Victorian Tech Startup Week

Last week, I mentioned that Australia’s headline employment numbers appeared to be making a strong post-lockdown recovery – however, the latest ABS data shows that while the unemployment rate has declined, the overall participation rate has remained the same, and the underemployment rate has actually increased. “Underemployed” is defined by the ABS as the number of “employed people who would prefer, and are available for, more hours of work than they currently have”. For many people, the traditional solution to bridging the gap between the amount of work they have, and the amount they want, is to juggle multiple part-time jobs, while others may choose to seek freelance work. Another approach is to create your own role, by becoming a startup founder, or joining a startup.

Of course, as I have written elsewhere, startups might not be for everyone. But until you try (or at least explore the idea), how will you know? This was one theme to have emerged from the recent Victorian Tech Startup Week, hosted by YBF Melbourne, with support from OVHcloud, AirTree Ventures, Silicon Beach Melbourne, the Victorian Government and YBF’s network of mentors, programme partners and community of members.

In part an effort to rekindle the local community of startups, in part a celebration of YBF’s Startup Immersion Programme, the week also showcased the benefits of co-working, and included sessions on startup funding, R&D grants, engaging with corporate clients, and a pitch night (more on that next week).

Of course, as a YBF member, and having worked with startups and founders for more than 10 years, I’m naturally biased. I have been working from their Melbourne co-working facility for the past two years (lock-down permitting), and I have been attending events and workshops there for many years (including participating in my very first hackathon….). I have also worked with some of their earliest startup founders.

Even though I am used to working from home and working remotely, the value of being on-site with other startup teams and founders within a supportive environment cannot be overestimated. And it’s not just about access to great facilities, and the many benefits that YBF offers. For one thing, as a member I get invited to meetings and events not open to the wider public. For another, I can host clients and other visitors without having to maintain my own office. But most of all, it’s the opportunity for chance encounters with potential clients, partners and suppliers, often triggered by casual conversations by the coffee machine or during other networking sessions.

A few years ago, it was reported that there were over 300 co-working spaces in Australia, and more then 80 of them in the Melbourne area alone. I’m not sure what those numbers are now, post-pandemic, especially as offices in Melbourne are still not back to full operating capacity. Nevertheless, co-working spaces are in demand again as (ex-)employees consider their future career options in light of the COVID recession, and as startups and their founders are expected to support the anticipated economic growth in areas like new technology, sustainability, smart manufacturing, healthcare and financial services. Of course, before making a decision on where to locate your new business or where to start co-working, it pays to do your due diligence.

Next week: Victorian Tech Startup Week – Pitch Night

Rebooting the local economy

Continuing the theme from my previous, post-lockdown blog, there are definitely some growing challenges ahead as the local economy tries to gather momentum. Yes, the jobs recovery looks encouraging for the hoped-for recovery (at least, based on headline numbers); and property prices (that staple of banks and economists alike) are getting very frothy again. But the end of JobKeeper later this month will hurt both employees and employers – it will be especially hard to stomach when you consider that a few household brands have chosen to keep their government-funded windfalls, despite making significant profits even during (or as a result of) the pandemic, while these same public companies have also been paying out shareholder dividends.

It will be very interesting to monitor ABS data on the number of business entries and exits (CABEE), which is now also being reported quarterly, instead of just annually. The latest annual data released in February (for the period ending June 30, 2020) shows that there were more new businesses registered than the number of businesses that were de-registered – but the net gain was a lot lower than in recent years, as can be seen from this graph:

Even after a few months of the pandemic, the number of new entries looks to have declined significantly, with a corresponding rate of increase in exits – and the net increase was already on a steep downward trajectory from 2017-18.

According to the ABS data, “In 2019-20 three industries accounted for more than half of the net annual increase in businesses, these were:

  • Transport, postal and warehousing
  • Professional, scientific and technical services
  • Health care and social assistance”

None of this data should be too surprising; further, we should expect to see a significant number of exits from the retail, hospitality and tourism sectors. Government support in the form of domestic travel vouchers and discounted air tickets will only go so far to reverse the fortunes of airline, hotel and tour operators. (The folks in Queensland must be happy with the twin benefit of being a desirable destination for both domestic holidays and Hollywood film production.)

While on-line shopping has helped to keep retail afloat, bricks and mortar retail has been dealt a heavy blow, from which it will take a long time to recover – many people have no doubt got used to e-commerce, and can’t be enticed back to the shops.

From what I see in Melbourne, the CBD is still running at 40-60% capacity (depending on location, sector, and day of the week). Mondays are definitely quiet, it gets busier on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and then starts to taper off again on Fridays, with people opting to “work from home” as the weekend draws near. Last week, one business group wants companies to close at 4.00pm on Fridays, to encourage workers to hang out in the city after work – but Fridays has always been known as POETS day, so I hardly think anyone still here at the end of the week needs any encouragement to down tools any earlier…

There are still so many construction sites within the CBD, both new build and renovations. But who is going to be occupying this new and refurbished real estate – especially as offices are still limited to 75% capacity, and employees seem reluctant to come back to the office full time? Many shops (old and new) remain boarded up. Some cafes have not even bothered to re-open at all, let alone just on the busy days. Doubtless some current construction projects have been brought forward to take advantage of JobKeeper payments, quieter streets and low interest rates – but it means that in some areas, whole blocks lie empty and virtually devoid of any business, and it feels that many shops don’t see a customer all day.

Unfortunately, with politicians distracted by non-economic matters (plus the small tasks of managing hotel quarantine and rolling out a vaccination programme), we are only seeing short-term responses and band-aid solutions, rather than strategic and visionary policy-making. Neither our governments nor the opposition parties (of all persuasions) seem willing or capable of serious (and non-partisan) debate on things like Universal Basic Income, structural reform of the economy, and instilling innovation across all areas of industry. Instead, they prefer to tinker at the edges (tax, superannuation, industrial relations), engage in Parliamentary point-scoring, and maintain the status quo within their respective supporter base. Something has to change, and soon.

Next week: Victorian Tech Startup Week

Facebook and that news ban

On February 18 this year, Facebook decided to “ban” news content in Australia. This meant that Australian Facebook users (including media companies) could not post news content or links, nor could they access local or overseas news. The move was a preemptive strike (and a somewhat crude negotiation tactic) by Facebook in an attempt to circumvent the Media Bargaining Code, which requires social media and search engine platforms (specifically, Google and Facebook) to pay news providers for the use of their content. Despite the gnashing and wailing among some sectors of the Australian community, the world did not end. And while Facebook has somewhat relented (following some concessions from the Federal government), the story has generated some useful debate about the power of certain tech platforms and the degree of influence or control they exercise over what we see on our screens each day.

Image sourced from Wikimedia

Personally, I did not find the ban an inconvenience, because I rarely use my Facebook account, and I certainly don’t rely on it for news or information. Instead, I prefer to access content direct from providers. One result of the ban was more downloads for Australian news apps such as the ABC and Inkl. Another (unforeseen?) result was a block on information posted by public and voluntary sector bodies, including essential services, health, community and charitable organisations.

Regarding the former, this can only be a good thing. Seriously, if we are relying on Facebook for news content, THAT is the real problem. As for the latter, it suggests a lot of organisations have become over-reliant on Facebook to reach their audience.

Meanwhile, Google (which had already struck a deal with Australian media companies) was eagerly promoting the number of Australian “partner publications” it offers in its News Showcase. This was something of a U-turn, because Google had threatened to remove search in Australia in response to the same Media Bargaining Code. While that might have been drastic, nevertheless, other search engines are available.

It was also interesting to see Microsoft (no stranger to anti-trust action during the so-called browser wars) promoting BuzzFeed via Twitter on the day of the Facebook ban. I also received a number of e-mails from various organisations reminding me that I could still access their content direct from their website or via their newsletter. These moves to re-connect direct with audiences started to make Facebook look very silly and petulant.

Just as there are other search engines besides Google, other social media platforms are available – so why do so many people appear to be against the Media Bargaining Code, and would prefer to give Facebook a free monopoly over which content they read?

I have written previously about Facebook’s relationship with “news”. For those people who felt “cheated” that they couldn’t access news, they should realise that a “free” social media account comes with a price – the consumer is the product, and is only there to serve up eyeballs and profiles to be sold to Facebook’s advertisers. In short, Facebook only sees news as a magnet for its own advertisers, so it seems only fair that they should pay for this piggyback ride on someone else’s content. (And we all know what else Facebook does with our personal information, as the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed.)

Some commentary suggested that Facebook is providing a type of “public service” by enabling links to news stories – so much so, that they question whether it is equitable to force Facebook to pay for the privilege, under the new Code. In fact, some argued that Facebook should be charging the media companies for linking to their stories, since this drives traffic to third-party news sites, which in turn generate advertising income based on their own readership. But this overlooks the reality of the economic bargain being struck here: Facebook might like to argue that it is doing you a “favour” by serving up news content in your personal feed; whereas, the social media giant “curates” what you see in your feed purely to generate ad revenue.

Alternatively, if news content has no value to Facebook, why has it been happy to distribute it for “free” all these years? Because, I repeat, they know full well that without readers and content, they can’t sell advertising. Maybe Facebook should invest in journalism and create their own news content? Oh wait, they don’t want to be regulated like a newspaper. Remember in 2013 when Facebook said it wanted to be “the world’s newspaper”, but then they realized they’d have to comply with media laws (libel, racial vilification etc.) and quietly dropped the plan?

In short, Facebook is not interested in being a news publisher (nor being subject to relevant media laws) but they are happy to “leverage” third-party content. Now, they will have to pay a fair price to use that content.

The conclusions from this Facebook episode (and some clumsy messaging from the Federal government) are pretty obvious:

  1. There is no such thing as a free lunch – a “free” social media account comes with a price; and there is also a cost attached to using someone else’s content
  2. Taxation of tech company revenues like Facebook, Google, Apple, Netflix and Amazon should be at the point of sale and consumption (i.e., where the consumer value is created and the income is generated, not where the revenue is recognised).
  3. Other search engines and social media platforms are available and content can be accessed direct from the source (but we’re probably too lazy to change our habits….)
  4. In part, this is about the continued demise of the 4th estate – no-one wants to pay for content, so social media platforms are getting a free ride having already destroyed the newspapers’ classified and display advertising business model
  5. But it’s also about the attention economy – consumers are the product when it comes to social media, so perhaps we should get paid more for our own time spent looking at ads?
  6. As ever, tech outstrips legislation – the law lags behind and is playing catch up
  7. And politicians really don’t have a clue how to go about this…..

Next week: Rebooting the local economy

Cancel or Recalibrate?

In the wake (sic) of wokeness and cancel culture, it was interesting to read that Disney has decided to add a health warning of “negative depictions of cultures” to re-runs of the Muppet Show. So rather than cancel these programmes, it has chosen to (re-)contextualise the content for a contemporary audience.

I don’t have a problem with this type of labelling, or indeed on any other content, if it helps to aid understanding, generate debate, and acknowledge past lapses of taste or judgement. Especially as programmes like the Muppet Show were huge in the heyday of mass-market network television, before cable and streaming fragmented audiences into pre-defined sub-genres and segregated demographics.

Indeed, I’ve grown used to similar health warnings attached to re-runs of many BBC radio dramas, from the 1950s through to the 1980s, when “social attitudes were somewhat different to today”.

But, if we continue along those lines, should we be applying similar health warnings to Shakespeare’s plays, Greek tragedies, French farces, Norse legends, European folklore as told by the Brothers Grimm, or Roman accounts of gladiatorial victories over their hapless victims?

In which case, I look forward to the same contextualisation (and health warnings) of any programmes that quote, cite, promote or reference key religious texts, most of which were written hundreds and thousands of years ago, yet which similarly offend our current values and societal norms.

Next week – Facebook and that news ban