Welcome to the 21st Century, People

There’s an inorganic rubbish collection in our area next week. There is so much I could write about this – the van-loads of ’seagulls’ pouring in from all over Auckland for some al-fresco shopping are a reality TV show just waiting to happen – but that’s a post for another day.

I walked past the rubbish pile below, as I was out walking the dogs this afternoon, and was so gutted not to have a camera with me that I jumped in the car and drove back, just to capture that beautiful scene and share it with you fine folks.

A full set of Encyclopedia Britannica, strewn out on the curb alongside a broken TV and a piss-stained mattress.

Welcome to the 21st century, people.

I ain’t drinking the Kool Aid

I don’t want to sound like a hater. I think Wolfram Alpha is a beautiful execution of a unique approach to search, and I’m glad the Mathematica folks have been able to bring it to life. Unfortunately, it is subject to two critical flaws:

1. It isn’t what people think it is; and
2. What it is really isn’t that flash

Let’s start out with the obvious. Wolfram Alpha isn’t a Google killer. It doesn’t even come close. Actually, it really doesn’t have much to do with anything Google does. Putting aside a whole lot of peripheral activities, Google is a search engine, an advertising network, and a bank. It helps people to find authoritative websites on topics they are interested in; It provides advertisers with a cost-effective means of reaching prospective customers; and It facilitates transactions between advertisers and publishers, and is effectively the Reserve Bank of the Internet. Wolfram Alpha does none of these things – it doesn’t lead you to authoritative sources of information, it assumes that role itself; It doesn’t help advertisers reach new audiences; and It sure as hell doesn’t help to monetise other properties.

The latter two alone would seemingly be enough to ensure Google’s continued dominance over newcomers, but even if that wasn’t the case – even if all Google was was a search engine – Google would win hands down. Why? Because this *smarts*, this unique approach that sets Wolfram Alpha apart from its predecessors and competitors is the answer to a question nobody asked. It is different more for the sake of being different than as a response to a real need, and it smacks of the ‘build it and they will come’ mindset that has lead to some of the Internet age’s greatest failures. Louis Border’s ‘Webvan‘ immediately springs to mind. Assuming people wanted to buy their groceries online, and assuming that a completely automated online-only supermarket was the best way to satisfy that need, Webvan was the best possible response to that opportunity. Problem was, both of those assumptions were tragically flawed and billions of investor dollars were lost. In the same way, Wolfram is assuming that all people want is a direct, concise response to a direct, concise question. Problem is, people don’t ask those kinds of questions or accept those kinds of answers.

Wolfram seems to misunderstand how and why people really use search. Sure, we search for information, but we do so in order to be able to do something with it. We search for hotels so we can find somewhere to stay, not to find out what a hotel is. And when we do want to find out what something is, context and referenced, authoritative sources are essential for validating what we are being told and furthering our understanding. The ’source information’ link accompanying Wolfram results provides a list of sites used, but with no indication of which *facts* came from which sources. Even Wikipedia - whipping boy of research purists the world over – has higher standards of transparency, which is kind of ironic when you consider that Wolfram Alpha was designed by a respected scientist.

Wolfram’s reference material is also alarmingly Americentric. For example, no New Zealand websites are referenced in response to queries about ‘New Zealand‘. I agree that there are always three sides to every story, but I’d back our own over the Library of Congress, any day.

The contextual deficiency of Wolfram results reminds me of John Steinbeck’s meditation on the problems of measuring a fish:

The Mexican sierra has 17 plus 15 plus 9 spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted. But if the sierra strikes hard on the line so that our hands are burned, if the fish sounds and nearly escapes and finally comes in over the rail, his colors pulsing and his tail beating the air, a whole new relational externality has come into being – an entity which is more than the sum of the fish plus the fisherman. The only way to count the spines of the sierra unaffected by this second relational reality is to sit in a laboratory, open an evil-smelling jar, remove a stiff colorless fish from the formalin solution, count the spines, and write the truth. . . . There you have recorded a reality which cannot be assailed – probably the least important reality concerning either the fish or yourself.

It is good to know what you are doing. The man with his pickled fish has set down one truth and recorded in his experience many lies. The fish is not that color, that texture, that dead, nor does he smell that way.

- Steinbeck, John. 1941. The Log from the Sea of Cortez

So Wolfram Alpha isn’t what people think it is. It isn’t a Google killer. It isn’t a better search engine than Google, Yahoo, MSN or even Wikipedia. It isn’t really a search engine at all.

It is also pretty uninspiring. A lot of attention has been directed towards how *different* it is, and much has been made of the various witty responses returned by some search phrases. Sure it’s different, and its novelty value is enough to ensure we’ll all check it out at least once. But is different better? Is different enough to change our habits? Is different enough to make us persevere with a lesser solution that offers to human understanding what KFC offers to human nutrition?

It can’t be. It shouldn’t be. And it won’t be. Expectations are too high and substance is too low. Wolfram Alpha will never make it as an alternative or successor to traditional search. At best, it will become a new feature or algorithmic enhancement to Yahoo, Google or Microsoft.

But maybe that was the plan all along.

Google – great food, lousy coffee

A mate of mine who works as an aircraft engineer at Auckland airport tells me there was a privately-owned 767-200 parked there recently, by all accounts owned by Google founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin.

A lot of people – especially in the country that practically invented tall poppy syndrome – would heap scorn on such extravagance, arguing that they could save the planet (yeah right!) and countless starving children by flying coach and giving the savings to charity. Me, I think that without such impressive displays of what can be achieved through hard work and natural ability (ingenio et labore!), your average drone would be even more useless than they are now. Yet another reason why I can’t stand lefties – to really excell people need incentives beyond forced or fake altruism. If you don’t like Sergei and Larry living the way they do, build a better search engine and reinvent the advertising industry. I’m sure you’ll find it harder to decry such opulence when it’s your own.

Anyhoo, I like Google and find many of their products to be indespensible, personally and professionally. I even took a couple of days out of the office last month to get certified as a Google Advertising Professional. I enjoyed the training, aced the exam, and even went so far as to drink the instructors under the table at the drinkies that followed (education is, after all, a lifelong commitment). As I nursed my aching head the following morning I could quite honestly tell you that Google is a company that does nothing by halves.

And then today I get this tacky piece of crap in the mail…

Yup, that’s class. One hundred percent. Think I’ll hang it in the den, next to my Master’s degree.

One thing I learned during my near-decade in the hospitality industry is the importance of coffee. It’s the last thing your guests are served before they leave your establishment, so it’d better be good if you want them to return. Trust me on this – great coffee after a lousy meal can win back a disappointed customer, and the opposite is also true.

Rather than reminding me of what I achieved and the great experience I had with the trainers, this tacky piece of home-made laminated crap just makes me cringe. Am I being melodramatic? Possibly. Am I overreacting? I think not, and here’s why.

I was personally invited to attend the Google training. I received personal emails from our account manager confirming my place and reminding me of dates and locations. I was greeted and called on by name during the training, and entertained afterward as though by friends. My experience with Google was very much a personal, enjoyable one – hardly what you would expect from one of the world’s largest tech companies. And then they remind me that I’m just a number, one of countless thousands they engage with on a similar level every single day.

I don’t want to appear ungrateful. The training cost me nothing and was very rewarding. I still have the utmost respect for Google, and admire the Googlers I’ve had dealings with. I just couldn’t let this slide. If anyone from Google reads this, I’d like to suggest you either get the certificates done properly or do away with them altogether. This half-assed stuff really is beneath you. To everyone else, let this be a reminder…

No matter what industry you’re working in, never underestimate the importance of serving great coffee

I like Google

I really do. There’s no denying there are a number of issues they need to sort out (privacy, for a start), but I don’t for a second buy this ‘big brother is watching you, Google is evil’ crap flying around the blogosphere. That’s just tall poppy syndrome, plain and simple. Personally I love it that a couple of students with a great idea could follow it through, change the world and make fad wads of cash in the process. I’ve got no problem with that – shit, I’d sell my grandmother to the Nazis to be Larry Page. And you would too.

But…

I have to admit that they really have their hands full with this copyright infringement situation. Erm … *someone I know* searched Google Video at the weekend, looking for the trailers for The Simpsons Movie and Die Hard 4. Included among the search results? Full-length downloads of those movies, which now take pride of place on … *his* PSP.

I haven’t used Google Video in a while, and the last time I did there was a delay between upload and publication so someone could check and make sure it wasn’t copyrighted material. I can only assume this has now been abandoned as the volume of files increased, but jesus - isn’t it obvious that a video file two hours long *might* contain a breach of copyright?

Great movies, by the way.

File-sharing site to buy its own island nation

It looks like Sealand is up for sale again. This time the front-runner is Pirate Bay, the world’s biggest Torrent search engine and arch enemy of the MPAA. With an asking price of around half a billion clams I’d be surprised if they manage to pull it off, but then again – anyone who says crime doesn’t pay has obviously never heard of online gambling.

I remember Wired ran a piece on Sealand years ago, during the halcyon days of the dotcom boom. Some genius figured that a former British navy platform 7 miles offshore would be an ideal place for hosting ’sensitive’ data and applications. Now if you want my opinion, a cold, damp, windy, rusty and fire-damaged platform in the North Sea isn’t the ideal environment for storing millions of dollars’ worth of servers, routers etc. Be that as it may, HavenCo has been running a data centre there since 1999. I have to admit that I find it truly astonishing that they could actually sign up any customers. Here’s my take on how how a typical sales call would run…

Rep: Good morning sir, have I reached the offices of the Medellin cartel?
Underling: Si?
Rep: I have a great offer for you from HavenCo.com. Please may I speak with el Hefe?
<Minutes pass. Shouting and gunshots heard in the background, followed by roaring laughter>
Pablo: This is el Hefe. What you wan’?
Rep: Good morning Mr Escobar, this is Janice calling, from HavenCo.com. We have a great offer on right now, where we can safely store all of your sensitive commercial data – customer and supplier contact details, transaction data, and production and shipping information – all for the low monthly price of $19.99. PLUS, if you sign up right now we’ll throw in five email accounts and your very own personalised domain name for free!
Pablo: Who is this? DEA? CIA? Interpol? I don’ know you. You got wrong number. Prank caller, prank caller, prank caller! Don’ call here again!
<click>

Now it’s Pirate Bay’s turn and on this I’m even more sceptical. The Sealand vendors continue to assert that they are a sovereign state and can do whatever the hell they like. Problem is, all this confidence stems from a UK court decision in 1968, and sovereignty isn’t what it used to be – look at Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan for examples.

It’ll probably be fun while it lasts, but if I could presume to offer some sage advice to any Pirate Bay investors who might be reading – demand dividends daily, and in cash.

On another note, check this out. One down, nine to go!

The Oracle has spoken

A number of notable bloggers out there have recently posted their predictions as to what 2007 will hold for this whole crazy Interweb-type thingy.

Now, my New Year’s Eve clairvoyance is typically limited to picking 10 celebrities most likely to shuffle off their mortal coils over the following 12 months, but (as my lawyer will tell you) I’ll try anything once. Better late than never, as my (late) Grandfather used to say, so here it is – behold my predictions for 2007…

1. Theresa Gattung will be fired, and replaced with a man in his late 50’s or early 60’s. First thing he does is pull the plug on Ferrit, earning plaudits for a no-brainer call that should have been made ages ago.
2. More big brands will abandon big-budget TV production altogether, in favour of targeted interactive marketing. My pick for first up: Air New Zealand.
3. At least one new (or existing, but currently inconsequential) non-tech company in NZ will come from nowhere to achieve dominance in their sector, largely due to a well-conceived and executed interactive strategy. Their old-school competitors will be astonished and yet still do nothing.
4. Google will acquire or form a close strategic alliance with KodakGallery.com or one of the other online digital image services (not Flickr). Google will then integrate the image service and YouTube’s features with Blogger’s offering so that users can access all of those tools via a single interface.
5. A substantial ‘adjustment’ will take place in tech stocks. That’s right kids, we’re headed for another crash (we had them in ’87 and ’97, why not ’07?). Google will take a big hit, down to $400 US or below.
6. The Venice Project, launching in March, will change broadcast television – content and advertising – forever.
7. The next evolution in Web 2.0 / CGM will be in content filtering / selection, rather than creation of or access to content. (We have access to content now – the issue is gaining access to content we want to see without having to browse around all day looking for stuff we like). Several new media brands will rise as a result of this, using a format that is essentially a blog with a steady stream of audio, video, text and image content selected from all over the Web. Kind of a cross between DrudgeReport.com, YouTube and SKY TV. Think of them as uber-blogs (kinda).
8. The big new development of the year will be a new revenue model for content creators. Creators of new CGM content – however lame or amateurish it might appear – will receive a revenue share from advertisers – this will also include bonuses for product placement (e.g. create popular CGM containing Mountain Dew and you’ll get some cash from PepsiCo). In essence, the content creator will be getting a cut of the ad rev share that currently goes exclusively to the publisher (e.g. the blogger).
9. TradeMe will face a backlash from its user-base as Fairfax continues to meddle with its service offering and revenue model. Either Zillion or a new entrant will experience significant gains as a result – in terms of user numbers, traffic and revenue – but will not seriously threaten TradeMe’s position… yet.
10. 2007 will see the launch of a GOOD (useful and intelligent) search engine / portal focusing entirely on CGM.

Ps. Useless buggers at MobileFoneRepair.com / Motorola NZ still haven’t sorted out my crappy phone. As a matter of fact, now they’ve lost it. Any Telecom Mobile reps reading this want to give me a call?

A lesson in Online Reputation Management

<rant>

Ok so about 4 months ago I managed to smash the screen on my trusty Sony Ericsson 3G mobile. This phone had served me well, and I was actually pretty gutted that I wasn’t offered an equivalent Sony as a replacement. If I had been, I probably would have avoided a bunch of trouble.

What I ended up with was a Motorola v3x – Motorola’s best and newest 3G toy, apparently the best money could buy. At this point I feel I should repeat the abovementioned rant warning. This is a rant about a crappy product and even worse customer service. There is a valuable point here though, so bear with me.

The Players:

Moi – a humble Rodeo Clown-wannabe from Titahi Bay

Vodafone – half of New Zealand’s mobile phone duopoly, and retailers of sub-standard mobile devices

Motorola – you’ve heard of them. My guess is they need to call Dan Trietsch for an explanation of the term ‘quality’

MobileFoneRepair … dotcom! (don’t forget the .com!) – Motorola’s NZ agent and employer of the least helpful customer support people I’ve ever encountered (beating Motorola by a nose).

ACT I: Within hours of purchasing said phone, it was obvious that I had been had. Poor audio quality, dropped calls, powering off for no reason. Back it goes to the store for immediate replacement.

ACT II: Replacement arrives. Two weeks later, back it goes for the same reason. This time they tell me the ‘out of the box failure’ period had expired, so the phone would have to go to MobileFoneRepair… dotcom! Phone returns a week later with a clean bill of health. Gee – I must have been making all those issues up to get attention. My parents didn’t love me enough?

ACT III: Two weeks later, back it goes again. Politely explain that the phone is unreliable at best. Off again to MobileFoneRepair… dotcom! Back it comes with a clean bill of health. Upon querying this with Vodafone, they advise that the most likely explanation is that the phone is fine, but their network is defective. How comforting.

ACT IV (this is where it gets really interesting): So last week I decided I’d had it. I called Motorola, explained the troubles I was having and what a piece of crap phone I had. The helpful customer support guy told me that they would replace the phone right away.

GREAT! My frustrations are over, right?

Wrong.

A week later and no sign of the promised replacement. I call Motorola again only to be told that I have to call Motorola New Zealand. That’s right sports fans, it turns out that all this time I’d actually been dealing with a crew in Australia. They give me a phone number for Motorola NZ and essentially wash their hands of me.

Which brings me to this morning. I call ‘Motorola NZ’ and who answers the phone? MobileFoneRepair… dotcom! Upon explaining the situation and asking the procedure for collecting my replacement, the operator (‘Ramana’) tells me I have to send the phone in for repairs. ‘But Motorola’s already authorised a replacement, right?’ ‘You guys have already tried to fix it and couldn’t, right?’ ‘Why send it in again, then?’ Yelling in my ear and then a hang-up. Nice. I call back and ask to speak to her supervisor. ‘I am the supervisor’ she says. I ask can I speak to the person who signs her paycheck? ‘No’, and she hangs up on me again.

At this point I’m getting really pissed, so I call Vodafone again. (I must have called them a dozen times thus far, with no joy). The upshot? I personally have to request a letter from Motorola Australia, take it (not post it) and the phone in to MobileFoneRepair… dotcom!, then wait 48 hours for a replacement. Gee that’s reasonable. Seeing as how I chose to buy a Motorola and spend close to a grand a month with Vodafone I suppose it is my mess to clear up. Silly me!

Why am I telling you this? Do I want a cookie? Do I expect you to care? Nope, but I do want to tell you a few things:

1. Motorola’s production quality is terrible. Since I got into this mess I’ve asked around, and haven’t met a single person who’s had a Motorola phone and didn’t find it defective in one way or another. Stay away from them.

2. Poor quality wouldn’t be such a big deal if their customer service was better – or even ‘adequate ‘ – but it isn’t. Motorola is happy to flog their defective wares in New Zealand, but doesn’t want to know about what happens afterwards. This they delegate to MobileFoneRepair… dotcom!, they too sadly lacking in quality control and customer service.

3. If you see a phone you like on TradeMe or at a parallel importer store, buy it. Buying from an authorised reseller gives you no higher degree of quality, protection or after-sales service. Trust me on this.

4. Don’t ever put up with this kind of crap. Vodafone has now offered to give me a new phone, from a different manufacturer, if I extend my contract with them. You think this means Motorola is off the hook? Hell no – I’m going to get that replacement out of them if it kills me. Then I’m going to throw it in the trash where it belongs.

5. When you encounter this kind of malarky, TELL PEOPLE. A single pissed-off consumer boycotting a company’s products will accomplish very little. A few million people voting with their wallets is a different story. Your power as a consumer comes from sharing your views and experiences with others.

6. Companies should take note that, like it or not, they have online reputations. The things people say about them online – particularly in blogs – are becoming more and more powerful in their ability not only to influence peoples’ purchasing decisions but also as a way for organisations to understand what people really think about their brands, products and services. This kind of ‘chatter’ is inherently honest and useful, particularly in comparison to traditional market research methods which are drastically swayed (IMHO) by the ‘interviewer effect’.

So here’s my contribution to the abovementioned companies’ online reputations:

Vodafone: Your customer service team is impotent. Your after-sales support for hardware purchased from your retailers is non-existant.

Motorola: Your quality control is pathetic. Your New Zealand agent is a terrible ambassador for your brand.

MobileFoneRepair… dotcom!: Your call centre needs a shake-up. Anyone who disconnects a customer – once, let alone twice! – isn’t fit to clean your toilets, let alone lead your Customer Services team. Your testing procedures are also way out of whack. Empirical Research 101: Failure to find a fault does not prove there is no fault – it merely proves you were unable to find a fault. Believe me, this is a VERY important distinction.

For anyone else concerned about their online reputation, Online Reputation Management is a fascinating field, and one in which we (Marker) have a great deal of expertise. If you want to know more about what people are saying about you online (even if it’s bad, it’s better to know!) and/or change things for the better, we’d love to hear from you.

</rant>

Thanks for listening. Go forth and be empowered.

Google market cap nearing $US 150b

Want to know why? I’ll tell you why – they’ve got a license to print money, that’s why!

An article in the Financial Times today pointed out that Google is set to overtake Britain’s main TV channels in advertising revenue.

The internet search company’s advertising revenue in the UK is expected this year to surpass Channel 4’s anticipated 2006 take of £800m. Within 18 months, it is forecast to overtake ITV1, Britain’s leading commercial TV channel and the country’s biggest single recipient of advertising revenue.

Are we looking at the end of broadcast television? Hopefully not. Are we looking at the end of TV advertising? Sadly not. Is it obvious that advertisers are wising up after decades of being scammed by ad agencies, and putting their money where they know the ROI is better? You betcha.

Welcome to the 21st century, kids.

A telling juxtaposition

Two articles posted side-by-side at Drudge this morning:

GOOGLE earnings surge 92%…

NY TIMES Profits Plunge 39%…

Other interesting revelations this morning include James Packer’s deal to sell 50% of PBL, freeing up approx $9 billion for investing in casino interests throughout Asia, and Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition of 7.5% of rival Fairfax. Together these say a lot about the old media barons’ perceptions of future profitability, and the need to diversify while their capital is still worth something.

Personally I think Packer’s right on the money. Owning a casino would have to be the coolest, most lucrative gig there is. Apart from being a license to print money, you’d probably also be able to hit the front of the ‘$1.99 All U Can Eat Lobster’ buffet any time you want, no charge. Sweeeeeet!

One thing you’d have to watch out for though (apart from these geezers) – if you wind up buying a Picasso for a smidge over $US 48 million, and then some years later stitch up a deal to sell it for close to $US 140 million, make sure you don’t slip and put your elbow through it right before the cash is due to change hands.

Nothing travels faster than the speed of light…

… with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. Two Douglas Adams quotes in less than a week, but both strangely appropriate IMHO.

Earlier today I came across a report that Steve ‘Crocodile Hunter’ Irwin had been killed in a freak accident while shooting a documentary near Port Douglas, Australia.

Ironically, it was a stingray that managed to succeed where pretty much all of the world’s deadliest species had failed at one time or another. What are the odds? (Pretty good I suppose, if you’re poking it with a stick and yelling ‘Look at this liddle byoody!’)

Far be it for me to make light of a tragedy, but I have to say I was amazed at how quickly the news spread and I’m not just talking about the news wires. Early on, before most news agencies had even picked up on the story and apparently before Steve’s widow had heard, Irwin’s WikiPedia obituary had been updated so many times that contributions were temporarily suspended.