TV spot to appear, would be a mistake when more aggressive methods are available. Sound annoying to the Tivo user? Allow them to suppress certain overly aggressive ads.

Second, the biggest hurdle is inevitably going to be a person’s skepticism as to whether ordering a pizza via his or her television will really work. Seeing is believing, so I’d recommend heavy discounts for first time orders. Maybe Domino’s and Tivo can borrow a page from the TrialPay playbook and offer something mutually beneficial for conversion, such as subsidies for on-demand movies in exchange for pizza purchases or vice versa. The options are plentiful, but something needs to be in place to create an incentive towards this new behavior.

Who knew pizza would be the next frontier in on-demand technology?

When I wrote in on this topic in August, I was optimistic that cloud computing was the wave of the future for enterprise applications, but I questioned whether mainstreaming would occur anytime soon. Azure will certainly accelerate that timeline. And even though Azure is an obvious reaction to Google Apps, I like Microsoft’s chances. Microsoft enjoys a virtual stranglehold on the industry with their Office suite, and it will be a long, expensive and arduous process for any company to surmount the monopoly. Furthermore, Google Apps is yet to impress. Although Google is synonymous with innovation, they did a poor job of building products to truly compete with Microsoft Office. For example, their spreadsheet program lacks critical functionality for power users. Finally, the day is still far away from when large companies move to a pure cloud computing environment. Microsoft already has the locally installed Office to ease that transition, and in fact may bolster functionality due to compatibility between Azure and Office.

Whoever wins, the end result of this race between Google and Microsoft should drastically benefit the end user. It’s been too long since Office has had a legitimate heir to its throne, and Google Apps has clearly lit the flame under Microsoft’s you-know-what.

In a change of heart from last month where I negatively reviewed SanDisk’s new digital music media, Lala.com is living proof that the music industry has hope. Their secret: lure you in for free and keep you there for cheap. The way LaLa works is the following: users may listen to any song one time for free from their library of over 6 million. If they wish, they can then pay 10 cents for unlimited streaming use of the song while online – this is called a “web song”. And then for an additional 79 cents, users can download an offline, DRM-free version of the song for their mp3 player of choice. Better yet, LaLa seamlessly integrates with iTunes, where the song is instantly delivered to the user’s music library.

It costs 89 cents to physically own a song via LaLa versus 99 cents via iTunes. But the slight price difference isn’t the kicker – instead it’s the 10 cent web song that is the real innovation. At a dime a pop, illegal downloading may finally have some competition. Of course 10 cents is no reason for record labels to jump for joy, but when you consider the fact that over half of today’s music downloads are illegal, it’s a sound stopgap measure. Furthermore, it’s a gateway to the incremental 79 cent purchase for outright ownership – a 20% improvement over perceivably overpriced iTunes when you consider the first 10 cent payment a sunk cost.

LaLa will not solve all that ails the music business, but it certainly has captured a creative revenue model to compete with iTunes’ number one download platform. Furthermore, as wireless internet becomes ubiquitous, online streaming music may render today’s mp3 storage devices (e.g. classic iPods) obsolete. If and when this disruption takes place, new entrants such as LaLa will be ready to step into the shoes of current mp3 retailers, rekindling the hopes of a quickly fading industry.

What I found more interesting about the article though is that MySpace’s number one competitor, Facebook, is struggling to monetize their ads (~$300 million expected revenue) even though they have surpassed MySpace in terms of traffic. So what’s the problem?

Ad Content
I am not a user of MySpace, so I can’t comment on the firsthand effectiveness of their advertisements. But I imagine their ads are better than the ones I’m currently staring at on my Facebook profile, which include “Straight Teeth, No Braces” and “$99 Dental Whitening”. My dental hygiene is just fine, thank you. And furthermore, where are they getting the impression that I need dental work? Nothing in my profile, which is fairly rich with data once you take into account my network of friends, suggests I need help with my teeth. On a refresh of the page, I see “NYC Bars That Don’t Suck”. New York is listed as the current city in my profile, so I give them partial credit for picking up on that basic fact. I’m still not clicking.

“Growth is primary, revenue is secondary.”
I found that quote in FAZ.net’s recent interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Of course growth is important, but why deemphasize the importance of revenue? Growing one’s customer base to reach critical mass is top priority for fledgling startups, but Facebook is a mature platform capable of churning out big dollars. Furthermore, domestic U.S. growth is on auto-pilot for Facebook. I only became a member of the site very recently, and it certainly had nothing to do with the company’s marketing efforts. I simply found that so many people I associate with were on Facebook that it didn’t make sense NOT to join. When your network alone fuels growth, it’s time to cash in.

I like Facebook’s technology and I’ve spent plenty of time building my network, so I have vested interest in seeing them succeed. However, I’m not impressed by the company’s cocky attitude towards making money. Revenue, not traffic, will determine the company’s sustainability – a truth that is becoming even clearer in today’s challenged economy. MySpace understands this point, and they’ve got much deeper pockets to begin with due to their parent company, News Corp.

Traffic is good. Money is better.

Now with what’s happening in the market, risk has become a relative term. When I graduated Columbia Business School, I went the small company route instead of joining a McKinsey or Goldman Sachs. This is not exactly unheard of for a Columbia MBA, but certainly not the popular option given 1) the MBA price tag and 2) the school’s proximity to high-paying finance jobs. Fast forward a few years: of my four closest friends from business school, two of them have already been laid off, with a third waiting in the wings. Without mentioning company names, my friends’ employers were large financial and real estate institutions with much lower perceived risk profiles than that of my small business employer of choice.

The entrepreneurial life is not for everybody, but the element of risk in one’s decision-making is overrated. The recent downturn drives home that point. If you have an idea, and you can somehow secure adequate seed funding to provide decent runway, your job security is actually better than if you work at a large financial services company. That’s right - it can actually be safer to control your own destiny with the benefit of limitless upside versus the alternative where you simply collect your paycheck and consider yourself lucky to have one.

Although the market is down and many will lose their jobs, I am encouraged by the fact that many talented people will recognize opportunities in self-employment. Funding standards will be more stringent than they have been in recent years (see Benchmark Capital’s memo to startups), but I am cautiously optimistic that this downturn will spur positive innovation.

Entrepreneur wannabes: don’t be a victim of the downturn. If you lose your job, see it as an opportunity to do what you wanted to do for years, but haven’t had the guts to do under the security of a salary. Otherwise you may find yourself repeating this vicious cycle numerous times in the future.

Is the plan too ambitious? I believe it is on two major fronts:

1. By 2030, the U.S. will produce exactly 0% of its electricity burning coal and oil.
It’s not en vogue to criticize green energy, and I for one, don’t doubt its potential to transform the future. However, suggesting that our country can be completely free of oil and coal within 22 years when over half our electricity currently comes from those sources is over-ambitious. The only proven power sources that Google sees in the picture in 2030 are hydro and nuclear, and even those outputs are to remain fairly steady in their plan. Instead, Google suggests virtually all oil and coal replacement will come from solar, wind and geothermal. Ignoring nuclear power in the plan is a mistake.

2. Roughly 60% of new car sales in 2030 will be plug-in hybrids, with another 20% being fully electric.
Electric car technology is fairly proven, but infrastructure and profitability remain the issue in the automotive industry. Without government mandates, it’s unthinkable that car companies would follow suit with Google’s goals. Public perception aside, there is no incentive for automobile manufacturers. And a federal mandate will be tough to say the least.

But maybe by focusing on the details, I’m missing the most important point: alternative energy gained an important partner this past week. Google’s brand is built on innovation. When the company speaks on a topic, no matter how outlandish or unrelated to its core business, people listen.

This is neither the first plan nor the last that will attempt to solve this country’s energy challenges. However, it’s refreshing to see the issue move away from politics and self-interested oil companies, and into the hands of a universally respected innovator with the money to weave dreams into reality.

The disruption has already taken place: digital music downloads, whether free or paid for, are where the present and future lie. Consumers are no longer craving physical media – they are quite pleased with just the music that goes straight from the internet into their iPods. Second, and also in-line with iTunes’ offerings, people prefer only to buy the songs they like instead of the entire album - a limitation of any physical media when profit is the ultimate goal. Finally, those individuals who are tech-savvy enough to use their phones as an MP3 player are already getting their music from the internet instead of Walmart.

One aspect of this product that I do applaud is that all slotMusic will be DRM-free. In other words, the record companies have finally realized the public’s demand for unlocked music, allowing consumers to freely copy the music onto other devices.

It’s only a matter of time until record labels realize that DRM-free music is the gateway to the only show in town: digital downloads. Profit margins are dwindling, so perhaps instead of fighting downloads, record labels should lower prices and turn to increased volume as their only viable alternative.

Well according to rumors on ESPN, Chad Johnson has decided to fight back. A report states that he changed his legal last name from Johnson to “Ocho Cinco”, thereby giving him the right to wear his nickname on his uniform. This time he not only trumped the NFL, but also raised the bar for any future professional sports showman (or woman) who craves the spotlight. Regardless of performance (and Johnson, I mean Ocho Cinco, is pretty good at what he does) people like this might not always make the best employees. But they sure make the world a fun place for the rest of us.

Oh yeah – and if the NFL stays mum on this one, it’s because they are more than happy to sell Chad’s new jerseys.

Enter Microsoft, who announced a partnership last week with Rock the Vote that will allow Xbox 360 owners to register to vote, participate in presidential polls and voice their opinions to the presidential candidates. According to the press release, Xbox LIVE is the largest online social network connected to a television with over 12 million users. Sure some of the 12 million users are not Rock the Vote’s target age range, but credit Microsoft (who is not exactly the spokesperson for young America) with seizing an excellent opportunity to expand their brand and push for a good cause at the same time.

The question remains however: is this enough? In my opinion it’s never enough. Republican, Democrat or Independent, the job won’t be complete until 100% of eligible American citizens cast their vote. However, combine this move with the emergence of other online social networks since 2004 such as Facebook (who also has a dedicated Rock the Vote group), and you have the recipe for some potentially interesting voter turnout results in 2008.

And let’s not forget one additional measure of success: maybe Microsoft will sell more Xboxes.

Cloud computing typically refers to the delivery of software applications, data storage or processing power over the internet. In other words, cloud computing enables physical, often burdensome infrastructure surrounding IT to be managed offsite, allowing businesses to better focus their time and resources on core competencies. One simple illustration would be the replacement of a locally installed version of Microsoft Office in favor of Google Docs, which offers web-based word processing, spreadsheet and presentation applications. Currently, Google’s beta version of Docs has no where near the functionality of Microsoft’s software, but you get the idea.

From a small business perspective – an area in which I have plenty of firsthand experience – the advantages of cloud computing are numerous. It’s fast, inexpensive and worry-free. For example, Gmail now offers a corporate e-mail application. For $50 per year per user, a company can experience virtually all the functionality of hosting their own Microsoft Exchange Server without the everyday hassles of upgrading, maintaining and protecting local hardware and software. Each account includes 25 GB of data storage per user, and even the ability to POP messages onto Microsoft Outlook for those who are web-phobic. Furthermore, everything can be up and running in a couple of hours. I’m starting to sound like an advertisement for Google, so I’ll stop short of giving you a link to sign up.

Salesforce.com is another company that has made an entire business out of cloud computing. They offer customer relationship management (CRM) software-as-a-service that competes with the likes of Siebel and many others. With success to the tune of roughly $750 million in revenue in 2008 (51% growth over 2007), it’s easy to claim that cloud computing has arrived in a big way. Salesforce has even been able to leverage their relationships into adjacent service territories including idea management software that was adopted by big name clients, such as Starbucks and Dell. These leaps are made possible by the fact that infrastructure is not a roadblock to expansion.

So if you find yourself wondering why your company still uses Lotus Notes and Microsoft Office, here’s the sobering news. First off, the products are still immature. As I stated earlier, Google Docs is still in beta mode, and trust me – it’s VERY beta. I’m a power user of Excel, and Google’s spreadsheet program hardly scrapes the surface of Excel’s capabilities. Second, companies have concerns around security. My personal belief is that Gmail is probably more secure than any locally hosted mail server. Why? Because just like a car manufacturer makes a business out of making cars, Google makes a business out of securing privacy. The car maker is never going to be better than Google, so why not just let Google (or some other security specialist) handle the tertiary parts of the business? Third, these things don’t happen overnight. To put it lightly, you’ll have to rip existing multi-billion dollar IT infrastructures out of corporations’ cold dead hands before they let you implement something this radical. Take mobile payments for example. This technology is more or less ready to go, and probably has been for some time. However we stay married to the plastic in our wallets simply because the infrastructure at retail stores isn’t changing anytime soon (nor are the credit card companies pushing them to change).

Cloud computing is on its way, and has much to offer. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Office 2015 still resides on my local PC.