Wireless

Typical Modern Meeting - Face-to-face or virtual?

4 Jan 2015

The Downside of Meeting Requests

“Expectation is the mother of all frustration.” – Antonio Banderas

Meeting requests are an amazing invention. Pioneered, and standardized, almost 20 years ago by companies like Microsoft (as part of Outlook/Exchange), Novell (Groupwise) and Lotus (now part of IBM Lotus Notes) this innovation had great promise to automate an essential, yet completely routine, aspect of modern life.

The ascendency of meeting request usage, also rides several trends:

In the 1990s, I had an Executive Assistant who scheduled my time, acted as a “gatekeeper” and also worked on many projects. She was a master tactician who managed to keep 3 or more Type A executives productively multi-tasking. In many ways, sadly, such personal assistance is being subsumed by..
Increasing computational power means that automation of routine tasks, personalized to the needs of individuals is much more of a reality,
The mobile revolution has made meetings much more multi-modal and virtual, but also means that most executives must be productive even while being mobile nomads, and
Calendars have migrated from paper – I switched about 20 years ago – to desktop computers using Outlook and the like, and now to the ubiquitous smartphone and tablet devices. Such mobile devices are both convenient for calendars, but also frustratingly fiddly places to enter complex meeting details.

Thus, enter the humble Meeting Request which has swelled in popularity. I received my first such request from an Outlook/Exchange user around 2000 and they remained rare until perhaps the last 5-10 years. Now they seem to be everywhere.

In homage to my friend and colleague, Jim Estill, the quintessential time management guru, I ought to be cheering this time saving invention.

And, yet my enthusiasm is sorely tinged by a frustrating implementation resulting in suboptimal user experience …

Top 10 Meeting Request FAILs:

Trojan Horse: It has always seemed odd to me that a third party inviting me to a meeting could embed their own meeting information in my calendar, and yet I am unable to edit this “foreign” request that has invaded my calendar.
Split Personality: If Jennifer invites me, Randall, to a meeting, then why does my meeting title say “Meeting with Randall” instead of “Meeting with Jennifer”? Computers are designed to automate routine tasks so there is absolutely no excuse for this one.
No Annotation: I write comments in the notes fields of my calendar all the time. Why can’t I say, for example, “Joe is a bit dodgy” or “First met back in 2001”?
Duplication: Many times I receive a meeting request for a meeting that I have already carefully crafted an entry in my own calendar. Again, computers are supposed to be smart enough to figure these things out and merge them in an intelligent way.
Bad Versioning: Many times when meeting information is changed, such as time or venue, the update isn’t seamless. For example, it is common to have both the original and the updated version lingering in my calendar.
No Scheduling: Meeting requests are often used as trial balloons in trying to schedule busy people into meetings. The endless rounds of “Accept”, “Maybe” or “Decline” responses can end up being quite frustrating, especially for many person meetings. These, often fruitless, interchanges underscore the fact that meeting requests don’t automate routine scheduling. Instead, people have to resort to tools like Doodle to vote on alternatives, and then manually schedule the winning result.
Verbosity by having superfluous words in the limited real estate of the meeting subject line. E.g. pre-pending “Invitation:” or “Updated Invitation:” onto the front of a subject, effectively burying the important words. Many times they are put there to increase the impact and readability of the email subject line to ensure opening, but distract in the actual Calendar entry.
Invitations from Google Enterprise Apps or GMail tend to be the most arcane and ugly. Originally, I chalked this up to Google Calendar‘s relative immaturity compared to Outlook, but the brutally long notes and long subject lines continue to stand out as worst in class, almost to the point that I dread getting invited by Google users.
Lack of Anticipatory Computing: in an age where mobile devices know location, existing meetings and other personal habits, the trend to predictive intelligence could be incorporated into smarter meeting requests. For example, combining meeting requests with shared “Free/Busy” data could remove many manual scheduling steps.
No Personalization: Like my contact list, I put a fair bit of thought into crafting a calendar that is both useful now, but also provides a detailed audit trail of my business interactions. To do this, I use conventions, categories and other techniques that, sadly, cannot be injected into these un-editable meeting requests that instead reflect the third party initiator’s preferences.

Do let me know in comments if I missed any major points.

Given the power of networked computing to automate, why is there such a lack of excellence and progress in this particular area?

In fairness, I believe that part of the problem lies in the interplay between competition and the vagaries of formal industry standards. That said, this should be no excuse.

It is admirable that, unlike word processing formats, the various pioneers started to develop standards call iCalendar (and later vCalendar) around 1997 to standardize file formats (like .ical and .ics) and email server interactions. I do know the Microsoft attempted to extend the functionality with some very useful things around that time. But, for some reason, a great idea got off to a good start, but seems frozen at an almost Beta level of functionality.

To conclude, please read this post, not as a gripe, but instead as a call to action to developers to help take the humble meeting request to the next level of user experience. Any takers?

3 Aug 2012

[Book Review]: The Idea Factory

The idea factory by Jon Gernter

Published by Penguin Press
WorldCat • LibraryThing • Google Books • BookFinder

A marvellous exploration of a research and innovation powerhouse that, even viewed from this age of innovation, surprisingly anticipated many approaches we think of as modern breakthroughs.
I’ve long admired Bell Labs and feel that many of its researchers and innovations interacted with an impacting my own career. While in University, the notion of working with or at Bell Labs was the highest aspiration for top thinkers in many fields. The Idea Factory is an engaging read and showed me how limited my understanding of that institution really was.

First of all, from the 1920s to the 1980s, it was way ahead of its time as an agent of innovation. The approaches were brilliant and could be applied today, including the notion of building architecture and organization structures to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration. Breaking down “knowledge silos” was definitely countercultural in a century known for specialization.

Secondly, the sheer number of transformational inventions, including the laser, transistor, fibre optics, satellite communications, the cellular mobile network, integrated circuits and the notion of information as digital that came from a single institution is both surprising and would be impossible in today’s world. Sadly, in the modern competitive marketplace, there is likely no room for a monolithic regulated monopoly, as was AT&T, to support such a single engine of innovation and basic research.

My primary connection with Bell Labs was through computer science with innovations such as UNIX and C Programming Language. The historical context this book outlines shows how surprising this is because AT&T was, by regulatory decree, precluded from entering the computer industry. That said, it is ironic that most of the inventions of Bell Labs, collectively contrived to make telecommunications as a separate industry obsolete. Instead, as predicted as early as 1948 by the remarkable information age seer, Claude Shannon, much of the modern economy has by transformed by our current digital age of networked and pervasive computing.

Lastly, Gertner explores the culture of those who drove innovation. Often eccentric, and to outsiders perhaps impossible or unemployable individuals, had the sheer force of will and brainpower to achieve breakthroughs that others either hadn’t even considered or thought impossible. Given my own small town origins, the deliberate strategy of finding these small town prodigies to populate the largest research-oriented brain trust in the world resonated.

All too often, societies believe that they are the first to master innovation. Sometimes we should stop and consider successful strategies from the past. Far from being solely a modern preoccupation, innovation has always been a hallmark of human advancement. Yet, with no clear place for a lucrative and regulated monopoly to fund pure research, where will the fundamental research of the future originate?

The book cites John Mayo, a former Bell Labs chief,

“Bell Labs substantial innovations, account for a large fraction of the jobs in this country and around the world”

In a world driven by global markets and the quarterly thinking of Wall Street, we really do need to consider how our next leap of fundamental research will be unleashed. John Pierce, another Bell Labs chief summarized the “Bell Labs formula” in four main points:

“A technically competent management all the way to the top.
Researchers who didn’t have to raise funds.
Research on a topic or system could be, and was, supported for years.
Research could be terminated without damning the researcher.”

Beyond learning from the wisdom of the leading research institution, where will we find the vision and resources to enable innovation on such a transformational scale? Beyond the Venture Capital and now Angel funded technology startup ecosystem, perhaps exemplars like Mike Lazaridis‘s pioneering Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics will chart a course for the 21st century.

14 Jun 2012

Who Will Revive Canadian Venture Capital (Part I)

Today was a banner day for announcements involving a reset of the technology funding ecosystem in Canada.

For a long time, the slow demise of Canadian Venture Capital has concerned me deeply, putting us at an international disadvantage in regards to funding and building our next generation of innovative businesses. You may recall my 2009 post Who Killed Canadian Venture Capital? A Peculiarly Canadian Implosion? which recounts the extinction of almost all of the A round investors working in Ontario.

Since then, many of us have worked to bridge the gap by building Angel Networks, including Golden Triangle AngelNet (GTAN), where I chair the Selection process and using extreme syndication and leverage to replace a portion of the missing A rounds.

Today, the launch of Round 13 Capital revealed a new model for venture finance centred around a strong Founder Board whose members are also LPs, each with a “meaningful” investment in the fund. My decision to get involved was based both on this strongly aligned wealth of operating wisdom coupled with the clear strength of the core team.

The launch was widely covered by a range of tech savvy media, including:

Mark Evans gave some background in his post Round 13 Capital Moves to Fill VC Gap, and
David Crow, covered today’s announcement in his post Round 13 Capital Puts Founders First.

To illustrate the both the differentiation of Round 13 and show the depth of founder experience, Bruce Croxon, indicated that the founders board has, measured by aggregate exit value, built over $2.5 billion of wealth in Canada. It is this kind of vision and operational experience that directly addresses the second of my three points that Canadian Venture Capital needs to solve.

It is exciting to be involved with the unfolding next generation funding ecosystem for technology companies of the future. Time will tell the ultimate outcome, but I’m certainly bullish on Round 13.

3 Aug 2010

How You Gonna Keep ‘Em Down On The Farm?

“How You Gonna Keep ‘Em Down On The Farm” (excerpt) by Andrew Bird

Oh, how ya gonna keep ’em down? Oh no, oh no
Oh, how ya gonna keep ’em down?
How ya gonna keep ’em away from Broadway?
Jazzin’ around and painting the town?
How ya gonna keep ’em away from harm?
That’s the mystery

______________________

This week, my 18 month old Blackberry finally bit the dust. Out of this came a realization that led me to the challenge I issue at the end of this post.

Please don’t view my device failure to be a reflection on the reliability, or lack thereof, of Blackberry handsets. Rather, as a heavy user, I’ve found that the half life of my handsets is typically 18 to 24 months before things start to degrade – indeed, mobile devices do take a beating.

The obsolescence of one device is, however, a great opportunity to reflect on the age-old question: What do I acquire next? That is the subject of this posting, which focuses on the quantum changes in the mobile and smartphone market over the last couple of years.Read More ..

10 Apr 2010

FourSquare – Re-writing the Rules While Killer Application Remains Elusive

“Nature is by and large to be found out of doors, a location where, it cannot be argued, there are never enough comfortable chairs.”
– Fran Lebowitz

I’m a believer that Location Based Services (LBS), coupled with the latest smartphones, will evolve a number of indispensible, and unexpected, killer applications.

That said, it’s pretty clear that those mission critical applications remain to be found. Essentially, the whole LBS opportunity, is a social experiment that early adopters are collaboratively helping to clarify.

It was with those thoughts in mind when I decided to start using some of the popular LBS social media applications, or should I say social games? These included FourSquare, Yelp and Gowalla.

Let me put this in context of other social media applications with which I’ve experimented. Back in 2007, I decided to try microblogging service Twitter, that was then in its infancy, I had low expectations. In fact, I expected to hate it, but mentally committed to give it a two week trial just for the purposes of self education. Over 3 years later, I’m still using it, love it and have found many applications which Twitter excels at – personal clipping service, early information and a sense of what my universe of followees is up to are among them.

FourSquare, although popular, hasn’t (yet) passed my personal usefulness test. And, I suspect most others still consider it more a game than a mission critical application. While there is an element of fun, it seems to be the sort of thing you could easily drop without much loss.

In that context, it surprises me that FourSquare recently pushed a new version (1.7.1) to my iPhone that checked my actual proximity to locations Since then, almost half of my check ins fail to pass this new proximity test, even though I was physically at the location in question. Below, I have re-posted my support request that gives more background.

But, suffice it to say, an application change that, on the surface, seemed sensible, made the application way less attractive to me. That’s doubly deadly in a space which is still finding it’s spot. I’m interested in comments on both the major issue (startups alienating early adopters) and even the specific issue.

I’m surprised the FourSquare has re-written the rules of an emerging LBS service without any notification. I am referring, of course, to the latest upgrade on my iPhone on which checkins deemed too distant from the intended location (by an undocumented and new algorithm) are suddenly deemed ineligible to accumulated points or badges. Because it is so fundamental, I’ve also decided to re-blog this as well, because it illustrates how the law of unintended consequenes can have a huge impact on a young service’s future prospect. Translation: this wasn’t a well thought out change in so many ways.

Why do I saw this? Here are just a few reasons:
1. For those of us who live in rural areas where cellular tower infrastructure is typically much more widely spaced (and often in the 850MHz band vs. the 1900 MHz band for broader coverage at lower densities), the inherent accuracy of locations reported by mobile devices is much lower. For example, at locations near to me, it is not uncommon to have the phone’s margin of error be as much as 4500 m to 6000 m. Although FourSquare doesn’t divulge their required closeness, I think it may be something like 500 m. With that in mind, it is almost by definition that most rural “check ins” will be, starting this week, flagged as ineligible. And, that’s the behaviour I’m seeing. Of course, in many instances GPS lowers this error, but it is surprising how many locations don’t have great GPS reception, such as indoors or in an automobile.
2. By changing the rules of the game on the fly, FourSquare has penalized those checking into locations that weren’t located that accurately in the first place – whether because of the reasons in #1 or because people weren’t told they had to define the location within a certain minimum delta of the actual location. For example, I suspect that people actually defined the location as they were walking toward the actual location, knowing that FourSquare didn’t care where the real actual location physically was. I find this behaviour in about 30-50% of the check ins I’m doing since the change.

FourSquare was an experiment for me, but given these new rules which appear to not have been well thought out for large swathes of geography, I’m considering shutting down my personal FourSquare use.. For something that still provides no direct utility, I really don’t want to have to go back to re-enter all locations information from scratch.

Jim Balsillie Speaks to Laurier Students

23 Jan 2009

Attacking a Canadian Icon

While I’m hardly a shrinking violet, I generally shy away from newspaper coverage. That being said, after saying no several times to Gordon Pitts at the Globe and Mail, I finally agreed to be quoted. Here’s why.

Yesterday, Jim Balsillie won the Laurier Outstanding Business Leader of the Year Award. With his business, economic and philanthropic contributions to our area and Canada as a whole, I can’t imagine a more deserving recipient. It is truly inspirational to have people like Jim making a real difference to all of us.

In an unfortunate coincidence, on the same day, both Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis were the subject of media coverage regarding a possible (and staggering) $100 million penalty regarding a stock options pricing case dating back to 1996.

In the current financial meltdown, many might believe that ever more zealous regulation is the answer, but this really isn’t the root issue here. And, bearing in mind that I don’t have all the facts that the OSC and SEC possess, I present some key points in questioning the motives of the timing and magnitude of this regulatory action:

from my reading of this case, the company, when made aware of the concerns, proactively launched a board-level investigation and, upon the release of the report, about $1.6 million was repaid, this being the estimated amount of gain based on the differential of pricing and dates of the option strike prices.
further, that committee, found that the mis-pricing was inadvertent and not done for the purposes of financial gain.
when compared to other securities regulation actions, this case seems minor, especially given the wealth most people have generated with RIM. In other words, there don’t seem to be any real victims here.
And yet, over the last 10 to 15 years, the OSC has been colossally impotent when it comes to prosecuting real shareholder frauds, such as:
- the many cases of equity monetization that allowed senior management of many companies pocket tens or hundreds of millions while ordinary investors ended up suffering staggering losses.
- real abuses and frauds around income trusts, such as is the case of the many people in my home town of Listowel who lost life savings on the fiasco in which a long term business, SpinRite, was hollowed out in the process of becoming an income trust.
- Diane Urquhart, an ex Bay Street investment banker and now expert shareholder crusader, is a great source to provide anyone who is interested the documented evidence of how much of a wussy our own OSC has been in stock market regulation.
Jim, and his partner Mike, have each given countless hours and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to major philanthropic initiatives that, in addition to helping to transform Waterloo Region, have national and international stature.

It’s this background that left me feeling compelled to comment to Gordon at the Globe & Mail. Clearly, this feels like a desperate OSC acting on the basest political motives.

I’m not sure why Canadians feel that we have to attack our winners. At a time of economic meltdown and too few national champions left standing, why can’t we celebrate the great heroes we do have?

29 Nov 2008

Business Models: Subscription vs. Freemium vs. Free in Lean Times

Have you invented a killer application that people will use in business or their personal lives on a regular basis? Are you ready to implement a great web/mobile experience in the context of building a web startup business?

Now what? You’ll want to evolve a business model that helps viral adoption, yet still allows for effective monetization of your great new application. Below are the three main web-based models you may wish to consider:

1. Subscription: This model involves a per monthly charge for a service and generally uses traditional and web approaches to customer acquisition. A conservative approach, this is simply a Web 1.0 conversion of traditional selling models to the online world. That being said, many great businesses have thrived using this model, because in principle, cash flows can commence very quickly.

2. Free: Since the early days of the web, sites like Yahoo!, and more recently Google and Skype, based on web economics and culture offer a high level of service and utility for the amazingly low price of free. Free continues to be the pricing model of choice for consumer web users. Notwithstanding the lowered costs to provide such services, the old adage of “make it up in volume” doesn’t get you very far toward cash flow positive. That’s one of the key paradoxes of the web, how to balance consumer desire for free with the need to make money.

3. Freemium: As a hybrid of Subscription and Free, this model was first popularized in 2006 by Fred WIlson of Union Square Ventures. He describes it thus:

“Give your service away for free, possibly ad supported but maybe not, acquire a lot of customers very efficiently through word of mouth, referral networks, organic search marketing, etc, then offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base.”

Web services like Basecamp from 37Signals or LinkeIn are successful examples of the Freemium model. Few people realize that LinkedIn, which most people see as a free service, generates over $100 million in revenues from people who chose a premium ofering, special services for the recruitment industry, and some ad revenues (that serve to subsidize the free offering). With an industry average Free to Premium conversion rate of 3%, the Freemium approach, if designed and executed well, can be quite lucrative.

Freemium can be a great way to lower the costs of customer acquisition, provided that the free piece isn’t too expensive to deliver. Well designed offerings which tap into viral social media and user generated content can generate significant customer pipeline to the free service at reasonable cost

No startup entrepreneur needs to be reminded of the challenges of financing during this current economic turmoil Notwithstanding that, as I pointed out in Counter-cyclical Optimism, it may be one of the best times to launch your great new innovation into the marketplace.

One of the key success factors, that we’ve long espoused as part of our Venture 2.0 approach, is to keep the cash burn lean. Now, we would add to that the requirement to race as fast as possible to cash flow positive. The approach of low cash plus high speed is not often the ideal way to dominate a market, but it can shave hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars off the cost to build an online business, thereby reducing the current financing risk.

I would assert that this dynamic is forcing some difficult, and possibly counter-productive choices. It goes without saying that it will be much harder to finance purely Free startups in this climate. Well known Web 2.0 companies like Twitter and AideRSS both fall into the “hard to monetize” category. Although they could drive small amounts of ad revenue, that might well distract from the experience enough to annoy users. It may well be that such businesses simply need to “find a new home” as a plug-in to a larger company with a well established business model. Thus, if you plan to build a purely Free business, you need to plan to build for the lowest cost from zero to exit, to reflect the fact that exit valuations may be impaired over the next period. Furthermore, it is unclear, unless you have a rich sugar daddy, how you will fund the burn until the exit.

For those businesses that lend themselves to the model, Freemium would seem to be the ideal choice. There are some major questions such as:

what to give away for free and what to make part of the premium service
whether to start with the free offering and build a loyal base or start premium, then later add the free piece

Fundamentally, you must find a way to a to accelerate the drive to cash generating premium subscribers. It will almost certainly mean finding accelerators to the business model to drive your premium adoption while lowering the costs even further in your (already minimal) monthly burn.

Solve this, and as a startup, you have strategic options. You have potentially built a great cash flow positive business, but also increase your likelihood to beomce a strategic acquisition target for a more major web or mobile player. Crack the code, and It’s a great recipe for success.

9 Nov 2008

Digital Policy #4: Reversing Canada’s Dismal State of Mobile Regulation

“Permanent connectivity, not motion, is the critical thing” Manuel Castells, Annenberg School for Communication

It is safe to say that mobile regulation in Canada represents a huge opportunity as the foundation for much of our future economic prosperity. It is ironic that such a geographically dispersed country, once the world leader in telecommunications through to the early 1980’s, should abandon what should be a natural competitive advantage.

Why Did the Internet Succeed?

One might expect that the mobile world would replay the software revolution dominated by Microsoft and the Internet/Web revolution of the 1990’s. Unfortunately, the mobile world is too closed for that replay to happen and, to understand why, it is instructive to look back in time.

The opportunity to create the modern software industry, separate from the then dominant computer hardware industry, emerged because of an IBM Consent Decree first concluded in 1956 and strengthened by increasing anti-trust action through the 1970’s. This regulatory action ensured that IBM, although dominating the computer industry, had to publish open specifications for their hardware and price software separately from hardware. Thus, in some measure through appropriate government regulation, the modern unbundled software industry was created. The 1975 founding of Microsoft by Bill Gates can be directly traced to this mandated constraint on IBM’s market dominance.

At almost the same time, starting in 1969, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in the midst of the cold war, funded a project to build a redundant communications infrastructure that could withstand a nuclear attack on its switching systems and continue to operate. Ironically, for an organization better known for strong “command and control” management, the modern internet that emerged from this project was endorsed by both academia and the military and, counter-intuitively, built in a relatively unstructured manner with completely open standards and operating culture. This was in stark contrast to the highly structured, and hence relatively inflexible, circuit switched telephony system of the day, managed by the monopoly “One Bell System”.

As a result of this, we’ve come to expect and rely on a software and internet ecosystem that is competitive, open and which, as a result, has grown explosively and discovered seemingly boundless new applications.

Mobile Regulation is a Very Different Story

With hindsight, it is ironic that modern mobile telephony was first commercially launched in the United States, with the first AMPS cell phone service in Chicago. However, it is notable that by the 1990’s Europe had regained the lead, partly through good regulation, especially in comparison to the US approach. Being a late entrant to the mobile revolution, regulators in Europe mandated the new GSM (Global System for Mobile) standard be used by all competing mobile operators. The United States, by contrast, under the tutelage of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) carved the US into about 80 separate regions and didn’t mandate a single standard, ensuring market fragmentation.

As a result, the US mobile industry had to expend tremendous energy and capital to consolidate regional players simply to provide the national mobile service footprint customers demanded. And the competing GSM and CDMA standards (not to mention the persistence of legacy DAMPS) kept the markets fragmented in the US, and by extension also in Canada. As a result, simple things like interoperability of SMS between carriers arrived at least 5 years later in US and Canada than in Europe. Until very recently, North American mobile innovation has lagged much of the world, notably including many developing countries.

Furthermore, the lack of an open environment to develop mobile applications stifled the creation of the vibrant startup ecosystem that the software and web revolutions witnessed. Last year’s victory of “Open Access” provisions for the 700 MHz (the former analogue television broadcast) spectrum in the US, was a great example of forward thinking regulation by the FCC, albeit with much prodding by Google. Regulatory leadership is critical because the incumbent carriers, although they aspire to be more than “pipes” for data, have over the last decade made almost zero progress in building the mobile applications framework. And, it is even more important for mobile, because carriers are in effect stewards of the scarce radio spectrum upon which the mobile industry is built.

The GSM standard (and its 3G successors) is inherently open. Operators have tried to close the handset and interropability market through tactics like “SIM Locking” and exorbitant inter-carrier “roaming” charges. The European Union has, once again, taken leadership by crafting a regulatory framework that, in return for the right to use the public spectrum, levels the playing field by opening up each of these issues.

The Way Forward

Clearly, the US Federal Communications Commission is starting to recognize the importance of regulation in building an economically vital industry of the future. The Canadian Government and the Candian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) need to show leadership in this area as well. The first step is understanding the issue. Greater engagement with experts and visionaries who represent the various industry and both business and consumer customers is vital to our future economic prosperity. Canada has the skills and ambition to be a major player in the new mobile internet revolution. Let’s ensure that government regulation is a competitive advantage and not the impediment to global leadership it is today.

2 Sep 2008

Public Policy for the Digital Age

With the imminent federal election call in Canada, it seems timely to start a discussion on public policy principles that our governments (federal and provincial) should be considering. From the context of the information technology industry (web, mobile, digital media, etc.), why is this important?

Firstly, as more and more traditional manufacturing jobs migrate to the Pearl River Delta, the knowledge-based industries, given the right macroeconomic environment, could well be one of our best job growth options. By “macroeconomic environment”, we are referring to the complex web of legislation providing fair regulation, securities legislation and tax code that better encourages the growth of a globally competitive IT industry.

Secondly, it should be noted that the Silicon Valley, where most of the IT industry originated, has not historically been that engaged with government, policy or lobbying. In fact, many in the technology industry have proudly worn the badge of libertarianism, erroneously believing they represent a future that has transcended the need for government intervention or regulation. In fact, all the time, these people may have been simply living in a sheltered world created, ironically and in large measure, by big government and the military industrial complex. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the US Department of Defense, funded massive research during the 1960’s and 1970’s that led directly to the creation of the modern internet. As it happens, the very openness (if not the counter-cultural flavour) of today’s web, arose directly from creating a redundant fabric that would potentially survive nuclear attack.

Thirdly, and not to overgeneralize, many elected officials lack proficiency in technology and the future of the digital and wireless economy to make good policy decisions. Rather than being a criticism, it’s just a fact of life. In that environment, it behooves technology industry leaders to work to inform our government representatives, and the civil service, on important matters.

A key complicating factor is that the political process has a tendency to pander to public opinion rather than cold harsh economic realities. Spending tens or even hundreds of millions trying to subsidize dying industries is like trying to extend the life of the proverbial buggy whip. Spending money on programs to lessen the impact of social and economic change is quite another story. But, even then, governments generally don’t excel at picking winners and losers. Generally, it is better to simply level the playing field and stand back to let the market perform.

Accordingly, over the next few weeks, we’ll choose a few topics that have direct relevance to our digital future and, quite likely, our overall prosperity in the coming decades:

“Why Bill C-61 is a Bad Idea for Canada’s Digital Economy”,
“Taxing Talent in Startups”,
“Startup Investment Discouraged by Tax Laws” and
“The Sorry State of Mobile Regulation in Canada

Stay tuned. We encourage your input on any issue we discuss. If you feel there are other key issues to the future of our knowledge based economy, then, by all means, include that in comments as well.

Bell Unlimited World Long Distance Plan - Really?

2 Aug 2008

Brands, Trust and The Fine Print

In today’s mail I received a tantalizing offer from Bell Canada Long Distance. It promised the ability to “Call the world without limits” by delivering “Unlimited World Long Distance Plan $29.95/mo.” With calls to over 50 countries plus Canada and USA included, on the face of it, that’s a pretty attractive offer.

But, I’ve learned that, when dealing with the telecoms industry whether landline or wireless, it pays to read the fine print. And, sure enough, in very small type at that bottom it says “excludes calls to mobile phones and wireless devices.” Sadly, when I call overseas, where mobile penetration is generally at or even above 100 mobiles for 100 population, over 95% of my calls are to mobile phones. So, far from being unlimited, this plan is really a bit of a “bait and switch” which might well increase my calling costs. In the monthly billing cycle, the arrival of the first bill post sign up would almost certainly make any customer’s blood boil. At a macro level, I’m really curious as to what such deceptive marketing campaigns say about customer relations and basic trust in the 21st century?

Also this week, Canadian Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice, dialled up his earlier suggestion to mobile operators Bell and Telus to reconsider their ill-conceived plan to charge customers for incoming SMS text messages, including SPAM. Minister Prentice, after meeting Bell CEO George Cope, publicly raised the spectre of increased wireless regulation in Canada as a way to increase pressure for the pair to see common sense. Clearly, for companies that act in the public interest, using the police-like powers of regulation to curb those who stray from this idea must strike a delicate balance. Again, is this a trust issue? Are Bell and Telus exhibiting corporate greed or simply strategic incompetence?

Speaking of trust, a week ago a good friend lent me a fascinating book called 24 Days, by Rebecca Smith and John R. Emshwiller, Harper Collins, 2003. The co-authors, two Wall Street Journal Reporters, lay out a factual and totally rivetting chronicle of how the once “great” company called Enron went from being on top of the world into a death spiral in little more than three weeks. To quote the authors, “so much of Enron’s energies were devoted … to exploiting accounting rules to make profits out of thin air. So much brainpower went into temporary gains rather than into building projects with lasting value. By any means, was the Enron way. … Service to its customers and clients, didn’t enter into it.” Having once run a public company where we took our fiduciary and regulatory duties to our shareholders and the public markets seriously, the sheer magnitude of the greedy cleverness of the malfeasance at Enron boggles the mind. Again, why have the fundamental ethical standards of human trust in the corporate world sunk so low? While it is easy to build a house of cards, without long term trust, I firmly believe it is impossible to build any entity (corporate or otherwise) with lasting, long term value.

Can We Trust Their Claims of Open?

Trust issues aren’t confined to the US and Canada. In Germany, T-Mobile has been advertising their new iPhone mobile data plans as “open internet access with unlimited data” (“Freier Internetzugang mit unbegrenzter Datenflatrate”) For the details, see a fascinating post from TMCnet. Indeed, customers were finding to their dismay that this open internet access specifically disallowed such basic mobile web services as VoIP, IM, and VPN. Furthermore, the supposedly unlimited data plan was actually capped. This is almost unbelievable, especially in Germany which, being in the European Union, generally benefits from far superior mobile regulation than we enjoy in US and Canada. In a David versus Goliath situation, sipgate, a small VoIP application provider for Apple iPhone, stood up for consumers and has won a preliminary court injunction against mighty T-Mobile. In this instance, there can be no doubt that t-Mobile is just plain wrong. Once again, we wonder how clearly deceptive advertising affects trust between T-Mobile and its customers?

For once, the lessons for companies are simple, yet so often overlooked. In this age of call centres, web self service and mobile nomadism, opportunities for developing personal relationships between companies and customers are on decline. As people feel increasingly distant from the companies that provide them goods and services, the importance of trust in business dealings goes up. I would argue that because trust is built over the long term, it needs to become a vital part of every company’s brand equity. Although economists have yet to devise specific measurements, it is clear that a lack of trust can kill a multi-billion dollar brand very quickly and in such a way as to make recovery extremely difficult and costly, if not impossible.

1 2