So the house goes to, the jewellery goes to, the superannuation fund goes to, your favourite tie goes to, all decisions made by people organising a will. Treasured goods going to people you know will appreciate them, goods the kids have had their eyes on for a while and goods hidden in the sock draw so the taxman can't get to them. This can be an exhausting list to manage and emotionally challenging, around who gets what and who misses out, and in the end, you still don't want to tick off cousin Louey. That exhausting list and that labyrinth of decisions is about to get more complex as a generational change in attitude to possessions and where they are kept brings about a shift in who gets what and how.
The photo albums, record collections, libraries, documentation, home movies, and all the memorabilia of the past is no longer in danger of being lost in a house fire, flood or mouldy cupboards but rather through negligence regarding updates, passwords and the death of the owner. Virtual goods and all the above are now included, are housed on PCs, tablets, phones, online and in the cloud, along with castles won in battle, land bought with online currency, credits held for the next "Texas hold’em tournament” and all manner of sundry booty claimed in online skirmishes. They are all assets of value and sentiment that need to be considered in digital estate planning. Your last login, needn't be the last time your family and friends have access to your treasure trove of online possessions.
The world's curators of all things online, Google, Facebook, Etsy, Twitter, YouTube have started program's aimed at making sure what you collect online, be it valuable, be it trash, it stays with the people you want it to stay with. Many online sites have cropped up with the intent to service this niche, from digitalestateplanning.net, no doubt looking for work,
"through some estimates, nearly a fifty percent of individuals with Facebook accounts died last year, leaving friends and family to navigate how to proceed with those webpages".
Google was one of the first to program for the inevitable with their "Inactive Account Manager", aimed at the ones left behind looking for that last email or YouTube clip. Not wanting to be insensitive the Googlers wait till no pulse has been felt via emails, chats, web history and then notify the people you have chosen to look after your online estate so they can download the appropriate information, photos and music they want as keepsakes. Along with online safes, finding trustees like Google will become part of the next generation's legal liabilities.
The only flaw is making sure your beneficiaries are tech savvy. No need to give this information to a generation back, ie your Mother, for the skills required to carry on the last game, where you mastered the top level in Castles and Dragons, will only reinforce her thinking this online stuff is just silly. And no matter how much financial data you may have locked in encryption, make sure you leave the key to the appropriate person.
Something to think about. I bequeath my blog to.......,n
Friday, May 31, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
Bad language.
Time was, a bar of soap and a potty mouth were a match made in heaven. Profanity was not tolerated in any form and children snickered if Dad let loose an occasional rant after a night at the pub. Changes in attitude to a Victorian predilection for non descriptive language and pay TV, made sure four letter words became the norm and schoolyards changed forever. What was once considered bad language from the likes of Lenny Bruce became part of the lexicon, today being replaced by what many consider bad language changed via technology, changed by structure for a need to say something in limited space and changed by a verbosity never seen before in the annuals of literature.
With so much choice for language to be displayed via the access granted by the Internet, it's understandable the rush to say something can sometimes over power the need to say it properly or correctly, according to your old English teacher. To that end we are seeing polar opposite views, around the structure and future of our language as influenced by the Internet.
Prescriptives are heralding the demise of language, agonising over the negative influence of electronic communication and the dumbing down of Shakespeare and literary traditions. Abbreviations, acronyms, net slang, flaming and assorted ambiguity found in the writings of bloggers, the smart phone children and anyone in a rush, cause consternation equivalent to the breaking up of the Beatles. War and Peace and its ilk, tend to be the benchmark, with anything under a hundred thousand words too short, with not enough content or the capacity to articulate the message and meaning.
Descriptivists counter the above argument alleging the Internet gives scope to a wider expression of language, constantly changing linguistic convention and finally reading the way we talk. They talk about Internet slang and its ability to join cultures, to globalise language and make it accessible to all. They talk about no language being bad, that it should never be shackled by the past and that online language will have greater influence offline than anything Shakespeare wrote.
The etiquette guides and linguistic appropriateness of the past is being shattered by time restrictions, why write a manifesto if I can relay the message via a Tweet, by smart phones, who really wants to long hand anything nowadays on a minute keyboard and finally subculture, where language is being redefined by a new generation. The same reason we don't talk like Shakespeare anymore is the same reason we don't talk like we did before all this technology came along. Adaptability of language shows the flexibility in intelligence and the capacity to change with the change.
So the next time your nephew sends you a 140 character greeting card via his smart phone or the next time you learn a new word made up of numbers and letters, don't get caught up in the punctuation but rather the thought behind the message. For the long hand and the short of it, finds enough room for all. The Internet will never run out of space for those wanting to say a lot in their own sweet time, in their own sweet language and it will provide the forums and platforms for those in a hurry to say it now with a mangled mash up that would have Shakespeare rolling in his grave.
With so much choice for language to be displayed via the access granted by the Internet, it's understandable the rush to say something can sometimes over power the need to say it properly or correctly, according to your old English teacher. To that end we are seeing polar opposite views, around the structure and future of our language as influenced by the Internet.
Prescriptives are heralding the demise of language, agonising over the negative influence of electronic communication and the dumbing down of Shakespeare and literary traditions. Abbreviations, acronyms, net slang, flaming and assorted ambiguity found in the writings of bloggers, the smart phone children and anyone in a rush, cause consternation equivalent to the breaking up of the Beatles. War and Peace and its ilk, tend to be the benchmark, with anything under a hundred thousand words too short, with not enough content or the capacity to articulate the message and meaning.
Descriptivists counter the above argument alleging the Internet gives scope to a wider expression of language, constantly changing linguistic convention and finally reading the way we talk. They talk about Internet slang and its ability to join cultures, to globalise language and make it accessible to all. They talk about no language being bad, that it should never be shackled by the past and that online language will have greater influence offline than anything Shakespeare wrote.
The etiquette guides and linguistic appropriateness of the past is being shattered by time restrictions, why write a manifesto if I can relay the message via a Tweet, by smart phones, who really wants to long hand anything nowadays on a minute keyboard and finally subculture, where language is being redefined by a new generation. The same reason we don't talk like Shakespeare anymore is the same reason we don't talk like we did before all this technology came along. Adaptability of language shows the flexibility in intelligence and the capacity to change with the change.
So the next time your nephew sends you a 140 character greeting card via his smart phone or the next time you learn a new word made up of numbers and letters, don't get caught up in the punctuation but rather the thought behind the message. For the long hand and the short of it, finds enough room for all. The Internet will never run out of space for those wanting to say a lot in their own sweet time, in their own sweet language and it will provide the forums and platforms for those in a hurry to say it now with a mangled mash up that would have Shakespeare rolling in his grave.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Instructions included.
Fasten seat belts, only unleaded petrol to be used, move away from the vehicle, don't stand too close to the edge, this knife may have sharp edges, do not spray in eyes, remove wrapper before eating. Our lives are filled with instructions that often offend our common sense but depending on who or where the instructions come from, we remain entranced and believe every word. Many are outmoded and out dated but the reliance on those instructions are ingrained and unquestioned by many. Experts tell us all the time, how to increase our wealth, how to buy the best shares, where to find happiness and what to do when the batteries run out. Isn't it time we took back what was ours, the decision making process based on common sense and relevant information.
I'll admit common sense has not had the marketing campaign allocated to the latest smart phone and the avalanche of instructions encountered daily provides an overtone we are using less of our brains than intentioned. Working with that thought line, gives way to many of the corporate excuses, like, "we've always done it that way", "let's not fight the tide" and "the boss is always right". Instructions all, to those with no intention of ever standing out, never changing the landscape and not wanting transformation of any kind.
If the experts where really the fountain of all knowledge then my $500.00 invested ten years ago, in the shares espoused by the market share experts in the weekly tabloids would see me with net worth if $3.6 billion today. Instead that $500.00 has long gone the way of many things hinging on the advise of experts. If the experts really were the experts, why aren't they all driving round the latest Aston Martin and living in mansions? Yet we still cling to their every word and follow instructions as if we had no choice.
Today the options for knowledge and information, the ability to change direction and to disrupt and agitate the landscape around you, are endless. We are no longer dependent upon instructions to make good decisions because information was lacking or be adherent to the whims of industry, just because someone says so. If there is one thing to learn from the latest generation, soon to take over the corporate sphere, it's to ask the question Y? Y do it this way? Y not fight the tide? Y is the boss always right?
If technology today is anything to go by, think Apple intelligence and intuitiveness guiding you through a process that used to require manuals, then instructions are no longer required for anything other than operating heavy machinery, how to avoid the tax man and what to do if the batteries really do run out. The rules made by previous generations do not apply if you have access, if you question and if you have courage to change what was. Following instructions is nothing like following your heart and today that is more conceivable than at any time in our history. What are you waiting for, throw those instructions out and try it your way.
P.S. This does not apply to men taking instruction on driving directions from their partners. That remains an immutable law of the universe and should not be tampered with.
I'll admit common sense has not had the marketing campaign allocated to the latest smart phone and the avalanche of instructions encountered daily provides an overtone we are using less of our brains than intentioned. Working with that thought line, gives way to many of the corporate excuses, like, "we've always done it that way", "let's not fight the tide" and "the boss is always right". Instructions all, to those with no intention of ever standing out, never changing the landscape and not wanting transformation of any kind.
If the experts where really the fountain of all knowledge then my $500.00 invested ten years ago, in the shares espoused by the market share experts in the weekly tabloids would see me with net worth if $3.6 billion today. Instead that $500.00 has long gone the way of many things hinging on the advise of experts. If the experts really were the experts, why aren't they all driving round the latest Aston Martin and living in mansions? Yet we still cling to their every word and follow instructions as if we had no choice.
Today the options for knowledge and information, the ability to change direction and to disrupt and agitate the landscape around you, are endless. We are no longer dependent upon instructions to make good decisions because information was lacking or be adherent to the whims of industry, just because someone says so. If there is one thing to learn from the latest generation, soon to take over the corporate sphere, it's to ask the question Y? Y do it this way? Y not fight the tide? Y is the boss always right?
If technology today is anything to go by, think Apple intelligence and intuitiveness guiding you through a process that used to require manuals, then instructions are no longer required for anything other than operating heavy machinery, how to avoid the tax man and what to do if the batteries really do run out. The rules made by previous generations do not apply if you have access, if you question and if you have courage to change what was. Following instructions is nothing like following your heart and today that is more conceivable than at any time in our history. What are you waiting for, throw those instructions out and try it your way.
P.S. This does not apply to men taking instruction on driving directions from their partners. That remains an immutable law of the universe and should not be tampered with.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Duopoly.
The headline read, "Joyce takes aim at copycat Virgin" and now that the ACCC has given Virgin the green light to bring Tiger Air and Skywest into the family, Australia once again sees a duopoly of kind, harking back to the Ansett, TAA days of the two airline policy ruling the skies. Competing head to head was never seen as a reality as Virgin was always considered the low cost cousin and Qantas had the market share to back up its claims as the leader, especially in corporate travel.
The mirror image Virgin is building, now includes all things never envisioned when Richard Branson launched the airline from the aviation disaster that was 911 and the ashes of the Ansett collapse. Lounges, frequent flyer membership, target marketing to corporate Australia, "Virgin has copied everything Qantas has done over the last 10 years, the only thing they haven’t added is a kangaroo to their aircraft tail" added Joyce in a recent talk to travel executives.
So now comes the real test of how much the old guard is prepared to hold onto its lead and how much the new guard is prepared to engage in a new landscape to prove itself a worthy alternative for the corporate dollar. Price sensitivity will continue and the Friday bargains and the spot specials will prolong the retail market that is Mum, Dad and the kids to the Gold Coast. Where the real hostilities will occur is the corporate field of play as both sides vie for the attention of road warriors and procurement managers alike.
Admittedly the bottom line will absorb the attention of the finance department constantly looking for a better deal from the airlines and the travel management companies but more and more should now be aimed squarely at customer service as a differentiator. If all things are equal and the price spiral brings both airlines head to head why choose one over the other? That question leaves both marketing departments in a quandary if they can't articulate the individuality of their airline.
The one area the old two airline policy highlighted was the need to treat the customer so well that thoughts of leaving and flying with the other guy were unheard of. Flyers became advocates for one aviation partner and the airlines worked tirelessly to service their flyers by way of recognition, not just a Woolies frequent flyer card, by way of guaranteeing service delivery on the ground and in the air, not by buying allegiance through pricing tactics and building a culture of affinity and family.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the airlines will bring to the table, how they they will engineer shifts in service because the price argument will eventually commoditise their product to such an extent that the opportunity will arise for a third competitor to shake up the market place, Compass Mark 111 anyone? For the travellers and the corporate travel management companies, I look forward to the first airline contract with service level agreements around on time departures and arrivals, in cabin service superiority, fabulous food, greater seat pitch, peerless ground handling and a return to when the only thing that separated competitors was premium service. It's now up to the airlines to see who has the biggest engines to make such decisions.
The mirror image Virgin is building, now includes all things never envisioned when Richard Branson launched the airline from the aviation disaster that was 911 and the ashes of the Ansett collapse. Lounges, frequent flyer membership, target marketing to corporate Australia, "Virgin has copied everything Qantas has done over the last 10 years, the only thing they haven’t added is a kangaroo to their aircraft tail" added Joyce in a recent talk to travel executives.
So now comes the real test of how much the old guard is prepared to hold onto its lead and how much the new guard is prepared to engage in a new landscape to prove itself a worthy alternative for the corporate dollar. Price sensitivity will continue and the Friday bargains and the spot specials will prolong the retail market that is Mum, Dad and the kids to the Gold Coast. Where the real hostilities will occur is the corporate field of play as both sides vie for the attention of road warriors and procurement managers alike.
Admittedly the bottom line will absorb the attention of the finance department constantly looking for a better deal from the airlines and the travel management companies but more and more should now be aimed squarely at customer service as a differentiator. If all things are equal and the price spiral brings both airlines head to head why choose one over the other? That question leaves both marketing departments in a quandary if they can't articulate the individuality of their airline.
The one area the old two airline policy highlighted was the need to treat the customer so well that thoughts of leaving and flying with the other guy were unheard of. Flyers became advocates for one aviation partner and the airlines worked tirelessly to service their flyers by way of recognition, not just a Woolies frequent flyer card, by way of guaranteeing service delivery on the ground and in the air, not by buying allegiance through pricing tactics and building a culture of affinity and family.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the airlines will bring to the table, how they they will engineer shifts in service because the price argument will eventually commoditise their product to such an extent that the opportunity will arise for a third competitor to shake up the market place, Compass Mark 111 anyone? For the travellers and the corporate travel management companies, I look forward to the first airline contract with service level agreements around on time departures and arrivals, in cabin service superiority, fabulous food, greater seat pitch, peerless ground handling and a return to when the only thing that separated competitors was premium service. It's now up to the airlines to see who has the biggest engines to make such decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
