Connect with us

ZDNET

Professional speaker secrets: How to give world-class virtual presentations

Published

on

As the saying goes, the internet changes everything. And so has the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks to the two of them, we now face a future where virtual events will play a much larger part in how we do business. On-site events will return eventually, but everyone from meeting planners to attendees has discovered that while online events aren’t perfect, they can offer a lot of advantages over the traditional hotel ballroom or convention center gatherings.

This shift to virtual has meant that speakers have had to adapt to the new conditions. Whether you’re a business executive speaking to a regional sales meeting, or an industry leader addressing an association conference, or a professional keynote speaker delivering a talk for a major corporation, the game has changed.

alfred.jpg

Alfred Poor

Alfred Poor is helping these people adjust to those changes. I’ve known him for more than a decade. Long-time ZDNet readers may remember when I sat down with Alfred back in 2012 to discuss HDTV buying strategies. Alfred’s got deep knowledge in a variety of subject disciplines (he’s one of my go-to people when I have questions). That knowledge has made him an in-demand professional speaker and an expert on virtual events. He’s on the Board of Advisors and is the Chief Technology Content Officer for VEG: The Virtual Events Group. And he’s the host of the weekly Speaker Springboard Podcast.

I asked Alfred to share with the ZDNet audience some of his best tips for speakers who want to make the best impression with virtual presentations. Over the course of a few days, we had a very interesting back-and-forth conversation over email. My questions and his answers are below.

Let’s start with the name we’ve become all too familiar with: Zoom. Is Zoom the way to go when doing presentations, or should businesses look at other tools like, say, ON24 or GoToWebinar?

This is an important question that is difficult to answer. It’s like asking, “Which car should I buy?” If you need to haul plywood and drywall, then you should get a pickup truck. But if you need to take a carload of kids to soccer practice, you should get a minivan. Neither will work well for the other’s tasks.

The key point is that you must start with the outcome; what do you hope to accomplish? This will help you pick the right tool for the job. I’ve helped them amass an online database of more than 400 virtual event platforms and related tools and services in my work with VEG. You don’t have to search forever for the optimal choice, but do make sure that the platform you choose can handle all your needs, such as features, analytics, configuration requirements, and of course, budget.

Given the rapid changes in our pandemic era, what’s the COVID-driven state of virtual, on-site, and hybrid events?

The current state of the events industry is different from what it was yesterday and different from what it will be tomorrow. Rapidly changing international travel restrictions, the vagaries of commercial air travel and the uncertainty about COVID vaccines and variants combine to create a highly unstable setting for on-site events. Not just B2B events — such as the New York Auto Show — but even consumer entertainment engagements are being curtailed or cancelled outright with little notice.

Meeting planners have learned that virtual events offer significant advantages, especially in these uncertain times. Costs are lower because you don’t have to rent space, pay for catering, or hire technical services to support on-stage events. Exhibitors find that they don’t have to design, ship, and assemble complex booths or pay for staff to be away from the office for a week at a time. And attendees can join from anywhere, often on their own schedule. This has resulted in some on-site events finding that registrations increase by five to ten times when they pivot to virtual.

Business executives and industry leaders have to present at both internal (such as sales meetings) and external (such as association conferences) events for their companies. For those with years of experience presenting on stage, how is online different?

One of the biggest challenges is that you can’t just stroll onto a stage and start speaking. You don’t have someone else to dress the stage, arrange the lighting, and manage the audio for you. You must provide your own equipment for all this and be able to set it up and make it work.

[For an example of this exact situation, read my story and watch the associated video: Building a YouTube studio: Upgrading to full broadcast-quality video for under $3,000 –DG]

If you work for a large enough company, they may be able to provide this support in-house or are willing to hire an outside service to help. Some meeting planners are even sending out “presenter kits” with cameras, lights, and microphones to make it easy.

How do you balance the intimate feeling of presenting from a spare bedroom and still make a splash and “bring it” in a strong and powerful way?

The key is to bring energy to your presentation. One important factor is to make “eye contact” with your audience, which means you must look directly at the camera lens while speaking. Many people find this difficult and awkward because you don’t get the visible feedback that you’d get from an in-person audience. Many speakers — including me — also find that it helps to be standing when they deliver an online presentation as this injects more energy into your delivery.

What are some of the problems that people run into online, and how might they prevent those from happening?

Start with this premise; everything you have learned about speaking on a stage is wrong for a virtual presentation. You can’t stride around the room, making large gestures. Even if you can remain on camera, the motion will be distracting. 

Instead, look at how newscasters deliver their content. Keep body movements smaller and controlled; use facial expressions to convey emotion and emphasis. And don’t get so close to the camera that your head fills the screen. This can make the audience feel that you’re too close to them and make them feel awkward.

What’s the one best investment to improve your online presentations?

People will put up with almost anything in an online presentation except poor sound quality. If they have to strain to hear what you’re saying, they will tune out and click away. You can get an excellent USB microphone for less than $100 that can deliver professional-quality sound. Get a good microphone and practice with it so that you’re confident that you’re providing great sound for your audience.

What’s the best way to deliver an “over the top” presentation for an event?

Sadly, it does not take much to be better than most of the other speakers. You can stand out simply by having a well-thought-out background, good lighting, and smooth control of your slides or other materials. If you can use additional software to provide a quality virtual background and a seamless way to present slides without using the platform’s screen-sharing feature, you’re well on your way to a world-class presentation.

What is the number one mistake people make with online presentations (including speakers and event planners)?

How many times have you seen a presenter get up on stage and fumble with the remote control, trying to figure out how to advance their slides? This is one of the most common mistakes, and it is easily solved by having even the briefest of tech rehearsals. 

The same holds true in spades for virtual events. If your meeting organizer does not suggest a rehearsal, insist on having one anyway. The many combinations of platforms, hardware, software, and other components mean that there are endless ways that things can go dreadfully wrong.

Be sure that you know how to get into the platform and what it will look like while you wait your turn to speak. Some platforms don’t have a “green room” for waiting speakers, and you might find yourself “on stage” while the other speaker is finishing up!

Know how to mute your mic and video and how to turn them back on. Make sure that your equipment works with the platform. And know what you’re supposed to do when your presentation is over. Fifteen minutes spent checking everything out in advance can help prevent unpleasant surprises when the event goes live.

What do too many speakers fail to consider when preparing for a virtual presentation?

In a word: wardrobe. You may not think too much about what you wear on stage, or maybe you already have a “brand” image that you stick to. Not every outfit works for a virtual event.

For example, many webcams struggle with bright red; some may flash between magenta and crimson while speaking, distracting. Fine prints and plaids can result in interference patterns that can shimmer, so stick to solid colors where possible.

And avoid wearing white; cameras work best with lots of light, but pure white can overload the camera image. Pale blues are almost always a good choice.

Should you use slides with your virtual presentation, and if so, how should they be different from what you might use on stage?

Keep in mind that your audience will be seeing the slides filling their screen rather than viewing them from a distance. Make them evocative but use as little text as you can. Think back on some of Steve Jobs’ presentations for Apple and how he often used one giant image with only one or two words. Use your slides to convey emotion and context, and deliver the content with your spoken words. This will help keep the audience’s attention because they won’t be able to “read ahead” and decide that they already know what you’re going to say.

Wrapping up

It is clear that you can’t sit out the pandemic in hopes of everything returning to the way it used to be. Virtual events are going to be a major part of the meeting industry, and this will provide new opportunities for those who are skilled at delivering effective online presentations. 

Big thanks to Alfred for taking the time with us. One final note: Alfred has helped many speakers through his free demonstrations. They are held on the fourth Tuesday of each month, and you can register at his Speaker Springboard website. Alfred’s cool. It’s definitely worth your time to give him a listen. I always learn something whenever I do.


You can follow my day-to-day project updates on social media. Be sure to follow me on Twitter at @DavidGewirtz, on Facebook at Facebook.com/DavidGewirtz, on Instagram at Instagram.com/DavidGewirtz, and on YouTube at YouTube.com/DavidGewirtzTV.

ZDNet Recommends

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.

Click here to access.

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/professional-speaker-secrets-how-to-give-world-class-virtual-presentations/#ftag=RSSbaffb68

ZDNET

Why Facebook is the AOL of 2021

Published

on

Once upon a time, roughly thirty years ago, there was a computer network called America Online. 

AOL, as it was typically referred to, sent out little diskettes in the mail, and sometimes slipped them into the middle of popular magazines. The diskettes were a way for people to go online. There was already an Internet, but most people didn’t know how to use it or even that it existed. 

AOL, and a couple of competitors, Compuserve and Prodigy, offered people online things they could do, such as chat with other people. Mostly, the services helped people to get around the difficult aspects of what are known as Internet protocols. Internet computers need to communicate via connections that require a dedicated communications line, and a so-called IP address, which in turn requires a software program called TCP/IP. Most people’s computers didn’t have any of that. 

Instead, the little diskette in the magazine let a person plug their computer into their telephone modem — once they’d bought a modem at the local computer store — and dial up a server computer that would admit them to the world of AOL or, alternatively, to the world of Compuserve or Prodigy. Some people grumbled at how many diskettes were stuck inside magazines, but the diskettes were an effective way to attract new people to sign up and use the service.

Many people spent days and days at a time on AOL and the other services. The services had only one drawback, which was that they were limited. People couldn’t do just whatever they wanted, they could only pick from a small menu of functions, such as chat, that the services provided. And the services didn’t grow or change much, they stayed pretty much the same for years because it wasn’t in their interest to change when the diskettes kept bringing people in. 

facebook-floppy-crop-layout-for-twitter-version-2.jpg

Back in the early ’90s, AOL mailed out little diskettes and stuck them in magazines to get people to come online. Facebook didn’t have to resort to such cheesy tactics, but it similiarly has offered a curated set of free activities that have trapped people inside a walled garden, just like AOL.

Tiernan Ray for ZDNet

Most people didn’t mind that the services were limited and didn’t change. People were just excited to be in a place called Cyberspace. Suddenly, they could send a message to someone in a different town, even a different country, even people that they had never met. People could also adopt a secret identity, such as “picklefinger0237,” and the anonymity made interacting even more exciting.

Right about the same time as AOL, a smart person named Tim Berners-Lee, who worked at a prestigious research organization, published some software people could use to connect from their computer to any computer that also had the software. It was the World Wide Web. The software quickly caught the attention of many people and it blew their minds. With a real Internet connection, a person could reach any computer in the world. People saw that they didn’t have to accept the small menu of functions that AOL offered them. 

Moreover, the excitement that people felt when they were sending a message to a person in another town now swelled until it became a fervor to see the world. People had a sense the small little place in Cyberspace where they had dwelt was nothing compared to a vast universe just over the garden wall. The excitement pushed even ordinary people to find out how to sign up with a thing called an “Internet Service Provider.” It required people to understand something called “point to point protocol,” which was almost like learning science, but still less annoying than all the diskettes.

As it grew and grew, the World Wide Web became an amazing place in contrast to AOL. People found they could visit articles and whole magazines written by people they’d never met, even from around the world. And there was a constant stream of innovation, with lots of software appearing all the time that made “surfing” the Web amazing. 

People even discovered more of the Internet, such as things like “file transfer protocol,” where they could get lots of stuff no one had ever seen in the form of files. Programs such as “finger” let a person see who had been online, which, again, blew people’s minds. 

People were so excited by the World Wide Web, they never wanted to go back to AOL or Compuserve or Prodigy. The three services withered. Mostly, people who were older held onto their AOL accounts because they still had an email address linked to AOL and it was a little confusing to try to get a new email address. But over time, with help from the younger generation, even those people were able to shift to using new email services and enjoy the Web. 

Soon after people became excited about the Web, business people started to say it was sad that AOL and Compuserve and Prodigy had withered away because they had been a great way to make money for a time. 

The business people decided that there should be a way to make something like AOL, even though everyone thought Web sites were amazing and didn’t want to go back. A content company called CNET (a sister site of ZDNet)  invented a service called Snap Online. They put out T-shirts telling people it was like having AOL but so much better. They wrote the word Snap with an exclamation point — Snap! — so that it was even more exciting. 

The service, though, didn’t make a lot of money, in fact, it cost CNET a lot of money, $101 million dollars through 1999, before CNET sold it to another company called NBC Internet. NBC eventually merged with a cable company called Comcast, and Snap was forgotten.  

Other people tried to make another AOL, including a group of the smartest venture capitalists in the world, who spent nearly $50 million to create a site that would be more like meeting real people, called Friendster. It had some success at the beginning because people really wanted to meet not just new people but people they knew. Then people cooled on Friendster, and it got sold — for a lot less money than it had taken to build it — to a Malaysian online payments firm. People mostly forgot about Friendster.

None of those failures deterred business people, and they created new services, including a service called MySpace, where people could put up information about their rock bands. 

Also: Why is your identity trapped inside a social network?

Finally, some smart people hit on a formula and they created some brand-new places for people to meet.

One of them was called Facebook. People got excited about Facebook because it was a place where they could find real people they knew, just like MySpace, but also because it had some features like AOL, like the game Farmville. 

Business people were even more excited because Facebook started to generate a lot of advertising revenue. Advertisers liked Facebook because it not only knew who was talking to whom, it also knew a little bit about the hobbies and interests of people. Advertisers liked that because they could use the information to “target” their ads like never before.

Smart people said that Facebook had what are known as “network effects.” It became more powerful the more people joined it. A scientist deduced the possible reason. It was because Facebook had what’s called a “scale free” network that solved the problem of how to meet up. Most people didn’t know that many people, but everyone knew one or two people who knew a whole lot of people. Those one or two people were the hubs in a social “graph” that allowed even lonely people to meet lots more people, in the same way everyone in Hollywood knew someone who had worked with the famous actor Kevin Bacon on a movie.

As more lonely people met new people — and old friends — via Facebook, Facebook grew and grew. Its revenue swelled from $153 million dollars a year to $2 billion to $18 billion until one day it was making almost $120 billion dollars a year selling advertisements as people did stuff together. Facebook became one of the most powerful entities in the world, worth over a trillion dollars, because it had so many people doing stuff, almost two billion people.

There were just a couple problems with Facebook. Facebook was a lot like AOL. It limited people by telling them with whom they could communicate. And unlike AOL and Compuserve and Prodigy, people couldn’t just be any fun identity they wanted, like picklefinger0237. They had to present themselves as themselves because advertisers liked to know who was talking to whom.

Many people didn’t really mind that they were limited in whom they could talk to. They liked to “build their brand,” they said, by showing off pictures of themselves and talking a lot about themselves. Also, people felt it was fine because just like with AOL, they had a couple other options, including Pinterest and Twitter and LinkedIn and Instagram, and even a new thing called Snap, without the exclamation point. Those were like having Compuserve and Prodigy back in the day.

But a few people got concerned. They noticed that not only did Facebook and services like it limit who could talk, and to whom those people could talk. The concerned people noticed that the services manipulated how people talked to one another, with computer algorithms called “data voodoo dolls.” Even business people became alarmed. They said Facebook had “zucked” people by betraying people’s trust. 

Also: Physics explains why there is no information on social media

One of the bad things was that people no longer had control. They had given so much information about themselves to Facebook and its competitors that it was like those companies owned people when they were in Cyberspace. 

The services didn’t seem to do a great job of handling people’s information, either. Even though they wouldn’t let people talk to just anyone they wanted, Facebook and the other services went and sold people’s information to people they didn’t know in far-away countries. And everywhere a person would go on the Internet, Facebook and its competitors would let advertisers keep following them, keeping track of them, which people had never counted on when they joined up.

Concerned thinkers said the new online services were watching everyone’s behavior and shaping it and invading their privacy. The consequences became worse and worse. People had thought they were relating to one another, but they were really screaming at one another like in a school lunchroom food fight. 

The reason they were screaming was because the data voodoo dolls and the other algorithmic tools weren’t really bringing people together, they were encouraging repetitive patterns of behavior, like getting people mad by constantly displaying the most inflammatory things people said about anything and everything. It was all for the purpose of sorting people’s behavior into convenient buckets as a way to communicate a clear buying signal to help advertisers

Even the people who were excited about building their brands had some misgivings. They suspected at times that their identities were not real. They were now simply a figment of an advertising database that constructed an identity for them in order to keep people coming to Facebook and other services. It was almost as if people didn’t exist anymore when they were in Cyberspace. 

Then one day, someone smart built a new technology that didn’t require people to sign away their information. Now, people could meet anyone they wanted and talk about whatever they wanted, not just what Facebook or its competitors said was okay. People felt more relaxed, too, because even though there were ads, people could meet up in Cyberspace without every single action they took being used to fuel an advertising machine. 

People got excited again, like the first time they found the Web and gave up on AOL.

But there our story ends, because that chapter has not yet been written.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-is-the-aol-of-2021/#ftag=RSSbaffb68

Continue Reading

ZDNET

Motorola thinks it can take business from Apple (with this?)

Published

on


screen-shot-2021-09-20-at-1-59-52-pm.png

Exuding security?

Screenshot by ZDNet

Recently, I’ve developed an unhealthy fascination with Motorola.

Ever since the company declared itself and its wares to be “agents of change,” I’ve been desperate to witness the change I can believe in.

The company’s first attempt to think different sadly resembled something you’ve seen (far too) many times before.

Still, my eyes became oddly widened when I saw this headline: “Forget the new iPhone 13 — Motorola thinks it just made your next work phone.”

This gave me a shuddery feeling for more than one reason. This is an aggressive alternative to the iPhone 13? This is from Motorola?

And wait, what is a work phone anyway?

Given that the pincer movement between tech and corporate America has forced us to be always on (edge), thanks to mobile technology, how can a work phone really be separate from your usual phone?

It’s cumbersome to carry two phones around — though I know some do — just to listen out for one tune or another to alert you about “work.” Rather than say, “match,” “lover”, or “burgers.”

So I hastily devoured details of what this new Motorola work phone is. It’s called the Motorola Edge 20 Lite Business Edition.

There’s a potentially uncomfortable juxtaposition between “lite” and “business,” so could it be that this phone will alleviate work encumbrances?

I rushed to Motorola’s site, desperate to be moved.

I found these words from our sponsor: “The motorola edge 20 and edge 20 lite Business Edition devices are designed specifically to meet the needs of today’s enterprises. Stay safer and up to date with two Android OS updates and three years of monthly security patches.”

Yes, it really did have Motorola with a small m, which was remarkably modest. And I’m sure monthly security patches are welcome. But it’s just a shame they have to occur every month.

The next sentence was intriguing but may not please all grammarians: “motorola edge 20 and edge 20 lite Business Edition devices are secured by ThinkShield for mobile, a comprehensive set of hardware and software security features, and is Android Enterprise Recommended.”

In essence, then, what makes a business phone a business phone is, according to Motorola, security.

I always worry when any tech company promises security. It seems painfully clear that this is a promise best left as a mobile goal, rather than a nirvana attained.

These Business Edition phones are designed to be sold to businesses in bulk. It’s wise, then, to emphasize the security at their heart.

It does, though, incite another question or two. Why aren’t all phones equally secure? Would it really necessitate a price premium just to give you what you might actually expect as a norm? And talking of price, is the price the other main selling point of the Business Edition against the iPhone 13?

The Edge 20 lite Business Edition may, indeed, be a fine phone. Motorola is, indeed, gaining market share. And many will want it to become more of a competitor in what often seems a very limited race to dominance.

But if you’re going to be a change agent, change something radically. Offer a business phone that won’t work after 7 p.m., for example.

What do you mean no corporation would ever buy that? Aren’t they all about empathy these days?

more Technically Incorrect

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/motorola-thinks-it-can-take-business-from-apple-with-this/#ftag=RSSbaffb68

Continue Reading

ZDNET

AT&T says it has big problems. A T-Mobile salesman showed me how big

Published

on


at-t.png

A big brand problem? They could start with that logo.

AT&T

I’ve missed going to phone stores.

This may not be a sentence you’ve heard from too many people lately, but I’ve often found talking to those actually selling the phones to be an enlightening experience.

So last week, mask in hand and anticipation in head and heart, I went to an AT&T store. My main goal was to see Samsung’s Galaxy Flip 3 and Galaxy Fold 3.

I’ve been an AT&T customer for almost 20 years. Those phones seem especially riveting to me, though I’ve never held one.

Perhaps an AT&T salesperson could inspire me to finally toss my iPhone to the winds.

This Number Is Not Available.

I walked into a reasonably sized AT&T store. There were two customers inside. Very quickly, I was greeted by a saleswoman clutching an iPad.

“What name should I put down?” she asked.

“Chris,” I said.

“Right now, the wait time is thirty minutes,” she replied, very matter-of-factly.

That seemed like an infernally long time, given the sparsely populated store on this weekday afternoon. She didn’t even ask why I was there and simply walked away.

Still, she agreed I could look around. I found the Fold and the Flip, opened them and closed them, and discovered the that the crease on the Fold 3 was markedly visible, while the Flip 3 looked exactly as I’d imagined — utterly charming.

But was I going to spend another 28 minutes in the store? Was I really minded to go back?

I left, with the latest words of AT&T CEO John Stankey swishing around my brain: “Frankly, I’m not satisfied with where the AT&T brand stands right now.”

He worries the company isn’t well positioned for the next 10 years. I worry it’s not well positioned to offer basic customer service right now.

You Want Service? What Sort Of Service?

I wandered away and wondered whether I could get any service at the nearest T-Mobile store. Phone stores can be a little like car dealers, zoned into particular areas.

So I replanted the mask on my face, walked in, stood for perhaps 30 seconds and was approached by a salesperson. This despite the fact that there were four customers in a store that’s smaller than AT&T’s.

“Hi. If I asked you an honest question, would you give me an honest answer?,” I began.

“Sure,” he said.

“Is the T-Mobile coverage better in my area than it used to be?”

“Let’s find out,” he replied.

He then walked me over to the counter and showed me his iPad. He let me type in my address and showed me precisely where the nearest tower is and the strength of the signal.

My house is right on the border between good and not-so-good in signal terms. He was honest enough to not only show it, but not to offer some twisted reasoning for why it was actually guaranteed to be good.

He said that, over the next few years, the signal would improve a lot. And when I made a joke about 5G — there really are so many — he revealed he was a toggler.

“I manually switch from 4G to 5G to see where I can get a better signal,” he said. Which doesn’t sound like the sort of thing most people would be bothered doing.

Still, this was already a very pleasant chat. So I dared to ask about Samsung’s folding phones, the reason I’d gone to the AT&T store.

He took me through a comprehensive explanation of his views on the phones. The Fold 3, he said, still had issues because app designers hadn’t got around to adjusting to the Fold 3’s dimensions. He felt that YouTube just didn’t look great on the phone.

The Flip 3, though, was far more ready for everyday use, he said. The more I stared at it and fiddled with it, the more I liked it. 

I could even sink to admitting I wanted it.

Customer Service After My Own Heart.

“The problem is I’m iPhone,” I said. “I just don’t know if I can live with Android.”

“Same,” he replied. “Most of my friends and family have iPhones. If you have just one Android person on a group text, it throws everything.”

The feeling I got as a customer was that, regardless of how many people were in the store, he’d have continued the conversation.

I’d experienced this sort of service attitude at a T-Mobile store before, but I’d imagined it was perhaps a one-off, a single enthusiast. But to maintain this standard of service during and emerging from a pandemic was remarkable.

We chatted a little more. I was (pleasantly) startled to finally find another human being who refuses to put a case on his phone. He proudly showed his shiny silver iPhone 12, perfectly well cared for, while I displayed my slightly more careworn blue iPhone 12.

It’s a rare feat of customer experience when you find yourself unable to buy the product, but desperately wanting to buy something from this person.

Yet, given that working from home has long been my lot in life, I need a decent phone signal at all times and T-Mobile can’t yet guarantee that.

So, Mr. Sankey of AT&T, I know that your phone stores are likely a sad pimple on the chin of your brand perception. I know that you want to take AT&T to “a new place.” One, I imagine, that’s blissfully virtual.

But you might want to learn a thing or two about customer service from T-Mobile. Just as T-Mobile might want to learn a thing or two about security from, well, just about anyone who knows a thing or two about security.

It may well be that all phone brands will soon shut their stores and force customers to shop entirely online.

It may well be that they’ll leave the likes of Best Buy to provide actual physical experience and advice. But customer service remains something that matters to, you know, real humans.

This particular salesman got nothing out of our conversation. I asked him to please hurry the signal improvement near my house. (He said he’d get right on it.)

But, as I walked out of the store, I felt so good about the interaction that it genuinely lifted my day.

Then I looked at my phone and thought: “Hey, it’s still five minutes before anyone at the AT&T store will talk to me.”

more Technically Incorrect

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/at-t-says-it-has-big-problems-a-t-mobile-salesman-showed-me-how-big/#ftag=RSSbaffb68

Continue Reading

ZDNET

Ninja Van snags $578M in Series E, pulling in Alibaba as new investor

Published

on

Ninja Van has snagged $578 million in Series E funding, pulling in existing and new investors that include Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group. The latest round comes over a year after it secured $279 million in Series D and amidst talks it is targeting a US public listing. 

Singapore-based logistics services operator Ninja Van said Sunday its latest funding round pulled in existing investors Geopost/DPDgroup, B Capital Group, Monk’s Hill Ventures, and Zamrud. Alibaba also participated in this round as a new investor, said Ninja Van. 

The funds injection would go towards beefing up its infrastructure and technology systems to support “a sustainable long-term cost structure”, Ninja Van said. It added that the investment also would support the “quality and consistency” of its operations, as well as its micro-supply chain service offerings aimed at helping businesses in Southeast Asia tap e-commerce opportunities.

Launched in 2014, Ninja Van currently has operations across six Southeast Asian markets including Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The last-mile logistics operator delivers some 2 million parcels daily and works with more than 1.5 million active shippers across the region, including Alibaba’s subsidiary Lazada, Tokopedia, Zalora, and Shopee. 

This figure includes unique active shippers that have placed an order with Ninja Van in the past 12 months, Ninja Van said, adding that it delivers to almost 100 million recipients. The company employs more than 61,000 staff and delivery personnel in the region.

Ninja Van Group’s co-founder and CEO Lai Chang Wen said in the statement: “The quality of investors joining us in this round of investment is a clear signal that the market recognises the emerging opportunities for e-commerce logistics in Southeast Asia and how as an entrenched player in the region, Ninja Van is positioned to take a central role in meeting the shifting demands of both businesses and consumers. We remain committed to the success of all our business partners as we move towards the next stages of sustainable growth and continued innovation.”

Lai in July told Financial Times it was “a year away” from a public listing, likely in the US, with discussions with advisors rumoured to have started. 

Ninja Van in May 2020 pulled $279 million in its Series D funding round, which it then said would be tapped to drive its presence in the business-to-business (B2B) segment as well as expand its services for small businesses and business-to-consumer (B2C) brands. The round attracted several new and existing investors including, Grab, Golden Gate Ventures Growth Fund, Monk’s Hill Ventures, and B Capital, which is helmed by Facebook’s co-founder Eduardo Saverin.

That same month, Ninja Van said it expected to see another triple-digital volume growth this year in Thailand, where it recorded a 300% climb in shipments in 2020. The company would increase its parcel processing capacity in the country when its new automated sorting facility was scheduled to open later this year. The new site would be able to handle 800,000 parcels a day, supporting next-day delivery across the country including Bangkok and the eastern regions, Ninja Van said, adding that it was hiring another 1,000 employees in Thailand to support another 100 new regional and local distribution centres.

Southeast Asia is projected to be home to 350 million online shoppers by end-2021, up from 310 million last year, according to the latest annual study conducted by Bain & Company and commissioned by Facebook. Online spending also is expected to grow 60% per person this year, pushing total e-commerce sales to expand two-fold to $254 billion in gross merchandise value by 2026. The average consumer in the region was estimated to spend $381 online this year, compared to $238 last year, before hitting a projected $671 in 2026. 

RELATED COVERAGE

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/ninja-van-snags-578m-in-series-e-pulling-in-alibaba-as-new-investor/#ftag=RSSbaffb68

Continue Reading

Trending