In a post recently made by Pierre Noujeim on his blog, the popular mobile phone game Candy Crush was dissected from a business standpoint.

Many interesting points were mentioned, notably that the free app has been generating numbers 230 million USD in annual revenue and over 150 billion games played since it’s release. Many people would have the instinct to wonder how a little game can put up big corporation income statements like that. don’t worry I did too. And after some games, some searching, and some watching of Pierre playing some Candy Crush it’s become evident. An app doesn’t need to cost money to make it. The in-app purchases are where the real revenue streams are flowing. I’ve seen the game on numerous peoples phones from behind when in lecture and in commons areas around the University and with that amount of consumers to sell to, big buck purchases aren’t necessary within the app to post $230 million. Simple 50 and 99 cent add-ons are where the game has focused their sales efforts because Candy Crush and a large number of app developers everywhere know that ease of accessibility makes purchase quantity skyrocket. Candy Crush has clearly been capitalizing from extremely large amounts of small-purchase add-ons within the app when users find how easy it is to press a button and have their iTunes synced credit card handle it.

In-app play of iTunes most popular game app Candy Crush

Back by popular demand, the November 2013 release of COD: Ghosts brought enormous revenue and some insight to big brother industry.

Another year, another Call of Duty. On November 5th 2013, Acitivision saw it’s game fly off the shelves generating just under $500 milion in sales on two out of three major platforms (PS4 release coming November 22nd 2013). The famous first-person-shooter (FPS) franchise has released at least one new game each year for the past 10 years since their launch in 2003. I myself am guilty of spending one complete month (yes they have an in-game time monitor) playing my first Call of Duty game: Modern Warfare 2 in 2010. Activision has reported the new game based off the fictional operations of a U.S special task force sold to retailers before the release to rake in over $1 billion. With numbers like those I couldn’t see any reason why publishers like Activision could even help themselves from having annual releases like these. In addition, loyal customers to the series waste no time or expense making sure they get their hands on a copy of the game as soon as humanly possible despite it’s increasingly expensive price-tag (around $80 for some platforms). What interests me about this report is that it represents an industry where customers have no hesitation in buying products despite frequent releases of extremely similar products for more money. Many people criticize Apple for withholding technology from their new products in order to cash in from many different releases. What’s so different between the iPhone and Call of Duty? Now I know yes the two products are at very different price points and are targeted at different markets, but essentially their release patterns are the same. It’s a fact that companies are advancing into new technologies for their products far faster than they can turn around, test, develop, and implement them into a usable product. Due to my extensive playing of at least three different COD games, I can say with absolute conviction that there is almost no difference whatsoever between each new game. You have a gun, you vitrtally shoot the gun. Maybe maps, players, and special weapons vary but it’s significantly less of a difference than Apple product to Apple product. Nonetheless, people and articles like these are everywhere condemning Apple for their use of an intelligent business strategy.  Continue reading →

It’s my birthday tomorrow (a monday I know it sucks). I was born late relative to my class on November 18th 1995 making me 18 years old November 18th 2013. Spending my entire childhood living in Calgary where the provincial legal drinking age is 18, and moving to Vancouver where it’s 19 for my 18th birthday , as you guessed, was just bad timing. Now the sepia toned photos of all my hometown friends enjoying their first legal drink at a bar that had been invading my instagram newsfeed since the start of 2013  and the one I had been patiently waiting for will sadly have to be postponed. The thing that I don’t understand is what will change during the flight from YVR to YYC when I come home for the break. I’ll be sanctioned from even entering a liquor store at 10am then fully able to  drink however much I should so choose at 12pm. It seems awfully arbitrary to me. Now this isn’t a post which offers many diverse arguments overflowing with teenage conviction surrounding the unfairness of it all that adults can drink certain liquids that I can’t (although I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t considered such arguments). What get’s me really interested is the economics behind it all. The alcohol industry is so unique in the fact that it’s only one in a handful of markets that is strictly controlled by barriers to entry overseen by the government. It doesn’t make any sense economically how a supplier would agree to sell in a market where a significant portion is actually legally unable to purchase their product. It’s one thing to refrain from targeting a certain customer segment, but it’s another to agree that you should call the cops if a customer of this aforementioned segment (underage) purchases a product. I have come to understand now on the eve of my birthday that this economic sanction towards a demographic within an industry has made me more willing to buy than before. It’s reverse psychology, I couldn’t have something for 18 years, naturally I want to have it.

For those of you who are unaware of what snapchat is and what it does, you’ll find yourself saying “I wish I thought of that!” immediately after you understand. It made so much sense to me when someone suggested I start using an app which allows me to send pictures to my friends, but they can only see it for a time-length of my choosing where afterwards it would disappear forever never to resurface (unless someone screen-shotted). Essentially, Snapchat is an app available on iOS and Android platforms which allows user to send pictures they take themselves with drawing and text to their friends who also use the app. The catch is that the picture then disappears after x number of seconds: where x is a number between 1 and 10 chosen by the sender. The app serves to respond to the need for younger technology socialites to maintain a continuous connection with their friends through the rich communication channel of visual imagery yet simultaneously access a certain freedom of communication that comes from removing the permanency of internet communication. It’s all good fun, but what recently caught my eye was current news being reported on Snapchat’s business. The Wall Street Journal  recently reported that Snapchat had turned down a $3 billion USD offer from Facebook. Despite being in operation for only just over 2 years (initial release Sept. 2011), Snapchat has grown from a simple social media app into a massively high-evaluated business. But does that mean they’re a massive business? No. The more I use Snapchat the more I begin to understand that they really are operating on a non-existent revenue stream. The app doesn’t cost anything, and it has no ads. It’s absolutely perfect for users because they pay virtually nothing to use Snapchat, but I can’t help but wonder how the business side of the company can be worth 3 billion USD and have no clear revenue stream. Snapchat has been operating on a 65 million dollar initial investment and has therefore been able to maintain themselves with the absence of a revenue stream, but in terms of sustainability it doesn’t get worse. I think they should’ve sold out and taken the $3 billion. Facebook has money and a need to better access their younger demographic. Snapchat has nowhere to go but where they are if they continue to simply be an app and not a business.

If you know the name Rob Ford you may have it already associated with other unkind words like rude and irresponsible floating around in your mind. Now this is not to say that I believe Mr. Ford actually embodies these things. Most of the cruel accusations and names are coming hot from the nationwide media amid new information and quotes surfacing surrounding alleged drug use and sex-scandals. While all this behaviour seems to have people in uproar, I can’t help but feel interested instead of disgusted towards the situation. Mr. Ford, among many previous leaders such as corporate and national executives, has felt how easily a popular figure may be transformed so easily in the eyes of the media. I draw very odd comparisons between Rob Ford and characters like Miley Cyrus who have allowed themselves as well as us to understand how we as a society allocate our attention. Someone once said “No such thing as bad press”. If that’s the case, then I should start down the path of public embarrassment through drug-use and crude sexuality. Sadly though, I’m not a rockstar. Neither is Mr. Ford. So while I completely understand the thoughts conveyed in blog sites such as these (insert warning for R-rated blog), the real insights lie behind understanding that it’s not necessarily Mr. Fords actions that are so horrific, because we’ve all seen what rock and roll is all about. It’s that he’s trying to rock and roll being the democratically elected representative of a municipal district.