The round was led by Draper Fisher Jurvetson and joined by prior investors Canaan Partners, SAP Ventures, and SVB India Capital Partners. The Gurgaon, India-headquartered firm earlier raised $3.1 million and $9.5 million in two rounds in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

iYogi offers a number of tech support services like PC installation and recovery, anti-virus/spyware, data back-up and PC speed optimization. Its annual unlimited tech support plan starts at $139.99. Most of its tech support services are centered around Microsoft software, but Google and Apple products are also listed on iYogi’s website.

iYogi says it will use the additional capital to expand its team of Global Tech Experts, which are basically people who help consumers and SMBs solve their computer problems from a remote location. iYogi says that today, it has more than 100,000 annual subscribers and provides thousands of incident sessions every day on a 24/7 basis.

The company claims that it has seen a 300 percent growth in revenues and subscribers since 2008, and that it currently boasts an employee workforce of 1,200. iYogi intends to grow the number of Global Tech Experts to 3,000 worldwide in 2010.

iYogi delivers its services in partnership with companies like HP, Microsoft and Cisco and counts Amazon and Walmart among the retailers that have worked with the company to enhance customer service.

Have you ever used iYogi? Is it something you would recommend to your less tech-savvy friends and/or relatives?

• Workshifting isn't for everyone. Although most companies will see significant benefits from allowing employees to work from home and/or the road as needed or desired, some employees simply aren't cut out for the independence and discipline such a set-up requires. Many people (especially mature adults who've been in the workforce for a while) know that about themselves--given the choice, they will opt to go into an office everyday for the companionship, sense of purpose, or even just because they don't trust themselves to be productive at home. Other employees may want to workshift but are clearly ready to do so. It's a manager's job to recognize when an employee shouldn't work from anywhere but the office, and support any employees who fit that group.  Alternatively, you could know what traits you're looking for ahead of time and hire for those workshifting qualities.
• Sometimes, a transition period is needed. Letting people work from home one or two days a week is a good way to trial the new way of working, and make sure that it's a good fit for everyone--not just the workshifting employee, but also his or her manager and colleagues. However, for the transition to succeed, workshifters must be given the technology and business model support they would get if they were workshifting full time.
• Speaking of which, make sure you give workshifters the technology they need to work from somewhere other than a corporate office. These will likely include a notebook PC, mobile phone, access to IM and conferencing tools, and a headset.  Ensure that you have a remote support option in place to help them at a distance.
• Shift your reward system to focus on results, not time spent on any given project, or any given workday. Workshifters get used to the freedom to work anytime and from anywhere pretty quickly; as long as they're getting the job done, don't stress about how or when they're doing it. (That said, if part of their job is meeting with clients or participating in conference calls, you should expect them to be available at the necessary times to do so.)
• Assign workshifters to small working teams whenever a project supports collaborative work--and make sure you mix up the players often. Working with one or two colleagues on a specific task ensures remote employees get to know one another better--and having a solid relationship will help the team be more collaborative and engaged even when they're not working together on anything specific. Audio, video and web conferencing can help small teams work effectively across physical and cultural boundaries.
• Leverage social networking tools to keep people connected from afar. This, too, will help far-flung employees get to know each other better, and stay in touch even when they're not actively working on a project together. That reaps rewards when the time comes for favors, support and collaboration.
• When possible, meet in person. If you can't afford to bring an entire group together on a regular basis, encourage team members to meet live in small groups whenever they happen to be in the same place--at conferences, on client calls, etc. This will help people get even more out of their virtual meetings during the rest of the year.

By: Melanie Turek for Workshifting.

In Warcraft, you have two general methods for beating up the bad guys: focused fire and area of effect. Focused fire is exactly what it sounds like. In a crowd of bad guys, all the heroes point their swords/arrows/spells/pewpewlazerbeamz at one of the crowd until the bad guy drops, then you switch to the next one, etc. Area of effect has the heroes cover wide spaces with their weapons to take on the whole crowd at once. Think about the difference between, say, a rifle and a grenade. That’s the general idea.

Warcraft differs from life in that area of effect methods are significantly weaker than focused fire. When you face enemies weaker than you and your merry band of heroes, you just open up and take them all down at once. When you face enemies who are stronger than you, generally speaking, your attacks on them won’t kill them before they kill you, so you drop them one by one while the guy wearing the most armor (the tank) distracts the rest of the crowd.

So what does this have to do with project management? Simple: projects are like Warcraft’s bad guys. If you have a handful of very minor, insignificant things to tackle, you can multitask and burn them all down at roughly the same time. Bug fixes, memos, email responses, Twitter replies, etc. can all be nuked with the project equivalent of an area of effect attack.

If you face a major project or several major projects, chances are you can’t crush them before they overwhelm you. Instead, you gather your team at work, grab a seat at the conference room table with your laptop, and you burn down each project one at a time. Trying to tackle all of them would be as much of a wipe as a Warcraft raid trying to tackle all the bad guys at once.

Here’s the Icecrown Citadel twist: you have to recognize when it’s time to switch modes from one to the other. Warcraft teams used to area of effect nuking everything will suddenly find the battles in Icecrown Citadel to be much harder to deal with, and they’ll need to adapt quickly back to focused fire methods.

Likewise, the sooner you recognize that a project has gone beyond trivial requirements into something more serious, you have to switch methods in your organization.

The reverse is also true. If you take an epic geared, epic skilled team into a Warcraft raid and expect them to use the focused fire methods on bad guys that they can knock over just by sneezing, you’ll bore your team and take far longer to complete a dungeon than if you just uncorked your team’s power against weak opponents and wiped the floor with them.

From a project management perspective, that’s what causes boredom and loss of talent inside your organization – you’re asking top quality epic talent not to live up to their potential.

The challenge for any raid leader, the challenge for any business leader, is to recognize when you need one approach or another. It’s not just a matter of looking at gear in an instance (you can be epic geared and still suck at playing) or looking at resumes on a desk. No, you have to adapt quickly when you realize that your team is either getting their faces eaten by bone ghouls or project milestones and focus fire, or recognize when your team is so bored that they cast Basic Campfire against their opponents or doodle their way through project meetings and switch to area of effect crushing mode.

This is why great leaders in both Warcraft raids and the business world are great – and more rare than most epic gear. Good luck in your quests to be the best, whether it’s beating Sindragosa or this quarter’s numbers.

By: Christopher S. Penn for Awaken Your Superhero.

I asked them how much they wanted to make from blogging.

They responded that they wanted to be a full time blogger.

I pushed them for a figure – what does ‘full time’ mean for you?

They thought for a moment and said that they could live off $30,000 USD a year (note: they wouldn’t have minded earning more but would be able to quit their current job at this kind of rate).

$30,000 a year sounds like a lot to make from a blog – especially when you’re starting out and are yet to make a dollar. To this blogger it seemed so overwhelming that she had almost convinced herself that it was not possible.

Advice for Becoming a Full Time Blogger

My response was threefold:

1. Don’t Give Up Your Day Job…. Yet

It is possible to make $30,000 a year blogging, but it’s unlikely to happen over night. Keep your feet on the ground and your expectations reasonable. IF it happens (and there are no guarantees) it is almost certainly going to take some time.

2. Be Specific

Saying that you want to be full time as a blogger is a great goal – but it’s not really specific enough. This is why I wanted the blogger I was chatting with to name a figure. For her full time was $30,000 – for others it could be more or less – the amount is not the point, the point is that you need something more concrete to work towards so that you’re able to measure where you’re at.

For me when I decided I want to go full time as a blogger I decided that I wanted to aim for $50,000 (Aussie Dollars) in a year as the bench mark (at that time $50,000 was around 36,000 USD). That’s around what I would have been earning in my current main job if I had been doing that full time (I was actually working a number of part time jobs at the time as well as studying part time).

Knowing what I was aiming for helped me in a number of ways when it came to getting to that goal.

3. Break it down into something more Achievable

$30,000 USD still sounds big when you’re a new blogger – and in some ways it is. However there are different ways of thinking about that figure. Lets break it down in the way that I used to look at my target.

• $30,000 a year = $576.92 per week
• $30,000 a year = $82.19 a day
• $30,000 a year = $3.42 an hour

We could break it down on a monthly or on a minute by minute basis if we wanted to (in fact I did do it by minute from time to time for fun) – but the exercise is really about helping you to see that perhaps your big goal is a little more achievable if you are to break it down. Making $82.19 somehow seems a little bit easier to me than making $30,000 (or is that just me?).

OK – the other way that I used to break down my goal that I found really helpful to me was to do it based upon what I need to achieve to meet that target. For me I would usually look at the daily figure – in this case $82.19.

What do I need to do to make $82.19 a day ($30,000 a year)?

Well there’s a number of ways that much. Lets look at a few:

• CPC Ads – lets say we’re running mainly AdSense on our blog and that the average click is paying 5 cents. That equates to 1643 clicks on AdSense ads (note: AdSense also runs CPM ads so it’s not quite as simple as saying you need 1643 clicks… but to keep this simple lets just go with that).
• CPM Ads – lets say that we’re running CPM ads on our blog and we’re being paid $2 CPM per ad unit and we had 3 ads on each page (which is effectively $6 CPM per page). This would mean we’d need 13,000 page impressions.
• Monthly Sponsorships – one way to sell ads directly to advertisers is to sell ads on a month by month basis as a sponsorship. To make $30k in a year you need to sell $2500 a month in ads. You might have 6 ad spots on your blog so this is 6 advertisers at $416.66 per advertiser per month.
• Low Commission Affiliate Products – Lets say we were promoting affiliate products from a site like Amazon and your commissions were on average about 40 cents per sale. To earn $82.19 you’d need to sell 205 products.
• High Commission Affiliate Products – In this case you might be promoting ebooks and earning $8 a copy (that’s what you’d earn selling my 31DBBB ebook per commission). The math is simple on this one – you’d had to sell around 10 e-books a day.
• Really Big Commission Affiliate Products – of course e-books are not the biggest product out there to promote – there are products like training courses where you can earn hundreds per sale. Lets take one that might pay out $300 for a yearly membership on a bigger product. In this case you need to sell 8 of these per month.
• Selling Your Own E-book – got your own product, perhaps an e-book, to sell from your blog? At $19.95 a sale you need to sell just over 4 of these a day. You can do the sums on cheaper or more expensive products.

Of course there are many many other ways to make money from blogs. Subscriptions, donations, paid reviews, selling yourself as a consultant….. etc. You can do the sums for yourself on your own model.

I know that some of the above figures still sound out of reach for bloggers – 1643 clicks on your AdSense ads sounds massive to a new blogger…. and it is – but do keep in mind that you can combine some of the above (in fact I’d recommend you diversify your income).

You might run 2 ad networks on your site, promote Amazon affiliates, sell your own e-book and promote someone’s membership course.

Looking back on my own figures for around the time when I hit my $50,000 AUD (around $100 USD a day) goal and for me at that time my income mix looked a like this (going from memory here):

• AdSense: $35
• Chitika: $20
• Private Ad Sales: $20
• Amazon: $15
• Other Affiliate Commissions: $10

Note: I didn’t achieve this milestone until I’d been blogging for over 2 years (I blogged for the first year without trying to make money).

This didn’t happen over night (let me emphasize this – blogging for money is neither quick nor is it easy money) but I really found that breaking things down into more bite sized pieces helped me to stay motivated but also helped me to identify what I needed to work on in order to reach my goals (and for me to quite my day job).

Again – don’t quit your day job yet (in fact you may not want to quit it even when you reach your goal – it can be good to have a back up plan) but do work hard at being specific about your blogging goals and attempt to break it down in a way that helps you move towards them.

By: Darren Rowse for ProBlogger.

By: Mack Collier for The Viral Garden.

Mom and pop operations and hand-crafted content sounds an awful lot like you and me, doesn’t it?

So is this actually something we need to worry about? Is what Arrington calls “the rise of cheap, disposable content on a mass scale, force fed to us by the portals and search engines” going to destroy the businesses we’re building on a foundation of high-quality content?

Arrington is deeply concerned about sites like AOL and Demand Media, which scrape and mash real content into something that’s theoretically legitimate (since it was compiled by a human being rather than a piece of software), but in practice gives no value to the reader.

This “mainstream spam” can be efficiently optimized for search, or thrust onto the unsuspecting eyeballs of AOL users. (Haven’t the poor things suffered enough already?)

Arrington believes there’s no hope against this onslaught of junk content, which is going to overwhelm all of the good stuff.

Clearly, we’re all doomed

Arrington advises content creators (that’s you and me) to:

Figure out an even more disruptive way to win, or die. Or just give up on making money doing what you do. If you write for passion, not dollars, you’ll still have fun. Even if everything you write is immediately ripped off without attribution, and the search engines don’t give you the attention they used to. You may have to continue your hobby in the evening and get a real job, of course. But everyone has to face reality sometimes.

Apart from the whining, the exaggeration, and the hysteria, the problem with Arrington’s argument is it’s based on a number of bad assumptions.

Specifically:

Bad assumption #1: Search engines and mega portals are the only way to get traffic

AOL is feeding their content slop to their “massive” audience (which, in fact, is shrinking at rates that would make Biggest Loser proud). Arrington makes the assumption that those AOL customers won’t come find your non-crap content, because the fast food stuff is the only thing on their radar.

This then leapfrogs to another bad assumption, that the only way anyone sees content is to find it on a mega site like AOL, or via a search engine like Google.

Links from your favorite bloggers count for nothing. Tweets from a friend count for nothing. Facebook pointers count for nothing. Email from your mom counts for nothing. No one ever points a friend to genuinely valuable content and says, “Hey, you should check this out, you would like it.”

The entire direction of social media and content sharing indicates otherwise.

Bad assumption #2: Readers will keep reading crappy content

AOL’s user base is still big enough that I’m sure they’ll get some readers at least skimming their stuff.

But when it comes to content, Darwin rules. If content doesn’t meet the needs of users, it dies. We can’t even force grade-school kids to read what doesn’t engage them. What makes us think that AOL can “force feed” their users anything?

And what makes us believe that even if those users do skim AOL’s lame content, that they’ll never read anything else, or that, when they have a particular need or concern, they won’t go actively looking for something more useful?

Business tip for TechCrunch: when you find yourself afraid of a stumbling dinosaur like AOL, there’s something gravely wrong with your thinking, your business model, or both.

Bad assumption #3: Google would rather serve fast food content than your content

Now I hold no illusions that Google is a benevolent, all-knowing deity that rewards the just and punishes the wicked. But based on observation, it’s pretty clear that Google would rather serve good content than scraped and mashed junk content.

Google wants their searchers to find a good experience on the other side of their search result. If sites like Demand Media, a video producer that slaps together 4,000 videos a day in what amounts to content sweat shops, can deliver content worth watching, they’ll do well.

If they don’t deliver something worth watching, they don’t give Google’s searchers the experience Google wants to deliver. Which means Google becomes less valuable.

Google can’t be “force-fed” any more than readers can. There’s no reason to believe they’ll treat this “hand assembled” spam more kindly than the bot-created kind.

Bad assumption #4: Content means news

Arrington also says that sites like the New York Times are “outright stealing” his content and passing it off as their own. (And he warns you, little mom and pop, that your content’s going to be stolen without attribution as well.)

By “stealing,” Arrington apparently means that when TechCrunch publishes a breaking story, the New York Times often writes a story on the same topic, using their own reporters and neglecting to thank him for his tireless journalistic efforts.

If you’re not TechCrunch, this is not a problem that you need to spend even four seconds thinking about. You already know from hanging out on Twitter and reading blogs that news spreads more quickly than anyone’s ability to control it, and that nobody “owns” a breaking story.

For those of us who create “hand-crafted” content, what we say isn’t nearly as important as how we say it. We rarely break news (although occasionally we become the news.)

If readers want the latest news, they rightly go to a site like TechCrunch, the Times, or, increasingly often, Twitter.

It’s when they want useful knowledge, insight, or analysis that they come back to us. Plus, there’s a reason we get you to focus on delivering educational content versus commodity news, right?

We’re valuable precisely because we can cut through the noise and give them only what’s useful and relevant to them.

I’m sure it’s irritating to Arrington not to get a linkback from the Times, but that’s his headache, not ours. He seems to be doing ok without it.

Bad assumption #5: You need millions of eyeballs to make a living

There’s an implicit bad assumption behind all of the explicit bad assumptions in Arrington’s post, which is that the only way you’ll be able to make a living with content is to attract huge amounts of traffic.

In other words, the only possible model is to attract enough attention (via search engines, for your breaking news) to monetize your site with advertising.

But you already know that’s not a business model for the real world.

Let’s say you have a blog that gives business advice to yoga teachers. You’ve paired that with a simple but effective marketing system to sell group coaching, individual consulting, and information products to readers who want to go further with what you’re teaching. You only need to find a few hundred customers a year to make a very nice living.

• No fast food content generator on earth is going to outrank you for “how to run a yoga studio.”
• If a cheap, scratch-the-surface video or post does outrank you for that #1 spot, the reader quickly finds out that the fast food content doesn’t meet her needs at all. Click goes the back button, and she’s looking for you again.
• Your content collects links from like-minded people, because it’s cool and valuable.
• Other yoga teachers (and herbalists and organic co-ops and past-life regression therapists) will spread the word about you faster than Google ever could.
• You have no reason to run advertising for anything other than your own products. So you don’t need to pull hundreds of thousands of “eyeballs” to make a decent living. You just need to make a great connection with the right 300 people.

So what should a “whole food” content producer do?

Exactly what you were doing yesterday.

Keep your eyes on your audience, not Chicken Little pundits telling you (again) that you can’t make a living.

Keep following the First Rule of Copyblogger. Keep creating content that rewards the reader for consuming it. Keep cutting through the clutter and noise by being smarter, more relevant, and more interesting.

Fast food content is just the latest incarnation of an old affliction — spam. If it hasn’t killed us yet, this new version isn’t likely to make much of a dent.

By: Sonia Simone for CopyBlogger.