創(chuàng)業(yè)公司怎樣才能“打倒”彭博終端？
|
????彭博終端機(jī)在某些企業(yè)家和風(fēng)投家眼里可能有點(diǎn)另類，甚至可能是個(gè)已經(jīng)落伍的東西。在如今這個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)年代，人人都能從互聯(lián)網(wǎng)和開(kāi)源大數(shù)據(jù)工具上獲得免費(fèi)的信息，而彭博終端這個(gè)基本上是由第三方數(shù)據(jù)和分析工具攢在一塊兒的東西居然還好意思跟用戶收錢(qián)。另外大家也經(jīng)常能聽(tīng)見(jiàn)有人報(bào)怨它的界面像80年代的產(chǎn)物?，F(xiàn)在包括金融服務(wù)業(yè)在內(nèi)的許多行業(yè)都在加速“松綁”，但彭博終端機(jī)是個(gè)典型的“捆綁銷(xiāo)售”產(chǎn)品：它只有一個(gè)產(chǎn)品，一個(gè)價(jià)格，但是它有3000多個(gè)功能，這就意味著普通用戶頂多能用上其中的一小部分功能。但是全球有32萬(wàn)多人每年都花2萬(wàn)美金使用這個(gè)東西。 ????如果你覺(jué)得彭博終端面向的市場(chǎng)對(duì)于那些有闖勁、有頭腦的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司來(lái)說(shuō)是個(gè)完美機(jī)會(huì)，那么你并不是唯一一個(gè)有這種想法的人。我曾在彭博創(chuàng)投（Bloomberg Ventures）工作過(guò)四年，在那期間以及我離開(kāi)以后，我曾無(wú)數(shù)次聽(tīng)到過(guò)關(guān)于這個(gè)話題的討論。尤其是最近《機(jī)構(gòu)投資人》雜志（Institutional Investor ）上的一篇文章稱，“打倒彭博的競(jìng)賽已經(jīng)打響了”，還有一篇單獨(dú)的文章特別提到了我在Estimize和Kensho公司的朋友們，稱他們是“瞄準(zhǔn)彭博”的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司。 ????近年來(lái)，彭博終端已經(jīng)見(jiàn)證了很多潛在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者的興衰。不時(shí)有新的金融數(shù)據(jù)創(chuàng)業(yè)公司曇花一現(xiàn)，有的高調(diào)，有的低調(diào)，都試圖挑戰(zhàn)彭博終端的某些功能。不過(guò)這些公司最終都很快就消失了，有的關(guān)門(mén)大吉，有的轉(zhuǎn)行，還有的被人收購(gòu)。 ????究竟是為什么？那些做金融數(shù)據(jù)的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司的出路究竟在哪？ ????正面襲擊：祝好運(yùn)！ ????首先，彭博并不是那種人浮于事的守成型公司。我可能是在彭博創(chuàng)投喝Kool-Aid飲料喝得太多了，但是彭博留給我的印象非常深刻。彭博不久前自己也是一家創(chuàng)業(yè)公司，它有一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的品牌，雄厚的財(cái)力，高度競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的文化，而且它的這款產(chǎn)品也是花了幾十億美元的研發(fā)費(fèi)用、耗時(shí)數(shù)年時(shí)間才開(kāi)發(fā)出來(lái)的。它的技術(shù)平臺(tái)基本上永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)過(guò)時(shí)，也不會(huì)落后，而且背后還有出色的客服團(tuán)隊(duì)在提供支持。 ????但現(xiàn)實(shí)中也不乏出色的守成公司被新進(jìn)者顛覆的例子。因此，說(shuō)不定有其它原因可以解釋，為什么直到現(xiàn)在創(chuàng)業(yè)公司還無(wú)法對(duì)彭博終端形成威脅。 ????（1）強(qiáng)大的網(wǎng)絡(luò)效應(yīng)的保護(hù)。首先，人們經(jīng)常誤解了彭博終端獲得長(zhǎng)期成功的一個(gè)重要原因。彭博終端除了數(shù)據(jù)和分析工具是賣(mài)點(diǎn)之外，更主要的是它本身基本上就是一個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)。實(shí)際上它可能還是世界上第一個(gè)社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)，只不過(guò)當(dāng)年這個(gè)詞還沒(méi)有誕生。雖然現(xiàn)在有些人認(rèn)為彭博終端作為一種身份象征的地位已經(jīng)開(kāi)始削弱了，但過(guò)去幾十年，“彭博機(jī)”一直是專業(yè)金融人士互相聯(lián)絡(luò)的利器（無(wú)論是工作上的還是非工作上的往來(lái)）。在它的目標(biāo)市場(chǎng)上，可以說(shuō)大家整天都在用它，通過(guò)它與同事、客戶和合作伙伴進(jìn)行溝通聯(lián)絡(luò)。而像Facebook、Dropbox、Gmail等基于網(wǎng)絡(luò)的服務(wù)由于經(jīng)常被金融服務(wù)公司封住，在這方面反而沒(méi)有什么建樹(shù)——起碼在用電腦溝通方面是這樣的。 |
????In the eye of some entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, the Bloomberg terminal is a bit of an anomaly, perhaps even an anachronism. In the era of free information on the Internet and open source Big Data tools, here's a business that charges its users to access data that it generally obtains from third parties, as well as the tools to analyze it. You'll hear the occasional jab at its interface as reminiscent of the 1980s. And at a time of accelerating "unbundling" across many industries, including financial services, the Bloomberg terminal is the ultimate "bundling" play: One product, one price, which means that that the average user uses only a small percentage of the terminal's 30,000+ functions. Yet, 320,000 people around the world pay about $20,000 a year to use it. ????If you think that this sounds like a perfect opportunity for disruption or "unbundling" at the hand of nimble, aggressive startups, you're not alone. I spent four years at Bloomberg Ventures, and this was a topic that I heard debated countless times before, during and after my tenure there. The most recent example is a recent Institutional Investor article that declared the start of "The Race to Topple Bloomberg," with a separate article highlighting my friends at Estimize and Kensho as startups that "Take Aim at Bloomberg." ????Yet, over the years, the terminal has seen its fair share of would be disruptors come and go. Every now and then, a new wave of financial data startups seems to be appearing, attempting to build businesses that, overtly or not, compete with some parts of the Bloomberg terminal. Soon enough, however, those companies seem to disappear, through failure, pivot or acquisition. ????What gives? And where are the opportunities for financial data startups? ????Frontal assault: good luck ????To start, Bloomberg is not exactly your run-of-the-mill, lazy incumbent. Perhaps I drank too much of the Kool-Aid, but I left the company very impressed. Bloomberg, which was itself a startup not that long ago, comes armed with a powerful brand, deep pockets, a fiercely competitive culture, a product that results from billions of dollars of R&D investment over the years and a technology platform that basically never goes down or even slows down, supported by generally excellent customer service. ????But great incumbents have been disrupted before. So there is perhaps another set of less immediately apparent reasons why the terminal has so far been very resilient to disruption by startups: ????1. It is protected by strong network effects. One surprisingly misunderstood reason to the long term success of the Bloomberg terminal is that, beyond the data and analytics, it is fundamentally a network. In fact, it was probably the first ever social network, long before the term was coined. Although some believe that its cachet as a status symbol is starting to erode, "the Bloomberg" (as it is often called) has been for decades the way you communicate with other finance professionals (for legitimate or not so legitimate reasons). In its relevant target market, everyone is on it and uses it all day to communicate with colleagues, clients and partners. Web-based services (Facebook, Dropbox, Gmail), often banned in financial services companies, haven't made much of a dent in that, at least for desktop communication. |
最新文章