Ben And Ben Tacloban 2019
Jun 05, 2019 Its worth knowing that there are two Robinson's Malls in Tacloban. This one is the first one and is located in Marasbaras, the other one Robinson's North is newer is located in Abucay, Tacloban, Robinson's Place is a good mall with a large array of. Check Out The Biggest Trends of 2019 with These Awesome Handmade Products. Pickler & Ben’s 2nd Annual Chili Cook-Off: Find Out the Winner and Get the Recipes.
Ben Thompson, via his website Stratechery ('Strategy' and 'Tech'), has made a name for himself over the past decade popularising the concept of 'aggregation theory'. I invite readers to check out his material directly for a fuller explanation, but in short, his argument is that tech platforms have become so powerful (and profitable or potentially profitable) because in the internet era, the game has changed, and it has become far more important for companies to aggregate (and control) demand than to control supply (the latter of which Ben argues was the case in the past). Other industries should learn from this.
Major hotel groups should merge and/or co-operate and form their own hotel booking site, and either withdraw their supply from booking platforms, or (more realistically) continue to make them available, but at higher prices than on their booking sites (easy do do by cutting out aggregators' take-rates). Where applicable, they should also lobby to have archaic restrictions on the ability of hotels to offer prices on their own website lower than on external platforms. They will then be able to offer lower direct-booking prices to customers, allowing customers to find a room they like on an external platform, and then book the room directly and more cheaply on their website. In addition, new tech organisations are likely to spring up that provide booking tools that allow customers to more easily contract with independent operators without having to re-insert their credit card and identification details each and every time. If someone could create an ID authentication/payment plug-in app that enabled one-click purchasing on a variety of different merchants' sites, it would help independents' websites disintermediate the aggregators (this is a major business opportunity for somebody out there - I'm not going to do it so feel free to steal my idea).
Airlines should also join forces and create their own flight booking platforms, put all their collective inventory on it, and then withdraw the supply from external aggregators (or charge Webjet et al significant price premiums to carry the same inventory). They should then advertise their lower rates to customers. In reality, the suppliers ought to have much more power than the aggregators, because Webjet doesn't have any of its own planes (unlike Netflix which can self-produce its own content). That the aggregators are making more money than the airlines is stupid. The dominant booking platform should be owned by the airlines. If they were smart enough and got their act together, they could capture this value themselves - use their 'aggregation of supply' to squeeze out demand-side rent-seekers that are earning huge amounts of money but adding very little value.
Different industries will have differing degrees of success with this, and it won't happen quickly, but tech investors should not be complacent. Tech platforms have been disruptive, but the history of capitalism shows that it is not long before the distruptors become the disrupted. In the very long term, replacement cost is the best estimate of value, and many of these tech companies sport huge valuations despite having technology that is very easily replicated. In some cases network effects exist, that mean the replacement cost is in fact very high (it would in fact cost hundreds of billions of dollars to displace Facebook's 2bn users by paying them to migrate platforms, highlighting the power of the network effect), but only a small minority of businesses fall into this category. What's the replacement cost of a flight booking app? It's ultimately just a bunch of code.
In short, aggregation theory doesn't really add a whole lot to the analysis, in my view, other than simply restating the uncontroversial view that the balance between demand and supply matters, and that the players in the supply chain with the most market power will make the most money. These are not novel concepts, and there are too many 'this time is different' and 'the old economic rules don't apply to tech' connotations to it for my tastes. This sort of thinking is what lead to the 1998-00 dot.com bubble. It burst and people realised, actually the old rules still do apply after all.It is going to be interesting to see how things evolve in coming years, but I would counsel caution about paying up huge multiples for platform/booking businesses with seemingly assured future rapid growth and prosperity. History shows that the future tends to surprise people, and that today's sure winners often prove far more susceptible to market forces/competition than is generally believed during boom periods.LT3000. I remember in the mid 2000's, I think it was, when the zeitgeist was 'dis-intermediation'. The internet meant suppliers would reach out to consumers directly, cut out the middle man, and with all power shifting to them, they would march off to a low-cost sunset, hand-in-hand with happy customers.
I remember much banter about this on Bristlemouth, the Intelligent Investor's associated blog site, back then.Fast forward to today, and we have intermediary behemoths that we call 'tech companies', and the new zeitgeist is that these will forever hold all the power.Funny how we go from pillar to post when we allow ourselves to believe the consensus.On the subject of the risks WEB faces of being dis-intermediated, there is some irony that an old world intermediary like FLT looks at less risk of such (in my opinion). FLT is a distribution channel that carries high fixed costs. There is no rational reason, that I can see, that an industry with pronounced demand/inventory cycles, would want to permanently carry that cost & complexity. FLT offers a channel for airlines to off load excess inventory when/if required.
In short, from the suppliers point of view, FLT has a reason to exist. In agreement with you, I'm not sure the same could be said about WEB. Great insights.
Is indeed interesting how the narrative on disintermediation has shifted. As you note, we now simply have new intermediaries in place of the old.The more successful ones are really to a large extent simply 'marketing' organisations that get paid to create superior visibility for one supplier ahead of others, in a crowded field of suppliers. In that respect they are rentier business models - they are intermediaries that have inserted themselves between buyers and sellers, and are capturing a lot of the value provided by suppliers.Hard to see right now what the mechanism is - because it always is - but rentier middle-man business models usually get disrupted at some point, and the continuing evolution of technology, including AWS etc that keeps lowing the barrier to entry for new tech start up, suggest they probably will be at some point. If nothing else, there is certainly a clear incentive for suppliers to move to another platform that shares the spoils with them more equitably. DaveyThe examples given of companies that control demand were about to do so because of significant disruptive forces (the advent of railways; the internet). Absent regulatory intervention or supply side competitors working together, it may well take another significant disruptive force for these companies to be displaced. The chance of a significant disruptive force emerging is, surely, small.
And the chance that that force is in the relevant industry must be even smaller. I would suggest these companies are safer than the impression given in this post.
Great thought provoking post, though. AnonymousJust to add a little historical insight - the airlines (at least the US airlines) already did 'join forces and create their own flight booking platforms' 20 years ago. This was Orbitz, and it had exactly the impact you would expect - greatly reducing distribution costs in the industry via increased competition. The reality is that travel booking sites don't make any of their money from airlines, they make it all from hotels (though I can't speak to Webjet / the Australian market), and it's for this reason.The major hotels have actually already done the same (it's called Roomkey.com) though with limited success for a number of reasons - including the amount of fragmentation in the industry, which goes to the overall point. They also already make their supply 'available, but at higher prices than on their booking sites' - see the big direct booking campaigns by Marriott and Hilton - but at the end of the day they have limited power to do so because even these biggest of brands account for. Intersting critic, however I think the bit you may have missed in understanding aggregation theory is that the internet has made distribution free - a tectonic shift in the world. Now you can scale customers and collect fees across borders without needing physical customer infrastructure like retail branches.For an example, I recently worked in a large global bank that was being disrupted by an internet giant utilising this free distribution to reach customers and leveraging network effects to keep them hooked using masses of data for product and UX personalisation.
Why couldn't we just build it ourselves? We tried and had some success in a single market. However, because we were shaped (org and culture) like a bank not a tech company it was impossible to respond to.This stuff, although looks like a simple website/app, isn't easy at scale and u will fail quickly without the right people and guess where they are all working? For large tech startups being paid the same salaries in some cases plus promises of multiples of upside traditional companies with their steady stock valuations simply can't compete with. We tried for 12 months to hire a CTO who could handle the challenge and got nowhere. Hi Lyall, I am a fan of Ben Thompson.
He replied to your post. I have always had a problem with one part of Aggregation Theory and I wonder what your thinking is on it.Ben says that the Internet enables zero distribution costs and zero transaction costs but is that real true? If so then why does Google and Facebook not have 100% gross margins? Why do these Aggregators have cost of goods sold if distribution and transaction costs are realy zero?Thank you for your article. I enjoyed it and I have added you and will read more of your work,ben nartman. Buffet in 1998 in front of dot com entrepreneurs at sun valley:“It’s wonderful to promote new industries, because they are verypromotable. It’s very hard to promote investment in a mundane product.
It’s much easier to promote an esoteric product, even particularly one with losses, because there’s no quantitative guideline.”This was goring the audience directly, where it hurt. “But people will keep coming back to invest, you know.It reminds me a little of that story of the oil prospector who died and went to heaven. Peter said, ‘Well, I checked you out, and you meet all of the qualifications. But there’s one problem.’ He said, ‘We have some tough zoning laws up here, and we keep all of the oil prospectors over in that pen.
And as youcan see, it is absolutely chock-full. There is no room for you.’“And the prospector said, ‘Do you mind if I just say four words?’“St. Peter said, ‘No harm in that.’“So the prospector cupped his hands and yells out, ‘Oil discovered in hell!’“And of course, the lock comes off the cage and all of the oil prospectors start heading right straight down.“St. Peter said, ‘That’s a pretty slick trick. So,’ he says, ‘go on in, make yourself at home. All the room in the world.’“The prospector paused for a minute, then said, ‘No, I think I’ll go along with the rest of the boys. There might be some truth to that rumor after all.’“Well, that’s the way people feel with stocks.
It’s very easy to believe that there’s some truth to that rumor after all.”. Thanks Arun - fantastic parable. Have heard it before but it's been a while so thanks for the refresher!I think it is also fair to say that it is more difficult to promote a more mature businesses with a long listed history of actual earnings/revenues over various cycles, because all these real earnings also constitute evidence of a company's limitations.In life, youthful ambition can be limitless, but subsequent outcomes necessarily need to anchor those ambitions back to reality, and the ratio of potential to outcomes must decline as people age. Likewise, early in a company's history, people are free to project all kinds of rosy scenarios/ambitions onto a company's future, but it becomes harder to do so as lofty ambitions need to be benchmarked against actual realities. This is often why you will find companies with long histories of strong and reliable profitablity priced below hyped growth stocks with little or no earnings.
Ben And Ben Tacloban 2019 Time
The former have demonstrated their practical limitations. The latter have not yet. When they do, however, more often than not, the reality falls short of people's hopes and dreams.Cheers,Lyall.
Ben And Ben Tacloban 2019 Calendar
Hi Ben,Thanks for your response, and I appreciate you taking the time to constructively engage. I also enjoy these types of debates, and I probably should have acknowledged in my original post that I've enjoyed reading/listening to your material in the past, and it has added value to my thought processes on certain issues.I agree that we share a lot of common ground, and that to some extent, the debate is semantic in nature. For instance, I agree with you that the aggregation of demand is what explains the power & profitability of certain platform companies.
Lyall, I just read your article on Spotify. It appears to me that you made the same argument as Ben's Aggregation Theory and even the crazy valuations based on it that you complained about herein this article.It seems you complained when you agree with Ben and even made the crazy valuation argument yourself.Yet you complained as follows:'This, in turn, creates the raw material to rationalize bubble thinking/valuations, instead of more level-headed analysis.'
But then you made the same valuation argument here:writes:On conventional valuation metrics, this stock looks very expensive, at 5x forward revenue, with the enterprise making consistent and sizable losses. However, alternative metrics suggest that there is still a plausible value-based bull case for owning the stock.so which is it?
Tsvi TanninI also struggled with the explanatory power of aggregation theory and the amount it's been referenced as a justification for the size of tech giants. I think the way you frame aggregation theory through the lense of market power is a much more accurate characterization of its usefulness. It's helpful but not a breakthrough idea.I do think you need to give it a little more credit though. I've come to think of aggregation theory more as defining the phenomenon where a company can accrue a tremendous amount of leverage over suppliers that are fragmented. The speed and scope of this leverage is enabled by the new capability for a company to add an additional suppliers at zero marfinal cost. It's the same game like you said but a new very effective strategy.Supplier consolidation decreases this market power but demand aggregators can still be very profitable, even if they're effectively a marketing funnel, especially as they add new services and features to their platform that make their products better.
Ben And Ben Tacloban 2019 Movie
Airbnb experiences and Spotify's podcast integrations are good examples of this. It'll be exciting to see the next phase of these markets evolve. GET BACK YOUR EX FAST, SAVE YOUR MARRIAGE FROM DIVORCE AND AMEND YOUR BROKEN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HELP OF DR Isiramen CALL OR WHATSAPP +221Hello everyone i am happy to spread my testimony of a strong spell caster called Dr isiramen. I'm cynthia Houston and i live in USA, my husband and i had a little fight because of that he wanted to divorce me i was so afraid to lose him because i love him very much so i search online for help and i saw a lot of people's testimonies on how Dr isiramen help them and came out with positive results like Divorces, Cancers, lotteries, fertilities and others.
Pyar karke dekho dvds full. Published 9:38 AM EDT May 29, 2019Julianna Zobrist broke her silence for the first time after her husband, Chicago Cubs player Ben Zobrist, filed for legal separation in early May.The couple, married since 2005, has owned a home in Williamson County for over a decade.The musician and author posted a lengthy message on Instagram Saturday, with a photo of herself and her three children.The post reads, 'Hi. I am still here. Somewhat in the mire, but I am still here.
Over these last two weeks I have watched so many of you quietly enter the marshland with me. I can see you, sitting beside me, waist deep in the water and bog.
I can feel you, in a silence like art, honoring the most intimate spaces of our pain and heartbreak without shame. I can hear you saying, Let me carry some of that for you.' While she did not directly address the divorce, Julianna Zobrist seemed to promise fans that she would share more as time passed, saying, 'Someday I will share my story with you.but not today. Today we breathe in deeply the fragrance of the rushes and reeds, and then, I might need your delicate reminder to breathe out again.' In Ben Zobrist's initial filing, it was stated that Julianna Zobrist was 'guilty of inappropriate marital conduct which render further cohabitation impossible.' Ben Zobrist is a 2016 World Series MVP and three-time all star.
The couple's separation came days after Ben Zobrist announced an extended leave of absence from the Cubs.SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM: Get unlimited access to the Tennessean for a low price.Reach Andrew Wigdor at awigdor@tennessean.com and on Twitter @andrewwigdor.