Dylan Bland's Blog

On Mighty Ape, Marriage Equality, Brand & Values

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:50:56 +1200

When the Third Reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill (a.k.a Marriage Equality) took place a Parliament on Wednesday, Mighty Ape showed support for the Bill by posting this image to our Facebook and Twitter accounts, which together are followed by over 200,000 New Zealanders.

Mighty Ape is a business reliant on paying customers, so obviously the decision to show support for a potentially divisive issue wasn't without risk. We are primarily a retailer, after all.

Without question the primary motivation was our belief that supporting equality is absolutely the right thing to do. I think most people, if not all people, who work at Mighty Ape are pro equality. It also gels with our company's core values that include have fun, be honest, embrace change, keep it real, be awesome and think long term. Mighty Ape is packed full of amazing people who respect each other. We celebrate what makes us different, as well as what makes us the same.

But the convenient added bonus of showing support for Marriage Equality is that it benefits our business as well. The feedback on our Facebook post was overwhelmingly positive. The artwork received over 400 likes and 38 comments on Facebook, and all but one were positive. "I am so proud that the monkeys at Mighty Ape are supporting this so openly", "Awesome stuff guys. You're my first option for online shopping in NZ!", "Your awesome! Cheers for the support" and many more. Customers that already love us, now love us a little bit more.

Creating a brand that people love and feel connected to is important and valuable, especially when selling commodity products. Brands aren't about logos, fonts and colours. And they're not built overnight either. They're about actions. They're about voice. They're about what you stand for and what you believe in. If your actions and your beliefs resinate with your customers, then they'll feel good about supporting you, and they'll recommend you to their friends. Price is important, range is important, and service is important too, but all things being equal, and if you want to avoid a race to the bottom, having a brand people love, trust and respect is a very real competitive advantage. Us humans are emotional creatures. Embrace that.

Over the past four years, Mighty Ape has grown from nothing into something of a household name among the people who like to buy the types of products we sell. We have a very active community of customers, many of whom are connected online. It's an exciting and fun privilege to be in a position to engage that community in areas outside our core business.

On starting things

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:02:06 +1200

I'm surprised more people don't start things. Internet things. New ideas. New opportunities. New websites.

There are a lot of super-smart people in New Zealand. Super-smart designers, developers and business people working hard to maintain the status-quo.

We can do more.

It surprises me that so few people who are willing to take a chance, and start something new. It disappoints me how few sites enter into the "Best New Site" category at the NetGuide Web Awards.

What are people working on?

Starting something new can be scary, but it doesn't have to mean giving up what's comfortable. It doesn't have to mean quitting your job. It doesn't have to mean turning your back on your colleagues. It doesn't have to mean risking it all.

These days we're spoiled by great jobs and we're spoiled by choice. Unlike five or 10 years ago, there are so many cool web companies we can work for. So many paid opportunities. Trade Me, Xero, Vend and others in New Zealand. Google, Facebook and the vast array of startups in Silicon Valley. If you're a developer, and you're good, you're pretty much guaranteed a job and a decent salary.

But why stop there? Why settle for that?

The reasons for starting something new seem obvious to me. It's exciting to start with a blank canvas. No body to impress. No body to worry about. No staff, no customers, no expectations. You get to imagine something, and make it so. You get to be uncompromising in your design. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. You get to do it your way. You're the boss.

If you already have a job (and if you're good, and you want one, then you probably do) then I'd argue you're in the perfect position to start something. Work in the evenings. Work in the weekends. Work on your days off. Negotiate something part-time. Keep your job and you don't have to worry so much about the bills. You don't have to worry about paying rent. You don't have to miss out on working on the exciting projects and businesses already up and running in New Zealand. Sure, you might have to give up a bit of your social life, but you'll be having fun, so who cares?

I was 21 when I started nzflatmates. I was studying at University and working part-time as a PA. I was 25 when I started Zillion and working part time at the University and then GP Store. These days I love my role at Mighty Ape, but it's not the only thing I'm working on. Each new things builds upon the other, and the key is to keep learning and keep momentum.

And don't let money stop you either. nzflatmates was up and running for less than $10,000. Zillion was less than $20,000. You don't need big investors or to win a fancy business competition to make a start. Sure, you can do it that way if you want, but despite what many think, it's not the only way. Keep your job and spend some of your own money instead.

It's true that not everyone wants to start something. Some people want nothing more than the opportunity to master a skill and be lucky enough to be paid for it. And that's fine. But if you have an idea, then please, just go for it. Keep your cool job but start discussing your idea with your colleagues. Get other people interested. Infect others with your ideas. Read books. Make friends with people who can help you. Get started.

On not taking things personally

Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:41:50 +1300

I've always been one to take things personally. I frequently misinterpret words and actions as an unprovoked attack on me or my character. I think things are about me when they're not.

A little trick I've learned to help deal with this is to ask myself "is this person being the best friend/boyfriend/colleague/neighbour/mother/father/sister/whatever that they know how to be?" I try hard to think about their specific circumstances, who their friends are, their upbringing, their beliefs etc.

The next question I ask is "Am I being treated any differently from this person's other friends/boyfriends/children/siblings/whatever?"

The answers to these questions are usually very revealing. More often than not I discover that the person is probably behaving entirely consistently with their past behaviour, that I'm being treated no differently from anyone else in their life, that they're probably doing the best they can, and most importantly, it would be totally wrong for me to take it personally.

Instead of feeling singled out, unfairly treated, wronged, put out, hurt etc, I switch almost immediately to a position of strength, compassion and understanding. Like magic, whatever was said or done that wasn't to my liking becomes more about them than me.

Of course, that's not to say we should accept behaviour we find unsatisfactory. This isn't a get out of jail free card for people behaving badly. If you don't like the way someone's treating you, then you owe it to both yourself and them do something about it, irrespective of how it aligns with their other relationships. This trick merely serves to take the edge off your response.

On polyamorous marriage

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:05:38 +1300

The shrinking minority still opposed to Marriage Equality often use polyamorous relationships as a weapon against supporting same-sex marriage. You know the argument, the "slippery slope" that will eventually see the state acknowledging relationships between more than two people.

Terrifying stuff, apparently.

Before I dive into why this concept should in fact terrify no body at all, it's important for clarity that I restate my previously outlined position on marriage equality in relation to same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is something I fully support on the basis of fairness, equality, and most importantly the positive message it sends to young gay people.

But the polyamorous angle has got me thinking.

Mind-bending legal complexity aside (and doubtless there are many), why are we so afraid of acknowledging relationships between more than two people? Why is that so offensive?

Could it be because it destroys the widely-held myth that all humans are wired to only love one person at a time?

The possibility of loving more than one person seems undeniable to me. Throughout history we have evidence of affairs, multiple marriages, and people faced with the torturous decision of leaving their partner in the face of a new romantic interest. There are less scandalous examples too. Once happily married widows who remarry, but unashamedly speak of their first true love.

Statistics also support this theory. A 2011 Statistic NZ report shows that 35% of marriages end in divorce, and of the 20,000 marriages registered that year, a staggering 6,000 (or 30%) were remarriages. If love is exclusive and marriage is forever, a large number of us appear to be failing the most basic test.

Of course, to argue in support of polyamorous marriage it's important to look at the reasons why so many marriages fail. Sure, we all make mistakes and sometimes we just marry the wrong person. But is it possible a significant number of marriages end simply because of the human capacity to love more than one person at the same time?

We all know people who have been dishonest with their partner, lacked courage and gone behind his or her back. We all know people who have ended one happy relationship so they could explore a relationship with somebody new, and then regret it later. And then of course there are those who fall in love with another person, keep it to themselves, remain committed, and take their secret to the grave.

Are those engaged in polyamorous relationships simply acknowledging a reality of the human condition, and choosing to respond to it in a different way? And if you don't buy that, could they just be acknowledging their own preference, and who are we to judge or argue otherwise?

Those who actively live a polyamorous life (and for the record, I am not one of them) often argue they are committed, but not exclusive. That their love for one person does not diminish their love for somebody else, just as their love for friends or children does not reduce according to the number of friends or children they have. They argue that love is about seeing people happy, more than it is about control or possession.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that everyone should live this way. I'm not suggesting this way is preferable or desirable. Marriage between two people is probably what the vast majority of people aspire to. But is it the only way? Could there be other ways of living more suitable to some people?

Those who know me well would be right to point out that I have been single for most of my adult life, and I'm really in no position to write this blog post. And that's fair. But before you write-off this point of view as complete nonsense, I strongly encourage you to take two minutes out of your life to watch an exert from this beautiful television with Susie Buffett, the late-wife of Warren Buffett, one of America's wealthiest and most successful philanthopists. (Sadly, this amazing video appears to be permanently offline - boo).

Susie explains with both pride and dignity the unconventional nature of her marriage with Warren, and how she felt like "the most loved woman in the world" despite the non-exclusive nature of their relationship. It's reported they even sent out joint Christmas cards every year with three names at the bottom (Warren, Susie's and Warren's "mistress" and future wife Astrid). It's beautiful, and it's mind-opening.

Relationships are hard. Love is hard, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that I have all the answers or even that I'm right. But I hope to have at least planted the seed that polyamorous marriage isn't evil and wont cause the sky to fall. Much like same-sex marriage, I expect any reaction against it is just a fear of the unknown (mixed in with a bit of legitimate fear of the legal field-day that will undoubtedly follow :P).

More than "just friends"

Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:26:06 +1300

I've always valued friendship. Growing up, I've crossed paths with some amazing people, and having chosen to live most of my adult life as a single person, I have wherever possible, made friendship a priority in my life.

As I grow older, I'm becoming more aware of how significant these friendships have become. How they form the foundation of my life. How much happiness they bring me. How they've shaped me into the person I am today, and how they will mould me into the person I become tomorrow.

It's sad to me that, in the eyes of many, friendships are considered a second-tier relationship. Less than family. Less than a marriage. Less than a monogamous sexual relationship. It's totally wrong. If a person is valuable to you, integral to your happiness, is good for you and brings you joy, it should make no difference to anybody whether you share blood, a bed, or a marriage certificate.

Society's undervaluing of friendship cannot be denied. Single people are considered lonely. Married people are considered happy. Invitations to important events such as weddings and staff functions are often restricted to "partners only". Special rates for such things as insurance and gym memberships are usually accessible only to couples. Even Facebook uses the word "Friends" to describe a vague electronic connection between two people that haven't seen each other for some 10 years, or in many cases, people who have never met at all.

The undervaluing of friendship, in the face of our changing attitudes toward relationships, is curious. With people tending to have a greater number of romantic relationships, that in turn end more frequently, it's friendship with a core group of people that often remains the constant in a person's life. An increasing number of marriages now end in divorce, and when they don't, well…someone has to die first. If you don't want to "die alone", then finding a "partner" or getting married is no guarantee. Making friendship a priority, is smart.

It's time we set aside the idea that romantic relationships are more valuable than relationships based on other qualities. It's time we set aside the idea that the people we're romantically attracted to are automatically the most important people in our lives. It's time to set aside the idea that friends are "just friends" and not worthy of the recognition and basic rights that other relationships are automatically afforded.

Friendships are a great joy and should be celebrated at every opportunity. The nonexclusive nature of friendship exposes us to the richness and fullness of life, through the lives of other people. Friendships, exempt from the unhealthy and unrealistic expectations heaped upon other types of relationships, are the constants in our lives that we can depend on.

Friendship needs a promotion. True friendship is more than "just friends".

Letting go and making room

Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:04:12 +1300

I love my 1987 E30 BMW. It's one of my favourite "things". I bought it with no intention of selling it. Ever. I've spent thousands maintaining it. Hours days cleaning it. It brings me so much happiness. But it's up for sale.

Why?

Because I want this year to be different from last year. I don't want the same routines and the same experiences. I want new adventures and new things to love. Sometimes you need to get rid of the old, to make way for the new.

When I think about my E30, the joy has come from the experience of owning it, not the car itself. I loved reading and learning about the car. I loved reading reviews and scouring BMW forums for opinions and advice from other owners. I loved the daily ritual of checking Trade Me until the perfect example presented itself. Buying a one-way ticket to Wellington to collect the car sight-unseen was both nerve-wracking and fun.

I enjoyed getting to know the car too, the first time washing it and learning the lines, the first time through a tunnel with the windows down, the first time getting a bit sideways out of a corner, the first conversation with another owner at the petrol station. There were lots of first times, and they were all great.

It's said that life is about the journey, not the destination. And in the case of the E30, the journey was amazing.

I'm also selling the car because I want to prove to myself that I'm more than the things that I own. I make no apologies for wanting to surround myself with nice things. I carefully choose the cars that I drive, the clothes that I wear, the furniture that I sit on and the technology I work with. But I want to prove to myself, even in a small way, that I can get by with less.

All a bit deep for a car you might say. Perhaps. But those who know me will understand that my E30 was more than just a car to me. I'm selling something I love, for no good reason other than to experience how I feel when it's gone, and to see what happens next.

Remembering my Grandma

Tue, 04 Dec 2012 22:45:06 +1300

I was never particularly close to my grandmother. As a kid, she always lived so far away, and when she finally moved up to Auckland, I never made time to spend time with her, just the two of us.

When she had a heart attack some eight weeks ago, all that changed. My parents were overseas, deep in South America. My sister, and all other immediate family, were living in Australia. It left just me.

I visited Grandma every day in hospital. I discovered a woman I'd never met before. She was strong, brave, unafraid, and totally unwilling to make a fuss. Turns out, I had so much to learn from her.

Before the heart attack, Grandma had lived independently. She was 93, but she didn't consider herself old. She was still cooking her own meals, going to the supermarket, doing her washing and making her bed. She had her hair done at the hairdresser and wore beautifuly presented clothes. Earlier in the year, she hopped on a plane and visited her son in Australia.

Unfortunately, soon after recovering from the heart attack and being discharged from hospital, without so much as a walking aid, she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and died some three weeks later. She would say that her illness was a nuisance to others, but I think when you live 93 healthy years having a couple of weeks at the end where you need a hand isn't so bad.

My Grandma taught me to live life. She was always up for a drink, a laugh, a dance and a good time. She read books, went to films and shows, travelled and shared her stories with anyone who listened. She stood up for her beliefs, her family, her friends, and didn't waste time or energy on people she didn't like.

She taught me to make time for family. The amazing and unique thing about family is that they're always there. Your grandparents, your parents, and in some cases your siblings, are people you've literally known for your entire life. You will miss them when they're gone. At the very least, it will feel different and empty. Spend time with family while you can, and treasure old friends who love you, no matter what.

When faced with death, she asked for no body, there was no anxiety, she never complained, she wasn’t afraid, and she made it easy as possible for those supporting her. She taught me to be brave. She taught me that my generation has a tendency to be soft. She taught me not to complain and to face hardship, and eventually death, with courage and dignity.

I don’t think it’s any coincidence that my Grandma was so strong and independent, and also lived to 93. I think to live that long, you have to be. It would have been so easy to have welcomed old age with a sense of relief and entitlement. But she did neither. I think she lived a long and healthy life because she wanted to, and she worked hard for it.

Goodbye Grandma. I'm proud of you and I'm happy to have been given the opportunity to know you better. I miss you already, and I know a great many people will remember you always.

Myra Elizabeth Booker
4 May 1919 - 26 November 2012

Thoughts on Wheedle and Trade Me

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:38:16 +1300

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at today's launch of Wheedle, an online marketplace setup by Mainfreight co-founder and NBR Rich Lister Neil Graham to compete against Trade Me.

Having co-founded Zillion with Simon Barton in 2005, I'm in a unique position to explain first-hand why sites like Wheedle stand no chance of disrupting Trade Me's monopoly position in New Zealand.

Unfortunately for Neil Graham and team, Wheedle has two insurmountable problems. Network effects, and a below-average website.

I'll get the website out of the way first, because it's the one part of the project they had complete control over, and sadly they blew it.

A five second glance is all it takes for anyone with experience in web development and design to realise they've fallen well short of what's required. I appreciate that a great deal of time and effort has been put into this site, and I mean no disrespect, but it's maddening to think you can go up against a $1.56 billion dollar online business like Trade Me, and er, build a website that's not as good as Trade Me.

Come on guys, if you're boasting about how much money you have to spend (reportedly over $10 million dollars - ouch), at least hire the very best and get the website right. In my 10 years or so experience with nzflatmates, Zillion, Mighty Ape and others we've learned that great design, strong first impressions and a website that people love to use is non-negotiable.

But unfortunately an average website isn't Wheedles biggest problem. With Zillion we learned the hard way that even a great website isn't enough to unseat Trade Me. Building a better website is one thing, building a better marketplace and a better business is something else entirely. The second and far more challenging problem, is network effects and creating a marketplace big enough to work.

The reason that incumbent auction players like Trade Me and eBay have remained dominant for over a decade is because buyers prefer to shop on the site with the greatest number of items for sale, and sellers prefer to sell their items on the website with the greatest number of buyers.

This chicken and egg problem has, to my knowledge, never been cracked in any market. To put it another way, if you were looking to sell your iPhone 4 quickly, and at a fair market price, would you list it for sale on wheedle (a handful of members) or Trade Me (basically every New Zealander in the country)? And don't bother trying to lure sellers away with cheaper fees, because the success fee matters for nothing if your iPhone doesn't fetch a good selling price, or worse yet, doesn't sell at all.

On the surface, Zillion enjoyed some degree of success from 2005-2010. Our shiny new design, innovative features, lower fees (and once Trade Me sold to Fairfax, the NZ-owned angle) meant we signed up over 120,000 members and earned the trust and respect of many large Trade Me sellers. We won "Best New Site" at the Web Awards, were covered by the television news, we hosted a large auction for Air New Zealand and were generally regarded as Trade Me's strongest competitor. But the Zillion marketplace never really worked properly. No amount of shiny website features made up for the fact sellers sold more items on Trade Me, and at better prices. No amount of effort changed the fact there was more of everything for sale on Trade Me, and as a buyer, you'd be remiss for not checking Trade Me first for anything you wanted to buy. Despite our best efforts, we just couldn't crack it. By 2010 new opportunities presented themselves and we concluded we'd given Zillion our best shot. We sold the business to Sella, the listings and members were rolled into their site and Zillion was shutdown (boo).

I was 23 when Simon and I launched Zillion. We ran the site for around 5 years and I count it among some of the best but most challenging times of my life. We had a tiny budget (I think from memory, Simon and I put in between just $10,000-$20,000 each to get it started) and a tiny team who we always paid before paying ourselves. The hours were long, the hurdles were many, the expectations were high and despite some days feeling like we were winning, there was an overall sense that things were never working out. Tough times. But on the flip side, at 23 I created the biggest learning experience of my life and we exited with a bit of money and the opportunity to apply what we learned to future projects. I wouldn't trade the experience for anything.

Is taking on Trade Me impossible? I wouldn't say that. If I had my time again, there are things I would do differently. Certainly the Internet is a different place in 2012 than it was in 2005. When we launched Zillion, there was no Twitter. There was no Facebook. People communicated and spread ideas via email and MSN Messenger. Today it's easier than ever for websites to grow quickly. The rapid ascent of sites like Grab One are testament to that.

Further, I believe that Facebook offers a unique opportunity for auction sites and other similar sites that rely on trust, safety and reputation. A big part of what makes the Trade Me marketplace successful is the feedback system that means buyers can trust sellers to send items they've paid for, sight unseen. New auction sites face the challenge of trying to get buyers to trust sellers with no feedback. Facebook changes this. New online auction sites should offer a "connect with Facebook" option that shows me as "Dylan" and not "dbkiwi" or whatever member name I'd sign up as. When you view items I offer for sale, you'd see I was a real human and we had real mutual friends. You'd trust me, and you'd be more likely to buy stuff. Sites like Airbnb do this well, and I think it's huge.

Given my involvement with Zillion I am wary that my opinion on Wheedle may come across as sour grapes, and it may appear like I have some unresolved personal grievance against Trade Me. I can assure you that neither of these things are true, and I'm just calling things as I see them. I am very satisfied with my experience with Zillion. I also have a deep respect for the Trade Me team, past and present, many of whom I now count among my personal friends.

I'll wrap this up by pointing out that Trade Me has always been in this somewhat unique and awkward position of being self-regulating. Trade Me is a monopoly, and their fees only ever go in one direction - up. They're in the business of making money, and they constantly push the limits of what the market will tolerate, which is why sites like Wheedle will always pop up in an attempt to introduce some fairness. Trade Me do themselves no favours when as recently as last week they cite "an 18% rise in site visits" (apparently more customer activity is a bad thing?) and "mobile development costs" as the motivators for today's 5.3% fee increase. Rubbish. These statements are disingenuous at best. The Trade Me business currently generates around $75 million per year for Fairfax and its other shareholders, and today's fee increase is designed to push that number up further still.

Trade Me needs competition. Competition drives innovation and keeps prices in check. But a full-frontal attack from a sub-standard site like Wheedle is not the answer. I only hope those behind it don't waste too much of their reported $10+ million dollar budget before figuring this out, because there are other aspiring Kiwi web entrepreneurs who could do with that kind of funding to put toward more worthwhile endeavors. The last thing our industry needs is another high-profile loud-talking site like Ferrit going belly up and spoiling things for the rest of us.

NZ MPs on Twitter

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:00:50 +1200

I've compiled a list of all the New Zealand MPs on Twitter so you can follow them, question them, lobby them, make friends with them, or if you want, just shout at them...

Let me know if you spot any mistakes of if I've missed anyone out.

Kudos to the Green Party for having every MP on Twitter. A growing number of journalists and political commentators hang out on Twitter, and the other smaller parties are possibly missing an important opportunity to engage and help shape the debates.

National Party

Amy Adams	@AmyAdamsMP
Shane Ardern	-
Chris Auchinvole	@ChrisAuchinvole
K Singh Bakshi	-
Maggie Barry	@maggiebarry
Paula Bennett	@paulabennettmp
David Bennett	@DavidBennettMP
Jackie Blue	@JackieBlueMP
Chester Borrows	-
Simon Bridges	-
Gerry Brownlee	-
Cam Calder	-
David Carter	@hondavidcarter
Jonathan Coleman	@jcolemanmp
Judith Collins	-
Jacqui Dean	-
Bill English	@honbillenglish
Christopher Finlayson	@chrisfinlayson
Craig Foss	@CraigFossMP
Paul Goldsmith	@PaulGoldsmithMP
Jo Goodhew	-
Tim Groser	-
Nathan Guy	-
John Hayes	@JohnHayesRAPAMP
Phil Heatley	-
Tau Henare	@tauhenare
Paul Hutchison	-
Steven Joyce	@stevenljoyce
Nikki Kaye	@nikkikaye
John Key	@JohnKeyPM
Colin King	-
Melissa Lee	@melissaleemp
Peseta Sam Lotu-liga	@MaungakiekieSAM
Tim Macindoe	-
Todd McClay	-
Murray McCully	-
Ian McKelvie	-
Mark Mitchell	-
Alfred Ngaro	-
Simon O'Connor	@SimonOConnorMP
Hekia Parata	@hekiaparata
Jami-Lee Ross	@jamileeross
Eric Roy	@ericroymp
Tony Ryall	-
Mike Sabin	-
Katrina Shanks	-
Scott Simpson	-
Lockwood Smith	-
Nick Smith	-
Lindsay Tisch	@lindsaytisch
Anne Tolley	-
Chris Tremain	@CJTremain
Louise Upston	@LouiseUpston
Nicky Wagner	@nickywagner
Kate Wilkinson	-
Maurice Williamson	-
Michael Woodhouse	-
Jian Yang	-
Jonathan Young	@JonathanYoungMP

Labour Party

Jacinda Ardern	@jacindaardern
Charles Chauvel	-
David Clark	-
Clayton Cosgrove	-
David Cunliffe	@DavidCunliffeMP
Clare Curran	@ClareCurranMP
Lianne Dalziel	@LianneDalzielMP
Ruth Dyson	@RuthDysonMP
Kris Faafoi	@KrisinMana
Darien Fenton	@darienfenton
Phil Goff	@phil_goff
Chris Hipkins	@chrishipkins
Parekura Horomia	-
Shane Jones	-
Annette King	-
Iain Lees-Galloway	@IainLG
Andrew Little	@andrewlittle4NP
Moana Mackey	-
Nanaia Mahuta	@NanaiaMahuta
Trevor Mallard	@trevormallard
Sue Moroney	@suemoroney
Damien O'Connor	-
David Parker	-
Rajen Prasad	@RajenPrasad
Huo Raymond	@raymondhuo
Grant Robertson	@grantrobertson1
Ross Robertson	-
David Shearer	@DavidShearerMP
Maryan Street	@MaryanStreetMP
Su'a William Sio	@SWSio_MP
Barbara Stewart	@BStewartMP
Rino Tirikatene	@RinoTirikatene
Phil Twyford	@PhilTwyford
Louisa Wall	-
Megan Woods	@Megan_Woods

Green Party

Steffan Browning	@steffanbrowning
David Clendon	@DavidClendon
Catherine Delahunty	@greencatherine
Julie Anne Genter	@JulieAnneGenter
Kennedy Graham	@KennedyGraham
Kevin Hague	@KevinHague
Gareth Hughes	@GarethMP
Jan Logie	@janlogie
Mojo Mathers	@mojomathers
Russel Norman	@RusselNorman
Denise Roche	@DeniseRocheMP
Eugenie Sage	@EugenieSage
Metiria Turei	@Emetiria
Holly Walker	@hollyrwalker

New Zealand First

Asenati Lole-Taylor	@sasenatitaylor
Brendan Horan	-
Tracey Martin	@TraceyMartinMP
Denis O'Rourke	-
Winston Peters	@winstonpetersmp
Richard Prosser	@Richard_Prosser
Andrew Williams	@AndrewilliamsMP

Maori Party

Pita Sharples	-
Tariana Turia	@TarianaTuria
Te Ururoa Flavell	@TeUruroaFlavell/iframe></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3>Mana Party</h3> <table style="width: 100%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr valign="middle"> <td width="200"><b>Hone Harawira</b></td> <td>-</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3>United Future</h3> <table style="width: 100%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr valign="middle"> <td width="200"><b>Peter Dunne</b></td> <td><iframe src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?show_count=true&amp;screen_name=PeterDunneMP" mce_src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.html?show_count=true&amp;screen_name=PeterDunneMP" width="300" height="20" frameborder="0" scrolling="no">@PeterDunneMP

ACT

John Banks

@johnbanksnz

On marriage equality

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:22:59 +1200

The message we send to young gay New Zealanders, plus their friends and family, needs to be front and centre of the imminent debate for marriage equality.

Anxiety, fear, embarrassment, shame, guilt, rejection, pain and suffering are familiar emotions for the vast majority of young gay men and women growing up in New Zealand. The selfish, ignorant beliefs of a shrinking minority are robbing our young people, who have their whole lives ahead of them, from the love and acceptance most New Zealanders take for granted.

When following the debate, forget about the act of getting married. Forget about men and women walking down the aisle. Forget about the preservation of an institution. Forget about whether the fundamental legal rights are already taken care of by civil unions. Focus instead on the underlying message we'll send to young people if we continue to treat same-sex attraction as a lesser form of love, different and separate from the love enjoyed by the balance of society. Look around you and you'll see that our current beliefs are causing unhappiness for many, and in extreme cases they're costing lives.

The exciting thing about this legislation, if passed into law, is that it legitimises all same-sex relationships, of any kind. It legitimises the simple things; two young men going on a first date, two girlfriends holding hands as they walk down the street, taking your partner, the person you love, to the school ball with all your friends. It legitimises introducing your first boyfriend to your family.

These simple acts, that so many New Zealanders take for granted, must be at the forefront of the debate. For every one "gay marriage" we'll see hundreds of same-sex relationships flourish in ways never before possible. We'll see young gay teens, who've struggled with their feelings and their identity, find the courage to take the first step towards starting a meaningful relationship with someone they love. They'll stand a chance of reversing their beliefs that their feelings are wrong, that they are wrong. It's heartbreaking that even today, so many young people grow up afraid of their feelings and afraid of their family's reaction, of society's reaction, if they're honest about who they are. It's no way to live, and finally we can do something about it.

I believe New Zealanders no longer want to treat their friends in same-sex relationships as separate and different. The New Zealanders I know want to be inclusive and uphold everyone's equal right to happiness. Before casting their vote, I challenge our MPs to take a look around them, to talk to their young adult children and understand their values and beliefs. This vote should be cast on behalf of young people and future generations, not preserving the status quo for the shrinking minority who choose not to update and upgrade their beliefs. New Zealanders of all persuasions and orientations are growing up with gay friends, gay family, gay parents and they're OK with it, and we're wondering why our law markers aren't.

Politics should be bigger than the economy and asset sales. I'd rather be poor and in a relationship with the person I love, than rich and alone. I challenge our MPs to show leadership and courage. This isn't the time for focus groups or opinion polls. I also challenge you to debate marriage equality with your friends and family. In most cases those opposed are not bad people, they're just uninformed and afraid of something they don't understand. Help them to understand.

Update on nzflatmates

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:20:26 +1200

Good news! Since revealing last month that nzflatmates received just six voluntary donations from members in a little over five months, I can now report that we've received an additional 52 donations in the short time since writing that post. While we're still a way off where we need to be, it's certainly trending in the right direction.

Here's how we did it.

The first change was to stop using the word donation and swap it out for contribution. When members deactivate their profile, instead of asking for a donation we ask for a contribution at a price they think is fair. This saw an immediate increase.

But we decided to take things a step further. We designed a page that asks for a contribution immediately after members create their profile, instead of waiting until the point where the profile is deactivated. This allows us to display a badge (in our case, a gold star) on the profile of people who make a contribution.

This is our first crack at the page, but the wording is deliberate and well considered. We use the word voluntary to emphasize people have a choice. We make it clear the money will be put toward the maintenance and development of the website, and that other sites charge up to $15 just to place a listing. We talk about it sending the "right message to potential flatmates" (honesty, sense of fairness, pay their way etc) and show an example of the badge they'll receive. We suggest three different amounts to frame people's expectations, and use icons of coffee, cake and sandwiches to hopefully illustrate we're not really asking for much.

Interestingly, there is an even spread of $5, $9 and $19 contributions even though there is no advantage to the contributors for choosing the higher denominations.

It will be fun to test different variations of this page but I'm pretty happy that such a simple change has seen a 50x increase in contributions (albeit from a very low starting point).

As I pointed out in last month's post, my goal with nzflatmates has never been to make a lot of money, but this new direction feels good because the site covers its expenses, people only pay what they think is fair, and the site remains as useful as possible because we haven't restricted ourselves solely to those who can afford to pay.

Create your dream life

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:46:31 +1200

In the last couple of weeks two of my closest friends have both independently of each other made huge life-changing decisions. Instead of coasting along in one direction, they're both heading somewhere completely new. They've made decisions that will matter 10 years from now. The kind of decisions that attract attention and where you can't hide from the outcome.

And it's got me thinking. Our goal in life should be nothing more than finding the courage to follow our hearts and create the life of our dreams.

It looks so simple on the screen. Follow our hearts. Create the life of our dreams. But how many of us really do it? I'm not talking about doing things you'd kinda like to do or merely acting on a preference. I'm talking about big dreams and big decisions that are uniquely you and ensure you end life with a smile on your face and no regrets.

Loving the life you live means putting aside the expectations of other people. It means having the intelligence to consider other people's opinions, but having the courage to act according to your own values. It means saying "no" to following in your father's footsteps. It means putting your passion ahead of your bank balance. It means starting a relationship that might be scary.

The courage to bungee jump counts for nothing if you're working a job you hate or you're in a relationship that doesn't make you happy. True courage is about setting aside the opinions and expectations of other people and living your dream life every single day.

If you're living the life of your dreams, well done. If you're not, what are you waiting for?

The nzflatmates experiment

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:02:26 +1200

When we relaunched nzflatmates earlier this year we took the opportunity to conduct a small social experiment. We made the service completely free, but invited people to make an optional donation when they deactivated their profile. We were interested to learn how many people would would pay vs. not pay when presented the choice to do either.

The results were less than spectacular. A total of 10,311 profiles have been created since the new site went live on January 6th this year, and of those six (6) have made a voluntary donation. Not a typo.

The good news is that revenue from display advertising made almost enough to cover hosting and other miscellaneous expenses, but it's clear we're going to have to do better than six donations to cover the time spent working on the site by myself, friends, co-workers and contractors.

Making lots of money from nzflatmates isn't my goal for the site. I'm much more interested in creating a useful web site that helps young people find flatmates they're more likely to get along with and thus have a more memorable and special flatting experience. But making money is still important, especially if it means more money left over to reinvest back into building better features and improving the service.

Before giving up on this non-business model we've tweaked the offer slightly by removing any reference to "free" and "donation". Instead we've reframed the offer using words such as "contribution" and "fairness". For example, the logged in version of the header now reads "At nzflatmates you choose how much to pay. Please contribute what you think is fair!" and when you deactivate your profile the form now has a field that asks "What's a fair price to pay for the service nzflatmates has provided to you? I want to contribute...".

It's a subtle difference, but I think it reframes the offer and sets a somewhat different expectation. It's no longer about being needy and asking for charity. We've also changed the form so that people are required to input a value (which can be zero) to deactivate their profile.

I'll report back on any measurable improvement to conversion! But I'm not holding my breath.

As an aside, should we decide to abandon the idea all together, other options include (ranked from most profitable, to least profitable):

a listing fee to create a profile (e.g. Trade Me, Seek etc)
free to create a profile, but charge to contact (e.g. Findsomeone, Star Now, old nzflatmates etc)
free to create a profile, but charge for priority placement (e.g. Trade Me, NZ Dating etc)

There are pros and cons to all of the above. A listing fee will generate more revenue, but there will be fewer profiles and therefore the site will be less useful. On the other hand, letting people create a free profile but charging them to contact will see the same number of profiles, but the site becomes less useful as fewer people send messages. Charging people for priority placement has no negative impact on the usefulness of the site, but is unlikely to generate significant revenue at the site's current size.

Many old timers will remember nzflatmates has been up and running in various forms now for over 10 years. When we first launched the site in 2001 it was a completely free site and grew quickly. A few years later we introduced a "GOLD Membership" model (option #2) that went very well and generated enough revenue to pay a respectable wage plus allowed me to invest money into Zillion, another venture I was running at the time. As more competitors such as Trade Me and Gumtree entered the market and I become distracted by other things, that model became less effective as the volume wasn't really there to support it, and I wasn't that happy with the implementation that left some members feeling "tricked" that they had to pay to get full access to the site.

When we relaunched nzflatmates earlier this year I promised myself I'd put usefulness ahead of profitability and that I'd do what's required to build the volume up to the point where I'd be happy and proud to recommend the site to my friends.

I feel now that we're close to achieving that goal and that it's time to start focusing on revenue so there's more money to invest into new features and further improving the service.

Stay tuned!

A moat for your castle

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 23:44:25 +1200

The best way to protect your business from hungry competitors is to think of your business as a castle, and happy customers as a defensive moat around the perimeter that keeps the competition at bay.

If your customers are happy, your competitors must work twice as hard to entice them away. They're unlikely to switch for the sake of a few dollars, and they'll ignore unsolicited advertising shouting for their attention.

Keeping customers happy starts and ends with looking at your business through the eyes of the customer. Put the customer first and give your team permission to care. The rest takes care of itself.

Decisions that matter (and those that don't)

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:34:16 +1300

I've been thinking recently about choices and how they affect happiness. Choices require decisions, and decisions require effort and come at a cost. In the 21st century we have choices unlike any preceding generation. We demand choices in every aspect of our lives, and I'm starting to wonder whether it makes us any happier. In fact, I wonder if it makes us happier at all.

It wasn't long ago that deciding what to watch on TV was a choice between TV1, TV2 and TV3. These days we can choose between 25+ Freeview channels, 80+ SkyTV channels and thousands and thousands of on-demand movies and TV shows via iTunes. Want to read a book? Forget your bookshelf or even a library, fire up your Kindle and choose from any book ever written. Want to buy a TV? Sure - what brand? What size? LCD or LED? Or how about Plasma? Want to buy a car? OK, what make? Model? What colour? How big do you want the engine? Manual or auto? Leather or half-leather? Red stiching or orange?

But of course it's not just the trivial things. We now have choice over what to study (and where), who to marry (and when), where to work (and for how long) and what religion to follow (if at all). We even have a choice over the shape of our bodies (plastic surgery) and how long we're going to live (medical insurance and medicines). It wasn't long ago that these decisions were effectively made for us. The choices were few, if at all.

The thing about choices, is that if you take them seriously, they take real effort to make. Making the "wrong choice" could be a disaster! What if I start a business before finishing my degree and it fails and I'm 30 and I have no job and no career options? What if I study overseas but get over there and make no friends and return home with a huge debt and no body remembers me? What if I marry my girlfriend/boyfriend and he/she leaves me or worse yet, I find someone "better"? What if I accept that job or this job? Where will that lead me? What doors will that open (or close)? What if I leave my religion and my family disowns me? What if I don't? What if I come out as gay and I lose my friends or my job? What if I don't? The anxiety caused by being confronted by these choices can be overwhelming for many people. And are we any happier for making them? We have created a society and lifestyles that demand choices in everything, and in doing so has created a mental burden on everyone who chooses to take them seriously (and you should).

The people I know who I consider to be the most successful in life (i.e. living their "best lives" and being happy most of the time) cope with choices by deciding which decisions matter, and which don't. To put it another way: they don't sweat the small stuff. The are totally indecisive in some (unimportant) aspects of their lives. The people who say "I'll have what he's having" when ordering breakfast, but debate for weeks or months which school to send their children to or which political party to vote for. The people who couldn't care less which colour (or brand) t-shirt to wear, what movie to watch on TV or whether we drive or walk to the shops, but who think deeply about dating the right person, deciding the best time to have children or perusing the most rewarding career.

If you agonoize over every choice you'll turn into a stress ball. Trust me - I know. And while many of the problems and anxieties caused by "choice anxiety" could be described as "first world problems" they have a very real effect on people's happiness and should therefore be taken seriously (after all, the pursuit of happiness is shared by everyone regardless of their place in history or the size of their bank balance).

When confronted with a plethora of choices, best to focus on the decisions that matter. Ignore the rest.

Lessons from Webstock

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 00:14:34 +1300

I don't usually go to conferences. Webstock 2012 was not only my first Webstock, but the first conference I've paid to attend.

It was great.

Above all else, Webstock does a brilliant job of inspiring you to do great work. The event itself is run to a super-high standard which infects and inspires both the speakers and the attendees. It sets the stage for brilliance. The execution of the basics is world class on every level. The web site, the communication with attendees, the programme, the ID tags, the goodie bag, the venue, the graphics to introduce the speakers, the guest speakers, and of course the all-important after party. Every detail was thought through and highly polished and it motivated everyone to step up.

I tend to avoid conferences because they don't feel like valuable work. By their very nature they pull you away from your desk (and in my case, my home city) and away from your focus. They distract you, and some people might say they even risk becoming a back-slapping exercise to remind ourselves we're all masters of the universe. But Webstock has taught me they have their place and I'll most certainly be back in 2013. It was truly refreshing to be sat at a table full of web geeks I'd never met, who cared about the things I cared about and really spoke a language I understood. I felt part of a club. It was a great energy and it was refreshing.

I read somewhere once (or perhaps I even heard it from one of the speakers) that you forget what people say and what people do, but you never forget the way people make you feel. The same is true of Webstock. To be honest I didn't walk away with pages and pages of notes or practical tips to rush and apply to my own projects (although I did pick up some). But that wasn't really the point. I came away feeling great and I met some fantastic people. Already I am busy making evil plans with people I met and hope that it's the beginning of some new and rewarding working relationships. That's what it's been about for me.

Which brings me to my final point. Webstock proves without a doubt that New Zealand is full of talented designers and developers with the motivation to do world-class work. But I'm truly surprised by how few actually use their skills to work on their own projects. I met lots of people with jobs and looking for jobs, but very few working on their own thing and loving it. And I think that's a shame. The guys at 37signals have banged on for a long time about how you don't need to quit your job or raise VC money to start your own thing, and how working for a couple of hours each night or in the weekend is sufficient to get something off the ground. Working on your own stuff doesn't mean throwing in your job and doesn't mean taking stupid risks. Matt Haughey taught a similar lesson at Webstock where he revealed he worked for years and years on MetaFilter and was happy if he made enough to cover the hosting bill. Building something and unleashing it on the world is a fantastic experience in itself, and you don't need anyone's permission to do it.

A big thanks to Tash and Mike for dreaming up and working hard on such an amazing event. I know they're proud of what they've created, and they should be. See you in 2013!

RIP Phillip Cottrell

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:44:25 +1300

I'm saddened by the news this week that Phillip Cottrell died of the injuries he sustained from an assault walking home from his regular shift as a journalist at Radio NZ in Wellington. While details of the attack remain sketchy, Police have revealed that Phillip was a quiet, unassuming man who died for the sake of a few dollars taken along with his wallet.

It was also revealed that he had a degenerative bone condition, or "brittle bones".

As someone who lives with the same condition (I don't know Phillip's exact diagnosis) I feel especially moved by this tragedy. Over the years I've experienced dozens of broken bones including arms, legs and vertebrae…mainly from simple falls that most people get up and walk away from.

I can appreciate first-hand the terror Phillip must have felt as his attackers approached him. He stood no chance of defending himself, and would have known his fate before the first blow hit his fragile body. I wonder whether he pleaded for his life.

Phillip's death serves as a reminder to everyone that our actions often cause unintended consequences. Police have labelled this a murder, but chances are the attackers never meant to kill him. I don't say this to excuse what they did (any assault of any kind is inexcusable) but rather to highlight they probably had no idea of his condition and that their blows would prove fatal. They've probably assaulted dozens of people before, with their victims barely making the back page.

Unfortunately this time, they chose the wrong target.

"Treating others as you'd like to be treated" is a worthy philosophy in which to live your life, but I wonder whether it goes far enough. We're not all equal, and we're not all strong in the same way. Whether it be verbal abuse, seemingly innocent name-calling, bullying, physical assault or anything in between, we need to be mindful that not everyone is as strong as we think they are. Some people wear their weakness, or their difference, on their sleeve. Other people bury it deep within.

RIP Phillip Cottrell.

It was also revealed that he had a degenerative bone condition, or "brittle bones".

I can appreciate first-hand the terror Phillip must have felt as his attackers approached him. He stood no chance of defending himself, and would have known his fate even before the first blow hit his fragile body. I wonder whether he pleaded for his life. They broke his arm, his neck and crushed his skull.

Phillip's death serves as a reminder to everyone that our actions often cause unintended consequences. While Police have labelled this a murder, chances are the attackers never meant to kill him. I don't say this to excuse what they did (any assault of any kind is inexcusable) but rather to highlight they probably had no idea of his bone condition and that their blows would prove fatal. They've probably assaulted dozens of people before, with their victims barely making the back page of the local paper.

Unfortunately this wasn't the case for Phillip. Unfortunately this time, they chose the wrong man to beat up.

"Treating others as you'd like to be treated" is a worthy philosophy in which to live your life, but I wonder whether it goes far enough. We're not all equal, and we're not all strong in the same way. Whether it be verbal abuse, emotional abuse, name-calling, bullying, physical assault or anything in between, we need to be mindful that not everyone is as strong as we think they are. Not everyone is as strong as we are. Not everyone wears their weaknesses on their sleeve.

RIP Phillip Cottrell. My thoughts go to you, your friends and your family.

It's not 1999 any more

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 01:50:05 +1300

Lance Wiggs blogged yesterday on Air New Zealand auctioning themselves to the lowest bidder. I added my own thoughts in the comments, but I thought I'd take a moment to explain why I think Trade Me is wrong to assume they will continue to be the default venue of choice forever and ever amen.

Trade Me works because it has the greatest number of buyers and sellers. If you want to sell something (e.g. a heater) you want to sell it in the marketplace with the greatest number of people looking to buy a second hand heater (Trade Me). If you're looking to buy a second hand heater, you want to shop in the marketplace with the greatest number of second hand heaters for sale (Trade Me). It's a "winner takes all" cycle that's difficult to break and it's allowed companies like Trade Me and eBay to remain dominant for over a decade despite their relative lack of innovation compared to would-be competitors.

But the thing about auctions, is that you only need two people to want it badly enough to achieve a fair market price (add a Buy Now, and you only need one). In the case of Air New Zealand auctioning international airfares for $1 reserve, there will be no shortage of people willing to suffer the pain of taking 30 seconds to sign up to a new site in order to place a bid. It's worth it, and Air NZ wouldn't be choosing alternative venues year after year if it wasn't working for them.

And this leads me to my second point. Trade Me is often considered the default venue for selling just because it has the highest volume of traffic. This is a lazy argument. It's qualified traffic that really matters. You don't need millions of visits a month to sell a handful of airfares at $1 reserve. Likewise you don't need millions of visits a month to be Mighty Ape and sell more copies of a new release videogame than Trade Me or any other NZ retailer. People might not visit Mighty Ape to buy a second hand heater, but they'll visit to buy a copy of Skyrim or Battlefield 3.

You just need to look at how specialist e-commerce platforms are destroying eBay's core business in the USA to realize that the world is different today than it was a few years ago. Customers have billing relationships with multiple e-commerce providers, and finding them is just a click away thanks to Google and Facebook. In fact, the way Facebook allows e-commerce providers to leverage the social graph and instantly build trust is eroding the network effect advantage that eBay and Trade Me have enjoyed for over a decade. In 2010 you can build a new site and fill it with customers much more quickly than you could back in 2005 or 1999.

Trade Me may indeed still be a better fit for Air NZ, but it would be arrogant to assume that's because Trade Me has more traffic. Air NZ don't need Trade Me's natural traffic to run a successful auction, and that argument flows through to a growing number of vendors who are looking to start selling online.

Trade Me works for most people because it has the greatest number of buyers and sellers. If you want to sell something (e.g. a heater) you want to sell it in the marketplace with the greatest number of people looking to buy a second hand heater (Trade Me). If you're looking to buy a second hand heater, you want to shop in the marketplace with the greatest number of second hand heaters for sale (Trade Me). It's a "winner takes all" cycle that's difficult to break and it has allowed companies like Trade Me and eBay to remain dominant for over a decade despite their relative lack of innovation compared to would-be competitors.

But the thing about auctions, is that you only need two people to want it badly enough to achieve a fair market price (add a Buy Now, and you only need one). In the case of Air New Zealand auctioning international airfares for $1 reserve, there will be no shortage of people willing to suffer the pain of taking 30 seconds to sign up to a new site in order to place a bid. With Facebook Connect - you can now sign up to site with a single click. It's worth it, and Air NZ wouldn't be choosing alternative venues year after year if it wasn't working for them.

And this leads me to my second point. Trade Me is often considered the default venue for selling just because it has the highest volume of traffic. This is a lazy argument. It's qualified traffic that really matters. You don't need millions of visits a month to sell a handful of airfares at $1 reserve. Likewise you don't need millions of visits a month to be Mighty Ape and sell more copies of a new release videogame, DVD or Blu-ray than Trade Me or any other NZ retailer. People might not visit Mighty Ape to buy a second hand heater, but they'll visit by the truck load to buy a copy of Skyrim or Battlefield 3.

You just need to look at how specialist e-commerce platforms are destroying eBay's core business in the USA to realize that the world is different today than it was in 1999. Customers have billing relationships with multiple e-commerce providers, and finding them is just a click away thanks to Google and Facebook. In fact, the way Facebook allows e-commerce providers to leverage the social graph and instantly build trust is eroding the network effect advantage that eBay and Trade Me have enjoyed for over a decade. In 2010 you can build a new site and fill it with customers much more quickly than you could back in 2005 or 1999.

On procrastination

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 02:13:38 +1200

I've pondered recently the true impact of procrastination and come to realize the real problem isn't that you get less done by procrastinating, it's that you're less happy during the time you spend avoiding doing something unpleasant.

Consider for a moment the prospect of going to the gym. Few of us actually look forward to going. It's uncomfortable and quite frankly, boring. Promise yourself you'll go in the evening, and you'll spend most of the day dreading the thought of actually going. Your mind will wander, you'll complain to other people and wind up being less happy throughout the day than you might otherwise have been.

The same applies to most anything unpleasant. Filing a tax return, having an uncomfortable conversation, doing the dishes, finishing an assignment and so on. There's no doubt you'll wind up doing all of these things anyway, you'll just make yourself unhappy thinking about it beforehand.

And that's the huge irony. Those who procrastinate inevitably wind up investing exactly the same amount of time doing something unpleasant compared to those who don't. Tax returns take the same amount of time to file no matter when you file them. The difference being those who file early won't worry about it while they're suppose to be enjoying a night off.

As someone who's always asked for the good news before the bad, I think I've finally woken up to how the other half live.

Shane Bradley on Grab One and secrets to success

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:30:00 +1200

New Zealanders aren't usually ones to blow their own trumpet, so I'm making it my business to talk to some of our less-known industry leaders and gain insight into how they got to where they are today. First up is Grab One founder, Shane Bradley.

In case you've been living in a cave for the past year, Grab One - founded by 33 year old Shane Bradley - rose quickly to become New Zealand's #1 daily deal coupon site (65% market share), despite being third into the market and up against some deep-pocketed competitors including Trade Me, Mediaworks, and US-based Groupon and Living Social.

By all accounts the site is a run-away success, having recently sold $500,000 worth of coupons in a single day, and with a growth curve not seen on a kiwi web site this side of Trade Me. So, how did he do it? And more importantly, what lessons can be learned and applied by other up-and-coming Kiwi entrepreneurs?

Like so many "overnight successes" Shane's rise to the top didn't actually happen over night. Shane's been chipping away on various web projects for 7 years - first with his gumtree-inspired classified site Finda (now a fully-fledged business directory, later sold to APN and then Yellow Pages Group) and more recently his online auction site Sella. His tendency to set lofty goals combined with a courageous willingness to change course quickly has created the foundation for where he is today. "Don't be afraid to make mistakes and change things as you go along. Set a goal and work backwards from there. Do whatever it takes."

Shane's eagerness to knock off something big probably has a lot to do with who he looks up to. When asked who his heroes are he's quick to rattle off the likes of Sir Edmund Hillary, Sir Ernest Rutherford and Graeme Hart. Curiously absent from his list are the usual tech-inspired suspects such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Although not afraid to get is hands dirty (whilst on his OE in the UK, Shane setup a maintenance business and taught himself how to do all sorts of jobs including electrical, building and plumbing work) Shane is not a designer, doesn't know "a thing about coding" and doesn't even consider himself overly technical.

A numbers guy (his ability to pull specific dates, facts and figures was quickly apparent during our interview) with a passion for helping small businesses, it seems almost natural that he finds himself running Grab One and helping other business owners to be more successful. "When I was in the UK, no body came to me and told me how they could help my business, especially online. Lots of small business owners don't even know how to use the Internet. That might change with the next generation, but there are still big opportunities for the likes of Grab One to come in there and make a measurable difference. We treat businesses right. We're there to help merchants run their business better."

Grab One's strategy in the local market was to come in hard and fast. The site was built in just 4 weeks (probably less time than most people take to write a business plan) after Shane burst into the office one morning and ordered everyone to stop working on Sella and "starting working on this new thing". With a small team of just seven people, they churned out the site and kicked off with a (revolutionary at the time) $4 movie ticket deal that saw over 35,000 New Zealanders sign up to the site in the first day. "We pretty much knew we were number one from day dot, and since then we've become obsessed about tracking our competitors and making sure we hold our position. We track religiously, and we've held our market share as the market has grown. Every day I wake up and give a shit. It's our game to lose and we've only just begun." Another key factor to Grab One's explosive growth has been social networking, and in particular Facebook. "Four or five years ago, you or I might have shared something cool with two or three people by email. These days its much easier to share it with two or three hundred people via Facebook."

When quizzed on the threat of being gobbled up by offshore mega-businesses like Groupon and Living Social, Shane admits that, like most other #1 deal sites around the globe, to having been contacted by lots of them. "They kind of present deals in a take-it-or-leave-it kinda way, which didn't really work for us. This business isn't just a technology race, and will require solid person-to-person relationships with people on the ground. They're unlikely to have three sales people down in the likes of Tauranga and we're confident we're building long-lasting relationships with our merchants."

Biggest regrets? Not having entered the Australian market earlier. "If we'd setup the same thing over there as we did here, we'd literally be five time as big." This is a lesson often learned the hard way by Kiwi entrepreneurs, and not one that will be repeated by Bradley who plans to launch any future project on both sides of the Tasman at the same time. When asked about the lure of setting up a global company from the heart of Silicon Valley, Shane doesn't see the attraction or the need to be based there, preferring to stay loyal to the emerging technology scene in Auckland, New Zealand. "Auckland is fast becoming an attractive place to live for web and technology guys. Wellington has some great businesses such as Trade Me and Xero, but I'm noticing a slight gravitation toward Auckland. It was interesting that Peter Thiel spoke in Auckland, not Wellington recently."

Shane, now a father to two girls, has plenty to offer in the way of advice to those looking to follow in his footsteps. Having dropped out of both high school and a University MBA, he believes people should find what they love and what they're passionate about, and not be afraid to change their mind as they go along. He believes University is the right place for some people, but not others, and when it comes to his own girls, will support them in whatever path they take so long as "they love what they do and they do it well." "When I was a kid I used to help my parents in their own businesses with accounts, sale and purchase agreements, setting up their computers and the like. I loved it. It's important to give kids and young people the freedom to do what they want to do. Don't tell your 7 year old boy to play rugby if he's interested in sailing. Don't tell your 7 year old girl she has to play netball. I tried everything and started wanting to be an architect. Now I find I love building businesses not buildings."

When looking to partner with new people or make an investment, Shane believes people should spend "less time reading Techcrunch, less time talking and more time getting out there building a product. Create a plan and start executing it. Don't just come to the table with an idea that you think is worth a billion dollars." Clearly someone who values networks and deep relationships, Shane is also far more willing to work with people he's known for at least a few years, perhaps a hint young entrepreneurs should spend more time creating relationships for the long-term. "I get cold calls all the time, and about once a month I agree to hear a pitch just to remind myself why I don't want to do business that way. I prefer working with people I know and trust. People I know are at home working on their idea in the weekend rather than throwing together a presentation before hitting the mountain for a bit of skiing."

His long-standing relationship with media company APN (a 50% partner in Sella and Grab One - later increased to 75%) also bears a striking resemblance to these qualities, describing his relationship as "pretty damn cool" with an obvious appreciation of the personal connection he built with their senior management team, relationships Shane believes he would have been unlikely to cultivate had he partnered with a much bigger media company. "They were and are the perfect size. They've been with me every step of the way and I've learned a lot."

During my brief chat with Shane it was hard not to get swept up by his enthusiasm. He talks faster than anyone I've ever met and his iPad chimed at least 20 times with new emails. Having myself received a couple of emails from Shane before I'd even made it home, I'd be willing to bet he replied pretty damn fast too. And that really sums up the kind of person Shane Bradley is, a maturing businessman with deep experience but with the kind of energy and enthusiasm that belongs to a more naive 20-something fresh out of high school. It's a powerful combination, and one we'd all do well to keep an eye on in the future.

Know another Kiwi success story just waiting to be told? Get in touch.