347-878-3837

Business

Here are articles on Business

Sad for T-Mobile

,

I just visited T-Mobile.com and saw their big ad, emphasizing the amazingness of their 4G network. They haven’t yet realized that people are no longer buying cell phone service. People are now buying a platform and functionality, which happens to run on top of cell phone service. Super-fast streaming does me no good if I can’t super-fast-stream the tools I need/want to keep my life going.

Maybe most people think of their cell phones merely as media, entertainment devices, but I think that’s too simplistic. A vast number of us think of our cell phones as adjuncts to how we do business. I tried the MyTouch 4G from T-Mobile and returned it, because it was hyper-optimized for Facebook, tweeting and texting and watching YouTube. But could it handle a to-do list or a memo pad? Nah. They hadn’t thought to include that. (After 9 hours of downloading Android apps to handle that functionality and not finding a single app that did everything I wanted and was also pleasant to use, I finally gave up.)

Get with the program T-Mobile: the platform is now what matters. The game has changed. Rather than just OEMing Android and the phone hardware, take a good look at how people use their smartphones. Don’t just read the hype. Watch people. Watch teenagers. Watch parents. Watch businesspeople. Then make sure your entire phone experience supports those people’s ability to get their work done.

If you can get the iPhone, do it, and do it as fast as you possibly can. Many people are more loyal to the platform than the carrier, and if you can handle the capacity issues, providing the iPhone with your excellent service will be a big win in the marketplace.

If you elect to stay Android-only, look much closer and more deeply at how people use their phones. Don’t be afraid to hire a team of programmers and have them do as much customization as it takes to produce something both functional and usable. That’s not easy, but it’s doable. You just need to know that’s your goal going in.

Good luck. My contract ended last month, so now I’m free to switch carriers with no penalty. I can buy a Canadian unlocked iPhone and manually trim my existing SIM card to fit, but that will cost me an extra $1,000. Or I can switch to AT&T or Verizon. Or, I’m willing to wait for you to get the iPhone. But not forever…

“Challenge questions” on websites reduce security.

,

I just got finished answering nine security questions for my payroll processing login. You know the kind, “What was the first name of the person you first kissed on the lips (pets don’t count)?”

Supposedly, these questions make us all more secure. I think they make us less secure.

They used to say, “Choose a really hard-to-guess password. Don’t use your mother’s maiden name, or anything that would be easy for someone to guess.” In those days, if a thief wanted to break into your account, they had to figure out two things: 1) what easy-to-remember password you chose—for example, your mother’s maiden name—and 2) what it actually was, for example, Judy Dench.

Now, banks and other “secure” institutions happily take half of the effort out of that equation. By virtue of the challenge question, they already tell a would-be hacker which piece of information they need. All the hacker needs to do is find that piece of information. It shouldn’t be hard, given that 99% of the sites that use these challenge questions ask for the same paltry, easily-obtained pieces of information.

I make up random answers to these “secure” questions, so they’re really pretty much impossible to guess. But since I had to do nine of them for my payroll service, I had to write all nine down. I’ll never remember them otherwise.

And now the universe collapses on itself: The ridiculously convoluted, insecure challenge question system is silly and insecure. To make it secure, I had to choose hard-to-guess answers. But I can’t commit nine to memory, so I had to write them down, making them insecure again.

It shouldn’t surprise me, though. My payroll company’s HTTPS security certificate had the wrong hostname on it, and their system only worked on Internet Explorer. With technical prowess like that, I can imagine that deep down inside, they haven’t the foggiest clue what constitutes security.

Sadly at this point, neither do I.

When neighborhood institutions die

,

I live in a very special city in America. Boston is one of the few cities in the country where chain stores have been relatively slow to take hold. For much of my time living here, most of the stores I have frequented have been locally owned and operated.

Today, I visited my awesome and amazing stationery store, Bob Slates. They’ve been in business for 83 years, and they are closing their doors next month. Are they the cheapest? Absolutely not. “Big box” stores like Staples are cheaper. But Bob Slate has merchandisers always looking for cool new niche products and a product selection you can’t get anywhere else. The staff tends to be stationery geeks, so we can waste tons of time every visit gabbing about how much more we like one fountain pen nib than the other.

Small stores like this can never compete against a Staples on price. Staples can win every time, just because they’re bigger. Maybe there are “economies of scale” to a big store. Maybe. It may be that a big store simply limits their selection to very mainstream products, and they are big enough to have negotiating leverage to force suppliers to provide low prices or be shut out of he market. “Economies of scale” may simply be the reallocation of profit to Staples, thanks to their bargaining power. Sadly, lower prices do result in more sales, because at the moment of purchase, price is often all we consider.

Personally, I think this is a bad thing. I value variety, community, and connection for their own sake. When I visit certain American cities, I’m astonished at the incredible lack of choice and variety people have in their restaurants and stores. People proudly proclaim, “We have our very own insert-name-of-huge-chain-store here!” without realizing that there could be plenty of alternatives, many of which might actually be much nicer to shop in for a variety of reasons.

It also makes our cities far less interesting and relevant. Why should I visit insert-your-city-here when all I’m going to find is three historic sites and the rest of a city that’s a carbon copy of the city I visited last week? To the extent that large companies do reap economies of scale, they do it by eliminating individuality and turning their customer experience into a consistent—but limited—cookie-cutter approach.

Once upon a time, you could find drinks other than the Standard Coke or Pepsi Panoply (cola, lemon lime, orange, lemonade and diet versions of same) if you wanted to get a drink at a restaurant. But Coke and Pepsi have pretty much taken the entire fountain market. What’s been great for the companies has resulted in me as a consumer having far less choice and variety.

I’ll miss Bob Slate’s, as I’ve missed the succession of wonderful, local stores that have been replaced over the years by nationwide brands. Maybe we’ll be lucky and get a new Staples.

Look out Comcast: Apple soon to disrupt cable industry!

, ,

Today at the WWDC, Steve Jobs announced the latest innovation from Apple: the untethered video Pod (vPod). Even as the iPod turned the world of MP3 players on its head, and the iPhone reshaped the cellular landscape, the vPod is poised to be a disruptive force for the entire cable industry.

This revolutionary new idea takes streaming video to a whole new level. The video display device receives video real-time and displays it smoothly, entirely without wires or any kind of physical connection. Though Jobs did not confirm some of the sexier rumors surrounding the device, a knowledgable source from inside Apple suggests that the vPod will require no monthly subscription, and will be able to receive its videos directly, for free, from transmitting stations at key locations in major urban areas.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt enthusiastically showed Google’s commitment to the idea of untethered access, with the introduction of Multi-Access Portraits, a version of Google Maps that operates without the need for an internet connection. “We take not only the streets you’re interested in, but also all surrounding streets and display them on a single large sheet of pressed cellulose pulp,” Schmidt explained. “You can take the M.A.P. with you anywhere, even when internet connectivity is unavailable. By visually inspecting the M.A.P., you can determine the sequence of right and left turns needed to travel between two points without the aid of a trillion-dollar network and multi-million dollar physical infrastructure.” Showing their commitment to providing users with a comprehensive selection of choices, the M.A.P. can be folder up to 16,000 different ways to fit neatly into a rear pant pocket.

When asked for their opinion of the new technology, Microsoft commented, “We are listening to our customers. They say they want a product with fewer bugs that’s easier to use.” Their competing product is projected to be released within a mere sixteen months of Apple’s product. It is a cable-tethered television system, but, as they are quick to point out, with a cable that is .001% narrower than before. “This system is virtually cable-less. It represents a revolutionary new diameter, heralding the coming of a whole new age of technology,” proclaimed Steve Balmer, Microsoft CEO, “People want the same thing as ever, only better.”

A new entrant into the PDA market, a U.K.-based company that processes trees, is entering the PDA market with their own liberating device. “Our PDA requires neither batteries nor an A/C adapter,” they explained. “It has perfect handwriting recognition, infinite resolution, millions of colors, can mix text and graphics trivially, and is easily carried in a pocket.” The product, code-named Moleskin, is due out in Q3 2011.

Do pirated info products increase overall sales?

, ,

In the discussion of my pirated products, Steve Remingon posted some good points to my Facebook page.

…  you are assuming that the all 202 people who have downloaded the audio version of your book will not like what they hear, realise this information will be useful to have around and then go out and buy a paper copy. Alternatively they may like what they hear and then contact you to pay you for a services in another way.

Second, the people who do not subsequently buy an audio or paper copy of your book were never going to spend the money in the first place so you or the publishers in fact have not lost any money.

These are good points. Right now, I only have a couple of products, so increasing awareness by giving one of them away for free won’t lead to many additional sales because there’s not much else for them to buy. One of the favorable reviewers on the pirate board has already suggested they have someone sign up for my next paid program, record it, and post it on the board. I suppose I should be flattered?

While the meme of “lots of awareness will turn into increased sales” is a popular one, I suspect for every Cory Doctorow, there are 100 people like me who haven’t succeeded with that equation. The difference is that almost by definition, Cory’s grassroots popularity also spreads the story of grassroots success, while the absence of grassroots success doesn’t spread the story of “what a crappy strategy.”

I’ve been giving away free content for eleven years. The magical tidal wave of potential customers that is supposed to result never materialized.

“They wouldn’t have bought anyway” may be true. If that’s true, then unless they’re generating follow-on sales, I would rather they not have my material at all. If it’s not valuable enough to them to pay for it, and they don’t want it badly enough to buy, then they shouldn’t have it. That’s how an economy works.

“It’s OK to steal because I wouldn’t have bought the thing I stole” is not a defense that works in any legal, moral, or ethical system I’m aware of. And if a single one of those pirates would have purchased a program and now didn’t, then I’m out money.

Cost to Copy is Only One Piece of Cost

People confuse incremental production cost with total production cost. I attended MIT, Harvard Business School, and Deming’s “Total Quality” college. Then I applied big chunks of that to developing personal productivity products. The cost to me of that production is well into the six figures , not to mention several years of my life. Even the audio production of the MP3s takes time, effort, and cost. The fact that the final step in the chain—copying an audio file—has no cost attached to it doesn’t mean that it was somehow free to produce.

I don’t know. I’m just frustrated. I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing for now, but if I have a wonderfully huge underground following that doesn’t translate into enough sales to pay my mortgage, at some point I’m going to pull the plug and go do something that makes money.

Please don’t steal my products.

, , , ,

A friend just forwarded screen shots from a forum where the audiobook of my book has been posted by thieves. It’s been downloaded 202 times. I wish I could say I’m flattered, but I’m not. I’m just pissed. Two years of my life, tens of thousands of dollars of PR (not to mention lost income from time I spent writing Get-it-Done Guy’s 9 Steps to Work Less and Do More), and 161 Get-it-Done Guy episodes available for free, and people think buying one tiny little book (however magnificent and astonishingly useful) is just too expensive.

WTF??

If I save them 5 mins/day, it pays for itself 100 times over. I may sick Europa and Thomas on them… 🙂

Please remember that it takes incredible amounts of time and effort to produce a quality information product. If you steal and redistribute it, you’re just removing the incentive for me (and others like me) to produce more. I have to make a living, and I’ll find another way to do it if necessary.

If I’m really lucky, I may actually see royalty income in a couple of years. If I’m really, really, really lucky, I may even make enough to pay for the book launch.

“Information wants to be free” is stupid. Quality information is expensive to produce. Crappy information is free to produce. By paying nothing for information, you gradually select only for the crappy information produced by people and organizations who can do it for free. In other words, hacks and shysters.

You wouldn’t walk into a stereo store and take one home without paying. Don’t do it with an audiobook, or an online program or an electronic program. Ease of theft does not translate into the right to steal. And when people steal, ultimately they simply drive the quality producers out of the marketplace. (Or at least they will for me, since if I can’t make a decent living at this, I have no intention of producing more content. If there’s no income that comes from my podcast, it makes no sense for me to continue.)

Facebook’s new UI: Productive? Failure?

,

There’s been much ado about Facebook’s new profile pages. Facebook noticed people like pictures. So they added lots of pictures, hoping of course to hijack our attention completely, while they slide ads into our peripheral vision. But just because it’s more compelling, does that mean the new interface will actually work? I think not.

read more…

Authenticity? Hogwash.

I’ve  been reading a lot about how important it is for companies to be “authentic” with their customers. People love to point out how “authenticity” is now what people need, and social media makes it all that much more important.

I beg to differ.

Authenticity doesn’t matter.

What matters to customers is not authenticity; it’s believing that they’re being treated authentically. There’s a world of difference between the two.

Here’s the authentic story: the companies you do business with are in business to make money, create prestige, and give people power. Very few of them would exist if the founders and employees had other sources of cash, status, and power. Maybe some of those founders and employees truly, genuinely care about the business as a vehicle for meaningful relationships. Here’s how you can tell: next time the company founders, see how many top managers reduce their salaries to keep their employers employed. Next time there’s a problem with a company’s product, let’s see how many companies actively seek out customers to refund their money (versus simply having a silent policy that complainers get refunds). And next time the company does something wrong or unethical or breaks a promise, watch how it eagerly rushes to its blog to discuss its ethical transgressions.

For most businesses, social media is simply another new hurdle to be dealt with. An appropriate brand image is designed and an ongoing conversation is created to reinforce that image. If part of that image is to be “authenticity,” then it helps for the blogger to put in a few embarrassing self-effacing comments or air a few customer complaints. And voila–authenticity achieved.

The Internet Doesn’t Necessarily Lead to Authenticity

There’s a theory that now there’s so much information around that it’s hard to hide misdeeds or give a crafted impression. Huh? Since when. I have direct experience to the contrary.

Several years ago I posted a blog post about a controversial issue in which a particular Fortune 500 company had a large, vested interest. Within an hour of my post, I got a call from the Board of Director’s PR person, informing me that they wanted to spread word of my post. It seems they had a database of 10,000 bloggers with a cumulative following of several tens of millions, who believed that they (the bloggers) were privileged keepers of truth. By leaking information to this network of bloggers, the company could flood the internet with whatever information (or misinformation) they wanted. It would appear to come from thousands of independent sources, all of whom were being played by being fed the pre-packaged information along with lots of flattery about how important they and their blog are to the world.

The company wins: it gets its message out there in ways that seem completely unrelated to the company.

The bloggers win: they are privvy to “inside” information, they increase their followings, and get a huge ego boost.

The consumers: well, they get to pay more money for stuff and keep consuming.

Authenticity is a Choice; Know Why You’re Choosing It

For some people, authenticity is a choice. They strive hard to present an online image that reflects what they’re like in person. I’m like that. As someone whose product is information–the market price for which has been steadily pushed down by the internet–what makes me unique is my personality. So I strive to present myself online with all my offline quirks.

So what do I do when someone tweets me, telling me they like my Get-it-Done Guy persona better than my Twitter or Facebook personae? I hadn’t realized they were different, but yeah, the Get-it-Done Guy is a kinder, gentler version of me, in part because he goes through an editing process first. So even when I’m doing my best, my different online presences bring different parts of my personality to the fore. I’m being authentic, it’s just that each lens into me is getting a different part of the whole.

Rather than worrying about authenticity, realize that internet commerce is about transactions. It’s not about making friends with a company. And as a company, the internet is simply one more playing field where reputation management matters. In my humble opinion, the easiest way to manage your reputation is to do a good job, ethically and morally. Then you don’t have to worry about handling the coverups.

I’ll end with the $100,000 question: is this blog post sincere, or just an attempt by me to give the impression I’m authentically sharing my thoughts?

Negotiating equity with a co-founder.

, , ,

A student entrepreneur wrote and asked how he should negotiate with his company co-founder, a Professor, for equity. The Professor has proposed the the student get almost nothing, and the Professor get the bulk of the equity. Here’s my response to the student.

Negotiating around equity is tricky. There are conventions, but at the end of the day, it really comes down to nothing more than the ability to conversationally create huge perceived value and then use that as a negotiating leverage.

Check out this article I wrote on the topic: https://www.steverrobbins.com/articles/equitydistrib.htm

The book Co-opetition defines your “value-added” in a negotiation as the value-of-the-deal-with-you-in-it minus the value-of-the-deal-without-you. Once you know your value added, it can help with negotiation. Let’s say you and a friend are starting a business and neither of you can be replaced. With both of you present, the business is worth $100. If either of you leaves, the business is worth $0, so you each have a value added of $100, which gives you symmetric bargaining power.

Let’s change the situation a bit. Let’s say that you have special technology without which the startup won’t work. He’s bringing valuable sales skills, but if he were to drop out, you could find someone else who could do sales, but let’s say it would take enough time and money that you’d have to spend $5 replacing him. (Thus, the value of the business without him would be $100-$5, since you spent $5 on a Craigslist ad to replace him.) Your value added is $100 – $0 = $100. His value added is $100 – ($100- $5) = $5.

In this scenario, you have considerably more bargaining power than he does. Note that having the bargaining power doesn’t mean you can or should get that proportion of the total pie, just that you have that relative strength of bargaining power.

I wouldn’t actually try to do specific numeric calculations. But do think about what you bring to the table that would be hard to replace, and use those as your disucssion points. There may be many things you bring to the table that justify a request for equity:

  • If you helped originate the idea.
  • If you plan to take lower wages or work longer hours that would be expected solely from your salary.
  • If you’re the only one who can do the work.
  • If you bring any unique resources or connections to the table.
  • If you put in initial cash to get it off the ground.

My prediction for the 2010s

,

In 1999, I put forth the theory that we all had enough basic computing power and the competitive shift in the 2000s would be towards usability and user interface. I think that was about half right. The other half was the rise of social media, powered in large part by smartphones (whose success may be partially due to usability and user interface).

My prediction for the 2010s is that we’ll shift from “be connected” to “be less connected, but in just the right ways.” I suspect that by about 2013, we’ll begin to see a real backlash against the total information saturation we’re currently experiencing.