孙正义的演讲全文在互联网上很容易找到，而演讲的PPT，笔者用照相机拍下一份，笔者不敢独享，现将每张PPT附上孙正义的演讲辞，奉献给大家。

孙正义的PPT很长，我分为三篇个部分，分别是：

《我看好无线互联网》

《软银和巴菲特的不同》

《软银和谷歌的异同》

上篇：《软银的愿景》

一、 远大的理想才能获得大成功

孙正义19岁的时候，有很多想法，他列了一张25个理想的单子，这个单子描述了他要建立的企业是一个大型的新型企业，这个企业就是后来的软银。

孙正义：成功不会在几年内就降临，它需要多年的努力。建议每个人都准备好自己的清单，来做好选择你的人生该怎样走，然后全心全意做你决定好的事情。99%的人走一步看一步，所以他们只能取得一般性得成功；而在很早就树立愿景的人，往往会取得更大的成功。

树立一个近期目标只能获得有限的成果，孙正义建议大家树立长久和远大的理想（愿景），创业企业需要愿景。

二、 软银的远景

软银有两大远景：一个是最大的移动互联网公司；另外一个是亚洲最大的互联网公司

孙正义称软银现在是世界第二大互联网公司，该图是他将软银、雅虎和亚马逊和谷歌做的比较

三、 软银的发展历程

从这张图看出，软银从最初的商业、印刷、门户到后来的宽带，最近软银开始涉足移动业务。两年前，软银花了200亿美元收购了日本一家手机公司，和当时那些电信巨头相比，这是一家很小的公司，几乎每个人都认为软银会在这在这个这个市场上搞杂，甚至选入困局。孙正义凭借自己的激情、软银的远景以及争第一的目标，这个曾经的小公司现在已经占有了一半的客户和50%的市场份额。

软银的业务

该图显示的是，软银旗下的公司和控股的公司，阿里巴巴、淘宝、校内、猫扑和千橡，软银都有投资。

        KDDI、NTT是日本有名的电信公司，跟这些其他的电信业巨头来说，软银本来是小公司，软银两年前投入了两百亿美元的投资，收购一个小的手机公司，当时是日本的第三大移动公司运营，跟其他的竞争对手比，软银收购的是最小的一个手机公司。在这两年发展过程中，在新用户增长过程中，软银得到的新用户数量是最多的。

四、 移动互联网将成为趋势

我们再来看看人类的历史：17世纪，人们互相竞争，去获取新的材料。比如说像农业材料、食品、金属、药品等等；在18世纪直到20世纪，人们都在竞争能源来进行工业革命，石油、天然气、电力帮助他们进行工业的变革；在21世纪，我想主要的竞争领域就是为人们获取信息，信息的获取是21世纪的人们竞争的一个东西，那么人们想更快的获取新的信息，以更大的深度，更广的广度来获得这个信息，然后再来传递这个信息，分享这个信息，这样人们可以互相分享这个信息，然后进行更好的沟通。所以我的关注点是信息获取，也就是网络业务。

互联网已经从PC向互联网转移（该PPT不全，只照了一半，全部的英文是 FROM PC TO MOBILE）

手机的速度，在过去8年间已经增长了375倍。手机处理器速度增长如此之快，使他将成为一个真正的互联网工具。

孙正义在日本有一个雅虎移动门户网站，这个门户访问量在过去两年里面增长了100倍，在音乐下载方面，在手机上下载数量也比电脑高出10倍。

音乐下载方面，手机是

PC

的11倍

社交网络也已经可以在手机上实现。一年之前，访问最大的社交网络MIXI，电脑还占到了90%的访问量，但现在却不足40%，其中60%是从手机访问社交网络。

移动设备中来自语音的收入的比例正在变小，在欧洲和美国，第三代手机的基础设施也就是3G，目前，大多数的欧洲公司以及美国已经渗透率是20%，在日本渗透率是30%，在日本已经有3.5G，超越了3G，所以从手机上面接入英特网，已经非常的便利非常的高速。

日本的3G技术处在世界首位

五、 软银看好亚洲市场

谷歌和软银的市场对比

谷歌是在美国取得了成功，但是我要制造亚洲得成功，我要和你们在一起制造亚洲的成功。和你们在一起，我们将会凝聚亚洲的力量，然后去制造全球得成功。就像我说的，软银的愿景，我们的愿景就是在亚洲发展移动网络，希望我们能够把这一件工作一道做成，我希望能够帮助年轻的中国的网络企业家。

孙正义在现场展示手中的3g iphone

A lot of our best friends are just friends because they were there–just pure dumb luck. They were “there” the night you broke up with your college significant other and they stopped you as you were crying in the campus quad or some such story and they stuck. Such interactions were easier back in college as you lived out the most important times of your lives in close proximity to other people your age.
There are also the people who aren’t necessarily your best friends, but who you just seem to spend a lot of time with: Co-workers, teammates, people you volunteer with. Again, it’s all about the randomness of just being there.
Blogging and the web bring with it an interesting dimension, because the life that only a select few used to be privy to is now, more and more, being consumed by all–indiscriminately. You can’t really treat any of your blog readers as special because they’re all getting the same content. Sure, maybe you could direct message a Twitter friend, but building a really strong friendship 140 characters at a time isn’t ideal either.
I recently shared something pretty sensitive with a slightly more professional friend that I don’t get to see all the time and at first she was kind of taken aback. She didn’t know what to do, because people don’t usually just come out and share the information that I showed her. The fact of the matter was that it was one of the few important pieces of content I have that the rest of you don’t get to see. Contrived, perhaps, but I showed her because I wanted to say, “Hey, listen, you’re the kind of person I want to have in my life and life’s just not naturally bringing us together in a friendship the way I want it to.” That happens a lot and sometimes you just have to nudge things a little.
Building up relationships and trust is easier than you think because of online tools, but building that small set of just a handful of people you can really reach out to and depend on is almost harder because of online tools. How do you demarcate the special folks when everyone else in the world gets to see most of what they do anyway? It’s like creating a VIP section in a theater that only goes 5 rows deep and is completely in the round.
So, at least for a moment, I found a way and formed a new bond based on exclusivity… so just keep in mind that as much as you all think you know about what goes on in the other side of the blog, someone got to see something different that I don’t think I want to share here. My world isn’t totally flat… yet.

Why Startups Fail

An entrepreneur recently asked me

why startups fail. Startups fail because they run out of money. You’re probably thinking, “Tell me something I don’t already know!” Read on and you’ll see that statement is deceptive in its simplicity.

They spend too much on sales and marketing before they’re ready. Many venture companies move to a high burn rate too quickly and it’s hard to go back. Sometimes even a frugal entrepreneur winds up spending too much either because he doesn’t manage the money or is tempted by having money in the bank. This often happens when a startup raises too much money too early.

Other times, this occurs with entrepreneurs who are accustomed to having lots of resources. They ramp up sales before the product is ready. Of course, there’s a lot of work required to get sales early on. But a product with a truly great value proposition that delivers in a measurable way will practically sell itself. Companies that ramp sales and marketing too soon waste a lot of money.

Sometimes even when the product is great, the sales process itself isn’t understood to a point where it can be scaled: who are you selling to, how much will they really spend, and what profile of sales person does the company need to hire who will succeed at selling that particular product. All of this has to be understood before sales can efficiently scale.

Spending on the sales and marketing operations means there is no return if customers don’t bite. When you spend money on the product that work can be leveraged in future versions. (In fact, the key to effective product delivery is to try a lot of things and see what sticks.) For every venture dollar invested, I estimate that more than two-thirds go into sales costs and only a third into product development. Once you up the burn rate, there’s no easy way back.

The market outpaces the startup’s ability to execute. When you’re in a race, the only thing that matters is winning. To win a race, you have to be the fastest.

In the case of the startup in a hot sector that means how fast do you make critical decisions, hire key personnel, and manage limited resources. If, on average, you’re slower or less efficient than your competitors, you’re very likely burning more cash than they are as well. The chief executive sets the pace. If the CEO dithers on important decisions – let’s say making key hires – it slows the whole operation.

Take Company X (a composite). Entrepreneur X caught a case of what I call “analysis paralysis.” He took 14 months to hire for a key position. At Stanford, my professors would ask: “Would you choose X or Y, or do you need more data?” Students often wanted more data. The professors would chuckle and call them on it: “There is no more data.” A simple, but valuable lesson: In the real world, you rarely have a complete picture. You have to work your hunches, draw on past experience and the available information. Unlike solving engineering problems, there is no perfect answer when it comes to hiring – you need to get all the data you can through references, interactions, and simulated projects, but ultimately it’s very subjective.

There is no Entrepreneur. I know what you’re thinking, “Every startup has an entrepreneur.” What I mean is an entrepreneur with a capital “E.” Let me explain: A lot people have good ideas and some are even able to execute on them. But rare is the man or woman who can take an idea and transform it into a sharply defined product and then sell it to top-level prospective hires, investors and customers. An Entrepreneur as opposed to his lower-case counterpart is a product picker and a market visionary.

Company Y (a composite) was a startup with near-flawless execution but no clear vision. CEO Y tried his last company’s strategy and when it failed found himself at a loss for what to do. The company ran out of money and was forced to sell out for a pittance. Meanwhile, CEO Y’s main competitor was more nimble. He reacted quickly to market changes with a viable contingency plan and as a result sold his startup for many times that sum.

Without strong product and market vision, a startup will burn through cash as its team collectively struggles to define its position.

The market takes too long to develop. Often, entrepreneurs are ahead of their time. Customers are not ready to spend money on or change habits for unproven benefits. The company runs out of money waiting for the market to develop or it tries to start over, but it’s too late.

Company Z (a composite) had a compelling concept, but customers weren’t ready to buy in. CEO Z proposed a restart: Rather than sell to the market segment he was in, he would target a different market segment. As a result, he would significantly reduce Company’s Z’s sales and marketing expenses. Company Z was mildly successful with its new plan, but burned through lots of cash before it re-configured. My guess is that it will be bought for little more than the amount that’s been invested.

Risky Business
VC’s play a high-risk game. We have to identify opportunity and risk and then accept that a certain amount of that risk will result in failure. Venture capitalists lump failures into one of two categories.

A failure like Company Z’s: A startup that struggles for reasons beyond the entrepreneur’s control. Things look good, but ultimately mainstream customers or a large volume of users were unwilling to take a chance on a new concept. Skilled execution and a reasonable backup plan won’t compensate for a market that fails to develop as quickly as originally anticipated. Some entrepreneurs are able to switch markets completely early on – if they haven’t raised and spent too much cash. But in this scenario, all companies in the given market flounder or fail. It isn’t a desired outcome but it’s not for lack of trying.

The painful failures – those that keep me and other VCs I know up at night - are the investments that fail due to self-inflicted wounds. A competitor winds up owning what turns out to be a very large market. The other company simply moved faster and out-executed.

It’s not just how fast you run the race that matters. It’s how fast the race is run. When it comes to startups, speed wins. But if you’re still early, don’t increase your burn and overspend on sales and marketing before you’re ready. Sometimes you have to slow down to speed up.

Q: What I haven’t seen among the blogs, and what I’m hoping you can shed some light on, is how early stage companies go about finding and attracting the right talent.

It’d be interesting to hear from you (probably in blog form, I’d reckon) about how the companies you invest in find their talent. Do they hire mainly from within their network? How would a company go about finding a generalist, meaning somebody that’s capable of coding one day and going on a sales call or working a trade show the next? Sites like Monster and Dice aren’t set up to find those people, but there must be a need.

A: (Brad) I find it fascinating (and awesome) that you are asking your question backwards.  Most of the time the question people in your position ask is “how do I find a job in a startup?”  Kudos on going one level deeper!

There are several ways startups find their early hires.  The most common is to aggressively hire within their network.  I’ve found this to be the most useful (as have you - apparently from your past).  Great people tend to run in packs and enjoy working with each other again so when this works it has very high leverage.

While friends are great, new blood is often helpful, especially if you are looking for either specialized talent or very generalized talent.  The more specialized the talent, the broader the net should be as you want to be the attractor.  Don’t limit yourself to a few online job boards - hit them all, and don’t forget Craigslist and your friends / companies blogs (especially if they are widely read).  Put an email footer on all your emails.  Get the word out.  Since you are looking for specialized talent, you should be able to filter quickly based on resume plus phone interview as to whether or not the person fits through your talent filter.

In contrast, if you are looking for very generalized talent, this approach won’t work.  In this case, posting to online job boards is likely a complete waste of time and will generate a high noise to signal ratio.  In the generalized talent case, you need to work your network even more aggressively and go after all the second order introductions that you can (e.g. people you know that might know someone).  I’ve even found third order introductions (e.g. people that you know that know someone that knows someone) to be useful here.  The higher quality the introductions (e.g. people that have worked together, vs. “I just know this guy”) the better.

If you are on the other side of this (e.g. the one looking for a job) get the word out to YOUR network.  Random inbound resumes to VCs and companies rarely produce much (unless they are a response to a specific job inquiry.)

E-Mail Marketing Still Works

APRIL 21, 2008

But consumer standards of relevance are high.

First, the good news: permission-based e-mail is great at getting consumers to buy.

Half of US adult e-mail users surveyed in April 2008 for Merkle’s “View from the Inbox” study, conducted with Harris Interactive, said they had made an online purchase in the previous year as a result of permission-based marketing.

Need data for presentations? eMarketer subscribers can download charts instantly — over 50,000 choices.
Learn About an eMarketer Subscription

In addition, e-mail was second only to customer reviews on Web sites for influencing online purchases, according to DoubleClick Performics‘ “Green Marketing Study,” conducted by Opinion Research Corporation in February 2008. E-mail was roughly equal to search results in terms of influencing online purchases.

Bad news for e-mail marketers included the fact that consumers are increasingly willing to revoke permission that they have previously granted and that the bar for relevance remains high.

About one-third of respondents in the Merkle study also said they had stopped doing business with at least one company as a result of poor e-mail marketing practices.

In the same vein, more than half of US adult e-mail users told Merkle in 2007 that they were only willing to get marketing or promotional messages in status or transactional e-mails if the offers were relevant to them.

“There is a substantial gap between what marketers believe is relevant to the consumer, and what consumers rate as valuable,” said Lori Connolly, director of research at Merkle.

“Traditionally, marketers believed that relevancy meant pushing content that is based on stated preferences or behavior, but companies need to update their view of what is relevant,” Ms. Connolly said.

Consumer wariness is often justified. Some marketers are the victims of spammers, who ruin it for everyone, according to David Hallerman, senior analyst at eMarketer.

“Consumers welcome relevant, opt-in e-mails from companies they have a relationship with,” said Mr. Hallerman. “But the broad spectrum of spam—any unsolicited message—continues to degrade the e-mail environment for all parties.”

The eMarketer US Online Ad Targeting report will be published next month. Click here to be notified when it is released.

Direct Mail对于创业者来说仍然是最有效的推广方式

E-Mail Works for Banks and Card Issuers

APRIL 8, 2008

They are getting better ROI than other industries.

If you have a mailbox, it will come as no surprise that US credit card companies and other financial services firms spent more on direct marketing in 2007 than any other industry. Banks and credit card issuers are masters of mailing targeted offers, and that mail accounts for nearly 42% of their direct marketing budgets.

E-mail is becoming part of this massive direct marketing effort as well, according to the Direct Marketing Association (DMA)’s “Direct Marketing Facts and Figures in the Financial Services Industry.”

Need data for presentations? eMarketer subscribers can download charts instantly — over 50,000 choices.
Request Info

The DMA had previously released some information from the study in a press release, but a recent Marketing Charts article cited more, revealing e-mail as the number three direct marketing tactic in the industry.

The DMA also said that banks and credit card direct marketers had a better return on investment in 2007 than did any other industry, at $13.37 per dollar spent.

That may have something to do with the high open rate that the financial services industry gets.

E-mail list management company MailerMailer found that nearly 29% of direct marketing e-mails sent by financial services companies were opened during the second half of 2007—more than for any other industry.

eMarketer predicts that financial services spending on online advertising will also continue to increase through at least 2011. That means more offers on any given Web site, not just in your inbox.

Since e-mail marketing works for banks and card issuers, consumers can also expect more offers in their inboxes to join those in their mailboxes.

Learn why e-mail remains a cornerstone of digital marketing. Read eMarketer’s E-Mail Marketing: Getting Through to Customers report today.

***最危险的敌人就在最不危险的地方;
***所有让人感兴趣的东西，都可以做成大生意
***“性格决定命数，命数决定生死。人生起落沉浮，得学会向前看，别总是向后看
***“艺术家和商人都是研究人的，可是艺术家唯名，商人唯利。

***商不跟官斗
***鸟尽弓藏——是中国人恒古不变的做事原则。
***在商业上“高”永远是一种潜藏的境界，不仅仅象征着物质上的强大，还意味着至高无上的尊严。

***凡是能够把“人”聚集到一起的事情都是生意，凡是能够把“心”聚集到一起的都是大生意。
***任何商业力量，在政治游戏面前都显得无足轻重。
***每个人的人生都是在不断地寻找路，人们痛苦是因为找不到路，人们幸福是因为找到了路。
***暴利只会让善于欺骗的商人更加善于欺骗。
***事物起源于根基，毁灭于根基！”
***生意就是资源变现，暴利源于巨大变革。
***“土地的根本价值不是用来养羊，而是在于有人需要土地，

***谈判理论：大使必须像使用一把锋利的剑一样，善于巧妙地使用语言。但是在他的语言的表面，要饰有柔和的羽毛，以便明显表示出亲切。如果他的讲话开始显得严厉，他就应该用柔和之剪修剪一下。如果他开始说出了冷酷的话，它就应该以和善的、令人愉快的话语来结尾。用动听的话语消除彼此心中邪恶的根源，用甜言蜜语来抚平对手眉宇间的皱纹。最聪明的使节可以使用语言去完成百万勇士无法完成的伟大事业。那些可以用一句无礼的话，破坏整个和平的人，简直就是莽夫！出色的使节却总是能够用动听的言语，促成两个敌人言归于好。
***伙伴们谈话时，最好能避开那些原则不一致的话题。
***在没有确定方向之前，要有人探路……

***生物学研究人是什么，哲学研究人为什么，历史研究人能干什么……生意就是研究人的，把人研究透彻了，生意就通了！”
***如果对手竭尽全力给你致命的袭击，那么你就要装作受到了重创，即便你没有受到重创，那样才会让对手感觉到大功告成又如愿以偿。然后，他们才会善罢甘休，稍微地停止进攻，给你恢复元气的时间！”
***不要总是着急去寻找对手，你要耐心地想办法让他们自己跳出来，让那些对手赤裸裸地、耀武扬威地站到你的面前！……然后，你就知道怎么把他们统统阉割掉！”
***“既然确定了是对手，那么小心翼翼地观察他们就足够了！其它的生意都正常地去做，就像什么也没有发生那样……不要对所有的扔过来的炮弹都统统反击，那样的话敌人很容易就识破了你的防御能力。”
***“世界上有很多东西一钱不值，但是它能够用来交易，商人要善于发现这些东西！”
***投身大化中，不喜亦不惧；行至水穷处，笑看云起浮
***“政治是口深井，有人想爬上来，就必然有人要掉进去！”
***对于背叛者来说，背叛几次根本不重要，忠诚必须是永久的，但是背叛只能有一次！

    Babystyle，洛杉矶母婴产品零售商，在获得1.46亿美元的融资后，正式宣布破产。

    Babystyle是2年前进行快速扩张的时候开始遇到资金问题的，但持续的融资使得它一直向前发展，两年前的第一轮融资是500万美元，一年前融资1100万美元。投资者包括Arts Alliance, Digital Ventures, Goldman Sachs Group, Maveron, Mousse Partners Ltd., Primedia, Saints Capital, VSP Capital, Vulcan Capital and Zone Ventures，Oak Investment Partners 和 Global Retail Partners

   尽管有这些有名的VC，babystyle还是和我们说再见了~~Bless

   Bless国内的红孩子，丽家宝贝，乐友们~~~~~~~

附：原文

——————————————

Babystyle, the Los Angeles retailer of baby and maternity products, has filed for bankruptcy after raising more than $146 million from investors.

Two years ago we were pointing to the worrying burn rate of the company, which also goes by Estyle. The company was losing money on its brick-and-mortar stores, but was still opening them up at a rapid rate — a time when more growth was happening online, not offline. The company kept raising money, including $6 million two years ago, and $11 million more last year.

Indeed, now criticism is pouring out from a former board member Frank Creer, an early investor, who says the later investors such as Oak Investment Partners and Global Retail Partners pumped ever more money into the company and forced it to open more stories, including three last year — leaving the company seriously overextended now that the economy has started to slow. VentureWire (subscription only) first reported the story this morning.

The story just raises more questions about the health of the investment community. Oak is a good example. Despite very mediocre results from investing in early-stage companies, the firm somehow managed to get investors to give it more money to embark on a strategy of investing into later-stage companies, even though this wasn’t Oak’s specialty. Firms have an incentive to raise more money, because they earn fees based on the size of the fund. So then, having raised a whopping, record sized $2.56 billion venture capital fund (also, see coverage here), Oak was forced to put that money to work — even as it was more difficult to find good companies to invest in. An abundance of private equity and hedge funds were already scouring to find the best companies. Beginning two years ago, I made numerous attempts to contact Oak and Washington State, one of the public investors in Oak to ask about their investment strategy, but we never did get a return phone call or email.

To be fair, investing in companies, and having them fail, is par for the course — it is going to happen to any investor. But the sad thing about this BabyStyle case is that it seemed so obviously misguided.

The company has laid off 14 employees and plans to close six of its 23 stores.

BabyStyle’s previous investors also include Arts Alliance, Digital Ventures, Goldman Sachs Group, Maveron, Mousse Partners Ltd., Primedia, Saints Capital, VSP Capital, Vulcan Capital and Zone Ventures.

When requested for comment, Gerald Gallagher, general partner at Oak Investment Partners, declined to talk this morning. Yves Sisteron, managing partner at GRP Partners, was out of the country and could not be reached for comment.

In a statement, chief executive Bob Kelleher blamed the company’s woes on “recent weakness in the economy, combined with poor performance from a number of unprofitable stores.”

Creer, a board member until last year, and a managing director of Zone Ventures, told VentureWire that the company almost reached profitability in 2004, before it started to focus on offline building:

According to Creer, other board members wanted to roll out more and more stores in a “ridiculously aggressive store rollout plan,” even though the ones that were already open were not profitable. When that didn’t work, he said, investors pumped more money into the company to open more stores…. “There was the same type of phenomenon in 1999-2000, where lots of companies were so dramatically over-funded that they never had the business model to be able to catch up with the funding,” Creer said.

对于初始Startup公司，不同的广告形式会有多大效果呢？Banner还是直邮？这是个问题。

下面有个统计数据可能比较有用：

• Online Banner Ads: 0.5%
• Online Search Ads: 3%
• Outdoor: 0.5-1%
• Print: 1.5%
• Direct Mail: 3-5%

看来，传统的Direct Mail还是最有效^_^