American Equity – A thought experiment

I’ve been thinking about the state of disunity in the country for years now, but the events of the past few months have really put it in to focus. Between wealth and economic inequalities, racial disparities, political division and you name it really it seems to me that there is very little agreement about what it means to be an American. Outside of the moniker ‘American’ what unifies all of us, what is it that we all share together? Worse yet, it seems there is little agreement about why any one American should care about the benefit of other Americans? Not just the Americans they know, not just the ones that have a similar background to them, but all Americans. So I’ve been thinking; what can we do to improve unity among citizens, and to get us to think collectively about the good of the whole as opposed to each of us myopically focusing on our individual benefit? How can we make Americans all feel like they share something? Like there is something they take part in with their fellow citizens? Is there a way for us to create an incentive system designed to make us think about the collective well-being of all Americans?

Eventually I’ve arrived at the idea of American Equity. So what do I mean by that? Imagine we gave every American 1 share of American Equity, new shares are minted when there are new Americans either by birth or by Naturalization. When an American dies, their share dies with them.

American Equity shares cannot be sold or transferred, you own them as long as you maintain status as an American. The key point holds, every American owns one share of American Equity.

So what would these shares do? They entitle every holder to an equal share of the government’s budget surplus, which we will call the National Dividend.

    • When there is a budget deficit, the National Dividend is 0.
    • When there exists a budget surplus, it gets split evenly to all holders of American Equity, i.e., the government’s surplus is returned to all Americans. We the people are the owners of this country, and we the people should advance when our country advances, all of us collectively, not just some of us. Additionally, as owners, we ought to think like owners. American Equity makes the benefits of being an American tangible and salient such that we all are more cognizant of our shared status as owners of the country.
    • This design may result in Americans collectively thinking about how the government spends its money. When the government spends, all Americans are set to lose a portion of their National Dividend.

There are second order benefits to American Equity beyond the benefits mentioned already. Notably that once American Equity is enabled, the system by which they operate can also be used for a myriad other uses. For instance it may become the most effective payment rail by which the government can send and receive payments from citizens. Additionally it can become an identity layer, at minimum one used for all Government I.D. related attestations. We could think of many other uses, but for brevity’s sake we’ll leave it at those two.

Some of you are probably getting uncomfortable right about now, and I imagine you’re thinking ‘but Jon, some Americans are filthy rich, why should they get one?’ and to that I’ll say because they’re Americans. Remember, our goal is to create a sense of unity among all Americans and to incentivize thinking about the collective of Americans and not just themselves. Restricting who owns these will immediately create division between those who own it and those who don’t, and worse yet it may enable a stigma against those who receive the benefit or depend on it.

Another layer of immediate criticism would be towards the notion that these are only for American citizens. While I understand this may be a hotly contested issue, I find that we have to draw a line on ownership somewhere, and I choose to draw it at citizenship. We use citizenship to determine many other features of our society, and I think this one is no different.

Undoubtedly there are issues with this plan, and any implementation is bound to be more complicated than what I’ve outlined here, but consider this half-baked idea as the starting point for what could eventually become American Equity.

Last thing, we could easily replace ‘American’ in this essay with any country, or better yet, just Human. However, until we have a working form of Global organization/government, we’ll have to settle by managing this at the country level.

 

Counter Positioning — How Upstarts Tackle Incumbents

Talk about any startup long enough and eventually the question will arise:

“…and why can’t [incumbent firm] do this themselves and eat their lunch?”

If you are thinking of starting a company, funding one, or joining one, I’d be willing to bet you will inevitably face this question yourself. What then? Should you admit defeat and give up on your ambition then and there? You could easily make the case that the incumbent will be a fast follower once the upstart proves out its business model and quickly proceed to supplant them, and in most cases, you’d be right.

However, we all know of cases in which a startup manages to build a successful business seemingly right under the nose of the incumbent. How does this happen? How do challenger firms grow from an insignificant after-thought to a major threat? These are often cases where the upstart firm found a business model that is Counter-Positioned to the incumbent firm.

Think of Netflix and Blockbuster, Amazon and Borders, Fidelity and Vanguard, etc., all cases where a scrappy challenger managed to build a business in the face of a strong incumbent. How could this have happened? Did prized executives at incumbent firms suddenly lose their business acumen? Quite the contrary, Counter-positioning often involves cases where good management practices by the incumbent’s executives lead to bad business outcomes. In his seminal book, ”7 Powers”, investor and business strategist Hamilton Helmer outlines what he’s termed Counter Positioning, and in this essay we will set out to gain a better understanding of what Counter-Positioning really is, what it isn’t, and go through what may be a live example.


What Is It?

So what is Counter-positioning really? Simply put, we can say it’s when a challenger firm has a business model that is counter-positioned to the incumbent and adopting the same business model would harm the incumbent’s existing business. This often results in the incumbent either delaying the decision to adopt the business model, doing so in a perfunctory manner, or in some cases, both.

An example can help us think about this concept more clearly. Let’s look at the case of Netflix and Blockbuster. Blockbuster’s main business was video rentals via brick and mortar stores, and a non-trivial portion of its revenues came from late fees. At one point Blockbuster had about 9,000 stores and collected as much as 16% of its revenue from late fees¹. When Netflix opened for business with its DVD-by-mail business in 1997, and a bold promise of ‘NO LATE FEES!’, it was counter-positioned to the video rental powerhouse Blockbuster.

The idea for Netflix is rumored to have come about after Reed Hastings incurred $40 of Late Fees from Blockbuster for not returning Apollo 13 on time

Blockbuster could easily have launched a DVD-by-Mail service themselves, and launch one they did, albeit a mere seven years past the founding of Netflix. It wasn’t a technological barrier that caused Blockbuster to delay their decision to follow Netflix’s business model, rather it was likely the result of sound management. For Blockbuster, which made its money by renting DVDs through myriad retail stores and charging late fees on those rentals, any gains from a Netflix’esque ‘DVD-by-Mail’ business would have come at the expense of their large businesses. Furthermore, such a business model would run counter-narrative to the core business; to promote DVD-by-Mail is to tacitly admit that this service may be superior to the in-store experience, the same can obviously said for Netflix’s ‘No Late Fee’ policy. Why would the executives at the helm of the company choose to spend a material amount of company resources and effort on initiatives that when successful would result in a negative Net Present Value (NPV) outcome for the company as a whole? They clearly wouldn’t do such a thing, and that is the essence of Counter-positioning.

Counter-positioning often makes the incumbent delay adoption of the challenger’s business model until the point at which the core business has shrunk enough that adopting the business model no longer results in a negative NPV outcome, and by then it’s often far too late. By the time Blockbuster launched its DVD-by-Mail service in 2004, Netflix was already a category king and a household name when it came to the service of DVD-by-Mail, successfully fending off an additional assault from retail giant Walmart.

What It Isn’t

The initial filter we should apply to determine whether we’re dealing with Counter-positioning is quite simple: if the challenger firm’s business model would not be attractive to the incumbent when considered in a vacuum then it can not be said to be counter-positioned.

The next filter we should consider is whether or not the incumbent has the domain expertise necessary to be successful in the challenger’s business model. For this case we can think about Kodak in the face of digital photography. Digital photography required semiconductor memory expertise, an area of expertise that Kodak was not well versed in at the time the technology emerged despite the fact that the first Digital camera was invented within Kodak by Steven Sasson in 1975³. Kodak had expertise in chemical film which did not transfer over to the realm of Digital Photography, and thus had little prospect of withstanding assault from firms with superior expertise with semiconductors. Kodak’s case is one of succumbing to the challenge of a Disruptive Technology, not of Counter-positioning.

Similarities with Disruptive Technologies

As Helmer dutifully explains in ‘7 Powers’, Counter-Positioning is not always Disruptive Technology, although there are many similarities between the two. We can go back to the Netflix and Blockbuster example. Netflix’s DVD-by-Mail business did not incorporate any meaningful new technology that Blockbuster didn’t have access to. Netflix had no monopoly on mail or the usage of distribution centers, and as such it can be said that Netflix’s DVD-by-Mail model was Counter-positioned to Blockbuster but was not a Disruptive Technology. However, when Netflix initiated streaming, and in particular the company’s later decisions to become a producer of content in addition to its reliance on viewership data to guide content creation decisions, they by all accounts fit the definition of a Disruptive Technology.

Apple Podcasts, A Live Example?

I recently had a long discussion with a friend about the business of podcasting as we’ve both been avid podcast listeners for the past ten years. We discussed the emerging business model of personalized advertising delivered via podcasts replacing the old ‘one-size-fits-all’ advertising model where the same ads are delivered to all listeners. At one point our conversation turned to ‘Why hasn’t Apple monetized Apple Podcasts?’, Apple has always opted to avoid monetizing its podcast platform, instead acting solely as a distributor, but why have they done so⁴?

Apple Podcasts is the most dominant player in the space with 27mm monthly active user’s in the US and 66mm world wide, and a market share of over 60% as of Feb ’19⁵. Between Apple Music and Podcasts, the company has enough insights and distribution to deliver personalized advertising that would likely surmount that of any competitor, so why are they ceding this business model to competitors such as Spotify or Midroll? I argue that this is Counter-positioning in the making.

Apple’s 2019 Campaign

For years Apple has prided itself for not monetizing its users’ data while other tech giants have become increasingly reliant on such business models, most notably Google. In fact, in 2019 Apple launched an ad campaign under the headline of ‘Privacy. That’s iPhone’. As part of this campaign Apple began displaying redesigns of its famous logo made to resemble a lock, as seen here. At one point the company even took out massive ads on buildings as can be seen below. Why is all of this important, and how does it relate to Counter-positioning?

Apple’s brand, at least by the company’s own perception and actions, is so embedded with the notion of protecting its users’ privacy that to opt for a business model of personalized ads would be a betrayal of their users’ trust. This, in turn, would result in harm to the core business that would likely heavily outweigh any of the gains made by adopting the new business model in the short term. Per IAB and PWC, Podcasting ad revenue in ’18 amounted to $479Mm, and are expected to grow to as much as $1bn by ‘21⁶. Meanwhile, Apple’s net sales of iPhones alone in ’19 amounted to $142bn⁷, and totaled $260bn across all of its products and services.

Thus I would make the claim that Apple is not ceding this territory to the likes of Spotify out of managerial incompetence, rather it is a calculated decision that views their business in a holistic fashion.

Spotify, on the other hand, is well-positioned to execute on such a business model. As of 4q2019 their user base of 271Mm Monthly Actives was comprised of over 150Mm ad-supported users⁸. Spotify’s brand is not one directly tied to protecting users’ privacy, and as such they have little to lose by pursuing this business model. In fact, it may just be the case that this business model would significantly improve the experience for its ad-supported users, who may appreciate more personalized ads as opposed to the current ‘one-size-fits-all’ model, a non-trivial consideration given that over half of Spotify users are ad-supported.

If it is indeed the case that Apple is electing to avoid monetization of the Podcasts platform due to these reasons, we can also take this idea one step further and hypothesize that Apple has not, and will not, pursue such data monetization models due to those models being Counter-positioned to their core business.


In closing, I hope that this has helped build your understanding of what the concept of Counter-positioning is, and how it can be used to effectively tackle what are seemingly insurmountable incumbents. If nothing else, I hope that it gives you something to think about the next time someone asks you: ‘…and why won’t [insert the relevant incumbent] eat this company’s lunch?’

Special thanks to Casey Caruso for reviewing drafts of this post

Footnotes

  1. https://qz.com/144372/a-brief-illustrated-history-of-blockbuster-which-is-closing-the-last-of-its-us-stores/
  2. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107645765403826229
  3. https://www.businessinsider.com/digital-photography-revolution-2015-4
  4. Note this question of ad monetization can be asked about Apple’s business more broadly, however, the piece focuses specifically on Podcasting to give it narrower focus, and then extrapolates from the podcasting business to draw conclusions about the broader business.
  5. https://a16z.com/2019/05/23/podcast-ecosystem-investing-2019/
  6. https://www.iab.com/insights/third-annual-podcast-ad-revenue-study-by-iab-and-pwc-reports-significant-growth/
  7. https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2019/ar/_10-K-2019-(As-Filed).pdf
  8. https://s22.q4cdn.com/540910603/files/doc_financials/2019/q4/Shareholder-Letter-Q4-2019.pdf

Why Your Kids Are Comfortable With Magic Internet Money

This post was originally posted on Medium: https://medium.com/@jonkol/why-your-kids-are-comfortable-with-magic-internet-money-68deb5ea0289

Disclaimer: this piece is not intended to be an in-depth exploration of the topic at hand, rather a quick stream of thoughts that will hopefully stimulate broader discussion. I expect holes to be poked in my arguments, and have no illusions as to my ability to predict the course of future events.

In the cryptosphere, we like to spend some of our time thinking about the answer to the questions ‘When, where, and how will we see adoption of digital currencies?’, and when faced with these questions I often think back to Max Planck’s words (at times referred to as Planck’s Principle):

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.(1)

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 97

With respect to digital assets, I have seen numerous arguments about why and how entire swaths of the global population will eventually be brought into the fold and begin using digital currencies in their daily lives. It is my opinion that we will never see meaningful adoption with adult users in developed economies. I believe this is the case because these adults already have mental models around what constitutes money. As Planck said, ‘…it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul’, in this case Saul (cryptocurrencies) is rarely going to become Paul (fiat currency) for those with well-established beliefs about what constitutes money.

For argument’s sake, let’s define an adult as an individual who is 40 years old or older. This is an arbitrary dividing line, and its sole purpose is to allow us to more easily think about age cohorts and their differences. I argue that it is difficult for adults who grew up in developed nations to see digital currencies as a viable form of money since they don’t yet provide tangible value over or akin to fiat currency, as in the current state there are not economies built around digital currencies. What can an adult in Manhattan buy with Bitcoin that they can’t already buy with the USD they earn? Thus I conclude that to most adults in these economies digital currencies appear novel, and beyond some curiosity there is no perceived need to use them. Without a perceived need (as opposed to a want) to use digital currencies that is reinforced by the persistent use of these currencies, it is my opinion that these individuals will not form a belief around digital currencies being a valid form of money. In sharp contrast to this experience stands the experience of the children growing up in these developed economies.

To the child who grew up in a developed economy with an iPad in hand, and a gaming console in their living room, these digital currencies are every bit “money” as the greenbacks in their parents’ pockets. Why is that? First, I believe these children did not form their beliefs around money in the same way their parents did. Second, these children grew up in a world where they exchanged fiat for CandyCrush credits, Starwars Battlefront lootboxes, and Fortnite V-Bucks to be spent in robust in-game stores on intangible digital goods. Whereas for their parents this may appear as the frivolous spending of a child, the children often view it as a valid exchange for a valuable good. These children have a perceived need to use digital currencies which is being continually reinforced by their use of digital currencies to obtain what to them are valuable items. While these digital items may be intangible by the traditional meaning of the word, they provide very tangible value to the user. The repeated act of using digital currencies to obtain valued digital goods should eventually solidify the belief in these users that digital currencies are every bit as valid as money as fiat currencies.

Thus for the younger generation growing up in developed economies we need not turn Saul into Paul, as they’ve been living in a world where the two are effectively the same. While we in the cryptosphere want to flip the proverbial ‘adoption switch’ in the minds of millions what is far more likely to occur is that the older proponents opposing digital currencies as money will eventually ‘die-out’, and the growing generation will be familiarized with ideas about money from a fresh vantage point, one that allows them to believe something their parents could not.

Special thanks to Charlie Songhurst, Casey Caruso, Dan Held, Joe McCann and others who helped with this post.

(1) Planck, Max K. (1950). Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. New York: Philosophical library.