Provider Market Selection CPUsage

Purpose of Presentation
 In this presentation you will find my
reworked provider market entry
selection chart. Its purpose is to help us
view the potential of different institutional
provider categories. I've modified it a bit
from last time.
 Highest score possible is 50
 Scores under 30 don’t meet my senate
style majority requirements.

Differences between First Chart
 In my first chart I identified 10
institutional categories. I’ve since added
2.
 I understand there is a difference
between the image of the institution or
organization that has computer power to
spare and finding institutions with spare
computer power.

There are Five Indicators
 INSTITUTIONS WITH SPARE  18-35 PATRONAGE
COMPUTER POWER  Weighted 1 because this is our core
 Weighted 3 as this is what we are online user adult base
looking for initially. Judging from the  SETI @ home the precursor to
executive summary 100 computers BOINC was released in 1999
is the ideal number for the example assuming that the majority of initial
jobs listed. Meaning a single adopters were grad school age and
individual/institution that has 50 or younger then setting the upper limit
more is significant. Thus the point at 35 seems to encompass the
scoring below. majority of those technologically
 (1 pt < 10 pc’s) (2 pt < 20 pc’s) (3 pt aware enough to consider adopting
< 3 pc’s0) (4 pt < 40 pc’s) (5 pt < 50 CPUsage.
pc’s)  HOUSEHOLD INCOME 30K+
 YOUTH PATRONAGE OF PATRONAGE
 Weighted 2  Weighted 1 because 84% of this
○ 93% of this age group are online portion of the adult population are
○ Every year millions enter the adult internet using computer owners.
age group we should seed this  RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
market sector NEEDS
○ We want to identify Cpusage as
being the company to go to for  Weighted 3 because when I think of
rewards for doing nothing other than an institution and the probability of it
owning a pc and having a internet partnering with us I feel this is one of
connections, the strongest indicators.

Indicator 1
 In the initial chart with regards to indicator 1, I assigned
those places with no real computer power to spare or a
willingness to spare their computer power a 1, such as
hospitals.
 I agree with Shiv with regards to hospitals and other institutions
such as government offices. It’s not that they don’t have
computers to spare I just think there is no willingness.
 However, that does not mean that they can’t provide access to
private individuals who in turn have computer power to spare.
 I was under the impression from the executive summary and
conversations that CPUsage wanted to use consumer owned
computers not solely clusters of pc’s found in institutions.
 This time I have assigned those institutions without relative
computer power (PC’s<7) to spare or no willingness to
spare computer power a 0.

Indicators 2-4
 The next three indicators relate to
patronage. These groups are the
portions of the provider market that
these institutions have direct contact
with.
 I rated them based on how I perceived
the exposure, interactions and influence
over each group a given institutions had.

Indicator 5
 The final indicator Resource
Development is the real need we are
solving for institutions. It is this need that
will be the primary factor determining
whether institutions partner with us as
solely providers of spare computing
power, channels of awareness for
provider acquisition, or a combination of
the both.

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Indicator 4

Indicator 5
Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Totals
Points

Points

Points

Points

Points
College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35
Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44
Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37
Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34
Religious Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 9 28
Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45
Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30
NP Hum/social 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36
Museum 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 1 5 3 3 9 26
State-Comm Parks 0 3 0 3 2 6 4 1 4 3 1 3 4 3 12 25
Youth Rec-Sports 0 3 0 5 2 10 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 6 21
Wifi Providers 5 3 15 2 2 4 4 1 4 5 1 5 0 3 0 28
Prison 4 3 12 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 3 15 27
Comm Clinic 0 3 0 3 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 22
Hospital 0 3 0 3 2 6 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 6 17
Non-Profit Medical 0 3 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 18

Indicators 1: Indicator 3: 18-15 Indicator 5:
Computer Power to Patronage Resource
Spare Indicator 4: House Development Needs
Indicator 2: Youth hold income 30K+
Patronage Patronage

First Labour
 When I last met with 1. Educational Institutions
Shiv I was asked to 2. Youth organizations
3. Religious Organizations
come up with 10 or 4. Library
so intuitional 5. Public Broadcasting
categories and from 6. Non-Profits
them you guys would 7. Community Centers
pick 5 or so. I have 8. Museums
identified 12 9. Parks and Recreations
categories of 10. Wi-Fi Providers
Institutions. 11. Correctional Facilities i.e.
Prisons
12. Medical Institutions

Sub-categories
 Four of these categories I have divided
into sub-categories and this is reflected
in the chart by the highlighted blocks.
 This in turn gave me a total of 18
institutional types

Parks and Recreation
 State and Community Parks
 Youth Recreational Sports

Medical Institutions
 Community Medical Center
 Hospital
 Non-Profit Medical

Educational Institutions
 2 year colleges and non research 4 year
institutions
 Clark College in Vancouver
 Public School k-12
 Beaverton School District
 Private Schools k-12
 Central Catholic High School whose 2010
phonathon reached nearly 6,000 parents,
alumni, and friends of Central Catholic asking
for contributions in support of their students.

Non-Profits
(Not on Oregon’s 20 Worst Charities – 2010 list)

 Humanitarian, Environmental and Social Work
focused nonprofits
 Americorps and the Nature conservancy (146,232
Facebook Likes)
 Mercycorps (20,264 Facebook Likes)
 Project Wilderness (1,424 Facebook Likes), Ecotrust
(Facebook Likes 884) Freshwater Trust, (615
Facebook Likes)
 Art and Culture
 The Portland Japanese Garden (3,616 Facebook
Likes)
 Portland Opera (2,133 Facebook Likes), Oregon
Historical Society (1,934 Facebook Likes), Oregon
Cultural Trust (1,455 Facebook Likes)

 Now of the 12 Institutional categories listed
the highest possible score any could receive
was 50. Those categories with subcategories
I averaged to get an overall score:
Educational Insitutions-38.67, NonProfits-30,
Parks and Recreation-23, Medical
Institutions-19
 I decide not to even bother considering
anything under 30. So the new chart of
prospective institutions looks like the one
presented on the next slide.

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

Indicator 4

Indicator 5
Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight

Totals
Points

Points

Points

Points

Points
College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35
Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44
Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37
Average Educational Institutions 38.7
Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34
Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45
Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30

NP Hum/social/envio 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
Average NonProfits 30
Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36

Indicators 1: Indicator 3: 18-15 Indicator 5:
Computer Power to Patronage Resource
Spare Indicator 4: House Development Needs
Indicator 2: Youth hold income 30K+
Patronage Patronage

What the chart reveals
 There are six categories 2 of which are
subdivided for a total of 9 types of
institutions that meet the 30 point score or
higher limit.
 I’m not saying these are the must have
choices but they are the ones that I
perceived as being the ones to consider
first. We are trying to create channels
here. We have to ask ourselves through
which channels do we reach our provider
segments?

Proposed Solution to Channel “?”
 Creating awareness just among private individual
providers will be difficult. Marketing is expensive, along
with modifying public perceptions of something they might
not understand especially during a time when identity theft
and a dislike of corporate America in general are serious
thoughts on the minds of the many of Americans. The
institutions are a channel to reach the public and overcome
these major hurdles.
 The institutions hypothetically provide something else
dedicated pc’s whose hours of operations are relatively
within our control.
 Well 5 of the 9 institution types scored 3 or higher on indicator 1 and
thus could conceivably provide this.
 All of the institutional types have the potential to forward
greater expansion into the consumer owned computer
provider market.

So why did I ask about Skins?
 First it occurred to me even if the app is being run with the
sponsorship of an institution CPUsage is going to mean a lot
less to people than say “MercyCorps”
 Think of the institutions as our Shields and Champions to
someone who’s not comfortable letting Corporate America into
their machines.
 MercyCorps Disturbed Networking Donations powered by CPUsage
 I know badly worded but this is a possible approach.
 So is the cost of making personalized skins for each institution
greater than the ROI that continual visual reminders of:
 Not just reward points stacking up but also good intentions/deeds
 I think it would serve as a great psychological incentive if the provider is
given visual reminders of who they are helping as they glance at their
taskbar. They will be more inclined to leave the computer on longer and
not worry so much about the business using their machine.

Consider This
 You’re a private individual visiting OPB.org or
some other Nonprofit/Charity and you read
this.
 Give a gift that only costs four more dollars a month
in your power bill. When you donate your time and
money, sometimes that is not enough because
sometimes you can't even give that. So, in addition
to giving what dollars you can this year to your
favorite charity or non-profit, donate something new:
your Idle Processing Time. Let (charity) harness your
spare computer power. In return, you'll not only be
providing needed funds to (charity), you'll also be
receiving rewards as you accumulate points for
every hour donated.

So what’s next?
 I Look forward to you feedback
 Edward Irby

Provider Market Selection CPUsage

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (19)

Último

Último (20)

Provider Market Selection CPUsage