Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- Jason
- jason
- Jason
- Jason
- The Newest Industry
- Jason Calacanis
- Jason
- Jason
- jason
Jason
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in My Life and Digital Musings on My Life and Digital Musings
fyi: I read your tweet here: http://twitter.com/dangellert/status/1642138066
Important to note that:
a) I don't agree with Mike's attacks on Owen.
b) I'm friends with not only Owen, but also Jon Miller the guy who hired him!
c) I don't have any insight into what is written on TechCrunch--i'm only partners with Mike on the TechCrunch50 conference.
d) I never even wanted that job... I'm a startup company guy not a bigco guy. I'm happy for Jon Miller (who is on my board!) to get owen!
... i wouldn't say stuff out of school like that when you're just making it up. Doesn't reflect well on your or Time Warner.
all the best, jason
Important to note that:
a) I don't agree with Mike's attacks on Owen.
b) I'm friends with not only Owen, but also Jon Miller the guy who hired him!
c) I don't have any insight into what is written on TechCrunch--i'm only partners with Mike on the TechCrunch50 conference.
d) I never even wanted that job... I'm a startup company guy not a bigco guy. I'm happy for Jon Miller (who is on my board!) to get owen!
... i wouldn't say stuff out of school like that when you're just making it up. Doesn't reflect well on your or Time Warner.
all the best, jason
1 reply
3 months ago
in Why it's time to break out of Twitter (Scripting News) on Scripting News
I think the "suggested users" feature does skew the natural follow trends on Twitter. Now the top 100 users are basically the folks on this list followed by the folk who organically grew their followings--and in some cases they overlap.
This past week I offered Twitter $10,000 a month to be on that list because, as you say, it does have real value. My suggestion to them is to sell half the slots on the list to non-spam type folks (i.e. maybe JetBlue, Netflix or Engadget want to buy a spot) and let the other half go to folks that Twitter's team think are most interesting.
This is the ultimate monetization play for Twitter. 10-20 folks do this a month, or 50 folks are rotated in and out during the month, and you've got $6m in revenues out of the gate.
all the best, jason
show all 6 replies
This past week I offered Twitter $10,000 a month to be on that list because, as you say, it does have real value. My suggestion to them is to sell half the slots on the list to non-spam type folks (i.e. maybe JetBlue, Netflix or Engadget want to buy a spot) and let the other half go to folks that Twitter's team think are most interesting.
This is the ultimate monetization play for Twitter. 10-20 folks do this a month, or 50 folks are rotated in and out during the month, and you've got $6m in revenues out of the gate.
all the best, jason
- 0 points
- Jump to »
dave
I'd pay the $10K per month too if it is what's required to get into the top tier of Twitter users. But I would probably only sign up for two or three months cause, as an individual it's a bit pricey. But it's probably worth it. (BTW, that was the first thought that popped into my mind when I thought about the list. That I'd have to pay the tariff to be on the list.)
ontarioemperor
Jason, I was hoping that you'd weigh in on this conversation, because your offer puts a possible monetary value on Twitter's "suggested users" feature.
The question arises - if you don't allocate the spaces by buying them, is there a "fair" way to allocate them - especially when Twitter's base is converting from a tech-oriented community to a much more broader-based community? Is Jason "interesting"? Is Shaq "interesting"?
From the perspective of the company, Twitter needs to choose suggested users that most benefit the company, either via revenue (as Jason proposes) or by choosing suggested users that will encourage people to stay on the service and not drop it (e.g. Ashton).
The one thing that scares me about thinking of Twitter as a utility is that such a mindset could eventually lead to government intervention and regulation of the service, which would not be desirable.
The question arises - if you don't allocate the spaces by buying them, is there a "fair" way to allocate them - especially when Twitter's base is converting from a tech-oriented community to a much more broader-based community? Is Jason "interesting"? Is Shaq "interesting"?
From the perspective of the company, Twitter needs to choose suggested users that most benefit the company, either via revenue (as Jason proposes) or by choosing suggested users that will encourage people to stay on the service and not drop it (e.g. Ashton).
The one thing that scares me about thinking of Twitter as a utility is that such a mindset could eventually lead to government intervention and regulation of the service, which would not be desirable.
7 months ago
in Jason Calcanis: A Modest Proposal on /Ground
First, I think your ideas of investing in a food coop are excellent. In fact, if the food coop gets big enough and you have extra food you could sell those in a market and split the money with the folks who built the coop--they could each take a share of the profits. The "share holders" could some day not make more money from the coop than their day jobs if you sold the extra food at a market--a really big one perhaps, like a "super" market. :-)
Funny how things that are hobbies can become businesses.
In terms of single moms and dads, it's gonna be hard... of course. You're correct that the "workers" should get equity from "management" for putting in extra effort, but the fact is the workers vs. management structure is part of the problem. Folks need to start looking at these companies are their own because many of them are going away. The companies that fail first will be the ones where the workers are separate from the owners--everyone has something to lose, so everyone should have some upside/equity.
Also, as I point out this goes across class lines. Affluent folks should start businesses and go back to work innovating.
Of course, some folks might want to get off the capitalism train, build farms, check out and move to slow growth. It's worked for some places in Europe, and in fact part of my piece is about slowing down the consumption train (which is tied to the capitalism train). We've got to stop buying on credit and we've got to focus more on innovation and hard work.
Also, I never said if we all worked harder this would have never happened. I'm very clear in my piece to point out what is obvious and we all know: this mess was caused by over consumption, big houses and big debt.
Finally, I would be careful throwing around labels like industrialists and right-winger. I'm a libertarian according to folks who've studied my positions on things (I try not to label myself or others). 95% of my life was spent being lower middle-class to maybe middle class (last couple of years, well... they've been very different in some ways, but the exact same in others: i drive more expensive battery powered car, but I still work like a dog and love it!).
My parents worked multiple jobs and I entered the workforce at 9 or 10 years old and never stopped working (I worked in my fathers bar at a very early age). I'm not some Ivy league trust fund kid.... of wait, here come those labels again. :-)
HeatherG: I like your thoughts as well.
Funny how things that are hobbies can become businesses.
In terms of single moms and dads, it's gonna be hard... of course. You're correct that the "workers" should get equity from "management" for putting in extra effort, but the fact is the workers vs. management structure is part of the problem. Folks need to start looking at these companies are their own because many of them are going away. The companies that fail first will be the ones where the workers are separate from the owners--everyone has something to lose, so everyone should have some upside/equity.
Also, as I point out this goes across class lines. Affluent folks should start businesses and go back to work innovating.
Of course, some folks might want to get off the capitalism train, build farms, check out and move to slow growth. It's worked for some places in Europe, and in fact part of my piece is about slowing down the consumption train (which is tied to the capitalism train). We've got to stop buying on credit and we've got to focus more on innovation and hard work.
Also, I never said if we all worked harder this would have never happened. I'm very clear in my piece to point out what is obvious and we all know: this mess was caused by over consumption, big houses and big debt.
Finally, I would be careful throwing around labels like industrialists and right-winger. I'm a libertarian according to folks who've studied my positions on things (I try not to label myself or others). 95% of my life was spent being lower middle-class to maybe middle class (last couple of years, well... they've been very different in some ways, but the exact same in others: i drive more expensive battery powered car, but I still work like a dog and love it!).
My parents worked multiple jobs and I entered the workforce at 9 or 10 years old and never stopped working (I worked in my fathers bar at a very early age). I'm not some Ivy league trust fund kid.... of wait, here come those labels again. :-)
HeatherG: I like your thoughts as well.
1 reply
stoweboyd
Jason -
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Your observations about coops perhaps becoming supermarkets, all over again, isn't where I was trying to go. I was suggesting that people can actively work to take food out of the money economy. Yes, we will still need money, and plenty of it, so people have to work, have jobs, invest time into companies for equity, etc. I am suggesting a fundamental diversification of the time investment that people make, taking a day a week and applying it into a countermarket activity, like growing your own veggies, making your own salami or pickles, or painting your own house. Wendell Berry said that we are outsourcing our own lives, and this is an opportunity to take some of that time to get our lives back.
Yes, I am an advocate of moving our economies away from a growth-at-all-costs footing.
Re: "Also, I never said if we all worked harder this would have never happened. I'm very clear in my piece to point out what is obvious and we all know: this mess was caused by over consumption, big houses and big debt." Yes, you never explicitly say if we had worked harder this wouldn't have happened. You are clearly saying that we should have collectively been happier with smaller house, less gear, less debt, and I agree totally, In fact, I suggest that people start taking whatever steps they can to move in that direction. However, by saying that we should rededicate ourselves to the world of work, instead of increased self-sufficiency, you are suggesting that the old work/industrial economy that got us here will get us out if we just push harder, and by implication, that things would be better now if we had been pushing harder all along.
I did use the term industrialist, which I do not intend as an insult or some sort of dismissive label, but rather as a characterization of someone's orientation in discussions like these. Your argument is based on the notion that the individual's well-being and their most obvious means to help counter the economic mess is through the company that employs them. I, alas, do not agree. The right-winger comment came from another commenter. I am not a Marxist, I am not advocating an end to private property, or stringing up all the bankers. I simply am advocating that looser coupling between people and the companies that employ them -- along with looser connections between other agents in the economy -- as a fundamental way to increase resilience and self-sufficiency. If business was willing to provide a real safety net for the people that they ask to give so much, well, that would be a whole different world.
I don't perceive you as an Ivy League, trust-fund coupon cutter, but an aggressive, young, and thoughtful entrepreneur deeply concerned with the corner that we have painted ourselves into. And I agree that we will all have to work harder just to stay where we are. I just disagree as to where we should apply that added 20%!
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Your observations about coops perhaps becoming supermarkets, all over again, isn't where I was trying to go. I was suggesting that people can actively work to take food out of the money economy. Yes, we will still need money, and plenty of it, so people have to work, have jobs, invest time into companies for equity, etc. I am suggesting a fundamental diversification of the time investment that people make, taking a day a week and applying it into a countermarket activity, like growing your own veggies, making your own salami or pickles, or painting your own house. Wendell Berry said that we are outsourcing our own lives, and this is an opportunity to take some of that time to get our lives back.
Yes, I am an advocate of moving our economies away from a growth-at-all-costs footing.
Re: "Also, I never said if we all worked harder this would have never happened. I'm very clear in my piece to point out what is obvious and we all know: this mess was caused by over consumption, big houses and big debt." Yes, you never explicitly say if we had worked harder this wouldn't have happened. You are clearly saying that we should have collectively been happier with smaller house, less gear, less debt, and I agree totally, In fact, I suggest that people start taking whatever steps they can to move in that direction. However, by saying that we should rededicate ourselves to the world of work, instead of increased self-sufficiency, you are suggesting that the old work/industrial economy that got us here will get us out if we just push harder, and by implication, that things would be better now if we had been pushing harder all along.
I did use the term industrialist, which I do not intend as an insult or some sort of dismissive label, but rather as a characterization of someone's orientation in discussions like these. Your argument is based on the notion that the individual's well-being and their most obvious means to help counter the economic mess is through the company that employs them. I, alas, do not agree. The right-winger comment came from another commenter. I am not a Marxist, I am not advocating an end to private property, or stringing up all the bankers. I simply am advocating that looser coupling between people and the companies that employ them -- along with looser connections between other agents in the economy -- as a fundamental way to increase resilience and self-sufficiency. If business was willing to provide a real safety net for the people that they ask to give so much, well, that would be a whole different world.
I don't perceive you as an Ivy League, trust-fund coupon cutter, but an aggressive, young, and thoughtful entrepreneur deeply concerned with the corner that we have painted ourselves into. And I agree that we will all have to work harder just to stay where we are. I just disagree as to where we should apply that added 20%!
7 months ago
in You Suck…Now Pay Me! on Howard Lindzon
4.87m uniques in November.
2 replies
howardlindzon
ok I will invest.
Lars
Remove Calacanis from the company and let a sane individual lead.
8 months ago
in The Inquisitr at 6 months on duncanriley.com
Keep going! It takes two years to turn a blog into a business and you are 25% of the way there.
1 reply
Duncan Riley
Thx Jason
9 months ago
in BAILOUT! on Howard Lindzon
Actually, we agree that value is built in the down market. There is less competition for talent, customers and market share in down markets, so it is the ideal time to start. However, many of the A/B round Web 2.0 companies are going to run out of cash before they get to the promised land, and my email newsletter was a to try and help those folks who are struggling.
best j
best j
2 replies
danny BROWN
Jason,
Unfortunately you seem to have requested that your email be removed from its position at TechCrunch - I can only assume that it was because you were tired of the common sense rhetoric being left in the comments box, as opposed to a majority support for your views. However, I'll recap on a couple of points you made in your email (if that's okay with Howard):
“3. Firing the average people: Again, it’s totally politically incorrect, but I highly recommend firing anyone who is good or average. Startups are an Olympic sport and every slot on your team is critical. You wouldn’t put a “good” swimmer in a relay, would you? Don’t have one in your startup. Fire the good and replace them with the great.”
Politically incorrect? How about downright immoral and unethical? Not to mention contradictory to your whole email. One minute you’re bemoaning “dark times” and “a difficult time for our country”, yet you want to add to this by firing people that are, God forbid, actually good at what they do? Don’t you realize that the country is in the economical mire that it is because people voted in the man they thought would be “great” for the country?
Since you liked to use a sporting analogy with the Olympics, allow me to use one as well. Look at any great sporting team, and it’s not the “great” superstars that make the team what it is - it’s the “good”, hard-working never-shirk-from-their-job players that stay out of the limelight that attention-seeking media whores chase after instead. Give me just one of these “good” employees over the “me, me, me!” wannabes any day.
“4. Cut spending every where you can: Recurring costs like connectivity, phones, rent and insurance are things that you can easily cut. Go to each of your providers and ask for 20% relief immediately or you’re leaving. Most, not all, will give it to you.”
So, basically you’re saying add to the country’s economic problems by not paying your bills and forcing other companies to go short? Bravo, Jason, bravo…
It’s irresponsible attitudes like these that has brought the country to its knees.
Unfortunately you seem to have requested that your email be removed from its position at TechCrunch - I can only assume that it was because you were tired of the common sense rhetoric being left in the comments box, as opposed to a majority support for your views. However, I'll recap on a couple of points you made in your email (if that's okay with Howard):
“3. Firing the average people: Again, it’s totally politically incorrect, but I highly recommend firing anyone who is good or average. Startups are an Olympic sport and every slot on your team is critical. You wouldn’t put a “good” swimmer in a relay, would you? Don’t have one in your startup. Fire the good and replace them with the great.”
Politically incorrect? How about downright immoral and unethical? Not to mention contradictory to your whole email. One minute you’re bemoaning “dark times” and “a difficult time for our country”, yet you want to add to this by firing people that are, God forbid, actually good at what they do? Don’t you realize that the country is in the economical mire that it is because people voted in the man they thought would be “great” for the country?
Since you liked to use a sporting analogy with the Olympics, allow me to use one as well. Look at any great sporting team, and it’s not the “great” superstars that make the team what it is - it’s the “good”, hard-working never-shirk-from-their-job players that stay out of the limelight that attention-seeking media whores chase after instead. Give me just one of these “good” employees over the “me, me, me!” wannabes any day.
“4. Cut spending every where you can: Recurring costs like connectivity, phones, rent and insurance are things that you can easily cut. Go to each of your providers and ask for 20% relief immediately or you’re leaving. Most, not all, will give it to you.”
So, basically you’re saying add to the country’s economic problems by not paying your bills and forcing other companies to go short? Bravo, Jason, bravo…
It’s irresponsible attitudes like these that has brought the country to its knees.
10 months ago
in Do You Take Workcations? on Oracle AppsLab
Actually, I'm a big fan of folks taking a real vacation and turning off the laptop.... i find folks come back 10x more focused and energized when they take time off.
work hard/play hard is actually my position on it.
best j
work hard/play hard is actually my position on it.
best j
1 reply
Jake
In theory, but I think you'll agree that in practice, finding time off when you're working at a startup is a difficult task.
So, while you may encourage time off, actually taking it becomes an impossible task when looking ahead at product timelines with paper thin margins for error.
Plus, when you have few employees, the absence of one is missed as a greater percentage of the whole, and in many cases at startups, the work doesn't necessarily wait for the vacationer to return, meaning it's delegated to others, creating a heavier workload for the unlucky ones who stayed at their desks.
Startups are hard.
So, while you may encourage time off, actually taking it becomes an impossible task when looking ahead at product timelines with paper thin margins for error.
Plus, when you have few employees, the absence of one is missed as a greater percentage of the whole, and in many cases at startups, the work doesn't necessarily wait for the vacationer to return, meaning it's delegated to others, creating a heavier workload for the unlucky ones who stayed at their desks.
Startups are hard.
11 months ago
in TEN Reasons Digg Not Getting Acquired…Nope, Just One! on Howard Lindzon
Howard Lindzon: "Digg is truly the most useless of the big Web 2.0 sites."
Reality: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/digg.com+walls...
Calacanis insight: Yes, 25m folks a month *in the US ALONE* according to Compete.com--which under reports--is the definition of a "useless" business.
------
Howard Lidzon: "it can’t make money."
Reality: digg is making at least 12-15M a year right now. It would make that with or without the Microsoft deal.
Calacanis insight: Lidzon is such a nobody, who has done so little in the internet space, that his only shot at getting any kind of attention is to write really weak link-bait. Henry: really, you understand the metrics of this industry so well, why give a platform to someone with such a weak, inaccurate analysis. It makes it look like either a) you were forced to post this because he's an LP in your investors company (which is obviously not the case) or b) that you're going for the cheap page views like you're Nick Denton (which you're not). Suggest you go for the long-term brand building strategy and leave the "digg sucks because i couldn't build something 1/10,000th as important" for the comments on Valleywag.
show all 8 replies
Reality: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/digg.com+walls...
Calacanis insight: Yes, 25m folks a month *in the US ALONE* according to Compete.com--which under reports--is the definition of a "useless" business.
------
Howard Lidzon: "it can’t make money."
Reality: digg is making at least 12-15M a year right now. It would make that with or without the Microsoft deal.
Calacanis insight: Lidzon is such a nobody, who has done so little in the internet space, that his only shot at getting any kind of attention is to write really weak link-bait. Henry: really, you understand the metrics of this industry so well, why give a platform to someone with such a weak, inaccurate analysis. It makes it look like either a) you were forced to post this because he's an LP in your investors company (which is obviously not the case) or b) that you're going for the cheap page views like you're Nick Denton (which you're not). Suggest you go for the long-term brand building strategy and leave the "digg sucks because i couldn't build something 1/10,000th as important" for the comments on Valleywag.
8 replies
anthonybrown
Hey Jason, you should join all the cool kids and verify yourself with Disqus.
howardlindzon
Jason seeing that your new business SEOhalo is built on linkbaiting and that's what your doing here on MY Blog, that's hilarioius.
Back to your hole
Back to your hole
Thanks for the comment. I have nothing against you - I think you are a talented, scrappy entrepreneur who has an impressive track record. That being said, I do think Techcrunch's coverage of OVN has been pretty blatantly biased. The only thing Mike has printed has been negative coverage. I just dont agree with that (note that i said I not Time Warner as most people understand that my tweets are solely my opinion and not that of TW's (to put it in legal jargon). Print a fair, balance article (with positives and negatives) and nobody can complain. Instead, Mike trolls on OVN (and we know how Mike hates trolls). That was the only point in my tweet. Maybe the link wasn't you and maybe it was just that Mike for some reason dislikes OVN. My tweet clearly states that the smear job / TC is pathetic - nothing against you. In terms of your points above i never suggested a, b or c. In terms of d, if I were you I would want the job, nothing wrong with that, but I will believe you that you dont.