There are plenty of good pieces on the Internet about how to build a good board of advisors.  Go ahead, Google them.  There is one super post about why you shouldn’t bother to build an advisory board by the smart guys at 37Signals.  Essentially, they’re saying that too many supposedly critical things are myths that keep you from building the company and products.  But what if someone has approached you to be an advisor to his company?  There aren’t very many pieces about how to be a good advisor.  So how do you provide value as an advisor?

1. Don’t be a professional advisor.  Don’t go seeking to sit on a bunch of advisory boards.  Few things deserve your time and attention so be selective – get involved only with companies where you have unique insight and passion to contribute.  And I mean don’t be a professional advisor. If you ask for cash compensation, you’re a problem and not a solution, especially for young startups with limited resources.  If the management team desperately wants to compensate you, accept a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of equity in stock options that vest over time.  Don’t be a resource drain.

2. Get out of the way.  Too many advisors want to get actively involved in a company’s operations and tell management what to do.  The management team should know more about its business than you do and if it doesn’t – you’ll never be an effective advisor for the company anyway.  Being an advisor should never be an exercise in ego.  If you have to insert yourself to feel valuable, you’re the wrong guy.  Only get your hands dirty if the management team asks you to dive in.

3. Challenge convention.  Unlike members of a formal board of directors, you as an advisor cannot be held liable for the company’s actions.  This allows you to be more objective and give uncensored advice.  This freedom is probably the most enjoyable thing about being an advisor.  You don’t have to have all the right answers, you just need to be gutsy enough to question everything the company does and how it goes about doing it.  This is where you can have the most impact on the company by helping management to consider different strategies.  Focus on strategy, not tactics.

4. Open up your network generously.  You’ve spent your whole career cultivating valuable relationships.  Connect the company to potential investors, partners, and customers.  Of that list, customers rank supreme.  Investors and partners will show up if the company has a growing customer base.  But potential customers could care less who a company’s investors or partners are.  So if you know someone or some organization who could use the company’s products or services, be the leadoff hitter on the sales team.  But hold the management team to high standards.  Make sure milestones are being met and progress is being made before you haphazardly make introductions.  Let management know that if they do their job, you’ll be their biggest evangelist.

5. Get out of the way.  Did I mention that already?  This time what I mean is to know when the company has outgrown your expertise and ability to contribute.  There is a lifecycle to all engagements and you don’t want to be the person to outlast your welcome and usefulness.

So I asked Dan if he thought the Pareto Principle, also known as the 80-20 Rule, might apply to his personal situation. The Pareto Principle states that for many events or outcomes, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Economist Vilfredo Pareto observed many years ago that 80% of the national income in Italy went to 20% of the population. I shared with Dan my belief that the Pareto Principle might apply not only to theories concerning the distribution of wealth in nations but also to jobs, learning curves, and career growth.

I’ve long believed that, especially in the case of naturally motivated and high-performance individuals, it only takes 20% of X amount of time to learn 80% of the job. The remaining 20% of job-specific development requires the other 80% of time investment to learn what I like to think of as the nuances of the job.

Some jobs allow fast individuals to excel almost immediately out of the gate and other jobs take a long time to master. Salespeople can fairly quickly learn the key attributes of the products they are selling, the markets that most need those products, and the selling techniques that work best. The rest of the time is spent prospecting, qualifying, and closing. Medical professionals spend years in school and residency to perfect their knowledge and skill because they cannot afford to make mistakes; patients’ lives depend on their near-flawless execution.

Mark Bonham at Ray Quinney & Nebeker, one of the top venture and securities lawyers in the country, once shared with me that he needed to “bat 1.000″ in his job everyday. Every legal document that he crafts must be perfect because the negative ramifications of a poorly written contract are extreme. Attorneys spend years in law school and as junior associates to become adept in the law. That’s why any entrepreneur who thinks he can just take a legal document template off the Internet and write his own contracts is playing with fire.

Since we’re on the topic of batting averages, baseball has long been considered the hardest sport. A professional baseball player can fail to get a base hit 70% of the time and still be considered for the Baseball Hall of Fame. If a quarterback failed to complete 70% of his pass attempts, he would soon find himself out of a job.

By that logic, venture capitalists have one of the toughest jobs of all. The success ratios of typical VCs are abysmal when compared to baseball hitters. The average venture firm’s portfolio will witness failure rates between 70% and 90% in its investments in startups. Only about 10% of investments will succeed meaningfully. That dynamic brings decision-making pressure most people are not wired to handle.

The venture capital model is one example of a real world phenomenon where the 80-20 Rule cannot be taken literally. The 10% of successful ventures that provide an exit account for probably 90% of the profits. In fact, batting average isn’t nearly as important as slugging average. The 10% of successful ventures need to be homeruns and not just singles and doubles in order to compensate for the frequent failures in the portfolio.

My friends Jared Hutchings and Mark Campbell at Peer Venture Partners understand the Pareto Principle well. Since I first worked with them years ago at the University Venture Fund, I’ve observed that they excel at the 20% of the job that bring about 80% of the rewards. They are maestros at networking for good deal flow, judging the character and appropriateness of management teams, and connecting the dots that help their portfolio companies find the right partners, investors, suppliers, board members, advisers, customers, and business models.

Since personalities and passionate entrepreneurs are involved, venture investment is more art than science. Jared and Mark don’t get bogged down by the mental masturbation that is building complex and inevitably inaccurate financial projections and other time drains that some contemporary venture analysts are apt to giddily do. An old-school focus on the basics also allows them to make quicker, and no less accurate, decisions. This speed is something entrepreneurs appreciate, whether Peer’s answer is yes or no.

I subscribe to Charlie Munger’s Latticework Model of looking at the world. Charlie Munger is Vice-Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A) and Warren Buffett’s long time business partner. The Latticework Model is essentially about approaching life, investing, and problem-solving by weaving multidisciplinary models of knowledge. I don’t want to be an expert in any one specialty or field. If I aspire to be an expert at anything, it would be to master connecting the dots in many different fields of knowledge to bring about new innovations and solutions. That’s why the Pareto Principle works well for me as a way to approach the world and allocate my time. I can take intense deep dives in relatively short bursts of time to learn about the bulk of different subjects and challenges. Perhaps we’ll see a rise of the generalists – people who can straddle the right brain and the left brain with aplomb, people who are “whole-brainers.”

Back to my friend Dan who has hit the diminishing returns part of the Pareto Principle. I told him that if the money is not good enough to compensate for his boredom, he should find another challenge. Life is too short.

When Microsoft (MSFT) bought a small stake in the wildly popular social network, the price paid implied an overall value of $15 billion. The rumored prices at which Facebook insiders are trying to unload some shares carry an implied overall value of as low as $3.75 billion to $5 billion.

It is clear that Facebook currently cannot be worth $15 billion. The Facebook Apps platform that attracted so much attention from independent software developers has lost a lot of momentum. Independent developers who invested a lot of time, money, and energy into creating Facebook Apps have found it increasingly difficult to attract a significant audience. While finding users has been tough, monetizing their creation has proven to be a Herculean task. Special venture funds created to fund Facebook apps have not been able to deploy much of their capital as most Facebook apps are ill-conceived or frivolous with no clear business model. I would return that money to limited partners rather than hope a genius comes along to battle for market share owned by early movers like Slide and RockYou!

Advertising, the main business model of free social networking platforms, continues to disappoint, with click-through rates and conversion rates declining alarmingly. While international growth remains strong, domestic growth is decelerating noticeably. This could be spun as a positive, but I don’t think the youth of other countries have spending power approaching anywhere near that of American youth.

Will this mark the end of the current cycle of funding exuberance on the part of venture capital firms for all things Web 2.0 or social? The pace of venture funding in this sector of the Internet really picked up when Myspace sold for close to $600 million to News Corporation (NWS-A). Since then, millions have been poured into all flavors of social networks and social networking apps. It reminded me of the fin de siècle bubble that burst so painfully for all involved. Below is an essay I wrote for an investment letter published in June 2007 distributed high net worth clients.

Irrational Exuberance 2.0

We are not calling a bust of the current bull market. As much as we admire Barron’s editor Alan Abelson’s wit and literary style, we are cognizant of the ravages that might befall our track record if we were permanent bears. Still, we can’t help but imitate his dour tone of the 1990s when he repeatedly called too early for the bursting of the dot com bubble. Mr. Abelson eventually got it right when we entered the new century and collectively blinked at the stratospheric levels we had taken the market to. Then as now, venture capital funding of cockamamie business ideas served as a reliable indicator of an impending rinsing out of “frothiness.”

As we once again witness new highs in the stock market, it may be wise to examine the shenanigans our friends in the venture capital world are participating in. Are they helping to start companies “built to last” or are they throwing money at silly business ideas “built to be sold?” After a quick survey of recent startup financings, we think a strong sense of déjà vu might visit us.

While yesteryear’s absurd venture deals were justified as the obsolescing of brick and mortar business models by an online nirvana fueled by UPS (UPS) and FedEx (FDX) trucks, today’s venture activity centers around “social networking” and the wisdom and power of crowds, also known as Web 2.0 in geeky circles.

Take NaturallyCurly.com for example. It proclaims itself as the social network for people with curly hair. Purportedly, individuals with curly locks need an online support network for all their hair maintenance difficulties. Don’t forget the most important feature of any social networking community, the ability to make friends with similar interests. We delight at the prospect of spending all our time discussing hair. A technology industry veteran who sold his company to Compaq invested $600,000 into this dandy of a site.

A little less silly but nonetheless vacuous is a website called Flixster. This is the social network for all things cinematic. Users rate movies, join fan clubs celebrating famous thespians, read up on news regarding upcoming films, and make friends.

Websites that allow people to rate movies and chat about their favorite scenes already exist. They just don’t allow people to make friends. This ability to make online friends convinced Lightspeed Ventures, a very reputable venture capital firm, to invest around $2 million into Flixster.

If the dollar amounts involved look nothing like the wasted mega-millions of the late 1990s, we present Geni.com, a website for constructing family trees. The premise revolves around getting relatives to help by emailing them a digital “widget” with which they could plug themselves in the appropriate branch of the family tree. It is the wisdom of crowds, albeit a familial one here, that makes this a very compelling idea indeed. Unfortunately, it occurred to us that great great great grandpa Bob of many years before cannot respond by email from Heaven. That did not prevent Charles River Ventures from injecting $10 million for 10% of the company, effectively valuing the then seven week old company without any revenues at $100 million. We believe the large valuation might have something to do with being able to turn relatives into online friends.

The Big Bang that gave rise to all this Web 2.0 insanity occurred when Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation bought the top dog of all social networks, Myspace, for $580 million. Users of Myspace could create their own web pages and browse around the online community to make friends. Google (GOOG) soon followed by buying YouTube for $1.6 billion. YouTube users upload their homemade videos for the whole world to watch. One of the key principles of Web 2.0 is getting the community to contribute user-created content. Did we mention that YouTube users could also make friends with fellow wannabe Spielbergs?

Almost overnight, lemming-like venture capitalists funded dozens of Myspace clones with typically cute techie names like Tagworld, Bebo (TWX), Facebook, Facebox, Multiply, and Gather. Of course, all of these allow users to make friends.

YouTube copycats receiving venture funding include Veotag, Kyte, Mogulus, VideoJug, YeboTV, and Brightcove. Although we haven’t used these sites personally, we’re quite sure you could make friends on all these websites. How many News Corporations and Googles remain to stuff the coffers of venture firms by buying their portfolio companies? It seems as if entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in this space are banking on many more buyouts to come.

It isn’t just the private venture capital world that has fallen to the seduction of easy profits. When flimsy businesses with short operational histories try to tap the capital markets by going public through an initial public offering and find a receptive market, we are treated to such delicious examples as GoFish (GOFHE.OB) , a video sharing website in the spirit of YouTube. Debuting last October on the over-the-counter “bulletin boards”, the fishy company achieved a peak market cap of $147 million. With only $45,580 in revenue and no profits to speak of, investors in GoFish are swimming in a foamy sea of hope and greed.

Our favorite new social network? Stockalicious, a website that allows users to keep track of their portfolios and compare their performances against the market and each other. We wonder if Alan Abelson might jump on the Web 2.0 bandwagon and become a member of this Internet community. We could sure use a friend or two.

A few days ago, I wrote about the commoditization of social networks or rather the social networking feature sets that currently make Myspace and Facebook so unique and neat. Pioneers in social networking like Friendster and Myspace introduced a new data and software architecture that, at the same time clumsily and elegantly, met Internet users’ desire to interact and share content with each other. Finding old friends, connecting with new friends, sharing music and videos, playing collaborative games, and expressing oneself to virtual audiences of thousands all were groundbreaking features or functions that captivated a whole new generation of Web users.

These features generated higher levels of engagement (or stickiness) many times greater than traditional web properties. This stickiness in turn attracted marketers and advertisers who wanted to be where the people were. This stickiness premium netted the founders of social networking startups wealth reminiscent of the dotcom bubble. Myspace sold for nearly $600 million in a buyout by News Corporation (NWS-A), Facebook was valued at $15 billion by Microsoft (MSFT), and Bebo’s owners sold out to AOL (TWX) for $850 million.

With great rewards come hordes of wannabes and copycats. Many people are staking their future on social networking. Some are attempting to create me-too social networks. Others are pimping themselves as “experts” in social networking and offering their “consulting” services. I did the same with my SocialOptimize startup. Although my now defunct startup was able to deliver good social networking applications to prominent venture-funded startups, I soon realized that social networking would become a game with few winners and many losers. I argued that once Web 2.0 methodologies become widely adopted and social networks become a feature set rather than destinations, those same Web 2.0 methods will become standardized commodities.

That march to commoditization may occur faster than anticipated. Google (GOOG) recently announced its Friend Connect program, which allows virtually any website to plug in a turnkey social networking suite. Owners of websites can, like Google’s AdSense product, embed a snippet of code in their webpages and immediately enjoy the benefits of offering social networking features to their site customers or visitors. Think of Google Friend Connect as a more powerful Google AdSense, but instead of offering relevant text ads it offers your site visitors the ability to connect with their friends, connect with new friends, interact with each other with messages, and share content.

Here are the search engine giant’s stated high-order benefits of Google Friend Connect (GFC):

• Anyone with a basic understanding of the Web can implement GFC, no need to hire an expensive programmer or self-branded “social media guru.”
• Drive traffic: people who discover interesting sites can bring their friends with them, and can opt-in to publish their activities on those sites back into their social network, attracting even more visitors.
• Increase engagement: access to friends and OpenSocial applications provides more interesting content and richer social experiences.
• Less work: any site can have social components without hiring a programming team or becoming a social network.

That last point is key. Google doesn’t want more “social networks” per se – it just wants more websites to have social features. A while ago, it signed a deal with Myspace to serve Google ads. At the time, Google paid a huge premium and there are reports that claim the Mountain View, CA behemoth has not recouped its cost. Signing advertising deals with mass market social networks can be expensive. Helping mom and pop sites to have social networking features will, in the long run, give Google a cheaper alternative. Google is simply facilitating the creation of more web pages (places to serve its ubiquitous ads), pageviews, and advertising inventory.

The message is clear. You don’t need to become a social network; social networking features are a commodity. Here, have a few social networking features for free.

The market takes a breather after several weeks of blistering recovery from last winter’s doldrums. Commodities all around saw amazing advances. Crude oil rose 8.3% last week and has more than doubled over the last year. I remember taking my first car, a Honda (HMC) Civic, out for the first time and pumping gas for about $1.18 per gallon. This was also in the notoriously gas-expensive San Francisco Bay Area. Base commodities and gold continue to follow oil’s lead in going the opposite direction of the U.S. dollar. Will the likely Democratic presidency mean a material difference to the nation’s budget policies and thus the value of our currency?

The tech-laden Nasdaq Composite took a 1.3% dive last week. Does this in any way validate my technology industry bifurcation thesis? Absolutely not. Relative to the rest of the equity markets, the Nasdaq Composite performed decently. The S&P 500 stock index saw a 1.8% decline while the Dow Jones Industrial Average (a poorly constructed index) lost 2.4% over the last week. More painfully for investors anticipating a real estate recovery, REIT stocks lost 3.2% collectively. The Nasdaq Composite (actually a very well constructed index) performed better than other equity indexes. In essence, technology stocks as a whole, large blue chips and second tier small caps, did better than the old industrial giants found in the DJIA and the big caps in the S&P 500 by a significant margin.

We have seen very little evidence of second-tier technology companies suffering from the recent slowdown in economic activity. This is particularly interesting because one of the historic catalysts for technology capital investment by enterprises, the Microsoft (MSFT) operating system upgrade cycle, is not a large factor in this market. The Vista operating system has not caught fire like previous Microsoft operating system launches. The Windows XP operating system was a blockbuster and so were earlier versions of Windows. Prior upgrading cycles resulted in renewed investment in computer equipment, computer peripherals, and secondary software products.

Macro

I’ve alluded to my concern about Ben Bernanke’s ability to display great staying power in his effort to jump start the economy by lowering interest rates. With oil and commodity prices barreling higher every week, the specter of inflation looms menacingly and hampers the Federal Reserve’s ability to continue lowering rates. The macro themes of globalization and emerging giants like China and India have been the drivers of skyrocketing prices in oil and food commodities.

However, I see imbalances developing between asset prices and the underlying supply and demand curves. Crude oil’s meteoric rise to record prices never before seen in history is rooted primarily in fundamental, systemic growth in demand. But the recent, almost parabolic rise in oil prices suggests that speculators and trend followers are piling in, hoping for continued profits flowing. Speculators and trend followers, by definition, introduce inefficiencies and imbalances to asset prices. China’s trade surplus is growing at a decelerating pace. Our diminished dollar makes our goods and services much more attractive to foreign consumers. It also makes foreign goods and services much more expensive for Americans to buy. The trade frictions caused by our historically cheap dollar might just slow down emerging markets growth and thus the demand for oil. Oil is the hot investment right now, but it could be flammable for recent riders of the bandwagon. We might be caught in what I call the “Black Bubble.”

Micro

Priceline surges on strong earnings, outlook – Priceline.com (PCLN) hit an eight-year high as both its domestic and international businesses enjoy huge demand. The company’s business model, which allows travelers to name their own prices or bids, has been attracting legions of bargain-hunting travelers. How long will this last? Priceline.com is one of the few companies thriving in the travel industry. The airlines, other online travel retailers or portals, and car rental companies have mostly seen their stocks decline over the last year.

Constant Contact’s first quarter revenue soars – Email marketing is so Web 1.0, isn’t it? Older Internet users still rely heavily on email. Early adopters and younger users of the Internet are less reliant on email. Instead, they gravitate to other services such as instant messaging, text messaging, and social networking. Twitter, is a very interesting next generation platform that further reduces the need for email communication. All these usage patterns do not bode well for Constant Contact (CTCT), a provider of software for email marketing campaigns.

The CAPS Screen: 10 Small Caps on Fire – The Motley Fool includes Interactive Intelligence (ININ) in one of their interesting screening exercises. Interactive Intelligence makes software that manages call center or contact center operations. Screens are a good way to generate investment ideas, but a formulaic investment program based on screened variables does not automatically lead to good investments. Many investors employ screens to find stocks selling cheaply. Sometimes, companies are cheap because they deserve to be cheap as the economic merits of their businesses deteriorate. An investment decision made solely by screening and without knowledge of the competitive standing of the company in question is akin to marrying a girl solely because she comes from a good family. Full Disclosure: I currently have a long or short position in ININ in one or more of my private investment partnerships.

National Oilwell Varco, Inc. Q1 2008 Earnings Call Transcript – I mentioned that oil appears to have become a speculative market surrounded by a thin film of soapy substance. Bubbles don’t fizzle out, they usually burst or pop with ferocious force. National Oilwell Varco (NOV) provides equipment and supplies to the oil and gas industries and has been a big beneficiary of the rising price of crude. The price of oil may continue its amazing ascent or it may flush out the speculative latecomers, but the imperative to keep searching and producing oil will hardly diminish.

James River Coal 1Q loss widens on higher costs, stoppage – Alternatives to oil become more attractive as black gold becomes more expensive. Thus, oil shale, ethanol, coal, solar power, and biofuels become serious considerations. I have been investing with this thesis for over a year. James River Coal (JRCC), one of the worst managed coal companies around, has seen its stock move in lockstep with the rising price of oil. So although it continues to run into management and operating gaffes, the stock market has rewarded it and its highly leveraged balance sheet with new price highs. Full Disclosure: I currently have a long or short position in JRCC in one or more of my private investment partnerships.

First, Anderson argues that social networking should be a feature, not a destination. I agree wholeheartedly. The ability to interact with friends, share content, and engage in self-expression should be standard features on most websites. The unique methods of encouraging creative online behaviors known as Web 2.0 will filter through the rest of the Internet and, soon, your grandfather’s favorite website will allow him to engage in “social networking.”

Second, Anderson cites stats regarding advertising revenues or costs from Myspace (NWS-A), Facebook, and Ning. He shows that monolithic social networks like Myspace and Facebook, which attempt to be all things to all people, are having immense struggles with selling advertising at worthwhile rates. He also implies that Ning’s niche vertical social networks built by customers command higher advertising rates. Some marketers happily pay the higher rates because the engagement level is greater on these niche vertical networks. Advertisers also prefer the more intelligent targeting of relevant audiences. Myspace, Facebook, Bebo (TWX), and other undifferentiated mass networks are actively trying to improve their targeting abilities so it will be interesting to watch this competition evolve.

Finally, Anderson asks a pointed question about Facebook’s implied $15 billion valuation when Microsoft (MSFT) bought a small percentage of the company a few months ago. If Facebook is struggling to target its advertising and improve its advertising revenues, does its gargantuan valuation make sense? I think Zuckerberg should take the money and run. I also think that Lee Lorenzen, a venture capitalist, and his prediction that Facebook is worth $100 billion is a case of shrewd exaggeration. What I think is most funny is the fact that all of Lorenzen’s fanboys, the self-branded “social app gurus” and developers of tiny Facebook apps are all eagerly drinking the spiked punch. There are few better examples of confirmation bias in action.

My main problem with Anderson’s analysis is his implied assumption that the currently high advertising rates the niche vertical social networks enjoy will stay relatively high. Based on his personal experience, he concludes that Ning’s advertising rates are greater than Facebook’s and Myspace by at least a factor of ten. I don’t think this will last. Web 2.0 methods are precisely that, methods. They can be products, but they are also methods or general, conceptual best practices. As such, the ability to create robust social networks for different verticals will diffuse to a critical mass of software engineers. As that process accelerates, social networks and features of social networking will become commonplace or commoditized. I’ve alluded to the commoditization of social networking applications, which is a related problem. When this process nears its peak, advertising rates for all social networks will have diminished drastically. Self-proclaimed “social app gurus” and “social network gurus” who have staked their futures on social networking will ultimately prove themselves as less than prudent.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about my pessimism regarding the technology sector. The market had seemed to interpret the surprisingly good results reported by Big Blue (IBM), Google (GOOG), and even Yahoo! (YHOO) as reasons for unleashing optimism and a bargain hunting shopping spree for stocks of publicly traded technology companies. Maybe the recessionary environment and the woes faced by banks and the American consumer would not negatively impact corporate budgets for technology. My skepticism rests on the ability of secondary technology companies to weather the economic slowdown. In other words, I think there is going to be a bifurcation of the technology sector, with blue chips performing in line with expectations and second tier players getting hit hard by purchasing slowdowns.

How has my skepticism aligned with reality? As usual, I’m wrong more often than I’m right. Over the past week, Apple (AAPL), Amazon.com (AMZN), and Microsoft (MSFT) all reported earnings greater than expectations. These blue chips however warned of weaker results in the foreseeable future. For the week, Apple stock rose 5%, Amazon ticked up 1%, Microsoft ticked down 1%, and Yahoo! fell a whopping 6%. Yahoo’s weak showing had a lot to do with Microsoft reiterating its reluctance to increase its bid for Jerry Yang & Company. These mixed results mask a surprisingly strong showing by the Nasdaq Composite Index which rose 0.8% for the week. This implies that a lot of the secondary technology issues performed better than other sectors of the economy. Industrials in the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose only 0.3% and the blue chips in the S&P 500 did slightly better with a 0.5% rise. We’ll get an even better reading on the technology sector as bellwethers like Blackberry maker Research In Motion (RIMM), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), and Dell (DELL) report their earnings in the upcoming weeks. In the meantime, I’ll be looking for a lot of smaller technology companies to run into a brick wall.

Macro

The media just started latching onto the rising cost of food story. All throughout Ben Bernanke’s easing of credit and interest rates, which in the short run looks like a success, I worried about his staying power because of inflation. The Federal Reserve is stuck between a rock and a hard place because of the conflicting forces of inflation and the slowing economy. Everyone knew about oil’s incessant march to record prices, but few worried about food prices. Recently, The Economist ran a cover story on the food crisis. Much of the blame rests with increased planting of corn for biofuels instead of wheat for food. The unintended consequences of government initiatives and regulations bolstering or subsidizing the use of ethanol are now materializing in record food prices. The head of the United Nations warned that the dearness of food could cause political and social instability. Asian countries are in a mini-panic because of the skyrocketing price of rice, the staple input of Asia. Riots have erupted in Egypt and even the prime minister of Haiti was forced to resign over food shortages. Crises bring opportunities, so rumors of American food conglomerates craving foreign food companies abound as executives weigh their next move in response to the food crisis. Will we want to drive more or eat more? That is a very basic question.

Micro

Interactive Intelligence to Announce First Quarter Operating Results – Interactive Intelligence (ININ) provides software applications used by contact centers or call centers. ININ has some award-winning products. One of the most interesting to me is their Interaction EasyScripter, which is software that allows for management of “scripts” for call center agents. Companies that rely on call center agents to sell products or perform customer service should find EasyScripter very useful. I’m considering using EasyScripter or something similar in the sales efforts of the startup I’m involved in. The company reports earnings after market close on Monday and analysts expect 8 cents of earnings per share for Q1 this year. ININ is one of the second tier technology companies that will test my thesis, that blue chip technology companies will do fine through the economic downturn while the smaller technology companies suffer from budget cuts. Full Disclosure: I currently have a long or short position in ININ in one or more of my private investment partnerships.

Decker surges on higher outlook – We can’t always focus just on technology and food. Let’s take a look at fashion for a bit, albeit low fashion. Decker Outdoor Corporation (DECK), the maker of those annoying UGG boots took short sellers on a 21.55% ride after reporting earnings growth of 18% for Q1 2008. DECK has other product lines, but the primary driver of growth is the UGG boots line. Always be skeptical about fashion fads. Take a look at the stock charts of CROCS (CROX) and Heelys (HLYS) for an illustrative warning.

Focused Strategy Helps Chipmaker Rise Above Sector’s Slump – Back to technology, I just had the power brick on my Hewlett-Packard Pavilion laptop fail on me. Replacement power bricks are unbelievably expensive. Why can’t laptop manufacturers standardize on power bricks and power cords so we can all buy a one-model-fits-all commoditized power unit? The Universal Serial Bus (USB) port has worked so well for consumers. Power Integrations (POWI) makes a tidy business supplying the chips that control power bricks.

Citi upgrades Sohu.com – I pay great attention to the China tech sector and, recently, the Chinese passed the United States for the most Internet users. Sohu.com (SOHU) is China’s version of Yahoo!, an Internet portal company. Sohu.com, unlike Yahoo!, is growing by leaps and bounds. Also unlike Yahoo!, Sohu.com has figured out online gaming. Going forward, its online game, TianLong Babu, will be a strong contributor to the bottom line. If you think World of Warcraft and online gaming has had a big impact on the American gamer, just keep your eye on what massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs) will do in China and the rest of Asia.

Netgear shares tumble after profit drops on US, UK woes – I love Netgear (NTGR) products. Netgear powers my home network. However, it seems that Cisco System’s Linksys division is taking market share by sparking an industry-wide price war. Wireless networking, once the next big thing, has become a commodity. Aside from a few gifted companies like Apple and Cisco, hardware makers often fall prey to the commoditization trap. It happens sooner rather than later. Netgear reported Q1 earnings dropped 20% and promptly saw its stock take a 16.74% dive.

Shares of Synaptics drop after fiscal 3Q profit slides – Synaptics (SYNA) specializes in touchscreen technology. It used to do a lot of business with Apple supplying technology for iPod user interfaces. The long term growth of electronic equipment with touch interfaces like the iPod, iPhone, and the flood of iPhone competitors soon to come bodes well for this company. Cell phones and smart phones will have increasingly intelligent touch interfaces. Even automobile dashboards will become flattened digital touch interfaces rather than today’s analog dials and switches.

My short thesis was based on the potential for developing technologies from obscure upstarts to steal market share from Netflix and competitor Blockbuster (BBI). I also reasoned that Comcast (CMCSA) is really the company, however hated cable companies might be from a customer service point of view, that has the greatest chance of success in the battle for the future of digital video distribution.

For any chance that Netflix stands to survive the creative destruction of innovation, the company indeed needs to be spending more money developing next generation technology for content distribution. The market’s shortsightedness is punishing the company for the one thing it should absolutely be doing to ensure long-term survival. The only other way for it to acquire the technology to survive is to buy it from technology startups that are actively trying to address the digital content distribution problem.

So although my trade is working, the reason for the stock’s drop is not what I posited. Long term, I stand by my short on Netflix and Blockbuster, their valuations are currently too high once their competitive advantages are eroded by new technologies.

• Social Networking
• Blogrolls
• RSS feeds
• email

It helps to think conceptually of the commonalities in these items. Primarily, I’m concerned about how we manage information flow. In the future, sociologists will look at our nascent digital culture as a clumsy initial attempt to acquire and manage useful information and relationships. Our current clumsiness is resulting in information overload. Our feeble attempts at keeping up with information flow is leading to new symptoms of “digital addiction” for which we have few remedies short of disconnecting and turning it all off.

Social networking is obviously a big idea with big problems. If I can muster some good thought and eloquence, I might visit this topic at a future time. The problem set is so huge and daunting that I’m honestly intimidated by it. I’m not one of these amateurish, self-styled “social networking gurus” or “social app gurus” who think they have the answers while spouting nonsense and demanding ill-deserved retainer fees.

Blogrolls used to be novel and useful. Good bloggers often included other great writers in their blogrolls. Blogrolls were great places to discover more great content back when blogging was new and we had tolerance and time for discovery. Blogrolls now are bloated and less helpful. The problem boils down to one word: Awareness. We are unaware of what is going on behind our blogrolls. I don’t have a blogroll because of the ineffectiveness of blogrolls. Maybe its time we scrap the blogroll.

A related problem is RSS feeds. RSS feeds are a great solution to the aforementioned blogroll problem. Instead of clicking through blogrolls to find content or information, RSS feeds bring content back to you anytime your “subscriptions” publish new content. Generally, you would subscribe to individual bloggers or news content sites. However, we’ve all seen our RSS subscriptions grow to gargantuan proportions because we’re reluctant to miss out on anything our favorite bloggers are writing about.

The problem is, even our favorite bloggers seldom write about things we care about. That’s why the most popular blogs are focused on very specific verticals. TechCrunch covers the technology startup space. The Huffington Post covers politics, and even more specifically, politics from a liberal or progressive point of view. Engadget is a blog about gizmos and electronic gadgets. The Official Google Blog is about all things Google (GOOG). Curiously, ProBlogger is focused on blogging and making money with blogs.

This blog, Incoherence, will never get popular because it is scattered all over the place. It is literally a latticework of incoherent topics that appeal to me personally. I have some major areas of focus but even these are disparate enough that few people will derive consistent value from subscribing to my RSS feed.

Indeed, RSS feeds need to be rethought. Managing this channel of information flow needs to be rethought. Perhaps the very method or paradigm of information acquisition needs to be completely redesigned.

Email is the big hairy monster. I don’t pretend to know how to fix email, but I do have ideas of what I’d like to see so please bear with me as I brain dump. Everyone knows about the hazards of email including spam and phishing so I won’t get into that here. It goes without saying that security is a chief concern.

Email has changed the least of all the foundational technologies of the Internet. We now have sophisticated filters that help us fight spam and phishing, but aside from that, the basic functionality of email hasn’t improved much over the years. It is still a “solid-state” piece of information that doesn’t change or react dynamically to customized user needs. The dynamism that does occur must occur over a thread of conversation that changes from a delayed back and forth between conversation participants.

Another problem is the outdated link concept within email. With current technology, we’re mostly limited to the ability to type out Web addresses as links within email. When my bank or car dealer sends me an email, they must provide a link to an external website that will take me where they want me to go. This opens up a whole set of vulnerabilities that spammers and phishers try to exploit. A dynamic approach to email might solve this problem.

New ideas abound so I will explore some companies addressing these problems in future posts. I believe that fresh thinking and action in these areas will result in next generation innovations that will indeed create great value.

The question really is, will the newer investments and initiatives take hold in time to stem the bleeding? Traditional classifieds advertising, the lifeblood of old line newspaper operations, is quickly disappearing as cheaper online alternatives destroy that business. The Times just released its earnings report and it isn’t pretty. The latest quarter resulted in a $335,000 loss compared to a $23.9 million profit in the quarter a year earlier.

My sense is that Harbinger and Firebrand are getting the Times for a bargain if indeed they can insert their own directors onto the board and fix some strategic errors. The company has agreed to expand the board to 15 seats from 13 but this proposal will need to be approved by shareholders. I expect that disgruntled shareholders will consent.

Here are some notable points or ideas sparked from the earnings release:

• Overall revenue dropped but circulation revenue actually increased 25%. This was made possible by raising prices on newspapers like The Times and The Globe. This to me seems ridiculous. Physical, cellulose-based newspapers are no longer premium products. The short term boost in circulation revenue will quickly fade as customers flee to online news sources. Younger readers are already there and older readers will soon be there. The strategy should be to gently help older readers make the transition from paper to Web. In order to do this, the company should actually be lowering prices on newspapers to increase readership. Content should then be written and presented in such a way as to encourage usage of online properties the company controls.
• The About Group, the company’s Web division, showed healthy gains in revenue and income. Online efforts are working so continued investment in this space is imperative. I’d look seriously at buying news aggregation and crowdsourcing website Digg.com – a company that has been trying to sell itself. It’s one of the Web’s most popular websites and it has been for sale for quite some time. Perhaps the asking price has been lowered.
• Local search and local advertising is the next big thing on the Internet. Venture capitalists are looking for the next generation of startups that will displace first generation local services like CitySearch (IACI) with intelligent application of search engine technology, search engine marketing (SEM), search engine optimization (SEO), and geostamping technology. The best implementations are probably still being stewed over by entrepreneurs, but some existing acquisition candidates include Zillow.com, Local.com, LocalBizNOW, ZipLocal, and Smalltown.

As I have said before, “if creative destruction is going to happen, you might as well do it to yourself.”