Moses Kagan's Aurora Borealis

Just returned from the Milken Global Conference, Michael Milken's incredible in-gathering of stars from the worlds of finance, philanthropy, academia, the arts and politics. Among the bold face names in attendance were: Rupert Murdoch, John and Theresa Heinz Kerry, Pete Carrol (familiar to American football fans), Steve Forbes and, of course, Michael Milken himself.

Among the numerous panels I attended, the one which was perhaps the most interesting was a panel on activist investing. Russell Read of CALPERS, Ed Garden of Trian, David Batchelder of Relational and Chris Young of Institutional Investors Services participated in a panel moderated by Glenn Yago of the Milken Institute.

Ed Garden spent some time describing how Trian operates. They:
- Scour the public equity markets, looking for under-performing companies;
- Choose one whose business Trian understands;
- Acquire 4.9% of the outstanding share capital;
- Quietly contact management and propose changes to the way that management is operating the company;
- If management refuse, acquire more of the company, taking Trian over the 5% hurdle and announcing Trian's disagreement with the way management are running the company;
- If necessary, fight their way onto the Board in order to influence management;
- Sell shares once their efforts have resulted in a rise in the share price due to improvements in the company's underlying operating performance or improve capital allocation;

Trian does all of the this without taking a majority stake in the company. Instead, the force of Trian's arguments persuade the major institutional investors (like CALPERS) to back Trian in forcing strategic change on management.

By behaving like owners, Trian and firms like it are literally re-shaping the relationship between management and shareholders. As more funds begin to copy Trian's strategy, fewer bad management teams will have anywhere to hide. That has to be good for shareholders.

Labels: finance, hedge funds, Milken

The NY Times is 33% better than the London Times.

Not in terms of content, which is not really measureable anyway. In terms of design.
Because the NYT incorporates a few simple elements into its front page, it has become a sort of de facto homepage for a highly desirable demographic of educated Americas.

This is where the 33% comes from: The average visitor visits the NYT site 1.6 times per day, compared to 1.1 times for the LT. That's 33% more often. (Stats from comScore, February 2007)

So what separates the NYT from the LT? Here are three quick items:
1. The NYT usually gives its most recently updated blogs a prominent position on the homepage. This means fresh content, everytime you visit. The LT hides its blogs away.

2. The NYT provides containts news feeds from Reuters or the AP. Again - new content each time you visit. The LT provides no feeds.

3. The LT homepage is highly monetised, with 4 major ad positions on the front page. The NYT, by contrast, has 1 major and many minor ad positions. Unclear whether this influences users at all.

Over the next few weeks, I'll spend some time looking at various newspaper sites and how they could be improved.

Labels: london times, newspapers, ny times

Am going to be working on a consulting project for one of the UK's most admired newspapers. Will be working with them to increase revenue from mobile / internet. It's an interesting space - one which clearly offers considerable opportunity and also considerable risk. I'm excited to get started.

Among the specific issues we'll be discussing:
- Search optimisation
- Direct relationships with online retail
- Re-purposing of content
- Incorporation of interactivity in the print editions using mobile phones

I'd be interested in hearing from others regarding their experiences with newspaper companies moving online. Thoughts?

Labels: comparison shopping, mobile, newspapers

John Battelle (Searchblog) has "joints after midnight" ideas. My father Larry Kagan, the sculptor (see his work here), and I have "vodka at the studio" sessions. Similar concept, similar effect.

Last night, we spent most of the time discussing using remote medical devices paired with intelligent software to create dynamic diets for consumers. The concept is to help people attune their food choices to the actual status of their bodies ("Your blood pressure is high right now - avoid the salt cod!").

I am not starting any more businesses which require people to change their current ways of doing things, so I'm leaving this one to someone else to try. Automated nagging, anyone?

Labels: business ideas