The Professor's Notes

In my previous post I wrote about some of my thoughts concerning three key points that I drew from Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur”.

I wanted to take a few minutes to write about ways to address the challenges of these three points.

I have commented on twitter (@SCMProfessor) that I don’t like the push to be “followed” but not to follow back.  Leo LaPorte, and many others, talk in their podcasts about how many people follow them, and either in jest or with serious intent, talk about wanting more followers.  There I find myself usually asking “why?”

Of course, people like Barack Obama, @LeoLaPorte, and my two personal favorites @BrentSpiner  and @bobbyll (two of the best TV androids around!) serve a role as thought leaders.  But what about the rest of  us? Should we want to be folllowed by millions and not follow back?

I admit, I enjoy watching the following numbers go up.  It is in some sense a boost to the ego.  But I also feel it is important to follow back.  If we are to be part of a “community” then that community should encourage discourse and exchange.  We should want to follow the people that follow us, so that we can learn from them.  @TheRealDvorak (John C Dvorak) actually was doing this.  He would follow back.  He would engage.  Of course, leading the way in following back is Scoble (@thescobleizer) who follows 70K people, and is followed by 65K.  He engages!

Here’s my suggestions for engagement on Twitter. Read the rest of this entry »

I am reading Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today’s user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values. It is a very interesting, and challenging book.  His general thesis is that our move into the world of the “Digital Natives” (see my other blog post on that) has been essentially dumbing down our discourse. Perhaps even more to the point, he puts forward three points that catch my interest:

First, “I”  matter the most. In this new world we are all equally important, and apparently all have an equal right to be heard.  Unfortunately, in our rush to be heard we forget that we should also listen.  We are rushing to be heard, and ultimately result in simply asserting our right to speak.   In discussing an event he attended, he writes

“Everyone was simultaneously broadcasting  themselves, but nobody was listening. Out of this  anarchy, it suddenly became clear that what was  governing the infinite monkeys now inputting away on  the Internet was the law of digital Darwinism, the  survival of the loudest and most opinionated. Under  these rules, the only way to intellectually prevail is by  infinite filibustering.”

He then goes on to write Read the rest of this entry »

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

I saw someone on Twitter last night call President Obama to task for ridiculing private business owners for flying on privately owned corporate jets while failing to call members of Congress out for traveling on “free” junkets funded either by coporate interests or the taxpayer.
Well, apparently that thought struck Scott Adams as well.

At lunch today I commented to my wife that I was disappointed that when Amazon released the new Kindle they didn’t at least give us a firmware update for TOK (The Original Kindle.)  Well, it turns out I whined too soon!  I saw this today on the Amazon’s Kindle Forum site:

A new software update for Kindle has rolled out. This update (version 1.2) adds the following features:

- Zoom any image in Kindle books or periodicals by selecting the image using the scroll wheel.
- Individual items and groups of items can be deleted directly from the Home screen. Simply scroll to the item you wish to delete and push the backspace key.
- Improved character and font support including Greek characters and monospace fonts.

It turns out there are a few other hidden feature changes.

At this point the most obvious is the screen refresh.  Many of you know that TOK has a refresh cycle that some considered slow, and would flash a “reverse image” before showing the next page.  That was changed in TNK (The New Kindle) and the 2.0 Kindle reportedly has a 20% faster screen refresh rate.  Well, apparently this firmware update does the same.

I will continue using the update, and will report what else I find–so stay tuned!

Many of you know I bought an AppleTV and immediately hacked it to allow me to watch TV shows. This involved installing Boxee, and then using that open source software to stream Hulu.  Well, this week Hulu says they were forced by their content providers to stop Boxee from streaming their shows (which, by the way, included the advertising that Hulu inserted).

Hulu appeared “sorrowful” but apparently couldn’t convince their content providers that content is meant to be viewed.

What is most odd (and disturbing) is that Hulu has not only not shared which content providers strong-armed them, but they have also not share any rationale for why these content providers wanted Boxee stopped.  Remember, it was just streaming to a “full screen” shows exactly as they would be viewed on your computer.  The only real difference is that I am more comfortable and watching (in my case) on a larger screen.

I left a comment on Hulu’s site:

Okay–I too bought an Apple TV specifically to watch Hulu (and CBS) on my TV. I even made the decision to canceling cable TV.

Of course let me say that, while I thought Hulu was cool, I didn’t watch on my computer.  Sorry–the chair isn’t comfortable for WORK, why sit in it for pleasure?

So what has this decision done for me?  Made me realize that perhaps I watch too much TV.

Fox.  NBC.  Any other providers.

HEAR THIS:  I will not watch you on Hulu.  AND I will not be going back to Network TV to watch you either.

Bu-bye!

Do I expect anything close to the response we saw from Facebook?  Nope.  Of course not.  The old media establishment is far too entrenched to let something like viewers get in the way of their decisions.

But this does once again bring to the fore the discussion questions:

1. Who are the customers for a business (such as hulu)?
2. Do you have responsibilities to your users/viewers if they are not directly paying you?
3. Are “advertisers” really the customer since they are paying directly?
4. How does one measure the fact that viewers/users are the indirect sources of revenue since they are the target of the advertisers?

Any and all thoughts are appreciated.

Remember Storming Media?  I wrote about them in the previous post.

You will recall they resell government reports to you for which you have already paid as a taxpayer.  They do this, and provide no remuneration to the authors, even when those authors were not government employees. Well, that said, they pride themselves on “speedy and courteous service” which I suppose is a good thing.

I had to chuckle though.  I went to view their contact information, and saw this note at the bottom:

Please note that our phone numbers have changed unexpectedly due to serious incompetence and hostility towards customers by Verizon. We apologize for the inconvenience and would encourage others to try to avoid doing business with Verizon and other companies that take such a hostile attitude toward customers. We pride ourselves on treating customers much better.

I had to step back, and say “wow.” I understand we all have our customer service problems.  And many of us will write about them publicly.  Usually on blogs, or if we are journalists, in our editorial pages and commentaries.  But this is quite an unusual step.  They are, as a business, calling out Verizon.

I can imagine conversations about Verizon’s bad treatment of customers when one gets home from work.  Or perhaps sharing it in my Service Operations Management class, where we dissect business service experiences to better learn.  Perhaps even sharing stories over a beer at a restaurant, or party.

But on your business website?

So let me ask you, dear reader, the following questions:

1.  Would you put something like this on your professional business site?

2.  Do you believe that Storming Media was without blame in the issue?

3.  How would you have handled this?

Occasionally you find a company that just makes you stop and think.  And ask yourself “why didn’t they stop and think?”  Storming Media is one of those companies, and this is one of those times.  (see next post for more)

Storming Media is fast becoming the place to go to PURCHASE public domain government documents.  Yup, that’s right.  They are selling documents to you that your tax dollars have already purchased.  How do they get away with this?  They do it by providing the added value of having already done the search, and if you want, printing and binding the document.  Well, here it is in their own words:

Storming Media is a private, independent reseller of Pentagon and other US federal government reports on many subjects. Whether you are interested in biochemistry or military strategy, weapons or noise pollution, or anything in between, Storming Media delivers the information you need with speedy and courteous service and with our money-back guarantee that you will be satisfied. You may order any of our government reports in printed and/or downloadable PDF formats.

They also sell copies of research conducted by students at government schoools, to include my former school, AFIT–the Air Force’s Graduate School.   You can imagine the conversations that took place with students when they found their work being sold by this company.  “But it’s mine, how can they make money off it?” Read the rest of this entry »

The pressure worked on Facebook (Again.)

According to this story in the New York Times, Facebook has once again made a change, angered their users, and then have to backtrack.

===========

The word choices are interesting.  Facebook talks about the “feedback” they received.  How about: canceled accounts, deleted files, and angry emails.  I suppose that’s “feedback.”

What is really interesting though is that they have reverted back to the old TOS “…while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”  Just what does that mean?  Does that mean they will not go back? They will more clearly state that they will only keep material that is cross-linked to other people’s accounts? Or does it mean that they will try again when no one is looking?

Given that I asked the question about “Outcome Focused Performance” a few posts back, I can’t help but wonder what “outcome” Facebook (the corporation) has in mind with their decisions.  Obviously every business has financial success as their goal, but that is usually achieved through a mix of product, service, and value that attracts customers.

Facebook doesn’t really generate revenue directly from the users.  We pay no fee to join, no monthly account maintenance fee, and no data storage fee.  One could argue they have no obligation to us, and that there is no “contract” since no money changes hands.  Therefore they should be able to do whatever they wish.  The revenue that Facebook generates is a direct result of our being there, but is derived from our presence, and our activity.  Given this, Facebook’s action in changing the TOS could be viewed as a business simply hoping to extend their opportunities for revenue through the users.

Of course, I think they are losing sight of one important fact–we are guests.  Now, some would remind us that guests should “behave themselves” when in someone else’s house.  True enough.

But Facebook should remember that they need to be gracious hosts.

====

n.b.:The link identified in the article excerpt above is here.

Apparently the Telegraph thinks so.  I saw this on Google, and was struck by the “halo effect” that seems to be following Obama:

It was interesting.  I went to the story that went with the photograph (you see it has the Telegraph below it.)  The story didn’t actually have that photograph.  But the photo was available on their site at this location, and is in larger for here:

For most of you art afficianados out there, you will (hopefully) draw parallels to religious iconography through the ages.  How often have we seen Jesus the Christ, and the Saints, and other “Holy People” portrayed with halos?

Accident?  Subtle message?
Either way, it was off the Google news page half way through writing this.

Many of you have by now heard (perhaps through Twitter) that Facebook has changed their Terms of Service to essentially grant themselves in perpetuity rights to use your materials.  Even if you delete the items, or cancel/delete your account.

While I have no problem with them using the material I make publicly available while I make it available I am incensed that they are now extending their claims, unilaterally and retroactively, to all my material for all time.

In protest, I have emailed Facebook and told them I reject their new TOS, I have deleted my photos, and changed my profile photo to a PROTEST, and hereby grant YOU, the reader, license to reuse this graphic as YOUR profile photo.  All I ask is that you comment on here that you are using it.