Archive for the ‘internet’ Category

To the Fairest

September 3rd, 2010

When Eris, the goddess of strife in Greek mythology, was not invited to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, she took revenge by inscribing the words “to the Fairest” on a golden apple and rolling it into the proceedings, which lead to an argument between the gods, resulting in the Troyan War — hence the name apple of discord (read the long version here).

So you might have guessed it, this post is about Ping, or rather about the posts about Ping. The usual suspects have been writing about this already (as they should), but what struck me quite surprisingly was that all of them were disappointed by the social networking capabilities of the new iTunes feature. After all, that’s what it is. The misunderstanding I’m sensing here is that people were expecting a Facebook or Twitter Killer App. Guess what, it’s not. It’s not even intended to be. It’s a well-thought idea to sell more stuff by having people promote what they like. It’s the opportunity of having a conversation or building a tribe right in the marketplace — you can’t go any closer. VentureBeat says this feature might well extend to books, movies and apps too. I wonder why Apple didn’t make it so straight away, because the adoption curve doesn’t change.

But what if it doesn’t work? So what? To all who forgot, Apple doesn’t depend on Ping’s success. FastCompany compared this to Google Buzz, which started out with a similar user base (160 million) and still wasn’t a huge success.

Sidebar: FastCompany also writes
“But, once again, Apple is living just a little bit in the future. If it didn’t deliver a signature element of risk in its new product launches, well, it’d be Sony.”
That’s what it looks like. Yet Sony, at its core, is still a lot like Apple. When founded about 65 years ago, they only succeeded because of their persistent belief in transistor technology (and engineering genius, of course), just the way Apple do with their products.

The people who really depend on it (some more than others) are the musicians. Independent artists on CD Baby are worried if Apple will give them access to their album pages so they can use this new opportunity. I’m curious to see how much time Apple will give to its new idea before its declared success or failure.

Different View on Gmail

September 1st, 2010

Personally, I like using Gmail, and most of the people I know do so too (otherwise they’d switch their service). This article won’t change my mind right now, still it’s an interesting view. The good news is, Google can improve on it.

Learning from a HOPA

August 12th, 2010

You might have seen the latest hoax by TheChive that’s spreading over the Web. TechCrunch’s put up an interview with its creators. Most important quote: “We didn’t need mainstream media to make this happen. We just needed the people.” There you go.

(Sidebar: TheChive’s successfully pulled off two more hoaxes in the past that got picked up by the media, and after the second one journalists said “You’re not gonna fool us again.” They were wrong. Huffington Post, Leno, you name it. When you’re hot, you’re hot.)

Cover or Art

August 12th, 2010

This is the headline of a regional newspaper’s article today. Its diplomatic conclusion is that a cover band makes art in its own right by picking a song and making it theirs. And it might not surprise you that I don’t agree.

Here’s why: By design, a cover band exists to play songs that have been made and performed by others. It’s quite arguable if the songs themselves are to be considered art, but that’s a different (yet related) topic. The purpose of a cover band is to resemble the feeling of a song when they play it, only that it’s on stage and not at home, so you can have a good time with your friends. Musicians who play in cover bands do so because they love playing their instrument (sometimes to perfection), not because they feel the urge to create art. Because if they did, they’d spend their time creating and not mimicking.

That said, there is a huge difference between a Mariachi band covering Heavy Metal songs and a Rock/Pop ensemble (2 guitars, bass, drums, keys, brass trio, vocalists) covering songs arranged for this kind of ensemble. It’s remarkable versus predictable.

Funny enough, the article quoted the singer of the band that “it is one side of the coin to make it in today’s music market, but even harder to be accepted by endorsers and sponsors”. That’s quite obvious when you try to be everything to everyone. The marketer’s dilemma. And because there are marketers on the other side of the table too, it’s no safe bet for anyone. It makes sense for an instrument manufacturer to endorse an extreme performer because that gets them noticed, but maybe by fewer people. A middle of the road performer may find a larger audience, but they won’t give a lot about music gear. An artist doesn’t worry about this, because he has embraced that art does not depend on endorsements or sponsorships and she would never sacrifice this art for a little more comfort (only for a lot, that’s just how the lizard brain works).

A little aside: There’s an internet radio called NewcomerRadio, that says its mission is to promote newcomer bands to broadcast radio and other internet stream radio stations. Yet their stream sounds like any other radio station, because their rotation is the same. And so they pick their newcomers to fit into this rotation, and -presto!- nothing happens, because nothing stands out. Different artists that sound all the same. Wasted.

Doing the opposite would have a totally different effect. There’s thousands of bands out there, and I’d rather go to the edges instead of what used to be the centre. Brazilian Polka bands and Indian Viking Folk singers are just way cooler than yet another High School Punk band. It’s all there — if you dare. Yes, chances are you will lose your old listeners. The ones you will find instead will not only listen but also do the promotion themselves. Now that’d be helping your mission, wouldn’t it?

(Gone) Before Its Time

August 5th, 2010

As bold the eulogies were when it was announced, they’re even bolder now that Google Wave‘s end as an independent service has been proclaimed. Undoubtedly it’s tool that provided the sought-after curve-jumping, paradigm-shifting innovation which by itself was hard enough for people to wrap their heads around. But I believe what really prevented the breakthrough was a lack of trust. Google still has a major trust problem, and as long as people are suspicious about what’s happening with all their data, a product that deals with such better be trustworthy.

And it’s also worth a look at the marketing startegy that went with it: Google was quite eager to announce it when Wave was still in alpha. And it was a marvel. Then they released the invitation-based beta which still had a lot of glitches and hickups and one year later it was open for public. Which was too late. It’s always easy to be clever in hindsight, but the important thing to point out here is that there was no need whatsoever for Google to tell the public about Wave, because until today there is no competitor. Why hurry? They could easily have waited one more year and make it a finished product.

One more thing. As far as I remember, they didn’t promote it heavily once it was up and running, which wouldn’t have been the worst of ideas. I’m not talking TV here, I’m about press releases for the geeks that want to use this service as  soon as they have someone to do it with. I didn’t use my account because there was no one I was having a project with that would have offered itself to be run on Wave. But if I had, it’d be comforting my sleep a lot had Google told me: “We know there’ve been some issues concerning our security in the last months, but we promise you that your Wave data is 100% safe with us. We use advanced rocket science encryption, so even we don’t know what you’ve been putting in there.” Now you’ve got something to work through the adoption curve.

The majority of users, it seems, is still in the desktop age. This is the domain of Microsoft. Make a document, save it on your hard drive or local network. One application for each purpose. Sifting through 86 emails to find out who said what and when. It’s the classic switching dilemma: As long as their pain is not big enough to see the comfort of the solution, people don’t switch. Because it requires them to take a step back and consider the whole issue. The question is not: “How do I make this work with what I got so far?” but “Looking at both solutions as a whole, which serves my needs best?” That’s the marketing challenge not only Google faces. Only more often than others.

Industry indeed

July 29th, 2010

A friend responded to my post yesterday that he couldn’t imagine a star being made without an industry. I agree. Today, they need each other more than ever.

In the pre-industrial age, fame used to be directly related to merit. Think Michelangelo. Sometimes fame would follow merit with years of delay. Think Mozart, Rembrandt, van Gogh, Robert Johnson. But some people actually used fame to promote. Benjamin Franklin, in his role as ambassador to France, and his fellow Founding Fathers believed that the fact of Franklin’s image appearing on fashion items, fans and perfume bottles would help to attract interest in and spread the ideas of the new born nation. The first man who combined people’s fame with industrial goods was Josiah Wedgwood, who came up with the idea of making collectible portrait medaillons of “Illustrious Moderns” like Voltaire and Rousseau. (Interesting read: Star Crazy, section 2)

What all the people have in common is that they were only known to a comparably small circle of people. Entertainment was only for those who could afford it.

Then came the invention of free time. This might sound a little crazy, but before the industrialization, there was no free time as such. And it made perfect sense, because people needed time to spend the money they earned in the factory. Which allowed more industries to spawn. And so forth.

Next step: cinema. And this changed everything. Within a few years, film producers figured that people were not only into films, but also into actors starring the movies. Hence a perfect cycle could be set up: People go to the movies, papers print news about the stars, people notice and tell their friends, more people go to the movies. Easy as pie. All you needed to do was printed your actor’s name on the poster promoting the next movie. And the second best thing was that everybody could afford it.

The best thing about all this was that it educated people into a reverse logic: Publicity equals merit. You don’t get in the paper for nothing, do you? And so whatever you wanted to promote, all you needed to do was to make it appear it on billboards, in newspapers and magazines, radio and finally TV. And entire industries could sell their products riding on the back of the celebrities.

Now, what happens if you want to sell more products? You need more stars. This is the race we’re still running today. There are ever more celebrities because there is ever more stuff to be sold, and the diversion of interests and markets produced space that needed to be filled with more faces to put ads next to.

What’s critical now is to estimate whether this will go on, because people are so much int the reactive mode of consuming that they won’t take the time to ask themselves what they care about, what matters to them, and start following their passion. I don’t believe that people are passionate about consuming. They just keep telling themselves they don’t know what to do other than that. What gives me hope that this can change is the fact that it took almost a century to educate people to behave that way, so obviously it’s not part of our nature. The cavemen didn’t have to keep up with the Joneses, neither did a pre-industrial person.

What I wanted to point out 2 days ago was that you don’t need an industry to make a living by making your art. If you want fame as in “as seen on TV”, you still need the industry, as of today. And you need to sacrifice your art, round off the edges in favour of being more average. Not totally average, but to a certain degree. The reason why Cannibal Corpse were not featured as being outrageous on German TV, but Berlin rapper Sido was, is simply because he’s more average in terms of language: my grandmother can understand his swearing, but not Chris Barnes’s or George Fisher’s. That’s media business. An industry indeed.

Will & Value

July 28th, 2010

Fast Company reports that Internet users obviously are not willing to pay for content. In this case, it’s a newspaper, that, very much like Rupert Murdoch’s London Times, has moved it’s content behind a paywall, and what happened? After 3 months, they only had 35 subscribers. For an acquisition of 650 million dollars, this is obviously a failed investment at the moment.

But it’s not a surprise. It’s not that users are not willing to pay, they only pay when they see a point (or better, a personal advantage) in doing so. In this context, relying on people paying for stuff they can have for free on another channel is no business model.

New found Power

July 26th, 2010

One of my favourite news releases last week came from the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in which she complained that it’d be ever harder to get political messages and issues to people because especially the younger generation would not get their overall news coverage from the traditional media, but instead selectively from their favourite channels on the internet. Her final conclusion was that things used to be easier years back, because when people met in the workplace, they’d all talk about the same topics (note: this was back in the days when there were only three channels on TV, and people got their paper every morning).

This is all true, except she elegantly left out the part that’s worst for her and all the others that made a profit from the way things used to be. Not only do the established channels keep on losing their influence, but it is ever easier for people to practise real democracy. Because if you really care about something, you just have to connect to people who do as well. Then you can start an online petition, and all it takes is 50,000 subscribers within 3 weeks. And if there’s one thing we can learn from a pretzel, it’s quite easy to gather 50,000 people — if they care. Because if they don’t, they won’t go through all hassle with registering on the parliament’s web site just to click a button. That’s the only obstacle. Other than that, there’s nothing that could stop anyone from using their democratic power.

And that’s scary for polticians, because not only will their flaws and misbehaviour be spread faster than ever, but also people can now make them go away, or the rules they’re trying to establish. Who loses? Everyone who profited from the old system: Lobbies, who still spend millions to buy votes help MPs reconsider their opinion. Politicians who are now exposed more than ever and thus have to deal with the consequences. Some years ago these “minor issues” would go by the board in favour of “important news” in the general news coverage. Yet the traditional media are losing power and influence in both directions. And if they can’t control the public, they don’t help to maintain civil order, and then they’re losing value to the ones in power, who in return won’t see a lot of use in supporting a system that doesn’t support them. This top-down system was built in the fact that there was no other choice, no politician or similar folk needed to build an asset of permission to talk to the people directly — because this taken care of by the media, mostly public broadcast. The situation has flipped over (to be honest, it did so slow enough that anyone could have easily figured where this was going), and no matter how much anyone who seemed to have a voice that mattered now doesn’t.

There used to be a small number of players on the political field — now everyone can have their license to play too. This is a great opportunity which can change our lives dramatically, only if we make use of it.

The manual that didn’t help

July 25th, 2010

In his talk during last year’s Business of Software conference, Don Norman mentioned the practical use of mock-ups when you’re designing a user interface.

And unsurprisingly, this also works the other way round when you’re explaining a UI.

The folks at Universal Publishing Production Music obviously didn’t know or think so. They sent an email with 17 paragraphs explaining the menus and structure of their soon-to-be-launched new website, purely verbal. I understand that you might leave away the images when you ship the manual with the software (as the Cupertino guys do), because it’s there, on screen.

But when it’s neither on screen nor in the manual, none of both is of any use, is it?

For beta or worse

July 24th, 2010

The other day, when I posted my insight on that one social network, one comment I got was “Tell that to the customer”.

Here’s what I responded:
“We’re all customers, aren’t we? And what do we appreciate more, trying to find an existing solution that’s already out there (a.k.a. “Check the FAQs” and “search for a tutorial”) or having someone take the time to (find out and) tell us what to do? Of course every customer prefers to have problems solved immediately, but that’s a different aspect of the same issue. Engineers and technicians used to be not very good at interaction with real people (yep, that’s a clichĂ©), that’s why they preferred to keep track of every issue and include it in the manual or FAQ — or, ideally, they would solve the issue in a self-explaining way (not likely, but hey..). And -surprise!- people have not embraced studying manuals cover to cover, because it’s boring, techy stuff! Same problem as before.

Another point: An angry customer is just as good as a happy one, because he gives you two opportunities: You can solve his problem AND make him happy. That’s a reward for everyone involved, isn’t it? :)”

The reply to which was: ” ‘Of course every customer prefers to have problems solved immediately’ – You said it. And so everything else becomes void :-P Welcome to my world!”

This reminded me of one of my favourite drawings. And it’s quite interesting to consider it in the context of software.

20 years ago, handling computers was not very straightforward. You had to learn a set of commands to tell the machine what to do, which in itself was awkward enough to keep the majority of people away from it. Unless, of course, your computer’s brand contained a fruit. There was little convenience in using these gray boxes, and the once who used them were in majority expert enough to find workarounds in case something caused an error, like “Oh, this field requires only digits to be entered, and I entered letters, so it didn’t store them.”.

The first major shift happened when software became more accessible by graphical user interfaces (GUI). The upside for the software companies was they could sell more because there were more customers because of the improved convenience. The downside was that the more people used software, the less experienced they were. Thus manuals grew ever larger, and programmers had to implement more error handling and feedback mechanisms to tell the users what to do when the software didn’t deliver what the user thought it should.

The second major shift happened when computers became ubiquitous. Now software designers had to deal with the whole range of users from absolute newbies to experts who had been using their software since version 1.0. The analogy here is the VCR. Every household had at least one, but even in the 90s, when VCRs were sophisticated as they could be, only a small fraction of people would know how to set the time. It just wasn’t straightforward. It’s like comparing Microsoft to Apple to Linux. Every company or project has it’s own approach of how things should be, and some people favor one over another because it matches their expectation.

Nevertheless, it’s still software which has been made by people who do not always consider or who can’t anticipate every way a user will use their product. This is a given which also applies to custom designed software. People do not know everything they want their software to do, because they don’t care about what happens under the hood. What they do care about is the look of the GUI, and ideally, error handling and feedback functions that do not make them feel stupid.

Another thing that users in general have little concept of is “beta”, meaning “it should work, but there will be some glitches that we have to figure out yet”. Which is why most beta versions are free, because no one can expect you to pay for a product that doesn’t work. Or can they?

Zynga’s very popular game Farmville is labeled as beta ever since its release one year ago, spreading like wildfire with more than 70,000,000 players worldwide. Like other games, this one has a virtual currency allowing you to buy stuff in the game. One way to increase your amount of virtual currency is to buy it with real money. And what happens (quite predictably) is that people are confusing things: The game is free and still in beta, so you can’t expect it to work perfectly. But what you buy should be yours no matter what. This explosive combination detonates every once in a while. It’s technically okay when the game crashes, but not when items they bought disappear. But people do not distinguish between the two. Their posture is: “I pay for this, so I can expect it to work.” Which is not quite the case. What’s worse though is that they a) keep on playing no matter what, and b) they complain to the public, but not to Zynga. This is not changing anything, it’s just whining.

One more thing before I’m trying to wrap this up: Software design is also about fashion. It doesn’t matter if the latest trend or technique adds any value to your project, but you better brace yourself that your customer will ask for it — just because they can! They pick up something somewhere, and they will ask you just to look smart themselves, impress their peers, whatever.

So what do we make of all of this? You have to embrace a number of things:

  • Whatever approach you take, one size will not fit all. There will always be someone screwing up, and that’s when your phone rings.
  • Be careful about customer’s expectations. There’s a large shift as soon as money is involved.
  • People hardly call when everything is alright. That’s when you should call to ask for improvements and the like.
  • Expect your customers to be human, not tech experts. This also implies that they will react as humans do, meaning they will be angry when they call you in case something fails. That’s ok. You have the opportunity to solve their problem AND lighten their mood. Give them a hug.