Did the Earth Move?

Never one to trivialise events or personalities (yeah right) the US West Coast had great fun with the recent East Coast earthquake. The tweetosphere was awash with barbs aimed at what the LA crowd called over reaction by the citizens of Washington and surrounds to an everyday event in California. Facebook pages and blogs were crammed with pictures of lawn furniture tipped over and captioned with hysterical statements of disaster. Even Letterman, the consummate New Yorker took the West Coast cue and described it as the most terrifying 2 seconds of his life.

As always the event (in California everything is an event) went to show the difference between the coasts in all things people related, business related and media related. California, generally the butt of East Coast jokes pertaining to anything empty and vacuous took advantage of this event but have a way to go, in regards to the number of jokes thrown at them over the years by the good people of the East.

Yet one thing they all agreed on was the extensive use of social media and its communication effectiveness in alerting danger and averting injury in catastrophes and disasters. All jokes aside, the use of Facebook and communication sites like Twitter have shown how people can help themselves and others much more effectively. The American Red Cross survey has found that 74% of people expect response agencies to answer social media calls for help, within an hour. They expect first response units to be listening to social media but that begs the question, how many sites or which sites are the ones they should have open?

“The social web is creating a fundamental shift in disaster response, one that will ask emergency managers, government agencies and aid organisations to mix time-honored expertise with real-time input from the public,” said Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern. "We need to work together to better respond to that shift.”

She also noted that among web users, "social media sites are the fourth most popular source for emergency information, just behind television news, radio and online news sites. More web users say they get their emergency information from social media than from a NOAA weather radio, government website or emergency text message system. One in five social media users also report posting eyewitness accounts of emergency events to their accounts".

As hurricane Irene creates havoc on the East Coast, Facebook is alive with pages denoting all things emergency from the Homeland Security page, Disaster Relief pages, Weather and forecast pages along with pages from the FBI and of course the Red Cross. Twitter has the @Irene site for all things hurricane related along with others including @NYMayorsoffice and @humanesociety. Between those two sites, the emergency response teams have access to people on a direct channel, who can give them updated information on the ground as well as directing emergency units with pin point accuracy. Irene will align both coasts via Social Media and deaths and injuries will be averted like no time before.

Crisis management is not something Mark Zuckerberg had in mind all those years ago while trying to impress the girls at Harvard, but thankfully the flexibility and innovation behind such media sites allow them to bend between Letterman and the Red Cross.

Tomorrow never comes.

I try and say yes a lot. Why, and this is where you insert the word sucker, because it feels good to help and if I can make a difference it gives me relevance whether that be work situations or external social situations. Having said that, saying yes gives me a full diary of future meetings, seminars, strategy sessions, BBQs, morning teas with my Mother and a sundry list of appointments too trivial to mention. Like that long distance appointment that seems such a good idea today and quite doable, come the time I find ways to not attend.

It's been pointed out to me, by people of higher intelligence, that this is just a hidden version of procrastination. The good news, is there is now a name for this and I'm not just being lazy not wanting to do the meetings and appointments. Seems the future is a good place to put things that we want to put off and ultimately not want to do at all. What happens in the future seems to have less bearing on our daily decisions as we under value the future and this thinking is called hyperbolic discounting.

Many studies have been done on hyperbolic discounting with monetary rewards, where a small amount of cash is offered today versus a larger one tomorrow. The obvious choice is to take tomorrow's cash but as the time difference increases, the importance put on the larger cash amount diminishes and people end up taking the today cash. So hyperbolic discounting affects our decision making and anything too far into the future loses relevance to today. This disregard of the future affects decisions needed today but if put off to a time to be determined, no decisions need to be made at all. One of the most obvious examples of this is retirement and the lack of preparation and planning done by most people because it is hard to focus that far ahead in your life and today gets in the way, every day.

It is also the reasoning behind a lot of short term business decisions and happiness today decisions because our hard wired brain knows that we may not be around later, dam those saber tooth tigers. So now I know why I commit to those long term meetings and schedule disasters taking over my valuable business hours, I don't have any intention of actually attending them. I'm feeling bad now but maybe if I push those meetings out even further, the feeling will pass?

Taking all of that into account I should be smart enough to figure out if I made the decision today, it's likely I won't have to attend all of those meetings and appointments in the future. Yet today I'm dealing with the meetings and appointments I made long ago in the past and I don't have time, so I best set up more meetings and appointments for the future.

Yes I'm under valuing the future and it's a fine line between carpe diem and where I'll be in 10 or 20 years. Do I think I'll die tomorrow, of course not but the future remains a fuzzy picture and until I get a clear vision it feels more comfortable to push that meeting I don't want to attend today to to tomorrow or at least the day after. Next month would be even better.

It's Personal.

It's easy for an artist to say that his work is his life. It's easy for the entrepreneur to say that his work is his passion. It's easy for those starting out to be infused with purpose and direction. As a whole the above probably covers about .0001% of the working population but it shouldn't. Work used to be something you went to for a certain period of the day and most likely you built or produced something of tangible interest to a buying public. It no doubt, gave you a sense of satisfaction to see your end product and milestones were met and celebrated accordingly. There was something of you in the product and that made it personal, from your side and the company's side

At a recent conference of 500 people, a few weeks back, it was no surprise to find not one person in the auditorium made anything. It was a corporate travel conference and as such belonged to the service industry segment. A segment that encompasses the majority of people I know, I associate with and who I have a vague acquaintance with. I know I have asked the question before about how many people do you know, who actually make something tangible but I have a feeling in Australia that side of the work force is getting smaller by the day. Thus making it more difficult for people to come together over a finished product and feel a personal sense of achievement.

Over the weekend I checked and had trouble finding anything in my home that was made locally or in Australia. Aside from some bits of furniture I had commissioned, the dearth of local products made me feel confused because I don't know when and how all this happened but I find myself the owner of a bunch of globalised products marketed well.

The above rambling is to point out how much more difficult it is today for work to feel personal when you don't have anything to point at, that is yours. If we aren't making anything then we need to find other ways to make work personal, considering the amount of time people spend at work with the help of technology. It's all very well to have an office to sit in but what are you getting out of it, if there is nothing to show for at the end of the week. Work has to be about personal and it has to love you back in some way other than a wage packet at the end of the week.

From a service industry viewpoint the one thing that makes it personal is the relationships you build to perform your role. These relationships are often the reason you come to work no matter the hurdles, weather, sickness or bad public transport. These relationships give you a sense of purpose because you have people depending on you to provide, not necessarily a product, but a service where you give of yourself and together you build something substantial, trust and credibility.

So the next time you find reasons to not go to work, think about the people who couldn't get through their day without you and celebrate what you have built. After all, it's personal.

What If?

The recent buy of Motorola by Google caught many in the tech world by surprise and certainly shows a shift in mindset by the Internet giant so long dependent on advertising. It's a jump from writing algorithms to making mobile phones but with their Android software it's a synergy that Google sees as profitable. I'm sure the folks at Nokia, RIM and other phone manufacturers are busy looking at their 5 years plans, now that they have another "Apple" style competitor, even though they use the Android software. The fact that Google bought the company outright with a great big cheque just shows the reserves that some of the big internet players have to change the landscape.

So is Nokia quietly chatting with Facebook, who have talked about a phone scenario recently. Will Samsung discuss options with LinkedIn? What about LG and Microsoft? The "what ifs" and synergistic connections on a global scale are endless. Seems the software gang are thinking there is still life in the manufacturing world as long as they have the total distribution rights and that is accomplished by buying the manufacturers.

No doubt Google saw the success that Apple is having with its own closed circle of providing the software to its own distribution tool, the iPhone. The distribution model has been around for a long time in other industries from car manufacturers owning rental car companies to airlines owning holiday wholesale companies. Yet many of those examples have ended up going back to core product after many years of finding out the small margins in manufacturing and the logistical issues were too much and just because you have a lot of spare cash does not mean you need to spend it.

The plight of the US debt and the government's cash problems have highlighted some interesting facts, with one being, Apple now has more money in the bank than the US Government. Aside from an astounding fact and that companies are becoming the new countries, everyone is asking Apple what they intend to do with all that cash.

They already own a phone company, a computer company, a music company and a software company and all of those seem the quickest way to print money nowadays. So what's missing? I remember reading that Steve Jobs wanted to turn the whole world into a WiFi free zone so that everyone could communicate from anywhere they carry a phone or tablet. Not too far fetched when you think about the next step that Apple could take in their globalisation and turning everything into "iWorld".

What if Apple has enough money to buy a global telecommunications network? How much do those satellites cost? Surely the US Government could use some cash as they no doubt have satellites to sell. What about Europe? What if Apple could solve the debt crisis of many EU countries by buying their communication networks? What if Apple then closed the system and all the world's iPhones ran on one network?

Would you buy an iPhone if the calls were free? How many phones and Apps could Apple sell if that were the case? It seems far fetched but 10 years ago none of what we are talking about seemed remotely possible.

So if everyone had access to free calls on iPhones only, the $12.5 Billion Google just spent on Motorola could be just the first stage of acquisitions for them, that may need to include a global network.

What if?

Shopaholics.

I used to be easily pleased at the mall when looking for products to buy but with so much choice, the things that stand out because of exemplary service or product design are the only ones that really catch my eye. Whereas we used to buy local because we were and we used to buy local because that's what the jingle espoused, we no longer have those restraints or expectations and as such we have become dissatisfied with our life at the mall. This particular scenario will be played out globally as real versus virtual shopping has one fulcrum that will sway either way, service people.

Seems Australian shoppers are no longer as relaxed as they used to be, in fact a recent survey by American Express over 10 countries found us to be only behind the French when it comes to complaining about service. Even the English and the Americans are happier shoppers, which should send shivers up our spines and shake our belief in the relaxed "she'll be right" attitude we have on most things, including picking up the groceries.

Seems a lot of us (39%) believe that we are not getting the service we deserve when engaging with real shops and real people. Customer Service Institute of Australia executive director Brett Whitford said the results showed local firms needed to focus on improving customer service. This is especially true if they intend to stem the tide of online competition or at least find a niche in the struggle to keep face to face shoppers happy.

The investments that companies need to concentrate on today involves their staff and how they interact with their customers. The survey
found the health of many businesses depended on training their frontline staff to go that extra mile because that is what customers expected for them to spend those hard earned dollars. Australian shoppers indicated, by a whopping 73%, that they would splurge on products if they were given first class service while 25% thought their business was taken for granted. There is a lot of room for improvement between those numbers and any slight increase in customer satisfaction ends up on the bottom line or even more important, survival.

This is an edge that real life can use over virtual life. Many websites think that putting an email address or phone number directing customers via push buttons on their site for communication or feedback is all that is required, when people are looking for so much more. There is a reason there are only a few sites like Zappos around, they have found out what it takes to provide service on the web and its all about people and how they engage and interact.

Real life has an opportunity to take the lead from an area of competition that most think is insurmountable. Convenience and cost will always grab a certain section of the buying public but service and recognition through the right employees will gain you lifetime customers willing to become advocates for what was once taken for granted.

When was the last time you really went that extra mile with first class service? It could put you so far ahead of your online competitor that you may not even have to contemplate building that App for your business.

Harbour Views.

I take a ferry and then a train to my place of employment most days. It's a pleasant journey but one that hasn't been touched by technology, considering the ferries have been plying their trade on Sydney Harbour since the late 1800s and the trains have been running since the 1855 line was opened to Parramatta. All the while uninterrupted while the rest of the world raced head long into a technology future no one could have imagined in the 1800s. So I find the juxtaposition of the really old carrying around the absolute latest in technology very interesting, like a giant sausage with ingredients of bytes, electrons and applications.

The morning commute used to be for friends and colleagues to meet before arriving at work, marveling at the majesty of one of the world's great harbours and if long enough on a train, maybe to read a newspaper. Today not much of that happens as individual isolation has taken over with the help of ear buds and tablets. I travel with pretty much the same 800 or so people on the ferry everyday, yet aside from recognising some faces and maybe a curt nod of recognition to some, no engagement or conversations take place.

Having said that, it's not unusual to see people conversing via their screen on Facebook, email or text. We've just stopped talking to each other face to face on the morning commute. One of the reasons is that work has encroached on all of our time, including what used to be just a journey to work and back. Expectations are that you have cleared those pesky emails by the time you hit your first morning meeting and maybe even a report written and compiled while the ferry passes through Sydney Heads. The ability to accomplish these tasks has not been lost on employers and expectations have risen with the advancement of the technology enablers.

What used to be considered dead time or unusable has now turned into usable time. For me it is often more conducive for thinking and work related matters because like everyone else the work environment consists of interruptions and meetings called by someone else. How fortunate we are to be able to read the latest news, listen to the latest podcast and improve our work smarts all the while carrying smaller and smaller technology to make this happen.

The way home often takes on a different slant with reading material leaning towards trashy gossip pages, maybe a sports story or even some YouTube fun, all the while listening and being entertained by your favourite music. The way home may even lead to some personal interaction but not too much as the technology has long since won the battle for our attention.

While I'm happy for the technology race to continue to improve my life I don't want it to get to "Star Trek" speed where I just beam myself to work. The ferry will do just nicely, no matter it creaks and rolls on its way across the harbour. After all, on the way is where we do our best work.

Hostage Takers.

In 1979 a small Texas airline called Texas International decided to change the aviation landscape by trying to turn the US penchant for in store coupons and coffee cards into a way to encourage their customers to keep flying with them. Ahead of their time but behind the times in computer resources to make it happen the first airline loyalty program didn't take off but that didn't discourage American Airlines from taking the idea and expanding on it, to what we see today, customers shackled, emotionally and commercially.

Okay a bit dramatic but a ring of truth. Flying has not been the same since that auspicious launch in 1979 and every airline worth its peanuts has tried to influence the buying decision of flyers via their loyalty programs. Everyone knows the cost of everything an airline does, goes into tickets and ancillary products like frequent flyer programs, so to brand it as a loyalty program when you are just getting back what you put in, can seem a reach. Loyalty is when you make a decision to buy, based on your experiences of a product that exceeds your expectations and you continue to go back to the well.

A company like Apple competes in a very tight technology market along with global giants like Samsung, Dell and Nokia, yet they haven't come out with a loyalty card or rewards program. They create loyalty by innovation, design, products that work and complement each and ipeople in Apple stores. This is especially true when you consider how many people buy an Apple for their own use while work supplies them with another, "people use a Dell but they are Apple".

The same thinking is not consistent across industries but I wonder if airlines supplied the best product, always flew on time, treated their customers as lifetime clients and gave away the occasional bag of peanuts would they still need a loyalty program? A difficult question and one the airlines can't answer as frequent flyer programs are intrinsically woven into the seat fabric and will forever be a consideration in the purchasing decision. The best case scenario for flyers today is choosing an airline that best meets their expectations and having the miles as an added bonus.

People say it's a hostage situation caused by the airlines but isn't there a certain amount of avarice and greed on behalf of the flyers? Don't you know of people rorting the system to accumulate points, aren't we all hoarders in the end and who can deny the prize at the end of the points rainbow doesn't give you satisfaction over mere mortals stuck n the ground? The last point segues into the status and recognition debate that if people weren't so hung up on their perceived status given by the airlines then they wouldn't have nearly as much influence on that buying decision?

So it ends up a two way push pull scenario that may have started out as a good marketing idea but ended up in a frustratingly complex argument over who owns what ( miles accumulated ) and why can't I just fly a product that engenders loyalty via the experience?

Nothing for Nothing.

There is nothing better than not paying for something and being happy with what you didn't pay anything for. I'm not talking about the esoterics, the sunrise you'll never forget from your first all night party or the so called things in life that are free, I'm sure there are less of those now anyway but things that have a worth to you today.

We used to pay for premium information from experts, leaders in their field and opinion makers at meetings, conferences and the like because we had no other recourse to get the latest trends, futurisms and initiatives. We used to pay for business and entertainment products along with access to applications to make our days easier. Today that has all been turned around and there are no shortages of places to get all of the above and free to boot. The search engines combined with a globalisation of knowledge and opinions has lessened the need for that premium slice we used to pay for along with the burgeoning market providing free applications for everything.

We have so much, that is now free but what if we want more? Surely the forces of the crowd will demand that everything be free and we go on living in an online utopia. You could do it. You could live online, search online, play online, view and listen online for free as long as you live. Yet human nature wants more and that's where "freemium" comes into the equation.

We all use the web, applications and online tools that are free but a lot of people also pay to use more efficient and better versions of the "freebies". The "freemium" business model so succinctly described by Chris Anderson in The Long Tail is turning out to be the model that makes money from the few who are willing to pay a premium for the total package. From Google Apps to Spotify, Skype, the NY Times to my favourite cloud app Dropbox, we are seeing innovation provided free until you get hooked on the product and want to use it to its full capacity.

It's a customer segmentation pricing strategy that works effectively as the "freemium" model requires businesses to rethink their customer equation on acquiring first and then turning that acquisition into revenue. The benefits are quickly demonstrated before they are expected to pay for it and that's a powerful incentive. Apple has seen their coffers expand via mobile game applications that are free and then enticing the hard gamers to pay for the next levels. So much so that last month the top 100 free games on iTunes generated twice as much money than those that charged to download.

"Freemium" has long since raced past the old "free trial period" and the ad-supported free space examples such as Gmail. It has entrenched itself into the expectations of the online community that there are now certain things that will always be free and others that can command a "freemium" price tag. The model requires you to have customer insight because you need to uncover the difference between those casual users who will never pay anymore and the one who truly value your service.

If you can find that customer insight, and if you can offer at least a basic version of your service at minimal cost to your firm, then you may be able to follow the freemium model, and make much more money by letting your customers in for free.

What's your hook?