Online Higher Education (3) – MOOCs

Udacity

As mentioned in the previous blog, Udacity started in 2012, with roots from free computer science classes offered by Stanford in 2011. Its co-founder and CEO Thrun, known as one of the inventors of self-driving cars, has previously founded Google X and Google’s self-driving car team.

In June 2012, Udacity pioneered the on-site finals for MOOCs for a $89 fee, partnering with Pearson.

In Jan 2013, Udacity announced a partnership with San Jose State University (SJSU) to pilot three new courses, available for college credit at SJSU for the Spring 2013 semester and offered entirely online. The courses, if taken for college credits, have a price of $150 per course.

However, six months after it launched, San Jose State was suspending the Udacity partnership as more than half the students in the first batch of online courses failed their final exams.

Udacity has focused more on the vocational courses and create materials from non-universities sources, especially in tech.

In June 2014, Udacity and AT&T announced the “Nanodegree” program, designed to teach programming skills needed to qualify for an entry-level IT position at AT&T. The coursework is said to take less than a year to complete, and cost about US$200/month.

In Nov 2015, Udacity raised a $105 million Series D valued at $1 billion, led by Bertelsmann, with Scotland’s Baillie Gifford, Emerson Collective and Google Ventures joining as new investors. Existing investors Andreessen Horowitz, Charles River Ventures, and Drive Capital also participated in the round. The announcement came as the company celebrated the one-year anniversary of its nanodegree program. Udacity reported 11,000 students are currently enrolled in nanodegree programs in 168 countries.

Coursera

In Apr 2012, Coursera raised $16 million in venture funding from KPCB and NEA. At the beginning, the company has partnered with Stanford, Princeton, University of California at Berkeley, University of Michigan, and University of Pennsylvania to bring professor-created classes online.

Aside from offering free courses to the masses, Coursera’s learning management service (LMS) platform can be used internally by universities to revamp their online course programs.

In Sep 2012, Coursera announced that it is working with the American Council on Education (ACE) to initiate a credit-equivalence evaluation of a subset of the MOOCs.

In Jan 2013, Coursera announced that students would be offered the opportunity to earn Verified Certificates – called Signature Track, priced from $30 to $100 on a course-by-course basis. Students will create a Signature Profile by first taking two photographs with their webcam: one of themselves and another of an acceptable photo ID document. Next, students will create a biometric profile of their unique typing patterns by typing a short phrase. When a student submits work in the course, they authenticate their identity by typing the same short phrase, which is then matched to their recorded samples. Upon successful completion of their course, students will receive a Verified Certificate issued by both the participating university and Coursera.

According to InsideHighEd, revenue from the fee-based path will be split with partner universities. A Coursera spokeswoman said universities would keep 6-15 percent of revenue from courses taught by their professors, as well as 20 percent of profits.

Some other statistics shared by Coursera in May 2013: almost 70% of the students who joined the Signature Track went on to successfully complete their course; 9,000+ students from all around the world have joined the Signature Track for their course; over 2,000 students are taking Gamification from University of Pennsylvania with Signature Track.

Coursera brought in $220,000 in the first quarter of 2013.

More recently, in Apr 2019, Coursera raised $103 million Series E, led by a strategic investor, the Australian online recruitment and course directory provider SEEK Group, with participation from Future Fund and NEA.


A summary so far for MOOCs and fee-for-certificates

As of 2019, we could see fee-for-certificates has become a mainstream business model to monetize on a subset of MOOCs users. Certificates are issued for single-courses or programs (grouped courses).

Certificates could be issued/recognized by the platform (e.g. Udacity, Coursera, edX) and/or by the organizations (companies or universities). Letting users put those certificates on social medias such as LinkedIn do provide an incentive to purchase.

At the same time, part of the materials/courses can still be accessed for free if users don’t need the certificates.


To be continued

Some Wisdom From LEAD Class

  • Team Culture is better thought of as an outcome than as an input.
  • Find proper balance of advocacy and inquiry
  • Organizational design can be a source of innovation and competitive advantage
  • Distinguish between performance gap and opportunity gap

Some common bias/problems

  • Attribution Error
  • Failure to discuss and integrate uniquely held information
  • Intention vs impact from ourselves and others
  • Growing without transition from informal to formal organization

SoftBank Has An Easy Strategy – Mobile Payment In Every Emerging Economy

SoftBank might be the investment firm outside of China that understands mobile payments the best.

Tapping Ant Financial and Tencent’s interests in overseas markets, SoftBank has investments in every major emerging economy.

Southeast Asia: Grab

SoftBank inject another $2 billion earlier this year into Grab. It first invested in GrabTaxi back in 2014 with $250 million Series D, making itself the largest shareholder. GrabTaxi then rebranded into Grab in 2016, entering into payment service with GrabPay and other businesses. It also acquired Kudo based in  Indonesia in 2017 to beef up its payment platform.

[Also, in July, Softbank’s Vision Fund and GIC invested $300 million in e-wallet VNPAY’s parent company for Vietnam]

India: Paytm

This week, SoftBank and Ant Financial injected $1 billion into Paytm. The competition intensifies with Google Pay, payments from e-commerce and Facebook’s payment especially on WhatsApp.

Argentina: Ualá

On November 25, Ualá raised a $150 million Series C led by Tencent and SoftBank. Ualá is a mobile banking tech platform and allows users to transfer money, invest in mutual funds, request loans, pay bills and top-up prepaid services.

Mexico: Clip

SoftBank invested $20 million in Clip, leading a $100 million round in May. Clip offers Square-like products for merchant payments, as the country is more relying on cards.

Updates – Mexico: Konfio

On December 3, SoftBank invested $100 million into Konfio, which provides credit underwriting, or SMB loans.

Combining Konfio and Clip will create the Square or Clover in Mexico.


An easy model and bet on those economies.

How Card Networks May Fail: Top Merchants With Gift Cards + Mobile Wallet

In the US, as top merchants getting bigger, they are able to drive the adoption of cash-like mobile wallets, internalizing more transaction infrastructure, cutting payment networks’ growth & profitability.

We have already seen the success of Starbucks’s mobile order & pay, launched at the end of 2014. The combination of its mobile app, (gift) cards and cash-like value in the app reduces the overall transactions costs of Starbucks purchases. Other benefits like managing the loyalty program and mobile orders/pick-ups makes it the role model that big merchants (like Walmart) wants to follow.

Currently, some merchants are offering co-branded credit cards at the same time. But I think the long-term goal is to promote the usage of their own mobile app and cash (e.g. Starbucks credit card comes with an annual fee that I think is discouraging people from using the card in the long-term but can be used as a market tool for now). They can reduce (most of) the transaction costs and own the data (e.g. payment networks can only touch the reloading part of Uber Cash, but not the transactions made via Uber Cash – no fees, no data).

Luckin Coffee (3)

Previous post on growth in stores and per store/unit growth.


Now here are some number about the coffee market in the US.

  • 64% of American adults consume coffee every day
  • An average American drinks 3.1 cups of coffee per day
  • Americans drink about 400 million cups of coffee every day
  • Americans drink about 146 billion cups of coffee annually
  • 65% of US adults drink coffee with their breakfast
  • The average price of a cup of coffee in the US is $3.28
  • Coffee shops see a 7% annual growth rate on average
  • The annual coffee retail sales in the US are about $5.2 billion

In China, first we can find a subset of the 1.4 population by taking the ~60% between age 15-45 and ~60% in urban areas -> 500 million.

Then assuming 20% of the target 500 million customers will visit/purchase in stores like Luckin (-> 100 million) twice a week (100 cups per year) -> 10 billion cups per year.

The current average monthly transacting customers is 9 million.

Using average price of $2 per cup, the estimated market can reach $20 billion easily in 1-2 years.

And given that Luckin is expanding into other categories like cream cheese teas, fruit teas and juices, twice per week is not an overestimate.

An annualized revenue of $2 billion is only 10% of the addressable market.

Luckin Coffee (2)

Previous post on Luckin’s store counts growth.

As Luckin also reported the number of items sold, we could get the average net selling price, which is growing slowly. The discounts on items sold have already been considered in net revenue. (Free items are included in Sales & Marketing expenses).

Given that the menu prices are usually between RMB 21-27, the overall discount is still over 50%.

Another chart tho, is net product revenue per store. The number of store is averaged between the beginning and the end of the quarter. Since more stores are maturing, this figure is growing significantly.

In comparison, Starbucks International has a little bit less than $1 million per store, KFC China has a little bit over $250k per store.

  • Starbucks International company-operated per stores revenue $~0.9 million
    counts as of CY2019Q3: 5,860
    revenue as of CY2019Q3: $5,256.2 million
  • KFC China company-operated per stores revenue $~0.27 million
    counts as of CY2019Q3: 4,925+863 = 5,788
    revenue as of CY2019Q3: $1,546 million

An Update On Cannabis Market

One year after the legalization of recreational use of cannabis in Canada, and following up on the previous discussion of those public companies gathering partners/supports, ramping up production and declines in ASP, here is an another snapshot as of 2019 Q3.

The number of kilograms sold is soaring.

But ASP keep falling.

And here is the graph for aggregated market cap of cannabis companies as of 11/15.

 

Growing Number Of Paying Users On China’s Streaming Platforms

Paying to become a member of a video platform has gradually become mainstream in China, at least for the younger generations.

Consumer behaviors have been changing from searching for free sources (as there are fewer of them now than before) to paying for high quality and hassle-free subscriptions.

The leading platforms, iQiYi and Tencent Videos, have paying members exceeding 100 million in 2019 Q2 and 2019 Q3 respectively. The paying percentage is around 20% for a 500 million MAU (iQiYi 2018 Q4 MAU 454.5 million).

Alibaba’s Youku is only little behind (numbers are not disclosed).

Similar trends are found in Tencent Music and NetEase Music. While paying percentage is ~4-5%, it is picking up. Tencent Music’s online music paying users grew 42.2% yoy to 35.4 million (5.36% of 661 million MAU).

Emerging platforms like Bilibili are also seeing more paying users percentage.

DTC Brands Stocks Revealed Their Margins

As Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) businesses are booming and going public as companies, their earnings report gave us some insights into their gross margins and what those products cost the companies to produce (cost of goods sold is the flip side of gross margin).

Canada Goose, in their Second Quarter Fiscal 2019 results, said that DTC gross margin is 75.6%, a 40 bps increase from last year.

Image result for canada goose logo cost of goods sold: 24.4%

Moncler similarly has a gross margin of 76.6% for 2019 H1.

Image result for moncler logo cost of goods sold: 23.4%

Tiffany in the most recent quarter has a gross margin of 62.7%, decreasing from 64% the year before. LVMH recent announced its attempt to acquire Tiffany.

Image result for tiffany logo cost of goods sold: 37.3%

Even the giant consumer staples company Procter & Gamble’s gross margin stays at 47.7%.

Image result for p&g logo cost of goods sold: 52.3%