Pillow makers: About Making Money

I have never been a gambler.

I pay attention to horse racing twice most years, and three times at most. I find out the winner of the Kentucky Derby (though usually not by watching the actual race) and then, when the Preakness rolls around, I check to see if the same horse has won both races.

If so, I pay just enough attention to learn if that horse also wins the Belmont Stakes, taking racing’s prestigious Triple Crown. The last time a horse actually won all three races was in 1978, so since then my excitement over the Belmont Stakes has been pretty limited.

In spite of all that, I thought I knew at least one thing about the gambling world: The house always wins. But it turns out that’s not the case when New York City or New York State takes the bets.

In early December, after about 40 years in business, New York City’s Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) closed its doors when it failed to receive a hoped-for legislative reprieve. In its last full fiscal year, ending March 31, the state-controlled corporation operated at a loss of $37.2 million after handing over the money it was required to give to the state, local governments, and race tracks. At the time of its closing, OTB had also racked up a pension bill that, together with health benefits promised to retirees, could be greater than $600 million.

This is a pretty astonishing feat considering that OTB’s business consisted of taking money from people and then giving some of it back to them. This is a business which was previously handled by neighborhood bookies, who never seemed to have a problem making money at it. To be fair, the bookies probably had a less generous pension plan.

Yet both New York City and New York State managed to fail to make money in the business of taking money for nothing. The city finally gave up in 2008, when it handed its mess over to the state.

Officials have tried to blame OTB’s collapse on decreased interest in horse racing. Speaking with The New York Times, John D. Sabini, chairman of the State Racing and Wagering Board, referred to off-track betting as “an industry that’s having a tough time…in a tough economy.” But while decreased demand is a fine excuse for not making much money, a gambling outfit should still be able to avoid losing money. All you have to do is reduce expenses to match revenues.

OTB could have easily closed down many or all of its betting parlors and relied on a small staff to manage Internet and phone traffic. For some businesses, atmosphere is everything, but OTB considered it a major upgrade in “customer amenities” when it installed restrooms and seating in 1993. It seems safe to say then that, while some may have enjoyed a sense of camaraderie in the storefront parlors, most people didn’t turn to off-track betting for the luxurious environment. With the cost savings from closing physical locations, OTB could have done some advertising to try to boost demand. That is what any rational manager would have done.

Unfortunately, instead of having rational managers, OTB had New York City and then New York State.

OTB was designed to function as a public benefit corporation, an entity that operates like a private business but turns over its profits to the state. However, everyone knew that OTB, being affiliated with New York City, was almost certain to become a bastion of patronage, if not corruption, and probably would never admit to having any profits to give back to the government. So lawmakers decided to have the corporation pay the city, and later also the state, a portion of its gross revenue, rather than its net profits. As Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow of Mount Vernon succinctly explained: “If they’re allowed to pay on the net there would be nothing left over.”

This structure meant that the state was sure of getting some money, but it also meant the government had little reason to encourage OTB to cut costs. Meanwhile OTB had no assurance that it would have enough money after paying the state and the city to actually cover its operating costs, let alone reinvest in its business. The result was inevitable. Now that inevitability has come to pass.

It may take some skill to lose money collecting bets, but it’s the kind of skill New York has in spades. When it comes to the sport of mismanagement, there’s no doubt about it: The people who run the Empire State are thoroughbreds.

For more articles on financial, business, and other topics, view the Palisades Hudson newsletter, Sentinel, or subscribe to my daily opinion column, Current Commentary.

Values, Value and Valuation — The money is all relative

Oh how timing sometimes works out to be funny. I was driving home tonight and started thinking about the value of products, the valuation of companies and how the values that a company portrays can change the rest. No sooner had I sat down to write this piece than the news of Goldman Sachs investing $500 million into Facebook broke and refreshed the entire thing in my mind. So let’s look at these three things, and try to see if one manages to sway the rest.

Values

Do you, like me, find yourself more inclined to use or purchase something that comes from a company that you can believe in? The ethos of a company can — for me at least — completely break me away from the product. That very fact, because I feel that I’m likely not alone in my actions (or lack thereof) can have a serious impact on the bottom line of a company.

Look at Facebook, for instance. When the Social Graph was announced and the new privacy changes went into effect, many people threw up their hands in disgust. But many others continued with life as usual, even if a bit annoyed. Why? Because Facebook has this outward appearance of a company that’s simply trying to do cool things, and it needs information in order to do them. The company’s values seem, for the most part, to be in line with the things that we Internet users want. As such, there was a lot more wagging and a lot less barking from the angry dogs crowd.

You’re starting a company? There’s likely something to be said for developing an ethos ahead of time, making it known and then sticking to it. Would Google be where it is today if not for the “don’t be evil” tag line? Even if you don’t fully believe that the company runs that way, you still remember it. Point made.

Value

When value exceeds cost, even by a single cent, the purchase will be made – Grant Cardone

That quote is one that has stuck with me for some time now. A few years ago I was making my living selling cars and it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to overcome the objection of price. In the technology world, we’re constantly being offered products for “free”. The only cost? A bit of information, a slice of our privacy or somethings similar. But then, after using those “free” products, we start to build our own value for them.

Don’t believe me? Just look at some of the things that you likely use every day. Gmail? You’d pay for that. Twitter? You don’t want to admit it, but it’s likely become a valuable asset to your daily Internet life. The same can be said for so many things and yet we get them for “free”. But there’s a down side to this issue as well — it becomes very difficult for a maker to charge for a product when there are free alternatives. Don’t believe that? When was the last time that a box office movie didn’t get a torrent version?

And yet, even as companies try to build value in their products, still others think that the economy allows for them to set their own values and tell us what something is worth. TV networks are probably the most well-known perpetrators of this heresy. Apple TV launched, ABC and Fox decided to jump on board and see what would happen. Some of the rest? They decided that $.99 was devaluing the product and yet as the provider of the product, there is no one entity that is more unqualified to name the value.

Consider it a lesson in business, I suppose. The potential buyer will determine the value of your product. Always.

Valuation

Now here’s a sticky one. Valuation is one of those strange things because it means so many different things to different people. To the potential investors, it’s a measure of how much money can be made. To the business owner it’s a gauge of how well the business has done. To the end user? It’s…honestly not much.

As a case in point, around TNW we love Twitter. We want to see it succeed and we are sure that it will. The valuation continues to climb prior to any IPO and yet, as users of the service, it really doesn’t matter much to us. Sure, it would matter if the site closed its doors, but beyond that there simply isn’t anything about the valuation number that matters.

And so, as an entrepreneur you have to ask yourself where the balance lies. Do your company values allow you to build value in your product? If so, then the chances are that your valuation will end up right where it needs to be. There’s a fair amount of truth in the thought that, if you handle the small stuff, the big stuff will fall into place.

So with that, I offer you a thought going into the new year — start with your values. The rest will fall into place.

surface encounters rock tops surface encounters macomb

Thursday, January 6, 2011

About Making Money

Values, Value and Valuation — The money is all relative

Values

Value

Valuation

No comments:

Post a Comment