The case this week depicts some embarrassing customer interactions for United and Comcast (and a few more) with employees providing poor service, in the case of United breaking a guitar and Comcast serviceman falling asleep on the job. While these individual interactions may represent a minute fraction of the overall workforce, the power of the web to amplify them (viral videos) makes it harder for an organization to control it's "message" or "image" when irate customers go online to complain. Though it's hard to believe that the single event "lost" $180M from United value. The airline sector is a volatile sector having 10% swings on other days as well as the fact that the stock rebounded from it's drop fairly quickly. Still, there is a risk to corporate value, just a bit harder to quantify.
It's true that with any new technology it changes the dynamics between customer <> company interactions. In particular with something so broad as the web, companies can deliver more relevant information across a wide swath of it's customer-base very quickly. Plane schedules, work outages, disruptions - the web enables the company to communicate these more effectively. At the same time, embarrassing situations can cause havok. The number of images / movies / embarrassments is only bound to increase. How a company manages these situations should be incorporated in its' social network strategy (and if it doesnt have a strategy formulated it should create one SOON) At a minimum the strategy should include:
1. Monitoring of social media (twitter, FB, google alerts, others)
2. A central response team (it may not always be best for all employees to have own twitter account)
3. A learning component (like United using the song in it's training videos)
4. The realization that mistakes will happen, embarrassing situations will occur. It's best to embrace the technology rather than resist it.
5. A good legal team to ensure that the company isn't hoaxed by false videos / rumors , etc.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
BatchGeo.com Part II
I took a stab at my first batchgeo map. I plotted the "origins" of the bands in my Top 100 Songs list. They are grouped by "decade" as well. Though this is a small sample, the service is very easy to use (took a bit to get duplicate records for "London" or "Manchester" to actually show dupes you need a more specific location) but I can def see the power in this type of analysis. Though with just the spatial data alone it might be a little hard to guess where I grew up :)
http://batchgeo.com/map/2978bc1c7be2eff1c005e2d531425853
http://batchgeo.com/map/2978bc1c7be2eff1c005e2d531425853
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
BatchGeo.com
http://www.batchgeo.com/
Another Fremium model with a cool service. This one wired their web service on top of Google Maps for convenient "cut and paste" use of creating mash-ups / visual data. It's target market is spreadsheet users who require some sort of geographical analysis. Basic service does mapping for desktop / mobile devices. Premium service removes ads, adds support, allows grouping supports over 2,500 records, among many more features. It costs $950 / year - clearly targeted for small businesses rather than individual users.
This service could easily be replicated by Google or a competitor....but my infatuation with spreadsheets it caught my eye. This could easily be an add-on to Google Spreadsheets (push a button, see it mapped) The lack of macros in Google spreadsheet leaves Microsoft a feature-by-feature advantage that keeps my favorite program Excel alive. The day that goes is the day I stop running my football pools since it's built on a souped up/ macrotized 16 year-old spreadsheet.
Another Fremium model with a cool service. This one wired their web service on top of Google Maps for convenient "cut and paste" use of creating mash-ups / visual data. It's target market is spreadsheet users who require some sort of geographical analysis. Basic service does mapping for desktop / mobile devices. Premium service removes ads, adds support, allows grouping supports over 2,500 records, among many more features. It costs $950 / year - clearly targeted for small businesses rather than individual users.
This service could easily be replicated by Google or a competitor....but my infatuation with spreadsheets it caught my eye. This could easily be an add-on to Google Spreadsheets (push a button, see it mapped) The lack of macros in Google spreadsheet leaves Microsoft a feature-by-feature advantage that keeps my favorite program Excel alive. The day that goes is the day I stop running my football pools since it's built on a souped up/ macrotized 16 year-old spreadsheet.
Google: The Early Days
Though the case covers Google til early 2010, I will consider which a few key factors Google had in it's "early" success (1999~2002).
1. Their "special sauce" PageRank algorithm was a powerful and effective tool to rank web pages. Their index / catalog of the web was growing faster than other competitors.
2. They developed an ad revenue model that closely aligned costs with benefits (cost per impression was a better model than Overture's cost per click)
3. They maintained their focus on their core competency - search and advertising. They didn't expand corporate strategy until later on.
4. They recognized their weakness/limitations for corporate management and added experience early on with Eric Schmidt as CEO.
5. The unique governance structure that insulated the people who develop the strategy from the pains of quarterly earnings reports / investor quixotic demands.
6. Google is a platform-mediated network with a self-reinforcing positive network effect. Both user growth and advertiser growth of Google were positive (and still are) this allowed Google to beat Overture both on pricing and added even more advertisers to their network. .
Their own "operating platform" (or philosophy) is quite interesting. Devoting 20% of employee time to future projects "that may seem strange" or may even fail (Google Wave) The company established a very unique culture for continued disruptive innovation.
Some of these are a bit of over-simplifications. There are more complicated reasons for Google's success that we can discuss in class. Though I have to say Google's "Do No Evil" stance is quite hypocritical. Their services existence enables much evil to be done. Like a gun manufacturer that says they don't kill people - of course they don't, but they enable the killing of people (as well as protect people) Yes Google's good still outweighs the evil done, but by refusing to recognize the fact that they enable evil undertakings (like any technology does) they are delusional. But this isn't a class on philosophy so I will stop there.
1. Their "special sauce" PageRank algorithm was a powerful and effective tool to rank web pages. Their index / catalog of the web was growing faster than other competitors.
2. They developed an ad revenue model that closely aligned costs with benefits (cost per impression was a better model than Overture's cost per click)
3. They maintained their focus on their core competency - search and advertising. They didn't expand corporate strategy until later on.
4. They recognized their weakness/limitations for corporate management and added experience early on with Eric Schmidt as CEO.
5. The unique governance structure that insulated the people who develop the strategy from the pains of quarterly earnings reports / investor quixotic demands.
6. Google is a platform-mediated network with a self-reinforcing positive network effect. Both user growth and advertiser growth of Google were positive (and still are) this allowed Google to beat Overture both on pricing and added even more advertisers to their network. .
Their own "operating platform" (or philosophy) is quite interesting. Devoting 20% of employee time to future projects "that may seem strange" or may even fail (Google Wave) The company established a very unique culture for continued disruptive innovation.
Some of these are a bit of over-simplifications. There are more complicated reasons for Google's success that we can discuss in class. Though I have to say Google's "Do No Evil" stance is quite hypocritical. Their services existence enables much evil to be done. Like a gun manufacturer that says they don't kill people - of course they don't, but they enable the killing of people (as well as protect people) Yes Google's good still outweighs the evil done, but by refusing to recognize the fact that they enable evil undertakings (like any technology does) they are delusional. But this isn't a class on philosophy so I will stop there.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Taxi Magic post-mortem
After getting a good presentation from the Taxi Magic folks last Tuesday I decided to try the service for the first time this wknd. I signed up and ordered a cab no-problemo. Though the option for the next cab was over 45 min = no biggie. I scheduled it early enough it didn't matter. (I found out later the driver could've been there quicker but then stopped for coffee and smokes) He showed up on time and accepted cash.
I peppered the cabbie with questions. He actually picks me up at least once or twice a month anyway. He's been driving for nearly 20 years and knows the local demand patterns well. I asked him what % of his rides originate thru TM - amazingly he said more than 50%!! I also asked him if the computer could provide data about expected demand in under-served markets would that information be valuable to him? He said "Absolutely YES!"
Coincidentally, the party I attended was in a part of town that may just be one of those under-served markets. At least at 1 in the morning. Many friends had trouble finding a cab and waited over an hour leaving the party. This begs the question: Could the under-served riders have been serviced more timely? I'm certain geo-spatial data collected by companies like TM could help build some predictive modeling to answer that question. Especially for events whose date/time/location are posted on the web - even "smaller" like my buddies birthday party.
I peppered the cabbie with questions. He actually picks me up at least once or twice a month anyway. He's been driving for nearly 20 years and knows the local demand patterns well. I asked him what % of his rides originate thru TM - amazingly he said more than 50%!! I also asked him if the computer could provide data about expected demand in under-served markets would that information be valuable to him? He said "Absolutely YES!"
Coincidentally, the party I attended was in a part of town that may just be one of those under-served markets. At least at 1 in the morning. Many friends had trouble finding a cab and waited over an hour leaving the party. This begs the question: Could the under-served riders have been serviced more timely? I'm certain geo-spatial data collected by companies like TM could help build some predictive modeling to answer that question. Especially for events whose date/time/location are posted on the web - even "smaller" like my buddies birthday party.
U2's carbon footprint solved! Rap & Quacks
< Originally written in September 2009 >
Fellow music fans,
I am sure many of you are aware of U2's 360 Tour environmental impact and the embarrassing press it has generated: http://www.civilianism.com/futurism/?p=2097 As I go to my first "big show" in years tonight it got me thinking about their problem....and the looming disaster that Big-Bands pose to the future of music and the planet.
Seeing as Bono has been losing sleep at night wondering how to reduce the bands footprint. I've devised a simple scheme to reduce it while leveling the playing field for smaller bands and raising "revenue" for struggling small bands around the world to combat those evil, environmentally hazardous, profit-maximizing Big-Bands! (while simultaneously subsidizing really bad music that no one wants to hear or wouldn't otherwise be supported in a "free-market")
I call it: Rap & Quacks
First we start by issuing a carbon "credit" to all bands in the world. This credit would be distributed evenly. To qualify as a "band" one would need to have: a harmonious making instrument and at least one single member. Think of all the new "bands" this could produce!! Big-Bands that toured or used jets instead of buses could buy credits from smaller bands. This would allow Big-Bands to continue to pollute while giving more money to those smaller bands to produce better quality music at a lower carbon footprint. This might even spur innovative ideas that Big-Bands could use to further reduce their carbon output!! (like not touring maybe?)
Music is borderless. Therefore, an international quasi-governmental organization, such as the fair and incorruptible United Nations, would have to issue the credits and would be responsible for administering the program and distributing the booty <ahem> I mean revenue. This would give countries that produce little/no music, like Micronesia, an equal say in the matter (sorry Micronesians, but I haven't heard any great hits out of y'all lately) Oh and since these Big-Bands already make GOBS and GOBS of cash (I paid $130 for my ticket tonight and that's one of the "cheaper" ones) I am certain they wouldn't pass off the tax to their fans in the form of higher ticket prices. That would be unconscionable.
MAGNIFICENT!
Fellow music fans,
I am sure many of you are aware of U2's 360 Tour environmental impact and the embarrassing press it has generated: http://www.civilianism.com/futurism/?p=2097 As I go to my first "big show" in years tonight it got me thinking about their problem....and the looming disaster that Big-Bands pose to the future of music and the planet.
Seeing as Bono has been losing sleep at night wondering how to reduce the bands footprint. I've devised a simple scheme to reduce it while leveling the playing field for smaller bands and raising "revenue" for struggling small bands around the world to combat those evil, environmentally hazardous, profit-maximizing Big-Bands! (while simultaneously subsidizing really bad music that no one wants to hear or wouldn't otherwise be supported in a "free-market")
I call it: Rap & Quacks
First we start by issuing a carbon "credit" to all bands in the world. This credit would be distributed evenly. To qualify as a "band" one would need to have: a harmonious making instrument and at least one single member. Think of all the new "bands" this could produce!! Big-Bands that toured or used jets instead of buses could buy credits from smaller bands. This would allow Big-Bands to continue to pollute while giving more money to those smaller bands to produce better quality music at a lower carbon footprint. This might even spur innovative ideas that Big-Bands could use to further reduce their carbon output!! (like not touring maybe?)
Music is borderless. Therefore, an international quasi-governmental organization, such as the fair and incorruptible United Nations, would have to issue the credits and would be responsible for administering the program and distributing the booty <ahem> I mean revenue. This would give countries that produce little/no music, like Micronesia, an equal say in the matter (sorry Micronesians, but I haven't heard any great hits out of y'all lately) Oh and since these Big-Bands already make GOBS and GOBS of cash (I paid $130 for my ticket tonight and that's one of the "cheaper" ones) I am certain they wouldn't pass off the tax to their fans in the form of higher ticket prices. That would be unconscionable.
MAGNIFICENT!
Spotify, REM and the music market Collapsing into Now
First, in reference to our presentation earlier this semester on Spotify: Europe gets the "listening" party as a real "social" event on the web. The US gets...NPR. (Which is NOT being zapped by cost cutting GOP since it only gets 1.5% of it's funding from taxpayers) Either way it's not a stirring endorsement of public / government support for the arts or the lack of success in a shrinking market. Perhaps REM's title to the new album is more appropriate than we now know.
Second, Internet start ups face competition from the very low-barriers to entry that make starting a web-business very cheaply. Specifically for companies like MusicJuice.net or Taxi Magic - the technology is not novel and in many cases can be easily replicated. Though Taxi Magic does have competitive advantage of integrating to the 4 major taxi dispatch software systems - it had the backing of $100M founder to fund those operations for over a year. Incentive alignment also seems amiss for MusicJuice.net - the value proposition they pose is more beneficial to the artist rather than the listener. Artists won't share their revenue of disc sales or concert revenue sold "outside" MusicJuice's purview. The case wasn't clear on how this would be tracked or enforced. It took Taxi Magic some time to realize they should charge cab drivers, not riders, to better align value / incentives.
I'd close MusicJuice.net right now and look to build an options/future trading site on what bands will be in the Top 10 Albums, etc on Billboard magazine sales. That's something interactive and "fun" for music lovers to bet on the future of their favorite known bands. With only $5k remaining and such low site traffic it's doubtful even a sale could generate much cash. Another option would be to partner as an add-on service to companies like BigChampagne (a B2B data/information service for music industry)
Finally, I will chime in about "crowd-sourcing" music (or different structures of artists development) with a note I wrote a few years ago before attending a U2 show. I'll save that for a diff post.
Second, Internet start ups face competition from the very low-barriers to entry that make starting a web-business very cheaply. Specifically for companies like MusicJuice.net or Taxi Magic - the technology is not novel and in many cases can be easily replicated. Though Taxi Magic does have competitive advantage of integrating to the 4 major taxi dispatch software systems - it had the backing of $100M founder to fund those operations for over a year. Incentive alignment also seems amiss for MusicJuice.net - the value proposition they pose is more beneficial to the artist rather than the listener. Artists won't share their revenue of disc sales or concert revenue sold "outside" MusicJuice's purview. The case wasn't clear on how this would be tracked or enforced. It took Taxi Magic some time to realize they should charge cab drivers, not riders, to better align value / incentives.
I'd close MusicJuice.net right now and look to build an options/future trading site on what bands will be in the Top 10 Albums, etc on Billboard magazine sales. That's something interactive and "fun" for music lovers to bet on the future of their favorite known bands. With only $5k remaining and such low site traffic it's doubtful even a sale could generate much cash. Another option would be to partner as an add-on service to companies like BigChampagne (a B2B data/information service for music industry)
Finally, I will chime in about "crowd-sourcing" music (or different structures of artists development) with a note I wrote a few years ago before attending a U2 show. I'll save that for a diff post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)