I'm just waiting for the day when books are gone, replaced by e-readers like the Amazon kindle.

Is that day further away than I thought? Perhaps. The Internet Archive is on a mission to garner universal access to human knowledge, but not in a way that you and I would consider the least bit conventional (i.e. not JUST through the net). So what's the big deal; isn't every website out there more or less allowing us to access this human knowledge?

The Internet Archive's mandate idea is pretty radical, to be honest. It started off simply enough; a van with Internet access, whereby people (typically in third world communities) could select, purchase and print a book of their choosing (usually at cost – i.e. paper, ink and binding). Its wild, if you think about the magnitude of it: The world's library out of the back of a van. Not everyone needs an Internet connection all the time to have knowledge in his or her hands all the time.

Of course this idea is just ripe with criticisms – environmentalists raise questions about paper, while humanitarians wonder if resources wouldn't better suited to feeding mouths instead of brains (to which I say, "paper is FULL of good fiber"… just kidding). I'm all for this idea; it's absolutely cost effective and really scalable; you really only need an 1 Internet connection, 1 printer and some paper and you have a fully functioning library.

There's been a litany of logistical challenges; a lot of books don't have digital editions (you'd think something printed in 1928 would…) so The Internet Archive is charged with scanning these books into a huge database. There are a couple scanning centers, one of which is in Toronto, that literally lines people up a kiosks, turning pages and taking pictures of the pages with high res camera. Not something I'm interested in doing, but apparently the pay isn't that bad. Could be a nice escape.

At any rate, everything is available on line to anyone right this instant. And its not just books that this online digital library hosts. There's catalogued web pages (ever wonder what Google looked like in Beta?), audio, movies and tons of other nuggets.

Thoughts? Is the book back again? Can it change the world, again?

A couple of days ago,Dolphin Entertainment announced that they just scored $100million in financing from Continental Entertainment Capital (CEC) for some flicks they're planning to make - six, to be precise. In the past, the company's made a bunch of made-for-TV movies as well as a couple series on Nickelodeon. Some basic research would tell me its not such a bad deal - except for one big flaw.

Apparently, the investment into Dolphin was based on the big successes of the High School Musical movies. The third movie grossed about $86million since it opened a couple of weeks ago, and had a total budget of about $11million. Those numbers aren't to shabby (although I don't know what kind of cut the studio would end up taking on $86m). Dolphin has had some success with their television series and some of their movies up to this point; it looks like they're ready to take on the big screen and make some mad cash.

Here's my concern with this $100million investment; you've established that there's a market for these High-School Musical-esque movies and all their hype; so what? Big blockbusters like this are hit and miss - For every one tween blockbuster out there, there's got to be fifty tween flicks that do nothing... "Drive Me Crazy" anyone? (the odds are stacked up even worse if you want High School Musical success)

All those odds of success aside (because that's not unique to the film industry and pretty difficult to control), the investors must be questioning the six movies to be financed with this $100million. The first flick is about a girl who gets her arm eaten by a shark, spends time in a hospital and then keeps on surfing when she gets out. There's a movie I definitely want to see as a tween (because I can't wait to be reminded that the main character was a horrific shark attack victim every time she can't high-five her friends and carry her surf board at the same time). I have to give the company some credit for putting something original together.

My concern is that one of the key strengths of this deal is their partnership with Sony Distribution; the caveat being that Sony maintains first right of refusal. If this first movie is a total bomb and Sony says "not interested", that might mean the flick won't be hitting the silver screen. It would be a bad precedent to set. The last thing Dolphin needs is CEC losing trust in their creative discretion - I could imagine them calling for a bunch of creative checks and balances if the first movie gives them any indication that they won't make their cash back.

Any thoughts on the ingredients to the perfect tween blockbuster?

It's no secret that the Venture Capital scene in Canada is... well, less than impressive. Some say that its because Canada hasn't yet recovered from the 2001 bust (I think that argument worked in 2003). Its true that Canada's Venture Capital industry is below levels it achieved in the mid to late 1990's, but there's a litany of other issues the market is facing that are keeping it from being as big and bad as our southern neighbours.

I mean, your first instinct has got to be our proximity to innovation; We don't really have any thing the least bit similar to Silicon Valley that attracts the same, copious amounts of cash that the they do. What few innovative clusters we do have spitting out potentially successful innovations (i.e. Waterloo, maybe some stuff coming out of MaRS) , Canadian Venture Capitalists have been known to - for lack of a better phrase - screw it up. They end up buying into the idea too soon, the firm burns through the cash just in R&D and... that's it (or follow-up financing, but if you're a Canadian Venture Capitalist, chances are you don't have a lot of cash to play with in the first place).

Canadian VC seems pretty dismal; Its probably not as bad as I'm making it out to be; Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) publishes an interesting report that outlines the million and one things wrong with Venture Capital in Canada and gives some suggestions on how to fix it.

On the lists of Why VC just isn't flying here:

1) Government doesn't dole out enough cash money to finance R&D; VCs end up paying for it.

2) Each round of fund raising (that's when a VC firm raises money from people to invest in business) is A LOT smaller than the USA. So that means less time spent on good investments and more time spent fund raising (not good).

3) 4.1% return on average (according to McKinsey, its -2% over five years and 2% over 10, versus 2% and 20% respectively in the US). I don't think the risk justifies the reward.

What does it come down to? Canada's VC scene is just a reflection of it's entrepreneurial scene; I don't think Canadians make great and innovative entrepreneurs. The BlackBerry Fund (in which RBC Ventures has a big stake) just forked out over $16million this past week - but not in Canada. I just don't know if we're innovative enough.

Thoughts? (and don't try telling me the zipper is innovative)

Another great show from the nation's favourite broadcaster is back at it for another season; Dragons' Den is back on the air and chock full of great startups, negotiations and some good laughs.

I highly recommend checking out the Dragons' Den website! You can watch past and current episodes (CBC is on the ball), read some of the blogs on there and check out the audition videos for these really innovative ideas.

From an entrepreneur's perspective, I think this is an amazing resource and totally worth checking out. It may give you some insights into your own business ideas and some reoccurring themes, angel and venture investor insights and business negotiations.

Watch Episode one here; what's the red thread that seems to run through these deals, good and bad?

Proper valuations - don't ask for too much; investors will laugh you out the door if you do (and you won't be able to negotiate your way back)

Sunk costs - if your business idea sucks, then concede to it and move on. You aren't doing yourself or anyone else a favour by relentlessly pursuing a bad idea

Substantiating advice - there's more value in the advice and experience of the Dragons than any amount of money could ever buy. The Kickspike founders saw this, but many don't. I think this goes to substantiate the need for many startups to have mentors.

Check it out now. And if you think you're at the point where you're ready to strike a deal, then watch some episodes of Deal or No Deal and taking considerable note of the psychology of dealmaking.

Opportunities abound, all of them nestled neatly around you. Your very own campus, for example. Take for example, the very recent startup www.UniGo.com, riding the wave of online user generated content and the owner's recognition of a the lack of useful information and copious amounts of bias information, as provided by the University, for incoming and prospective students.

UniGo.com, only covering universities in the states (but hey, maybe you can start reviewing your own University) is not a completely unique idea. www.uTours.ca, currently under construction, but was live not too long ago, was very similar. Comparatively speaking, the content of uTours is slightly less user generated, although there are some ranking services, but their business model is also slight different from UniGo.com.

uTours implemented a pretty diversified strategy that went beyond just the internet. The forged some alliances with big name companies in Canada because they offered value to students, a really lucrative market. Further, they had a variety of revenue streams in different places, notably a "uTours DVD" that contained lengthy videos about your favourite university.

I don't have their financials, so I can't comment on whether or not their products were successful. But there's always a lesson to be had: for any given business idea, there can be six or seven revenue streams. Don't limit yourself to any one in particular. In many cases, chances are you won't end up being dependent on the revenue stream you first came up with.

It's also worth noting that you don't want to diversify your efforts too much. If making DVDs and pursuing that distribution channel isn't performing or growing at the rate you need it to, it may have a negative effect on the rest of your business. There's a lot to be said about a niche (or specialization strategy); your efforts are focussed and your customers are happy.

I don't know to what extent this marketing campaign is out in Canada, but for those in Toronto, I'm sure you've seen the Advertisements for "Colossal U". Let me preface this by saying, "I'm sorry, I know I'm playing into their little teaser campaign game by writing this blog and it's really free advertising for they-who-shall-not-be-named".

There are a series of tongue-in-cheek "Colossal U" advertisements, poking fun at Universities such as mine (50,000 strong! Go York!), depicting little cookie cutters, wait-line ticket dispensers and burnt out light bulbs attached to quips like:

"Our admin are busy, so you'll have to wait until you're good and ready"
and
"We ensure that all of our students turn out exactly the same"
and
"Our teachers will only help students during class hours - this will allow students to learn to solve problems by themselves"

You can check out the intro at www.colossalu.com, and then see the institution behind this enraging campaign.

There's a couple of things that I find a little unnerving about the entire thing; first, it's absolutely not true. I have ample time to spend in discussion with my profs, in and out of class. In fact, not only are they approachable on a professional and personal level, many offer hours of their time to personally coach students for academic competitions (Choose Schulich for business!)

And the cookie cutter comment! I would like to point out that one Colossal U, such as mine, offers a smorgasbord of incredible classes that would be incredibly difficult (and in some cases, impossible) to offer in a learning institution any smaller. With a multitude of course offerings at Colossal U, it's almost difficult for students to leave after four years like uniform little cookies.

Not to mention the sheer variety of students attracted by a Colossal U such as this - so many experiences, backgrounds and walks of life contributing to discussions on such a large scale. Every class is like a handful of Bits&Bites - no two will EVER be alike. Sound like a cookie cutter to you?

And the administration -- Okay, admittedly, really slow. Really frustrating. But, the people on the other side of the desk are nice and smile often. It helps to alleviate the need to pull out your hair.

It is a bit unnerving that people all over Toronto will see these ridiculous ads, shake their heads and think, "isn't that the truth - big cold universities. Poor students". I'm here to dispel the lies! I know one little ad won't have an impact on the value of education I'm receiving from a Colossal U, but I'm proud to be a York (and Schulich) student.

Having people on both sides of the counter can help

So it's good to understand your customers; This, I agree with. Full and proper understanding of the people you're serving involves a lot more than demographics and statistics and yes/no purchase decisions. Not that those are unmistakable observations, but I think one would accept them as being fairly cornerstone.

It's all about the little nuances when it comes to properly serving people; if you've ever worked in a sales position, you know what I mean – being able calibrate people's interest in a purchase and act accordingly to those little things that go left unsaid; things like body language and tone speaks volumes.

It's tough to see what isn't said when an endless expansive space lies between you and them. I don't know why e-commerce has been made void of all human interaction, with live customers interacting with – code? (unless, and I stress from experience, it's a matter or damage control "oh, you're right that's not what you ordered")

Those little nuances are the make or break, and if you can't react properly, then your toast.

With hoards of students running businesses online, what can they do in order to better gauge those little customer nuances; when to pounce, offer a discount, put on the hard sell, back off or not approach the customer at all (not everyone is worth your time)?

There are some big leaps in helping online entrepreneurs better serve (and understand their customers) in the online space. Live salespeople is one new one, but not too extraordinary. There are some other really interesting tools, which I find a bit more impressive.

One is chat analyzers that detect that which is not said, taking into a consideration a huge variety of factors that simpletons (i.e. non-robots) like you and I just don't grasp. What's more is that these puppies actually learn over time.

If a customer arrives at your online jewelery store from an affluent area, then they'll take the live online sales-person's precedence over the window shopper from another, less-affluent geographical region.

Is it worth it? Absolutely, when you're dealing with large numbers of customers. Not to mention that I think a program like this would really compliment an entrepreneur's decision to serve a niche market. So be proactive. Hire a live salesperson! Anyone know companies that specialize in this?

What if you can't afford this, you aren't dealing with high customer traffic and it's just not reasonable to set something up like this?

The other day in class we were discussing the trend towards social enterprise (i.e. business doing 'good') and the notion that business, big and small, are recognizing the role they play in changing the world (or call it what you will)

I'm not here to comment on the merits, motives and outcomes of socially driven business (I could go on forever - and perhaps I will later) but my professor made an interesting comment that I couldn't help but notice.

"You guys are going to be the ones that make the difference, not me"

I didn't make a big deal of it, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized how loaded a comment like that is.

While I concur that perhaps we do have the power (and it is up to us to make the difference) I sometimes question if that's the general sentiment of many business leaders today. Is it hopeless up there; easy to pass off to us?

Then I got to thinking, "what does making a difference" really entail? I see lots of companies trying to make a difference (say, by lowering emissions and donating funds to different causes - all of which are absolutely noble) but I wonder if there isn't more that needs to be considered. Are business leaders still moving in the "wrong" direction, only at a slower pace? Does there need to be a fundamental shift in the way that we (the ones to make the difference) perceive and act within the context of business?

A good friend of mine (and an esteemed economist, might I add!) said, "Nathan, don't be too optimistic. Be opportunistic, and go where needs exist"

There's a big conversation going on about the role of entrepreneurs in the social movement; a shift from the mutual exclusivity of for-profit and not-for profit. I do think our generation is capable of bringing about change, but it's difficult if you're in a workplace that isn't your own. In that sense it's partially contingent on today's business leader's willingness to foster a culture where change can take place.

Then again, you can just start up your own business and foster your own culture of change.

I've been thinking a lot about how a new school year is good for a fresh start lately. I was out biking recently and made a video about it.

Here it is:

Here's a video about how you too can get scholarships, not just based on academic achievements!