Everybody Pays – Making the Federal Deficit Hit Home

February 7, 2010

Check out this chart:

This chart comes from today’s New York Times editorial section. I found myself mesmerized by it this morning. It makes painfully clear just how deluded our current debates about the deficit are.

Toward the top are many of the items pundits squabble about and hold up as ‘hotbutton issues’ in political debate. Eliminating congressional earmarks, cutting foreign aid and letting the Bush tax cuts expire are all ample fodder for chatter on Fox News and MNBC. If this chart is any indicator none of them really puts a dent in the deficit. Even cumulatively.

Mid-way down the y-axis we see some loftier measures which are election killers for anyone backing them. Cut war spending entirely. Stop the Recovery Act handouts. Double corporate income taxes. These make a bigger dent, but still aren’t a panacea.

It is not until you get down to the draconian measures no one in their right mind would consider – shutting down social security or eliminating Medicare benefits – that we get any real chunk whittled out of the deficit. In fact, the smallest half-dozen ‘hot button’ measures don’t add up to equal even the smallest of the four big, nasty measures.

This is our mess. Oh, but it gets worse, and here’s why.

It’s all symbols. Our entire financial system has made money symbolic – numbers on ATM statements and monthly reports. When you hand over cash, you feel yourself spend money. Cash provides a tactile sense of gain and loss that numbers on a paper slip anesthetize. I believe this abstraction of money and spending is partially responsible for the credit run up and subsequent crash. It’s easy to take on a 0% ARM and make interest-only payments assuming your homes value will only go up when there’s no discomfort involved in doing so. Easy that is until the bank comes to foreclose. Then as the anesthetic wears off, headlines begin talking about ‘pain’. Too little, too late.

Everybody Pays
A favorite novelist of mine, Andrew Vachss, wrote a collection of short stories titled Everybody Pays. It’s a great title. In two words it tells an immutable truth. Bills come due. Pay now or pay later but you will pay.

Yet we resist this reality. Worse, we enable this denial by masking the realities with symbols. Go out and ask someone what will happen if the United States just decides not to pay the federal deficit. What will be the specific outcomes? Most people have no clue. They’ve heard vague references to China or Saudi Arabia ‘owning’ the United States. Hard to believe that when you look around at your neighborhood. Hard enough anyhow, that the conversation remains abstract.

We hear the economy will collapse and the dollar will go the way of the Mexican Peso. Also hard to believe, especially in a country like ours where most transactions are in dollars anyhow. It’d be different perhaps if we exchanged dollars for yen and euros regularly but short of overseas travel, few of us do and let’s face it, for all it’s ups and downs, the dollar has been a consistent currency. You can still go to Canada or Mexico and their money feels less valuable to us.

De-Symbolize
If I were sitting in government
I might put some minds to work on de-symbolizing our situation. At the top of that chart it stipulates that we could eliminate the deficit if we charged a one-time fee of $4100 to every citizen of the United States. For my family of four that’s $16,400. That’s a big chunk of change. Like purchasing insurance, my life would not improve one measurable bit if I forked over that money. Which may be precisely why it’s not a bad idea.

Writing that check to the government would sting. Especially in this economic climate it would sting badly. That’s the point. We’re in the midst of a years-long Orwellian groupthink dream. We spend borrowed money and continue to think we can put off paying it back. It’s absurd. Maybe we’ll inflate another economic bubble to block our view of this reality, but for my part, I think it would better if we all faced the music sooner than later and all together.

The one time a year we people become acutely aware of our federal budget is on 4/15 when we submit our tax returns. Whether we’re writing checks or getting one back, that’s when our symbolic money economy comes home to roost. If for one year, every citizen in America had to write a painfully large check* I think we might do a lot of longterm good getting our heads on straight about the reality of money and spending. We’d also see some serious scrutiny of our elected officials and I’m guessing greater voter participation moving forward if only to avoid making that painful check-writing session and annual event. Making every citizen cough up four grand would basically piss the public off and maybe then we’d cut through the nonsense and get something accomplished. Every elected official, from both parties, would suddenly be in the crosshairs because if they didn’t work it out and every American had to write an unreasonable check again a year later, you can bet we’d see a lot of the ballast-quality people in office shoved out the door. And if that didn’t happen, at the very least the deficit would be gone (for the moment).

Of course as you might imagine this idea probably won’t catapult me into office any time soon.

*I want to note here I am knowingly glossing over the havoc such a measure would cause among lower income households. It is admittedly unjust to have someone with an HHI of $35K paying the same as someone with an HHI of $3.5MM. My intention here is to make a point all the while knowing the details of the implementation are far more nuanced than I am presenting.

My market-busting fBook Fantasy

February 3, 2010

Having just put out a post on the cyclical nature of walled communities (see prior post), I was intrigued by another conversation from the Groundswell blog which introduces the concept of the ‘splinternet‘. (There is another more recent post here.) Check the comments on the splinternet postings, they’re as interesting as the article itself. Apparently, like the viability of the iPad, there’s a lot of conflicting opinions out there.

My take is that like watching the stock market daily or even weekly, watching the hype around Kindles and iPads can make it feel like everything is fragmenting and we’re all doomed to have to support a multitude of platforms, standards and devices. Wasn’t this supposed to be the age of ‘convergent media’?

Well, like stocks, there is short term volatility in the media environment too. But just as the market over time has made gains despite short-term volatility (especially if you didn’t freak out in 2008 and dump your holdings), so has the concept of open standards dominated the Internet. As if to underscore this, Google just announced its dropping support for IE6. Ask any developer and you’ll be told IE6 is a compliance nightmare. This is another block coming out of Microsoft’s crumbling garden wall. Over the years Internet Explorer has reluctantly been dragged like a stubborn child to accept the W3C compliance standards. The reason was simple, people started getting fed up with the IE experience and switched to Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari – all more broadly embracing of open standards.

Powered by the people.
Anyhow, all this talk of market dominance in music, books, TV, etc. got me thinking. The big reality is that businesses must necessarily follow the market. They tend to be slow to do so often waiting until many customers/viewers/people have fled. Today, the devices to play digital content (PCs, PDAs, smart phones and now, possibly, tablets) and to a lesser extent pipeline owners (ISPs and 3G networks) seem to be controlling the markets. Or are they?

The ability for a device or pipeline to define the dynamics of a business arrangement largely boils down to the size of the audience that device or pipeline delivers. Remember not too long ago when the iPhone first came out, its app store was full of gimmicks and half-baked cheapie apps. Only when enough people started using the iPhone (and enough buzz started flying around to make it safe to predict even more would soon buy one) did corporations begin hiring developers to build apps for it. It was the audience that grabbed the interest of the corporations and catapulted iPhone app development from a fringe hobby to a serious business.

Well, Apple says its iPhone/iPod touch market is 75MM people. Sizeable to be sure. In terms of delivering an audience, however, Facebook has 350MM users, or 450% of Apple’s. That’s massive. Suspend reality for a moment and imagine if Facebook built a hardware device. A tablet say (to capture the current hype, though personally I’d make it a bit smaller and more portable). I’ll call it the ‘fBook’.

Dream with me…
Certainly Facebook could afford to get into the hardware business with their current capital and resources. Certainly innovation is baked into their culture enough to do it well. If Facebook matched the basic lures driving Apple’s iPhone/iPod success – sexy touch screen navigation (in fact a parity technology), a robust community of developers (already existent), and a fast processor (also available on the market) they’d have a formidable device on just that.  Then, throw in a few bones for the people bitching about the iPad – like a camera and multitasking.

Now take this fBook device and give it a few killer features you can’t get through the other devices. Features that tie directly to the Facebook network and your Facebook friends. How about free video conferencing and calling to other FB members? And hell, why not strike up a deal and throw in Meetup and Foursquare-like functionality built in and integrated into Facebooks database of 350mm folks. Integrate Facebook Connect as well, of course.

Now, put a bow on it and offer the device at 20% less than Apple’s iPad to the first 100MM Facebook users who buy it. Then 15% off to the next 100MM. And 10% to everyone else on FB. Don’t just sell it online either. Rollout temporary ‘flash stores’ in big cities. Throw block parties, form lines, obstruct traffic – make it a media event centered around people coming together. You know, community and connectivity – core brand values of Facebook.

Oh, and one more thing, add a $19.99 data plan through a carrier (delivering 350MM new customers would probably get Sprint’s or Verizon’s attention). This would cover the data infrastructure but also allow Facebook (the basic Web browser version) to remain free. If bandwidth was an issue, create a $29.99 plan for people who want the video conferencing and higher throughput features. Even at a fraction of the 350MM users carriers could afford upgrade their networks (mmmmm, GGGGGG66666666).

That fBook could deliver four times Apple’s audience. Or, put another way, if just 1 in 4 Facebook users took to the device it would still be bigger than Apple. That’s exactly the carrot they’d dangle in front of publishers, movie studios, TV networks, and record labels. Then Facebook would drop the big bomb, ‘We don’t want exclusivity from you Mr. Publisher. And we won’t offer it to you either.’ My Facebook would be all about open standards. The fBook would accept all formats and let the users decide where they buy their books and movies and music from. It would be left to the publishers to set the prices as long as Facebook gets $x.xx on each sale. And of course Facebook would offer its publisher-partners easy, ready access to the fStore.

For publishers not locked exclusively into iTunes of Kindle, this is access to millions of new users and the freedom to set their own pricing models to compete with each other. To those who are locked in, it’s reason to start complaining about those contracts. Who wants to turn down access to potentially 350MM people?

Okay, when I say wake up, you’ll return to February, 2010.

Wake up.

Admittedly the above was a dream. But there are three points I am trying to make:

1. Bring an audience and you bring a chance to define the terms – regardless of the heritage of your business sector. If you’re Twitter or Facebook and you’ve been focused on building a user base instead of sweating revenue, this suddenly begins to open some interesting doors. (You  should also at this time thank your investors for taking that not insignificant risk.)

2. All walled gardens can be toppled. Device development might be divergent (we all carry more hardware now than ten years ago) and pipelines may be parity but all content is converging into basic bits and bytes. Technologically speaking there’s no reason a device can’t play it all. Corporate wall-building is the only barrier.

3. Open is a very powerful market tool. Open is disruptive. Open is desireable. Delivering an open alternative to walled gardens puts immense pressure on those gardens. It also makes them look monopolistic, greedy and inflexible. Oh, and it gives the consumer a really great, useful, product with some shelf life.

Those are strong competitive wedges and reasons why I think the Splinternet is temporary and that Open will continue to be the driving factor that forces innovation, prevents lasting monopolies and generally results in a better marketplace for all.


The fate of iPad/iBooks/iTunes has been written before.

February 1, 2010

Remember ‘walled gardens‘? It was a popular concept in debating the blossoming of social networks a few years ago. Today Facebook – having surpassed the United States and moving toward China and India in population – is far more open than the walled communities it was once compared to – AOL and CompuServe. But Facebook is still a walled community. On Facebook you play by Facebook’s rules. For the most part we citizens of FB are content. In exchange for giving up some of our freedom we get an easy to use interface and a safe way to explore and experience the fascinating tools of Web 2.0.

With this week’s announcement of the iPad I have been again thinking about walled gardens. Put aside the debates about the device itself. Consider instead the iPad’s contribution to a shift that is taking control of content distribution from publishers, studios and record labels and putting it in the hands of hardware manufacturers.

Unlike the battles over Beta and VHS, SD Cards and Memory Sticks, or HD DVD and Blue Ray, the stakes here are higher because the devices themselves now carry the stores on them. Once you buy a Kindle or iPad, you effectively lock yourself into the content they offer through their convenient, online and embedded stores. Conversely, for content producing industries that are struggling with the digital disruption, popular devices like iPods deliver literally millions of potential customers. So if iTunes says a song will cost $1.29, or Kindle pegs e-books at $9.99, what’s the label or publisher to do? Turn away millions of customers by rejecting the platform?

Companies like Apple and Amazon are vying to position themselves between content sellers and content buyers. They are, in this sense, becoming gatekeepers.

And if you have gates and gatekeepers, then you must also have walls.

Again with the training wheels.
We’ve been here before. Recent history provides some insights that we might use to consider the future of Apple or Amazon controlling the distribution of digital content. AOL and Internet Explorer serve as interesting precursors to the current situation. In both cases, people demonstrated a consistent behavior that seems to be showing up again in consumer behaviors today.

That human behavior is this:

When the Internet was new (to the general public, anyhow), people were apprehensive and unsure. They asked for a safe entry point. Insert American Online. AOL was the Internet with training wheels. While most of us were discovering chat rooms and instant messaging, a minority of web surfing pioneers eschewed AOL and struck out on their own. They came back with stories of wonderful things you couldn’t get on AOL. The more people heard the more curious and discontented they became. Eventually, as all citizens of walled communities do, they started to think beyond the walls.

No sooner had the newly liberated masses escaped AOL for the wide open Internet than they began to again feel a little disoriented and apprehensive. The Internet was big and open and wild. While they didn’t want the walls of AOL they admittedly needed some help navigating this digital wilderness. Along comes Internet Explorer, conveniently bundled in your operating system. IE provided people comfort, usability and essentially training wheels via a familiar (enough) user interface and a brand they had known and trusted for some time (Microsoft).

As with AOL, some brave innovators opted not to dine on what Explorer was serving. Again people began to hear that IE rendered the web a certain way. In fact it sometimes ignored web pages completely. As with life in AOL, when those Internet pioneers came back with tales of something better beyond the confines of IE people again demanded the walls come down.

Today Apple and Amazon are providing the same training wheels as we get oriented to digital content delivery. We people are just getting comfortable with digital music and e-books. So, as with web surfing in the late 90’s and web browsing in the early millennium, we’re willing to accept the training wheels again. Shiny, touch-screen training wheels that make the whole experience easier.

“But today we can still go out on the Internet, using our browser, and pull down any content we want,” you might be thinking. That is true. But if you want to play content on the sexy news devices – the same innovative devices that deliver instant access to your online community, the convenience of portability, and of course the social cache that you’re cool – you by and large have to choose the content those device manufacturers are selling.

Just as it happened for ISPs and then Web browsers so I am guessing it will happen with mobile social/media devices. It’s easy to get swept up in the talk of paradigm shifts, but the empires built by AOL, Netscape, Microsoft, Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are in truth fairly transient (at least by historic standards). Sometimes they last for decades. Sometimes just years. No doubt some pioneers are out there right now, toiling away in anonymity, hacking at the walls being built, sneaking content onto iPhone and iPads and Kindles. Some day they will return with wonderful stories of all the great things to be enjoyed were we all not tethered to iTunes or the Kindle store. At that time people will begin to chip away at the very walls being built right now.

The Internet is famous for the phrase ‘Information wants to be free.’ This ‘openness’ is an inherent conflict with its commercialization. In some sense, it is also a necessity. Again and again we may choose walls over wilderness eventually, but that gnawing sense that there is something better beyond the barriers we once sheltered ourselves in keep monopolies in check and force businesses to continually innovate.


Generation Collaboration

January 27, 2010

Read enough about the Millennial generation and its easy to become convinced that they’re all A.D.D., would prefer to go to yoga classes than put in time climbing the corporate ladder and have an overpowering sense of entitlement.

As with any stereotype there’s probably some truth in there, if by broad generalization only.  Milennials are often defined  as the generation that grew up playing baseball in leagues where every kid on every team got a trophy. This illustration is usually used to underscore their pampered adolescence. However, there might be a benefit to growing up in a world where everyone got a trophy just for playing on a team.

That benefit is an affinity for collaboration.

Growing up, Millennials were rewarded for team effort, even if that effort failed to win a game or land them on all-star teams. The message taught early on was that collaboration lead to rewards.

This is exactly what I have observed in the Millennials I’ve had the pleasure of working with. I should note here that I am turning 40 soon. That puts me squarely in Generation X. Not a far cry from Millennials but a gap nonetheness. In truth, Xer and Millennial profiles have some overlap. Both groups are noted for their comfort with technology. Both are also environmentally conscious as well as more likely to try and strike a balance between work and the rest of life. However, unlike my Gen X peers, I see a collaborative quality in Millennials which is nothing short of game changing should it survive into that generation’s senior executive years (meaning their later 40’s, 50’s and 60’s).

The Medium is the Millennial.
I suspect that the Millennial  preference for collaboration stems from having grown up with collaborative media.

For the Millennials that I have observed (and this is admittedly not a scientific perspective I am offering), collaboration seems to come as easily as switching on a laptop and tapping into Wikipedia. They are comfortable asking friends for help, crowdsourcing input and even talking to direct competitors in search of solutions. My superiors in business growing up, and my peers now, also collaborate, but it takes conscious effort and often has back room office politics attached to it. I’ve also noticed we old(er) folk are also not as intuitively adept at using collaborative technologies for our daily work routines. I might typify it this way (and again, these are very broad generalizations):

  • Boomers grew up with printed documents and interoffice memos. They default to wanting to print their emails to review them and like having ‘hard copies’ in file cabinets.
  • Xers are more comfortable marking up digital files, but they default to storing those files on a local hard drive.
  • Millennials will take their documents on any device and keep the ‘original’ in the Cloud. They default to collaborative systems like Google Docs and Google Wave (and often are frustrated when their older co-workers are not opening embracing these platforms).

Cover Your Ass vs. I’ve Got Your Back.
Notoriously self-motivated, Gen Xers learned early on that corporations (and even parents) wouldn’t necessarily be there for us.  We learned to fend for ourselves after school while Mom and Dad worked and later in the professional world as corporations did their cyclical downsizing. A positive byproduct of this self reliance is entrepreneurialism. A drawback is a ‘Cover Your Ass’ mentality that  undermines collaboration by teaching self reliance above all else. Millennials don’t seem to carry this burden. They don’t seem to worry as much about Plan B. Instead, they cover each other’s backs, helping peers – often without compensation of any kind – purely because they seem to collectively believe that by making others smarter they will gain too.

The question is how much Milennial’s  current life stage figures into their open collaboration. As Millennials move into positions where they are running companies, will they continue to be as openly collaborative? The stakes get higher as they age – building successful businesses, getting promoted, growing their stock portfolios and building out a comfortable lifestyle for their families. As they get older  will competitive instinct kick in and trump collaboration?

To be decidedly Gen X about it; The Flower Children of the 60’s became the Yuppies of the 80’s, exchanging their youthful values and second-hand clothing for big homes, fancy cars, new gadgets and tailored suits. Yesterday’s Gen X ’slackers’ who opted for ‘McJobs’ rather than a corporate gig are now moving to the helm of companies and making their mark in the Fortune 500. One might expect the collaborative Millennials of today’s young workforce will similarly yield to the pressure to compete, succeed and acquire that is a big part of our capitalist society.

But what if they didn’t? What if the social, communal culture of the Internet with its open-source platforms, free content and commitment to the wisdom of sharing informs how they do business when they’re running businesses?

This would be interesting to observe. I am eager to watch Millennials assume the mantel of companies and organizations. I will be curious how their early experiences on the social web mitigate the lessons of capitalism which are far more Machiavellian. Faced with competition vs. collaboration, what will Millennials do?

The tension between ’share’ (as in between individuals) on the one side and ’share’ (as in marketshare) on the other, is destabilizing the foundations of entire industries (think music, publishing, technology). If they are truly Generation Collaboration then this friction between the communal underpinnings of the Internet and the capitalist trappings of business will only increase. That has been and would continue to be something extraordinary to observe.

We live in interesting times.


Failure vs. Flailure

January 25, 2010

I’ve come across several interesting pieces that involve the concept of failure. Failure is praised as being the key to success. It is glamorized and made an essential ingredient in would-be innovative corporate cultures. When you scratch beneath the surface though, failure is often superficially represented. Failing well takes process and effort.

10,000 Hours
Malcolm Gladwell builds a strong case in Outliers that one of the things outstanding individuals in their field have in common is a lot of practice. Specifically, they accrue 10,000 hours early on in life. His point is that standout successes are less about talent than time-in (and the circumstances that allow for that level of commitment). That 10,000 hours is tied directly to failure because in those 10,000 hours there is a lot of failing going on. To make use of failure then, takes a lot of effort. If you work at something hard for 6 hours a day you get just over 2000 hours in in a year. That’s five years of extremely focused work time just to reach that minimum 10,000 hours. Given our fragmented days none of us gets in 6 focused hours. Are we setting enough time aside to accumulate enough failure to succeed?

The neuroscience of ‘gut’ intuition.
Jonah Lehrer’s book How We Decide tackles failure from another angle, decision making. He spends a good deal of time demonstrating how experts in their fields – and these are often life or death fields like firefighting and aviation – have trained and practiced so much that they’re able to sense – often without consciously knowing why – what the right decision is. This gut instinct often saves their lives. It also is directly connected to Gladwell’s 10,000 hours. That intense training time – and the inevitable mistakes made during it – is necessary to develop a useful gut instinct.

The Path of Mastery
George Leonard’s book Mastery tackles failure from yet a third perspective, that of the plateau. Rather than getting something wrong, many people in developing their skills hit periods where they simply don’t get any better. This plateau is familiar to anyone who practices sports, music, arts, etc. Those plateaus are part of the 10,000 hours commitment to an endeavor. Sticking to something even when you’re not getting noticeably better at it takes a degree of resolve. These plateaus are also periods of learning but this knowledge is accrued more subtly and often through repetition. This is akin to riding a bicycle. You may not get faster, or more successful with stunts, but every slippery road you navigate or rock you hop adds to that intuitive ability to ‘feel’ your way through. It may feel like more of the same on the surface, but underneath deeper learning is happening.

For all three authors success is a product of a commitment of energy, focus and time. It can’t be rushed. But it also can’t be squandered.

Taking Scientific Method out of the laboratory
“Work smarter not harder” is a popular cliche for the benefits of efficiency. I might recast it in terms of learning from failure. While it is popular to have a corporate culture that rewards people willing to fail, without a process to fail well, resources, money and energy can be squandered. Compounding this is the reality of the modern world. Businesses thrive on ‘first-mover advantage’ and ’speed to market’. This creates an environment of pressure to rush things forward.  In doing so, sometimes we mistakenly embrace flailure instead of failure.

Flailure (which is my own word) is experimentation without process. It is a shotgun approach to solving problems. Try this, try that, oh, and try that too. Flailure often happens with the same energy and commitment but with no useful results. Any time a project succeeds or fails and no one knows exactly why, that is a flailure and its a tremendous waste.

We were all taught scientific method in high school. Yet for some reason it rarely finds its way outside laboratories. To make the most of those 10,000 hours of practice time we need to use scientific process. Any project – marketing, financial, operational – can be thought of as an experiment. Doing so means determining what the objective is, developing a hypothesis on how do to it, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis, controlling for interference which might obstruct evaluation of the tested factors and then recording the data properly to conclude what the smartest next step forward will be. This doesn’t require a lab coat or PhD, just a little foresight and thought upfront, before resources are spent.

There is an army adage popularized by General Omar Bradley “Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics.” The smartest strategy in the world is only a useful as its execution. If failure is an inevitable part of the strategy for success, shouldn’t we be focused on setting ourselves up to fail usefully? The alternative is crossing our fingers hoping something will work and if it doesn’t having to start at the beginning all over again.

Bringing the scientific process to our vocation begins with paying careful attention to the ‘devil in the details’. The big idea is an adrenaline rush for sure, but its ultimate usefulness – whether that idea succeeds or fails – lies a reasoned approach to the small steps taken toward realizing that idea.


iDoubt: iPad will not have the impact of iPod

January 22, 2010

Ed Note: 01/27/10 I updated the name from iTablet to iPad to match today’s announcement re: the product name.

Now that the news of Apple’s tablet device has percolated up from the likes of Mashable to the Wall Street Journal it’s interesting to see how the story evolves. Mashable and other geekerati sites are rumor mills about features. WSJ’s article is about industry and use.

While initial hype and limited sales may come from the feature-obsessed technophile fringe, marketplace success (other than good PR for Apple just by putting it out there) will lie largely on the uptake by non-geeks. Ultimately this will come down to usefulness. It’s tempting to compare the revolution created by the iPod to what could happen with the iPad (or whatever it will be called). I don’t think it will be the same and here’s why:

Music vs. Magazines & TV
The popularity of music has never waned. Everyone listens to music. Many people, especially young people, have parts of their own identity wrapped up in it. In this way the content was never the problem for consumers, the distribution (and cost) were. MP3 compression solved these problems by making music portable, small (in terms of file size and physical size) and cheap (or free). The iPod became the defacto distribution system for MP3 files. Apple’s brilliance was in seeing the future of music in MP3 before anyone else did. They got the first mover advantage and combined with an elegant user experience iPod dominated while others have been playing catch-up. Today the eBook is solving a similar problem – portability and cost improvement. Fewer people read books than listen to music and so that revolution will be smaller.

Magazines and newspapers (one of the target content types for iPad) have a different problem. Yes, physical magazines and newspapers are more cumbersome than digital versions and would benefit in the way eBooks do from digital delivery but that’s not why newspapers and magazines are failing. If it were, moving them online and making the content free (the same tactic that revolutionized the music business) would’ve begun solving the problem. It hasn’t. Website magazines and newpapers have not stanched the bleeding and the publishers have not been able to restructure their businesses to live in the lower-revenue environment they now finds themselves in. (Neither has music entirely, but its made some progress by managing bands differently.)

Let’s start with news. News travels at Twitter-speed now, undermining the new industry’s role in ‘breaking news.’ What’s they’re left with is depth and commentary, two things they can do more professionally than amateurs with Twitter accounts. Newsweek and others have moved to an editorial/commentary format. The jury is still out on whether its interesting enough for people to keep paying for.

Beyond news there’s gossip, celebratory voyeurism, and niche interests. Perez Hilton is doing gossip and celebrity voyeurism better than People magazine. Niche interests also struggle with specialty websites. Even commentary is a tougher market as bloggers wedge their way onto the shortlist of respectable commentators.

So will making InTouch, People, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other publications available on the iPad make their content more relevant to people than it is today? I’m not so sure. The reality is, increasingly people with limited time are choosing different types of content. They’re less reliant on traditional magazine and newspaper publishers not because of the distribution system, but because there are more content options available. Publishers are destined to get a smaller piece of the pie. By my observing, people can get traditional publications online and free today and they’re still choosing alternatives anyhow. Secondly, to get the same content I can get free on my laptop or iPhone now on a tablet I need to drop $1000 and potentially purchase a subscription. Why would I do that?

Television is the other traditional medium that the Journal points to as being a target for the iPad. The problem again is more likely a matter of content. Watching TV has not gotten harder or more cumbersome. In fact the TV experience has been improved and made more accessible by home theatre, flat screen television, and Hulu-like web-based services etc. Yet viewership declines on programs across the board. That tells me the channel isn’t really the problem, the relevance of the content is. With only 24 hours in a day people choose what interests them, and now they can find anything they want. An increasing percentage of that content is coming from alternative providers like video game creators and pro-am content creators. Hollywood has fewer ‘hits’ in a year because people are finding interesting things elsewhere. Sure, there will always be a market for TV, but I don’t think making people pay to view it on an iPad will increase these programs ratings or share of market.

The last issue is pure practicality. If I’m already watching a downloaded movie on my iPod Touch will a 12″ screen experience on the commuter train be worth the extra $1K and the bulk in my bag (which is already heavy with a laptop)? The tablet is less portable and more expensive and delivers the same material on a larger screen. One more device in my backpack for something I can already get on devices I have? No, thanks. Short of some remarkable new functionality I can’t see how the device becomes indispensible the way my laptop and phone are.

I’m sure there will be endless hype about the iPad. Having impacted music and telephony so significantly in recent years the expectations are high and Apple has something of a Hand-Of-God reputation. But they miss like anyone else and 5 years from now, my guess is, this will be recorded as a ‘miss’ in terms of a revolutionary, game-changing device. It’s destined to be a fringe toy like the Air netbook, the original Apple Cube computer and even Apple TV. All were interesting and innovative products but they just didn’t fit in with most people’s lives.


Tableta Rosa: In a new category success may not require sales.

January 6, 2010

Recently, I had a witty exchange  with my friend Brad on his blog (see comments section). Brad was marveling at Bumptop and a potential tablet device. He mentioned that this sexy new duo would ‘conquer the world’ and ‘change computing as we know it’. This, he said, would all happen within two years.

Not to be a buzzkill but here’s why it won’t and why even if it doesn’t, a new tablet might still be ’successful’ for the company launching it first (probably Apple).

As ‘luck’ would have it, I had a chance to test tablet computing a little. About a month ago I broke the ulna bone in my forearm while practicing Aikido. With my mouse arm effectively out of commission I decided to resort to a stylus setup as I use my other arm for handwriting. I got access to a Wacom tablet - admittedly this is not the same as the highly anticipated tablet of the likes Apple is probably going to release. Still the Wacom device allowed me to experience working with a tablet of sorts day to day. As I did, some things became fairly clear.

Here’s the challenge to tablet computing as I see it:

To be practical, the tablet needs a keyboard-like data entry tool.
As someone who had trouble typing for the passed month, I’ve become acutely aware of just how much typing I do. Speech-recognition software is interesting (in my injured desperation I also tried it out) but it isn’t quite workplace practical yet. From the images (of dubious origin) of the Apple tablet online it seems Steve J and Co. have likely already anticipated the need for a keyboard-like interface and will include it in the device. Smart move but…

To be portable the tablet should not need a separate keyboard.
Speaking from experience; if you want to do anything more than watch videos, listen to music, surf the web, play games and possibly send short text messages (all things you can do on a smaller, cheaper, more portable smart phone), you’ll need a keyboard. However, a big part of the appeal of the tablet concept lies in the sleek simplicity of the device overall (few buttons, knobs, ports and keys) and its inherent portability. Otherwise, why not buy a laptop or desktop machine? Hauling peripherals around  isn’t going to work. So, the keyboard should be on the screen. But…

To have an ergonomically comfortable experience the keyboard will likely have to move off the screen.
Ergonomics is the big unaddressed hurdle in tablets. A tablet on a table or your lap puts the viewing screen perpendicular to the angle of your face 95% of your upright, waking existence. The tablet therefore forces the user to crane their neck in a way humans are not anatomically designed for. Stare down at your shoes for 45minutes. How’s your neck feeling?

Wacom knew this and built a stand onto the tablet I used. It made the device bulky, heavy and not especially portable but it was practical.

Conflicting needs for tablet computing.
So that’s the rub if tablets are to become consumer devices. To be portable, it should be an all-in-one device. To be practical and ergonomic it likely needs a separate keyboard for longer computing sessions. The obvious solution would be to build a folding tablet with two touchscreens. But that’s basically a laptop isn’t it?

Another option would be to use the tablet like a sub-laptop. Keep the working peripherals at your workstation and tote the tablet from place to place. So much for writing long blog posts at Starbucks though.

(It’s worth mentioning here that the consumer marketplace isn’t the only one and tablets may have numerous business uses in warehouses, sales floors, bank branches, etc.)

A bump in the road for BumpTop.
This brings me to BumpTop. Admittedly it is very sexy and feels like we’re inching toward the interfaces from the movie Minority Report. However, 3D space is tricky for people to work with. To date 3D in computing has not been especially successful with the computing masses (think VRML or SecondLife). While 3D is cool in video games, experientially playing Halo is a lot different than writing a business report or compiling research. Interestingly most of BumpTops examples are more entertainment oriented – cropping photos and such. That’s fine if your hardware device is an entertainment toy like an iPod Touch. But when serious use is called for, you’re back at the keyboard dilemma.

What is often forgotten by techy pioneers is just exactly how technologically literate the average computer user really is (and as importantly – feels like committing the time to learn to be). There’s a reason Web 2.0 has has seen a simplification, not complication, of website interfaces. To make sharing- the backbone of the social web – accessible to all, websites need to be navigable by all, and that means K.I.S.S. Similarly videogames, even two-fisted Wii games, have a very limited feature set during game play, nothing near the complexity of needs a device must meet to do common work computing.

For my money, I’m not convinced 3D navigation of computer files offers any benefits aside from sexiness and novelty in its current state. When we’re a little closer to Minority Report, then I might change my opinion but don’t count on that in two years.

So will a tablets be successful? Well, first define what ’successful’ means.
Like Netbooks, the earliest adopters and technophiles will glom onto tablets, snap them up, show them off and talk about them like the Second Coming. Also like Netbooks, their ‘real life’ utility will be limited and their mass adoption modest at best unless the product developers find ways to make the tablet ergonomically friendly and generally more practical while also keeping it portable. For the low four-figure pricetag they’re talking about, if the tablet is just a big iPhone it will be a rich geek’s toy not an indispensable piece of hardware. Maybe that’s a profitable marketplace, I don’t know.

Interestingly a fabric-based, flexible and wireless keyboard might span the portability-practicality gap. If you could fold the keyboard into the device and take it out only when you need it, then that $1000 XL iPod Touch you just bought might make a business write-off on your tax return afterall.

Or, perhaps the tablet will be smaller and more Kindle sized – a size ‘L’ iPod Touch which retails at what current iPhones do now. That’s the consumer gadget marketplace and it can be profitable for sure. Then again, 82% of mobile phone users are still using the simpler, cheaper ‘feature phones’ and haven’t even gotten a smart phone yet. Makes that 2-year world conquest still harder to believe.

Of course the reality could be that like fax machines, the whole tablet concept is an interim advancement whose shelf life will be limited.

Does the tablet need to sell to be ’successful’?
I’ve often thought Apple puts out some new products (the Air laptop, the old Cube, the Newton way back when) less to actually sell them en mass than to keep their street cred as the innovator in hardware. To the degree an Apple tablet is just a big iPhone/iPod Touch, perhaps development wasn’t super expensive and the street-cred earned will help Apple retain the clout it needs to dominate the market in mindshare. After all, even if you can’t afford a $1000 toy, you can get the iPod touch – tiny, old school version – for a few hundred bucks and soak up the sexiness of being an Apple touchscreen dude.

From a marketing perspective that would essentially be product development as brand advertising – something that put Apple on the map with the inclusion of a mouse on home PCs (c1984) and again with the colorful iMac bubble computers (c1990s). In fact, the earliest iPods had this effect and in general the whole iPod/iPhone category has gotten a lot of people rethinking their commitment to the Wintel platform in general for their home computers.

Given the cost, reach and efficacy of a year-long national TV campaign, developing the tablet was probably cheaper and will be more effective as an advertisement for Apple the brand.

Maybe that’s all the success the tablet needs to make it worthwhile.


Shugyo and choices.

December 24, 2009

Shugyo – a term frequently heard in Aikido circles – is generally defined as austerity or intensity in training. However, this does not necessarily mean simply training more or harder. (How then could an 80-year-old martial artist be the embodiment of shugyo as they so often are?)

Another term – musha-shugyo – dates back to Japan’s feudal era. Musha-shugyo is a pilgrimage whereby a serious disciple of the martial arts embarks on a journey across the countryside to visit other schools principally for one of two reasons:

One, to prove the superiority of their own lineage, school and skills or

Two, to improve their own skills by experiencing other schools and approaches.

It is here that a useful interpretation of shugyo might be extracted. The first agenda above I might typify as an articulation of the Western Ego. The second agenda I would typify as of Eastern Ego. I have written about Western Ego vs. Eastern Ego before. As I see it, few of us today are 100% of either. Mostly we are a dynamically shifting blend of the two. As young children, white belts in martial arts or junior executives we see the size of the world before us and eagerly absorb as much knowledge as we can.

As we get older and more experienced we begin to believe we know something. With that knowledge often comes a sense of entitlement and a nagging desire to protect our hard-earned status and knowledge.

I have observed this watching my older daughter boss my younger one around. I have seen this in my dojo where relatively new students with a little training suddenly begin ‘teaching’ in class when working with anyone junior to them. And I have seen this in office parks where VPs push the repercussions of their own failings down the pyramid so that  some junior is coming in on the weekend to make up for lost time. Worse still I have heard these things glorified as ‘paying dues’, ‘good training’ or ‘good experience’. They can be, but not when offered or forced upon the junior as a means of taking advantage of status.

I have argued before that experience is a requisite for expertise. However, earned expertise brings with it temptations. These temptations are well-known to anyone who has become even a little ‘good’ at something. There is the temptation to boast. There is the temptation to compete with people you know you can beat. There is temptation to shut out new ideas and different approaches. I have felt and acted on all of these temptations at points in my life. Try as I might, it is very hard to resist them.

Shugyo is a means to do so. Shugyo, to me, is a mindfulness to make choices that counteract complacency and homeostasis. In this sense it is ongoing training inside the office, the dojo, or anywhere.

In Aikido these are some of the choices to be mindfully considered:

  • Do I clean the toilet in the dojo or wait for someone else to do it?
  • Do I partner with people smaller and easier to throw or find someone bigger and more challenging?
  • Do I attend beginners class to refine my basics or to ‘help’ the junior students (meaning show them what I know)?
  • Do I train day in and day out, consistently, or heavy up right before rank exams?

Among executives these choices might also be considered as shugyo:

  • Do I hire and encourage people who will tell me what I want to hear or instead people who will give me their honest assessment even if it potentially offends me? (And can I choose not to be offended in such case?)
  • Do I do research simply to validate my beliefs and assumptions or instead do I sincerely endeavor to discover something I did not know?
  • Though I ask for them, do I really want out of the box ideas? The kind that challenge my expertise and perhaps are better than my own ideas?
  • Do I empower people working with me to make decisions even if they might make different decisions than I would?
  • When someone is arguing a point, am I listening with an open mind or just waiting my turn to counter their opinion with my own?

I come up against all of these questions again and again in my life. At times I behave the way I would hope I do. At others, I do not. This is the process of shugyo and why it is ongoing.

Of course, the pendulum swings the other way too. Equally dangerous to the tunnel vision of me-centric Western Ego is falling into a rut of romanticized ’selflessness’ that becomes an insular bubble.

The Aikido student who hides behind the phrase ‘I don’t care about rank’ in order to avoid the challenge and stress of testing is akin to the executive who never forms an opinion of her own, never takes a stance, and never sticks his neck out by challenging group-think or offering a contrarian perspective. It is easy to hide behind ‘putting others first’ and in doing so to miss numerous opportunities to develop one’s self.

Shugyo is ultimately about choosing to act on the more challenging option – whatever that option is. It is about looking inwardly at our own tendencies to protect our status quo and place in the scheme of things and then making a decision to go against those impulses. In this way, shugyo is a thousand decisions made every day and it changes as we change. This is intense and exhausting training indeed.

As the year winds down I find myself reflecting on my own tendencies as both an Aikido practitioner and teacher and as a businessman. Though often dismissed, the quintessential ‘New Year’s Resolution’ can be useful when taken as an opportunity to earnestly consider how to improve ones self in the coming year. I am evaluating what shugyo will mean to me in 2010. It is an interesting exercise.

I will wrap this up with one of my favorite maxims. It comes from a translation of the Book Of Five Rings and I find it is appropriate in almost everything I do:

“Too much is the same as not enough.”

In relationships. In diet.  In exercise. In learning. In playing. In resting. In working. In everything. Something I like to dwell on as I look out at the blank slate of 2010 with high hopes for a great new year.


Perfect Storm: Building awareness today

December 16, 2009

No one contests that there have been amazing advancements in media over the passed few decades. However, as with most innovations, problems arise as a consequence of the changes innovation creates.

Looking out at the state of marketing today, I am convinced that Awareness is the Achilles Heel of modern media. The reason why is that there is a confluence of factors – something of a perfect storm – that threatens to swallow up and sink without a trace even the most creative and intriguing communications efforts. Here are the substorms I see coming together:

I. Splintered media undermine Awareness efficiences.
Say what you will about the old world of three TV networks and a modest number of magazines, newspaper and radio stations, but back then it was pretty cost-effecient to build awareness through a media spend. Today people are scattered across an infinitely more complex media space and getting enough bang for a traditional media buck is only getting harder.

II. Pervasive, consumer empowered media undermine discovery.
We’re all 100% in control of our programming intake. That means we can search for topics that interest us and find endless amounts of media to experience. If we can quite literally fill our days with media focused on things we’re already interested in, what time (and fraction of our attention) is left for discovering new interests and passions? Add to this the time constraints we all experience with our demanding lifestyles. Ultimately, there is less time and opportunity to become aware of something we weren’t aware of before.

III. Social media speed is incompatible with business speed.
Business is moving faster than ever. Innovations become parity quickly. Entire industries erupt seemingly overnight. In this sprinter’s marketplace, most companies have taken on the form of competitive runners – they’re lean and streamlined, without the time, people or budget to wait too long for Awareness to build. Yet social media, for all of its efficiencies, works slowly as an Awareness builder on a scale anywhere near what mass media used to deliver. Word of mouth spreads slowly, from person to person to person yet many companies are structured such that they require a critical volume of new customers if they’re to remain in business.

A Perfect Storm.
These are the ingredients of a perfect storm. Traditional media are getting worse at building Awareness efficiently  while consumer empowerment narrows the window of opportunity for discovery. Meanwhile lean businesses need to achieve revenue quickly and do not have the resources to wait out long, slow Awareness builds. Nor do they have the resources to sustain big mass media campaigns.

The following image is my attempt to visualize the problem in terms of the relative wave profiles of four media approaches:

Admittedly, this is not a scientific diagram, but a gestural sketch. The attempt here is to visualize when an investment in a media campaign begins to pay off. The ‘Resource Neutral’ line would indicate roughly an even return on investment. That is, the company gets back in awareness, sales, etc. what it invested in time, money and human capital. This is plotted on a y-axis indicating the passage of time.

Media waves – the splashes and ripples
Mass media both in the early and late stages cost a good deal to get out the door. Early mass media (Let’s say from the Industrial Revolution until the its apex in the 1960’s – advertising’s golden age) would pay this off relatively quickly in high awareness splash with a reasonable lingering ripple effect (the descending curve to the right of the apex of its spike). Back then, there were simply fewer products and less advertising so repeat impressions and subsequent overall retention was easier to achieve.

Late mass media (beginning say in the 1970’s) continue to get more expensive (starting deeper in deficit) and build less awareness (the ‘return’ spike is not as high) for every dollar spent. Similarly the lingering effect is shorter because we have far more products and advertising messages today which lower recall, retention and awareness for any one marketer. The well-known reality is, fewer people remember less advertising for shorter periods of time today. This is compounded by the consumer-empowerment aspect of modern dgitial media which allows people to evade advertising easily.

The viral media campaign is rather less expensive to kick off (a benefit of the low-fidelity Internet and free distribution system), and if it goes viral (which is a challenge on its own) returns a quick burst of significant awareness as this or that video rockets across the referral grapevine. However, the lingering effect is very short as viral is something of a shooting star phenomenon especially with our Internet-empowered collective A.D.D. Viral is also very hard to sustain because frequency in a campaign-like format tends to make something less virally relevant with each execution. Not always, but more often than not.

Wholly different, but not without its challenges, is the long-tail like shape of the social media approach. Here the cost deficit is low (though it can be formidable in terms of human capital when attending to a cocktail of social media outposts in order to get sufficient coverage). However, the time it takes to build Awareness among a sufficient volume of people can be quite long. Like the long tail, the Awareness benefit of social media happens in onesies-twosies not in efficient mass hits.

This is important to note, especially in light of the hype surrounding social media, and here’s why:

One reason is Awareness is just the beginning of the sales funnel. From there more time (and resources) must be added to informing that awareness, persuading to the point of conviction, and stoking purchase. Social media can be very good as the latter three points, but its long Awareness building cycle offsets some of these gains.

The second reason is related to the first. All companies, large and small, have a resource burn rate. Small ventures have limited resources and if they run out before sufficient Awareness (and, by conversion, sales) accrue, they will shut down. Similarly, large established businesses that built themselves up to national or global stature (interestingly, often as a result of success in the mass media past) have greater operating costs and therefore revenue needs and they can’t afford to wait long periods to build sufficient Awareness and sales to satiate the voracious appetite of their massive enterprises.

Weathering the Perfect Storm.
Let’s say I’m planning a business or a new product line within an existing business. I’m inundated daily with numerous case studies and ideas as to why TV is still relevant, social media is the future, direct marketing and promotion yield results, experiential marketing matters most, etc. etc. How do I sort all of this out and determine a media mix that will work for me?

There are two factors to consider and they should be considered early on, before money is poured into product development or opening the businesses. Missing either, in my opinion, is no different than setting out to sea with a light crew, limited supplies and that perfect storm sitting offshore. Sure, you may make it, but I’d bring along a life jacket.

First, know your audience’s media usage profile. There are huge differences between generations, ethnicities, socio-economic levels, education levels etc. in terms of media preferences and consumption. A good portion of the right media mix will be defined by what a target audience prefers. Rather than letting the media-of-the-week define the strategy, let customers.

Second, know the realities of your run rate. If an audience is dictating a largely social media approach bake the accompanying long Awareness cycle into the business plan and make sure to have sufficient resources to wait it out. Think through the rollout strategy and find ways to keep the business running on limited revenue during the early stages of this slow-build process.

If, on the other hand, the target audience is still largely reliant on traditional (and expensive) mass media, planning for this in advance will help as well. Depending on their media usage profile, there may be efficiencies to a limited initial mass media launch that seemlessly feeds into a more localized social media play. There may also be a way of amplifying the impact of those expensive mass media dollars through continuity offline via experiential marketing.

There is no shortage of available media tools. The trick is to understand the relative splash and ripple effect of all of these media such that a cohesive strategy is drawn up in which the costly quick hit Awareness media catalyze the slower building Awareness media and all point to the marketing funnel that ultimately leads to that lifeblood of industry – revenue.

I’ve written before that developing this strategy might best be accomplished by thinking from the bottom-up and inside-out.

By understanding the relative splash and ripple effects of media, a company can limit how many resources it pumps into the more costly channels while balancing the potential risk of resource depletion while waiting out a long cycle social media Awareness build.


Blogus Interruptus

December 7, 2009

No typy typy for 8 weeks or so. So, this blog is on a brief hiatus.