WebPointX

The fact that they both have their user hostile moments could be a reason why mass market consumer adoption may take much longer than it otherwise would for certain in home technologies. Sure, the penetration velocity of Smart Phones is stunning, especially as compared to other historical technologies. But where are we with the living room set top box? Or home automation, which could arguably save real money and offer some environmental benefits? Not very far. Why?

Because for Core Important Items we Use All the Time, the Stuff Really has to Work.

Somehow manufacturers stepped up to this challenge for mobile Phones, but still don’t get it for the home.

Microsoft and Apple are both great companies in their own ways. But they also suck in their own special ways as well. And people likely have at least a general sense of this. Personally, it scares the hell out of me when I think of people using some of their products for any kind of serious mission critical applications. Whether it’s using the iPad as an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) as a pilot for charts and such, or Windows as embedded software in medical devices. It could be that embedded Windows uses a very stable version of the OS. It’s just hard to reconcile that idea with just how bad some of their other items work. (Or don’t.) How either one of them will fare in the race to own the set top box is a total crap shoot to me. Because mass market consumers simply will not let their televisions or homes be messed with unless they have confidence their couch ensconced butts will not be overly put out just to tune in The Biggest Loser. Let’s consider…

Apple Elegance. Unless You’re Multi-Platform

I love my iPhone. And my iPad. And my MacBook Pro. Sure, I’ve got some little nits here and there, but in general I could semi-gush about these products. Except for one thing; perhaps two. I’ve also got a powerful Windows 7 box that for historical reasons has my iTunes running on it. And it’s going to stay that way because my traveling laptop gets beat on so much there’s no way I’m putting everything on it just to wait for the day I kill it for good. Ever run iTunes on the Windows platform? Well… don’t if you can avoid it. It’s just begging to see this…

It’s a scary thing. Even if you back up your stuff and you’re fairly sure you can restore it all after you get past this, there’s a moment of just “oh #@$” It’s not just about potentially losing data. It’s about all the TIME it takes to deal with such things. Couple this with the fact that the restore files are somewhat opaque. That is, your Contacts, for example. Sure, you can back them up to Outlook or Windows Contacts on a pc; but even these aren’t very accessible platforms. That is, let’s say I just want the file with the Contacts so I can save it in an online backup or an old-fahsioned thumb drive. It’s do-able. But you’re basically going to have to either install an App to help with this, or go through Outlook or Windows Contacts and then do an export or similar. This post isn’t about this or any other problem in particular. It’s about being CUMBERSOME. And that for day-to-day living, typical consumers fear these hassles; and rightly so.

What customer who’s been PC based – which is still most of them – who is integrating Apple products into their life is going to trust something like Apple TV to work properly? Who will trust any of their boxes to integrate with other technologies; especially when a game console  like the PS3 or Xbox can already do so much more; albeit at a higher price point?

Exactly.

Microsoft Piggishness: Trying to Keep the Gate

Meanwhile, let’s take a peek at some recent behavior from the people who brought us Windows ME and Vista, but at least seem to have Windows 7 working ok, and see how they’re doing in the home. The only place they exist besides perhaps a PC is the Xbox. And thanks to the genius of the Kinect system, they’re still alive here. And yet… will people adopt this system to do more? To control more of their living room or their home? Will people adopt the Xbox when Microsoft forces you to pay $100 / year to be a Gold Member in order to use a Netflix subscription you already pay for? Sony’s PS3 doesn’t force you to do that. And what about the Microsoft Credits to pay for On Demand shows or TV Series? Why not just use dollars? Someone in marketing probably realized the dollar costs are too high, so let’s figure out some other units. Then we can have bonus packs and giveaway’s and so on. Just one problem. You force people to have to do mental gymnastics every time to figure out what stuff costs. So they’re either going to abandon right there or finish the math and realize the stuff is radically overpriced. Maybe they’d even try the Xfinity service, IF they can get the Authentication Server when it’s in good enough of a mood to work. What Consumers with this kind of experience are going to want to embed such technologies further? Who wants to run more of their home services on Xbox vs. PS3 vs. (or in addition to ) AppleTV, etc., when what they already use is so clunky.

Being Teflon Lets You Get Away With Good Enough

Ever search for an App on the Apple App Store? It’s among the worst search experiences you can have with modern tools. And yet, Apple is King of the App world in terms of dollars spent. It’s amazing. Stunning.

Ever try to pipe web content through a Windows Media Server to an Xbox to get around the fact that there’s not an open browser on the Xbox? Fun, huh?

I do understand… deeply… and sincerely… issues of product roadmaps, product feature planning, market timing and so on. And some things unquestionably require market ecosystem maturity before release. Nevertheless, today’s modern ideas of Agile product development for the web does not necessarily translate easily to mass market consumer electronics and their associated service components. What constitutes “Minimum Viable Product” still requires a wide swath of related products and services to work well together. It all comes back to the time issue. And money of course. But time, which is essentially attention, is the most precious item in short supply now. Products will not break through the early adopter phase with these kinds of problems. But worse, having shown such problems to just about everyone, even when they are ready there’s quite possibly going to be a much longer adoption period. Simply due to lack of trust garnered from very real disappointing experiences.

How can such problems be avoided? It’s simple. Make the stuff you put into the world work. Being a little faster to market than the next guy doesn’t help if the whole marketplace sector is tainted by bad experience from multiple vendors.

 

This is somewhat a rant on an article about an article… In Tech is the New Wall Street, Joseph Walker seemed to feel like coming up with the pithy headline, “Tech is the New Wall Street.” Quoting from “The End of Wall Street As They Knew It,” there’s an arrogant comment by a current finance exec explaining how right now, you’d go to Silicon Valley instead so maybe you could be the next Mark Zuckerberg. Uh huh. That’s all it takes.

It’s disturbing, though perhaps not surprising just how shallow that article is. While it’s possible a migration of folks who otherwise might have gone to Wall St. into tech will have value, it’s conceivable there’s an attitudinal problem that will need to change on the way to such a transition. That is, one of unbridled selfishness vs. desire to create value. Obviously, a talented manager with financial chops can provide value to just about any company. But tech isn’t just about management; it’s about vision and value. Things the pure quant folks don’t seem to fully realize. While there’s nothing wrong with a healthy amount of personal selfishness, my personal belief is that this kind of motivational imperative isn’t what typically leads to good product craft. In fact, in a lot of cases for B2C products, something decidedly non-finance and not even technical is needed. That being, some empathy that could allow a visionary or product manager to sense a pain point worth solving or an unmet desire.

Whether tech has more money and power than Wall St. is questionable; at least for most individuals’ average salaries. Though it should, because it produces value, whereas Wall St. has arguably been failing in that regard. In terms of prestige, well… right now anyway that situation is obvious enough.

The Financial Industry exists – or should – to provide services for both industry and individuals. Financial markets are supposed to allocate capital towards productive use. Governments theoretically provide the throttles to level the playing fields and in some cases, also participate. (E.g. the Reserve as “Lender of Last Resort.”) A lot of what the finance industry focuses on lately – from algorithmic trading to all manner of arbitrage games to securitization of toxic debt – is more self-serving than value creating. Arguably, angel investors and Venture Capitalists focusing on technology are exceptions here. Conversely, tech by definition is pushing back boundaries that have either the explicit goal or accidental side-effict of life enhancing possibilities. Many efforts fail. True enough. And even more will fail at a faster rate given the sprouting of so many accelerator and incubator programs.

It could be great if up and coming whiz kids who otherwise might have headed for financial careers consider technology as an alternative. But only if that’s because what they’ve learned from recent events is that it may be more valuable to try to create value, rather than merely extract it.

 

Joshua Bell is one of the most talented violinists in the world. I think Lorenzo Laroc – in his own way – is as well. This is not really about one vs. the other though. It’s about this now old meme floating around regarding a lesson someone thinks they’re teaching about common folks’ attention to beauty in our world. I’ll place the whole urban legend story at the bottom of this note. But the short of it is Joshua Bell went to play his violin in the typical location of a street musician. Few stopped. The moral or message the researcher or sponsor of this social research seems to be trying to push is that we don’t easily recognize beauty in our midsts.

I’d like to suggest that the researcher has not only proceeded from a false premise, but his conclusions are off as well. The false premise comes from the simple idea of confirmation bias or more simply the idea that sometimes we simply find what we seek. His premise appears to have been people would likely not notice. Yes, you can argue he was just asking the question “Would people notice or not?” But his selection of some basic violin music, however wonderfully played, may not really answer the question as to whether we recognize beauty around us. We hear a lot of classical music around us. Some enjoy it in and of itself on their various music devices. Others hear it as background to commercials, elevators, public ambient music. As human creatures, we become quickly accustomed to things around us. Perhaps only those especially interested in classical music might happen to stop. Behavioral Economist Dan Ariely discusses this a bit in his book Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. (Ariely doesn’t discuss music in particular; more about how we react to things around us in general.)

Now, let’s instead take another example. Lorenzo Laroc. Laroc is also an accomplished violinist. However, Laroc has an intense rock and roll style using an electric violin. It’s new. It’s exciting. It stops a great many right in their tracks. I know this because I’ve seen him play many times at the entrance to the No. 6 train out of Grand Central Station, New York City. Where not a lot of people stop for hardly anything. In fact, in NYC, you can do just about anything at any hour day or night. Laws notwithstanding, there’s few rules people care about except for maybe one… Don’t Get in the Way. In this environment, people stop for Laroc. At least, in the beginning. As much as we may appreciate him, we don’t stop as much over time. Some of us have purchased his CD so we don’t have to stop on our busy way to work. Laroc seems to understand that he’s hitting a lot of the same audience and moves on as well. This is all common sense stuff, right?

Why have I bothered to write this up? Only because it’s just a little pet peeve of mine when I come across false memes. I feel compelled to hold up a mirror to them for the few who might actually listen. For some reason, people like to pass around the story below because maybe they feel it tugs on some heart strings as well as the violin. (Yes, that was really bad. Couldn’t help it.) The reality is nothing is wrong with us at all. We recognize beauty just fine. We’re just not easily distracted when we’re in a clearly defined task. Unless there’s something truly novel going on. If there’s any lesson here at all, maybe that’s it.

Here’s Lorenzo, and then the story…

And now the story, verified by Snopes by the way.

Subject: Joshua Bell

A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule.

A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.

A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.

The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried but the kid stopped to look at the violinist.

Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the top musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written,with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.

Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston and the seats average $100.

This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station

was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty?

Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be: If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

 

Worth Reading?

Yes.

Why?

Underhill may have written this book primarily to offer up insights into the retail marketplace and the mind and behavior of retail shoppers, (as well as promote his own business), but the insights are useful beyond these goals. One basic tenet for just about anyone marketing or selling anything is to “Know Your Customer.” Underhill’s depth of experience in this area is amazing. From simple day-to-day observations to the insights he draws from them, you can get a real feel for what’s going on inside a consumer’s decision making process.

Most of what you’ll learn are the kinds of things that will just have you nodding and thinking, “Well, of course.” Nonetheless, there’s a difference between having a vague implicit feeling about something vs. having an explicit learning you can take and use for strategy and tactical marketing programs.

If the book is lacking at all, it’s in a relatively scant coverage of the online experience and the still new ‘bricks and clicks’ aspects of operating both online and offline. Though the book has been updated for the Internet age, the Internet content is more of a gloss than the kind of in depth coverage a deep usability study of eCommerce or eComm coupled with retail would offer. No one can be overly faulted for this as neither strategies nor tactics in this area are yet clear as best practices. Though as of this writing, (in Winter, 2012), we know in excess of 60% of consumers use mobile devices to do research while in retail, we still don’t know exactly how various tools and techniques influence them. Just how useful are Quick Response, (QR), codes? Or regular bar codes leading to web sites? Etc. Etc. Even so, the overall feel for the consumer one has after going through this content should help light up some ideas as to what might be good things to test both offline and online. And at the intersection of the two.

It’s been said that as online becomes wholly ubiquitous and always on, the distinction between online and offline will blur. This seems already to be true in some areas, (especially for content), but where actual physical goods, services or processes are involved, there will always be some grey areas. So the inflection points where such overlap occurs and the rate of change at which it occurs is still very much in question. With little historical data to provide guidance, going back to ‘knowing the customer’ seems like a good place to start considering how to craft such engagement points.

 

Nancy Brinker may have started the Susan G. Komen foundation for all the right reasons. And may have grown it quite well. But it’s time for her to go. And she should take Karen Handel with her. (Handel supposedly is largely responsible for pushing the move out of Planned Parenthood.) It may have taken 30 years to build this organization, (having started in 1982), and only a week to all but thoroughly tarnish it. And perhaps be the beginning of its complete undoing. Had they had a better story, they might have gotten away with this. They could have gotten in front of the problem saying something like, “We’ve shifted funding from several organizations we found to not be efficiently or effectively using funds,” or something similar. But no. They came up with an obscure rule that allowed them to single out a particular organization for political reasons.

This isn’t a PR crisis per se. It’s a real fundamental problem with their organization, which hasn’t changed. They may have caved and will support the grants to Planned Parenthood now, (or not; this is still unclear), but they’ve revealed their innards for what they are. While perhaps a critically important large charity that does amazing things, there are other places to donate to support the same cause. Whenever we donate $$$ in my family, we look immediately to Guidestar.com to check out the organization’s 1099 and CharityNavigator.org to see percent that’s used for actual programs, etc. Brinker alone supposedly makes about $500K. Though it’s hard to verify the sources that claim this as her salary isn’t currently listed. [Update: Brinker makes $411,254 base salary, and then with additional compensation is $417,712 according their 2010 990 tax filing as listed on their own site. Brinker makes almost twice the amount of the next highest paid person.] Though the former CEO was at about $465K and their top execs also are in the $200K ranges, etc. They pay $18MM in consulting services alone. Their admin expense is 11.8%. Their volunteers obviously make nothing. Now in fairness, plenty of other organizations operate similarly. But, as with all things there’s levels of disgust. For certain, it’s wholly appropriate to have skilled high level executives operating high dollar and high volume organizations. And I don’t personally see any problem with them getting the kind of solid six figure salaries they might command in private Enterprise. But the question you have to ask is, “Would these same people truly be able to command similar salaries in the private sector.” Or, “Just how effective have their programs been?” And lastly, perhaps most importantly, “How effective might they be going forward?” After all, now that we’ve come to learn they’re also against stem cell research, what if it comes to pass that stem cell research is the best, most effective and fastest way to get to a cure?

Alternative organizations  will likely benefit from this. Die hard supporters and extreme right wing folks may continue to support Komen. Everyone else? They’ll find alternatives. It will be interesting to see the impact on participation in their next running races over the year.