At last Wednesday's BBY Disruptive Lunch, one company gave hope to students everywhere.
Nexus Notes allows the confused, the time poor, or (yes) the plain lazy the chance to acquire the course notes of top quartile students for a mere $US35. For that, you get anything from a complete years worth of notes to a pre-exam outline. If nothing else you get the chance to see what's required to get through what at times might seem impossible. You can browse the available library and get a free 10% sample of each of the available offerings before you buy.
Some of the notes I've looked at are amazing. If I knew a 2015 freshman, I'd give them a set of notes from a successful student to show them just what it takes to get those elusive "A's". For example, if someone had given me "masonzhang1221's" Administrative Law notes I'm pretty sure that the second year of law would not have been such a grind.
The 1000 page case book, the lethargically paced textbook; the memories are still with me. I passed this course, so I know what I'm talking about when looking at these notes.
So what does the author get? 50% of all the fees that they generate. It's that simple. Maybe they get the altruistic sense of helping others? I doubt that's why students and graduates put their notes up for sale. No, it's 99% about the money. Their top author is up about $3000 so far.
Co-Founder's Hugh Minson (CEO) and Richard Hordern-Gibbings (COO) presented as upbeat, energetic and relentlessly logical. Their Advisory Board has plenty of familiar names and reeks with success.
I got a quick five minutes with the guys before the presentations started, and they immediately batted back my questions on plagiarism, etc. They rightly pointed out that students can't plagiarise notes because universities don't mark notes. In fact, universities are supporting Nexus Notes. The team has been smart enough to hire "promoters' or "brand managers" at a number of universities to get the word out.
Nexus Notes are already getting some love internationally. They have a foothold in New Zealand and are starting to roll-out their offerings at The University of Texas (Austin). It makes sense, as the university experience is almost universal.
It would be easy to get too far ahead of yourself on this one because the model does have some problems, the most glaring of which is scalability. At present, the approval process is 90%+ manual. You sign up and submit your course notes for approval. You can choose to submit your academic record with your notes. They say:
"The file you attach is hidden from the public but your notes will become verified - represented by a visible blue shield. A digital version, scanned copy, or screenshot of your academic transcript will do."
Then the team goes through the approval process manually. I should have asked more about this because I assume Nexus isn't checking the notes for the content, but rather is looking at the format. It sounds somewhat laborious and will need work. Imagine if this takes off at the University Texas with its 17 colleges and schools, and more than 50,000 students? The guys hinted at some automation based not only on academic transcripts but also social media type algorithms, but that is still to come. I'm positive this could be a great add-on to a social media site. Remember Facebook started as an attempt to link students at Harvard. It's not hard but will cost money and time.
As I've been a portfolio manager, I'm used to ranking companies. Tech start-ups are no different. It's a numbers game as much as anything else. The more you see, the more you can pick the quality ideas or people from the fakers. Education is a key theme in the "disruptive" world at the moment. Nexus Notes has a solid chance to be a winner in a growing segment. Investors could do worse than spend some time tracking this company's progress.
If $35 seemed like a bargain for quality course notes, then Free is Better has even greater resonance. Take some marketing and advertising energy and stick it onto a basic product like a bottle of water. Give it away for nothing. "Thirsty? Want a free bottle of water? Did you know about the new Mini Cooper S?"
Free is Better is the brainchild of Melbourne based marketing tyro Alex Chen. The idea is that you connect your product to consumers by linking your marketing campaign with free water. They don't just hire a team of kids and drop them off anywhere to hand out the bottles; instead they target districts, and precincts they determine have a high concentration of demographically compatible consumers.
Why water? Chen rightly suggests that the bottled water market is only differentiated by fashion. It could be the colour or shape of the bottle, or it might be the name itself. The Free is Better bottle goes for that clean "google-like" look. The austerity neutralises any social cache down to the statement itself. That makes it firstly inoffensive and secondly a statement that you're smarter than someone paying $2 for something that you can get for free at a public water fountain. There's smugness factor at work here. The price you pay is that on the other side of the label you have some advertising.
The company has gone through a two year gestation period. Now they aim at running limited edition campaigns of one month duration. Each effort sees 20,000 bottle of water handed out and so far they've had mini cars and Levis jeans amongst their product placements. The cost is about $1 per bottle delivered to distribution points, and they essentially charge another dollar for the distribution and marketing know-how to their clients.
Free is Better is only in Melbourne currently. The key is the product placement, and we didn't get a good look at the modelling process behind identifying geographies. I hope it's more scientific then just saying this space looks hot right now. In fact, that's a bit disingenuous because the team hinted at social media analysis as being core to this process. Obviously to roll this out elsewhere and make it worthwhile to investors you'll need to make sure that the underlying processes are robust, quantifiable and somewhat proprietary. If the science isn't right, I can't see the investment case for the product. The wall around the business just won't be high enough.
The team has plans to roll-out vending machines that can be unlocked from a smartphone app. While I'm not sure that this adds to or subtracts from the "fashion factor", it at least shows that Chen and the crew are looking for more data on who is getting the bottles. That is key for them selling the idea to clients.
As an investor, I'm somewhat unsure whether this has legs. The business model seems niche and undefendable without some "secret sauce". At this stage, I think I'd be more an observer than equity buyer. I like the enrgy and thought involved, I just need to see the engine in action.
The last business to cover from the lunch is another peer to peer lender: Money Place. I think Stuart Stoyan (CEO) got unnerved by the presence in the room of some of his competitors. That gave me the feeling he shut up shop in regard to presenting what differentiated his business model from others. Instead, we got the usual arguments as to why peer to peer lending was going to be big in Australia. We didn't get why Money Place was likely to be one of the winners.
I'm fast becoming a peer to peer sceptic. Readers of the blog know that I liked the offering of Society One when it was first presented because of the well thought out smartphone portfolio monitoring tool for lenders. That to me differentiated the business. Others agreed because they've been the market darling, raising capital from the big players in town. Having said that my sources indicate that even with the support that they've garnered the growth of the loan book has been disappointing. That also suggests to me that the marketing campaign needed for the industry to take off may cost more and require a greater gestation period than originally suggested.
How does Money Place compete? Well, the answer is we don't know from this presentation. Given Society One's loan book is still less than $30m, after the support they've had, then Money Place will need to have something special up its collective sleeves.
Stoyan was asked about peer to peer competing with banks in the long run. If you look around the room and make a statement that Australia hasn't seen a downturn for a long time, and "I doubt anyone here has seen one" you want to stop and look at your audience a little more closely. I know I looked around and saw quite a few people who'd had to put up with double digit mortgage rates, bankruptcies and a finance minister who said we (Australia) were in danger of becoming a banana republic. The super liquid monetary conditions we've had recently are not the norm in economic history, so you better have a better set of answers or thoughts when challenged about the industry's sensitivity to interest rates.
When Society One presented at BBY last year, they suggested that average rates of return to lenders was in double figures. Money Place is now saying it's closer to 8%. What happened? Well, the chase for yield in smaller packages is part of the answer. To me, 8% is closer to investing in a second mortgage, not in a fully unsecured personal loan. The problem, of course, is that second mortgages require more funds and longer duration thinking. But this is unsecured and unlike Society One we got no behind the scenes look at recovery processes.
So as an investor what would I do in peer to peer lending in Australia? I want to say that Society One is going to be the big winner, but remain somewhat concerned at their loan book growth. Money Place and others in the field are being given an opportunity to bridge the gap. If it were me, I'd try and get a one on one with Stoyan to see what he and the team have to offer. On the evidence of this presentation, the jury is out and needs to ask the judge for further directions