Like Things

Here’s an interesting game: find a book on Amazon who’s “also viewed” relatives are particularly diverse and distinctive from the first book. In this example a book on the Challenger disaster (i.e. it looks into the question was the Nasa culture embracing increasing risk over time) that is paired with a book on how the law treats the economic under currents of intimate relationships (for example does a Husband have rights to his patents granted to his wife), a book on story telling’s role in political movements, and finally a book that looks into what pleasures a criminal finds in his craft.

My first reaction when I saw this set what WTF, but actually it makes sense. These would all make fine selections for a geeky Social Sciences book of the month club. Which isn’t a bad first approximation of what I’m into these days.

Melting Web Traffic

Over at the Alexa blog at the tail end of a rambling post about the competition for the #2 spot in their ranking we find the following provocative statement:

…over the last six months the Reach and Pageview numbers for both of these giants has been declining, along with Yahoo, in the Alexa stats. That isn’t to say that their overall users or page views are declining, rather that their percentage of the overall traffic on the Web is shrinking.

Markets condense for lots of reasons. Fast growing markets condense because the rapidly entering new customers lack information to guide thier choices leading them to mimic exisiting market players, i.e. you get strong preferential attachment. That concentration of market share can be quite durable since the winners will then work to lock those customers in. As the market matures knowledge about the vendor/customer relationship increases. Vendors get better at managing lock-in while customers become more knowledgable about how to shop.

The relationships that define an industry’s structure. Market share is a metric of the vendor/buy relationships for a particular class of vendors. Individual relationships can come and go, but they tend toward durable. A particular class of relationships is quite durable; which makes market share something dependable. That stablity allows firms to plan their capital expenditures confidently; i.e. it lowers their risk. From a planning point of view how your industry is consilidating or not is as important as if your industry’s market is growing or shrinking.

So I’m particularly bewildered that Alexa doesn’t track and chart an actual measure of how condensed the traffic is.

Trader Reputation

Presumably as the internet identity problem get’s solved services will emerge that can cough up tiny nuggets of information about those identities. Did zippy_133_a go to Harvard? Is sweet_thing_341 over 18 years of age? What percentage of wild_boy_12’s comments to blogs were flagged as spam, offensive, angry? Ebay, for example could provide a service that provides information about an identities’ feedback at there, i.e. “bought 10 items for a value 312$ with 100% positive feedback, sold 3 items for 17$ 33% positive feedback, 66% no feedback recieved.”

I was pleased to discover there is another trading reputation server: Heatware. Heatwave is used by folks that buy, sell and trade in internet venues other than eBay. Since you can click around in their user database it’s easy to find the high volume traders, for example this quy. Since traders here post their persona’s in various trading sites this also provides a directory of trading venues other than eBay. I’ll note in passing that forces accounting linking across the persona, which I consider to be unfortunate.

I can’t believe I didn’t know about this.

Now Heatware should not be confused with Heatwave, who makes giant vacum+microwave chambers used to dry your lumber so you can sell it immediately.

Bad Plutocrats, No Cookie!

Back for a moment on the left/right (aka little/big-economic entity) distinction. Consider a treaty who’s name is something along the lines of ‘Treaty to protect the rights of X.” Now, imagine the X that that is furthest to the right. ‘Treaty to protect the rights of Bill Gates?” ‘Treaty to protect the rights of the G7?’ How about: ‘Treaty to protect the rights of Broadcast Organizations‘?!?

Which brings us to a related question; how does the Plutocracy feel about the demotion of Pluto? Heavens, if they can organize to eliminate the death tax you’d think they could get it together to for this!

Sell signals

Statement from Billy Campbell, President, Discovery Networks, U.S. Discovery Communications, Inc

Our entire company is deeply saddened by the tragic and sudden loss of Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter. Steve was beloved by millions of fans and animal lovers around the world and was one of our planet’s most passionate conservationists. He has graced our air since October 1996 and was essential in building Animal Planet into a global brand.

What a legacy! “Building a global brand!”

A Gang of One

Here’s a fun variant of the repeated prisoner’s dilemma game.

Picture a lecture audience. I announce that I’ll go along every row, starting at the front, and give each member a chance to say “cooperate” or “defect.” Each time someone says “cooperate” I’ll award ten cents to her and to everyone else in the audience. Each time someone says “defect” I’ll award a dollar only to her. And I ask that they play this game solely to maximize their individual total income, without worrying about friendship, politeness, the common good, etc. I say that I will stop at an unpredictable point after at least twenty players have played, at which time each member can collect her earnings.

You gotta love the instruction not to be “worrying about friendship, politeness, the common good, etc.” The game creates a group out of the audience with all the group dynamics in play particularly because there is no privacy. In the original prisoner’s dilemma that players are part of a gang, here we make the audience into a gang; while instructing them not to act like one.

That framing is from an interesting synopsis of a set of some ideas that apparently were first formalized by George Ainslie, e.g. that we all prefer short term pleasures and we tend to severely discount long term benefits as we make our choices in life. Given the choice between a chocolate bar right now and a chocolate cake tomorrow we tend to take the chocolate bar. This behavioral default is apparently well documented in man and other animals.

Formally we ought to discount future rewards by some reasonably uniform rate. So if we are offered a $100 tomorrow and $10 in an hour we ought to just compute the option value of each discounting by some interest rate based on the risk we percieve the future payoff to have. This kind of discounting is expediential; and it isn’t biased about things that are closer vs. farther away. It will cough up the same answer for 5 today vs. 10 tomorrow no matter what units (days, weeks, years) you use when you ask.

We animals don’t do that. Another way of saying that we like short-term benefits is that we discount things in small time units very sharply. A cookie in 30 seconds vs. a nice lunch in an hour? The cookie wins. It’s not rational but it’s how we are wired.

This leads to all kinds of common but irrational behaviors. Breaking the diet, staying up to late, having a few too many beers, failing to hold our tongue, etc. etc.

But most interestingly it puts us into a game just like the one above with ourselves. We are the audience. At each step in the game we have a choice to defect and take the dollar; but if we can manage not to defect then we can capture the long-term gains. We are caught in a gang of one our loyalty to our future selves continually tested against a hardwired setting that tempts us into short term defections.

Housing Prices – Part III

Here’s a chart of housing prices from the NY Times. I’m not entirely sure why it’s so extreme compared to the charts I put up in a previous posting. I suspect part of it is not using a log scale, part is having a much longer time horizon, part is that it’s showing a different index, and finally I suspect that it’s selective about what cities are included; but I still don’t really get it.

The New Supply Chain, same as the Old Supply Chain

Chris Anderson’s new book on the Long Tail is finally out. I got a review copy and sooner or later I’ll get around to picking apart my thoughts in some organized manner.

The idea in the book is simple; that there are bottlenecks in traditional supply chains, e.g. shelf space in the record store or movie theaters in your town this friday night. These bottlenecks shape what gets sold. I like his provocative idea that if you eliminated these bottlenecks then something he referes to as the true shape of demand would be revealed.

So this is a book about the shape of markets, where by shape we mean the distribution of market share across the set of products moving thru the market. It is refreshing to see that kind of thinking about markets appearing in a book targeted at the air plane business class reading demographic. And further more it’s delightful to see the discussion focus immediately on the issue of where the bottlenecks are; and how they shape the slope and edges of the power-law curves.

It drives me crazy that he appears to be willfully blind to how market players strive continously to create, own, and defend these bottlenecks. While he is enthusiastic in celebrate the freedom created when older bottlenecks are swept away he is entirely silent about the concern that the new bottlenecks might be more or less troublesome than the old ones.

Here, just to take one example, is a nice article in Fortune about how Google holds the fate of so many businesses carelessly in it’s hands now. The elephant doesn’t even notice when it steps on the ants. But actually it’s worse than that. In these Long Tail markets the giants aren’t elephants, they are ant eaters.

House Prices – Part II

Here’s some more chart porn of house prices. This chart shows the HPI for five major US cities for aproximately the last 30 years. It shows, for example, that I bought my house at the peak of a price bubble back in the 1980s. Part of the problem here is I don’t really have any idea what to compare this index to, cpi?, gdp?, interest rates?, demographics?, politics?

LA is currently the one with the highest index, it’s also the one who’s bubbling lagged the during the 1980s. Note how housing was a lousy investment during the 90s and to a limited degree the recent run up in prices looks at if it might be compensating for that. You’d see a much wider range of in the recent price runs if you had data for more areas. If you want to play with this data it’s available on this page in various formats for lots and lots of metropolitain regions, they aren’t very picky about what counts as metropolitain.