November’s cleantech investments: Equity in Abundance Investment & solar farm in Rwanda

Syndicated to Linkedin: Cleantech investments

Solar farm (off-grid) in Rwanda through Join Trine

In October, I made two crowdsourcing investments in the cleantech / sustainable investment space. The first one is Join Trine which closed a new round this month with a new solar energy project in Rwanda.

2008 investors have raised €1,000,000 with an expected annual nominal investment rate of 6.75% for investments under €1,000 and 8.75% for investment higher than €1,000.

The project has – in one way or the other – an impact on 10 out of the 17 SDG’s (sustainable development goals). The proect is fully funded, and thus clused for new investments. The loan’s payback horizon is 42 months.

joine-trine-payment-graph-solar-energy-project-rwanda
Graph showing payback rate and payback period. Source: Join Trine.

‘Meta-investment’ in British crowdfuding platform Abundance Investment through Seedr.

My first investment on Seedr was an equity investment in British Abundance Investment. Abudance Investment (founded 2009) has raised £79 million since its inception in 2012 covering 32 projects with £12 million paid out in returns. Abunadnce Investment operates within the following sectors: Ocean energy, Geothermal energy, wind energy, solar farms, renewables bonds & future energy projects.

Examples of investments closed in 2016, 2017 & 2018:

United Downs Geothermal
Atlantis Ocean Energy
Upper Pitforthie Windgen
Swindon Chapel Farm Solar

kasper-bergholt-crowdfunding-abundance-energy-uk-cleantech-1024x462
Solar energy project illustration from Abudance Investment. Source: Abundance Investment.

Abundance is helping build a more democratic and open financial system that gives people control over their money and how it’s invested. We want everyone to be able to take part in the transition to a better world and share in the financial benefits from doing so, be that through their investments, their ISA, or as a shareholder. (source)

Equity & ROI & Abudance
Equity share & expected return on investment: 4-15% per annum (gross); equity offered: 6.76%. All projects so far are tech-heavy / industrial, which I see as a great plus in comparison to the mixed projects (including a lot of ICO & pseudo AI stuff at e.g. Wefunder, in addition to being authorized and regulated by British Finalcialn Conduct Autority

Share type, dilution & preferential rights

A number of invenstors and potential investors have had access to asking questions to the Abudance team during the crowdfunding round. A question that often crops is the type of share (voting right), potential of dilution in regards to future rounds and, lastly, preferential rights.

Quoted here is Louise Wilson from Abudance Investment (quoted from forum post on Seedrs.com on November 21st. Comments can only be read by people who have signed up on the platform (no investment necessary though):

Abundance has only one class of shares all of which have voting rights (one vote per share) and all the shares have what are called pre-emption rights which protect you from owning a smaller percentage of the company than you started with (being diluted). If we look to raise capital for the business in the future, you will be offered the chance to subscribe for shares in order to maintain your current percentage ahead of any new investors (ie you have the right pre-empt them).

If the price of the individual shares is going up, then the value of your holding has gone up whether or not you can or want to buy more shares. The ‘problem’ would only come if the shares were being issued at a price below where you bought yours. If you don’t buy shares in that circumstance, both the value of your holding goes down and the proportion of the company you own goes down by a larger proportion.

Words of warning

Crowdfunding is considered high risk – and above text is not a recommendation by any means, just a description of two possibilites of investment within the cleantech / sustainability / impact investment range.

Also see: Clean energy / 2020 solar investments in Tanzania, Nigeria, Malawi & Kenya through Swedish crowd-funding platform TrineCleanTech 2018: List of crowdfunding platforms

Facebook Dynamic UTM Tagging, Nomenclature & Examples

 

UTM is an abbreviation for Urchin Tracking Module. The naming can be considered legacy as Urchin was aquired by Google in 2005; UTM tagging, however, remains the industry standard of tracking parameters in most web analytics suites and advertising platforms.

Short history of UTM tagging
Dynamic UTM tagging has been a part of AdWords for a long time and Google recommends this over static markup. Dynamic tagging entails that variables such as campaign name, adset name, ad name, bid type, etc. are inserted automatically instead of being statically coded into ad URL’s.

Such url’s can be recognized by ?gclid= prefix followed by a long string of dynamically generated characters. Facebook adds a similiar string with account setup for attribution modelling as part of Facebook Analytics.

Algorithmic matching of, for instance, more than 1000 campaigns with each 1000 ad groups with each 1000 ads makes this a very sound approach (never send a man to do a machine’s job!).

If the naming convetion/tagging is consistent, the number of campaigns, ad groups & ads could be infinite without causing a higher (human) work-load.

Also see: Optimering af Google Grants-konto

The five most common UTM parameters (standardized & popularized by Google Analytics)

  • Source, the referrer of the visitsn (e.g The Guardian, Facebook, Instagram)
  • Medium, the medium (.e. CPC, CPM, organic, referral)
  • Campaign, the name of a given campaign (Christmas, July, retargeting, always on)
  • Term, most commonly used for keywords in search ads or identifying audience groups (donation, brand name, men, 30-35)
  • Content, most commonly used for identifying content in ads (photo, video, canvas)

Omnichannel portability & anti-tracking initiatives
In favour of manual tagging, or semi-manual tagging, is tagging portability between systems. Google Analytics can interpret Adwords’ dynamic tags, but Facebook Analytics cannot; at least, I’ve not been able to make such a setup work. UTM parameters are a great solution in a time where cookie based targeting sees more and more restrictions, e.g. Do Not Track & Apples” Tracking Prevention initiative to ensure privacy in a post-Cambridge Analytica time.

Omnichannel remarketing
Standard UTM parameters, if they’re expressed into clear text in urls, can be read across platforms. Thus, it’s possible to create targeting or analysis nomenclatures that permit targeting based on information that’s normally only available to one system (e.g. Facebook) for use on another platform (e.g. Google, Linkedin, Twitter, Portrait, Adobe Campaign or Agilic) or display advertising across of thousands of platform when bought through RtB platforms that offer simple URL matches (which all do). A walk-through of such a setup will have to wait to a dedicated blog post.

Facebook dynamic tagging
I’m unsure as to when Facebook implemented and made publicly available their dynamic tagging solution. The earliest mentions I can find on blogs is around February 2018. Facebook’s official guide can be found here About URL parameters. It’s a good starting point.

I can llowing two Linkedin Pulse posts  How to get Auto UTM tagging in your Facebook Ads campaigns? and Use Dynamic Facebook URL Parameters to tag your campaigns (UTM)

The variables supported are:
ad_id={{ad.id}}
adset_id={{adset.id}}
campaign_id={{campaign.id}}
ad_name={{ad.name}}
adset_name={{adset.name}}
campaign_name={{campaign.name}}

One-variable example – encoding and decoding city names
A concrete example from a campaign we’re launching tomorrow:

 

‘&’ marks the string as a supplement/suffix to the exising URL including its manually added parameters ‘utm_City’ declares the variable name. ‘{{adset.name}}’ contains the variable (‘adset.name’) which will be populated automatically by Facebook based on the campaign’s adsets (in this campaign, we’re using the adset name to identify 15 city groupings.

The ‘adset.name’ variables are not dynamically encoded, but manually setup in a comples matrix in Ads Manager.

Ensuring variable consistency when editing campagins & ad sets

It’s not an uncommon practice to change campaign and/or ad set names — I do this regularly especially when cloning existing/old including their adsets in order to save time. How does this affect dynamic tagging?

According to Facebook:

Name-based URL parameters will be set to the names provided for your campaign, ad set or ad when they are first published. We’ll use those names as the parameter values during replacement. You can still edit your URL and campaign, ad set or ad names, but the parameters will always refer to the original names.

Two to two variables & two to one variables

It’s possible to encode all Facebook variables (i.e. ad_id={{ad.id}}; adset_id;{adset.id}}; campaign_id={{campaign.id}}; ad_name={{ad.name}}; adset_name={{adset.name}}; campaign_name={{campaign.name}} into one UTM tag. Conversely, it’s also possible to separate each Facebook variable into single UTM tags.

Examples:

Two Facebook variables in two UTM variables:
&utm_targeting-segment={{adset.name}}&utm_campaign={{campaign.name}}

Two Facebook variables in one UTM variable:
&utm_targeting-segment={{adset.name}}{{campaign.name}}

/b

CumEx Files — Support CORRECTIV (CumEx Papers)

410 billion DKK — 55 £billion — theft spanning more than fifteeen years.

Uncovered, analyzed and publicized by 19 media outlets, commercial and non-profit.

In Denmark, Politiken and Danmarks Radio have participated.

“This is pure and simple welfare theft committed by a corrupt global elite of bankers, lawyers and traders, who illegally helped themselves to billions in European tax money. We also know that the key reason why these schemes could go on for so long and prove so immensely lucrative is the lack of sincere and effective cooperation between EU member states’ authorities, which remains a systemic problem in Europe.” (source)

I’ve just donated to German Corrective that’s played a central part in shedding light on the complex setup behind the exploitation of European tax systems. I’d recommend you consider doing the same.

Support Corrective her: Support non-profit journalism!

A backlink or two to Corrective will also be of help to the projects digital impact in years to come.

 

Agile Marketing Manifesto 2018

1 — Simplicity is essential

2 — Launch as early as possible, iterate

3 — Responding to change over following a plan

4 — Validated learnings over opinions, intuitions and beliefs

5 — Aligned collaboration over silos and hierarchies

6 — Many small experiments over few large bets

7 — Decentralization over hierarchies

8 — Ability to quickly respond to change is the source of success

Source -> Agile Marketing Manifesto

Linkedin Pulse version here.

Bag om en lead ads-kampagne på Faebook | Beskyt krigens børn

Kontekst for: Safe Schools | Beskyt krigens børn-kampagnen på Facebook
I Folkekirkens Nødhjælp kører vi for tiden en underskriftskampagne. Kampagnefokus er toleddet: 1) Situationen i Syrien; 2) Børns vilkår i krigsramte områder generelt betragtet.

Kontekstmæssigt er kampagnen centreret omkring Safe Schools Declaration.

Kampagnens KPI’er er af gode grunde ikke offentligt tilgængelige. Men målsætningen har været (for os) et klassisk mix af branding, leadindsamling, donoraktivering & re-aktivering kombineret med et fokuseret, målbart eksperiment/forsøg med Facebooks lead ads-annonceringsformat & -model.

To sideløbende spor målgruppemæssigt
I kampagneperioden køres to sideløbende spor: 1) engagementskabende (primært målrettet followerbasen, 221.000 stor; 2) konverterende spor (segmentstørrelse omkring 1,200.000, primært kvinder, primært bosiddende i landets større byer, primært gift eller forældre).

Opslagstyper: Lead ads på Facebook
Opslag 1: Klassisk klikopslag (billede i 1200×628). Klikbart område er 1) billedet; 2) kliktekst (Beskyt krigens børn. Klik for at skrive under her).

Skærmdump af annoncen:

Annonceperformance
Annoncen performer over gennemsnit — trods der mangler de klassiske NGO-parametre, særligt manglende billede af de mennesker, bomber rammer (her ville det typisk være et barn).

Læs mere Bag om en lead ads-kampagne på Faebook | Beskyt krigens børn

ÜBER: KUNSTEN AT SMADRE ET MARKED

ÜBER TRÆKKER SIG FRA DET DANSKE MARKED
På en dag som i går, hvor Über har valgt at trække sig fra det danske marked, kom jeg til at reflektere lidt over begrebet ‘disruption’.

Ordet er latinsk af afstemning og betyder noget i retning af at bryde op, adskille, bryde ned, splintre — og faktisk også decideret at smadre noget – ‘break asunder‘.

Så hvis man kigger på sagerne ud fra etymologisk synspunkt, så er det voldsomme sager, vi har at gøre med, tænker jeg.

Übers forretningsmodel er ret klar — og den flytter i sagens natur penge fra en branche eller sektor til en anden. Fra en hånd til en anden. Det gør næsten alle disruptive produkter/tiltag. Hvis de ikke gjorde, så var der ikke penge i dem, kunne man vel sige.

VÆK MED MELLENMÆNDENE
Grundlæggende handler megen ‘disruption’ om at skære udgifterne til mellemmænd væk. Og det gi’r rigtig god mening.

Et godt eksempel er Googles displaynetværk, hvor man kan booke bannerkampagner udenom de medier, hvor bannerne bliver vist.

DIREKTE ADGANG TIL GOOGLES ANNONCEPLATFORM
En afstikker: Tidligere skulle man igennem en ret langvarig proces, hvor en pris for en kampagne skulle aftales med en account manager. Jo mere man købte, jo billigere blev det. Men pakken var også fast, så man bandt sig for en periode. I dag kan man købe direkte op og få en “dagskurs” per visning. Og man kan lukke en kampagne ned efter en time eller to, hvis den ikke performer, som man havde håbet.

Det samme gælder Facebook-annoncering. Børsen er 1:1 — man køber direkte hos Facebook. Der er ingen mellemmænd eller -kvinder at forhandle priser med.

Det var en afstikker ud fra egen erfaring med digital markedsføring.

TILBAGE TIL ÜBER
Hvorfor ha’ en fuldtidsansat til at ta’ mod bestillinger på telefon — og fordele bestillingerne ud over vognmændene? En ansat til at planlægge, hvor mange chauffører der er brug for hvornår?

INGEN HAR LYST TIL AT GØRE SIG SELV UNØDIG

Og det gi’r også rigtig go’ mening, at der vil være en stor modstand mod at fastholde roller, hvor grundproduktet fordyres af disse led.

RESSOURCEFORDELING
Tilbage til Über: De fleste kan vel være med på, at det er en god idé at deles om begrænsede ressourcer (transport, chauffører, benzin, operationsstuer) — og at der kan ligge en værdi i at gøre disse ressourcer mere jævnt fordelte.

Men der ligger også en kapitallogik i, at en bil ikke skal bruges så meget som muligt?

ÜBERS FORRETNINGSMODEL
Kigger man på Übers forretningsmodel, så fremgår det med al tydelighed, at de penge, der tjenes falder 1) i egen lomme på chaufførerne (også med skattebetaling); 2) i Übers lomme.

BARE EN APP?
Man kunne argumentere for, at Über egentlig bare er en app, som det er ret dyrt at bruge for både den, der kører — og den, der bliver kørt.

Jeg kan ikke finde en egentlig kilde, men Übers ‘cut’ ligger nok et eller andet sted mellem 15 og 30%. Og det er også lidt uklart for mig, om de penge, der betales som licens er skattepligtige på vejen videre fra Danmark til USA.

TRYGHED
En indrømmelse: Jeg har aldrig kørt med Über. Min bekymring har gået på, om det var sikkert nok (opdraget, som jeg er, til at være meget påpasselig med pirattaxaer’).

Principielt kan enhver vel med et kørekort og en ok-fornuftig trafikhistorik sætte sig bag rettet.

Jeg har følt mig mere tryg – og det er måske en fejlagtig vurdering – ved at sætte mig ind i en normal taxa med en chauffør for rattet med en uddannelse i at køre mennesker sikkert rundt fra sted til sted.

HVORFOR ELSKER VI DISRUPTION?
For at spole lidt tilbage: Hvad er det, der gør, vi er så vilde med ‘disruption’? En tjeneste, der grundlæggende smadrer et eksisterende marked?

Og hvad er det, der gør, at vi lige pludselig allesammen (eller mange af os gør), at det er den rigtige vej?

Grundlæggende lader det til, at der er en samfundslogik, der siger, at nyt (næsten altid) er bedre end det eksisterende.

NYT ER (NÆSTEN ALTID) GODT
Du afgår ikke fra Kunstakademiet ved at male på samme måde som Monét, Picasso eller Jackson Pollock. Du skal skabe noget nyt for at være god. Det reproducerende interesserer os ikke — eller belønnes i hvert fald ikke. På samme tid minder store dele af medieforbruget om tidligere tiders skønlitteratur, forstået på den måde, at der er særdeles tydelige elementer af repetition og genkendelse (X-Factor, Danmark har talent, tv-serier, osv.).

Det var en sidestikker.

JURIDISK DISKUTABELT
Og hvorfor hopper vi, eller hoppede vi,  så meget med på en forretningsmodel, hvor grundproduktet har været juridisk diskutabelt siden entrereringen på det danske marked?

Der ligger også nogle andre ting og simrer i forretningsmodellen. Alle kan ta’ en taxa fra et sted til et andet — det kan man kun gøre med en verificeret app med Über. Uden at der skal gå konspirationsteori i sagerne, så er der en åbning i forretningsmodellen for, at der er tale om ‘tracking’ af en eller anden art.

EN UHOLDBAR INVESTERINGSMODEL
På en anden front, at der har været en meget, meget høj ‘burn rate’ forstået på den måde, at man har underprissat ydelserne, i forhold til hvad ‘markedet’ vurderede en ydelse var værd, hvilket — på en dårlig dag — er mange, der investerer mod et sundt marked.

UPSIDEN: BILATERAL INNOVATION
Dér, hvor jeg ser en kæmpe værdi i øvelsene af inkludere og ekskludere Über, liger i innovationspotentialet. Hvad angår taxabranchen, så afstedkom Übers entre på det danske marked i en pludselig og voldsom interesse for at forsvare en markedsposition.

Forskellige taxafirmaer kom ligesom ‘up to speed‘ i forhold til at få bygget nogle fede apps. Noget, de kunne have gjort for 2-3-5 år siden, men ikke gjorde, før de blev presset.

Og idéen om at man som bilejer kan bruge sin bil til andet end sig selv har også rykket noget i forhold til ressourcefordeling.

BILATERAL INNOVATION
Den lærdom kan nok flyttes med videre andre steder hen. Bli’r man presset af nye tiltag, så bli’r tvinges man måske til at blive lidt skarpere og hvile mindre i statis.

For mig at se, så er det ikke rigtigt noget, der rykker i forhold til at skabe en bedre fremtid dog. Det gør dog idéen om, at man kan ta’ en traditionsrigtig branche og skubbe lidt — mere eller mindre kærligt — til den for at skabe innovation.

Gammeldags nok, måske, så handler det for mig også om at rykke noget eksisterende i retning mod noget, der kan skabe en (lidt) bedre fremtid for os alle sammen.

Og det ser jeg ikke, at Über har gjort eller vil gøre. For at vende tilbage til de indledende definitioner, så har Übers model været at tjene penge, mange penge, til sig selv — ikke at fritgøre og berige i nogen nævneværdig grad.

‘Aphantasia’: Did C. S. Peirce (& William James) “suffer” from it?

Yesterday, I stumbled upon the term ‘aphantasia’, which describes not being able to visualize / being born with a blind mind’s eye.

In an article by Bill Faw (‘Conflicting Intuitions May Be Based on Differering Abilities: Evidence from Mental Imaging Research‘), it is implied that William James suffered, in lack of a better word, from ‘aphantasia’ based on a specific passage from ‘Principles of Psychology‘):

“[James can] seldom call to mind even a single letter of the alphabet in purely retinal terms. I must trace the letter by running my mental eye over its contour in order that the image of it shall have any distinctness at all’” (The Religious Life: The Insights of William James).

Which could be summed up as an ability of not being able to “see” the phenomenal world.

I remember noticing a passage in Brent’s biography on Peirce in which Peirce reflects on having extreme difficulty conveying his thoughts. Akin to a semi-severe mental handicap.

Which led me to wonder if it’s been hypohesized that Peirce’s unique thinking style and way of expressing thoughts might be related to his suffering from ‘aphantasia’ (in addition to the proposed ‘rigeminal neuralgia’ and substance abuse.

It’s been suggested that people suffering from ‘aphantasia’ metaphorically think in a low-level language (to borrow a descriptive term from computer science), assembler, where “normal” people process information in a high-level language, which might perhaps explain Peirce’s ability to formulate mathematical concepts, e.g. confidence intervals, ahead of his time / his contemporaries (Peirce describing ‘likelohood’ & ‘confidence’ in roughly 1880 & Neyman & Fisher in 1937).

It’d be great to have your views on this.

Originally posted in the Facebook group ‘Charles S. Peirce Society‘.

References / perspectives
I borrowly heavily from E.P.F Wohlfart‘s research/essay: The People Who Think Without Pictures.

‘Aphantasia’, Wikipedia.

Bill Faw: Conflicting Intuitions May Be Based On Differing Abilities: Evidence from Mental Imaging Research. (2008).

Sir Fran Francis Galton: Statistics of Mental Imagery (1880).

Zeman, Dewar, Della Sala: Lives without imagery — Congential aphantasia (2015)

British Journal of Psychology: ‘Individual differences in reported visual imagery and memory performance‘ (2011)

Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic review study (2003)

Contact: kasper[@]mediebevaegelsen[.]dk