30 May 2012

Local TV Stations Cut Costs by Sharing News Operations

The folks over at Free Press are passing along an article from the New York Times, Local TV Stations Cut Costs by Sharing News Operations .
I have been pointing out for years about how disadvantaged television viewers subscribing to the basic package offered by Dish TV are provided only one single full service news outlet via Fox News, no CNBC, no MSNBC, no CNN (except Headlines). From a sociological view, it does make sense that in those more rural parts of the country not serviced by cable providers, that those same TV viewers are most inclined to vote Republican and support the Tea Party. It is the only "tea" that's being served. The business model requires subscribers to pay extra for the opposing views to Fox. One could argue that the GOP is building it's poorer ranks due to Dish not providing the full pallet of political opinion in those demographics. The more media choices in a given geography generally results in a more diversely opinionated voting population. There is no great science to that.

 wrote for the New York Times a new twist to local TV news coverage where covert consolidation, the largely hidden practice that allows broadcasters to air the same newscast on multiple stations in the same community continues to create an atmosphere where only one broadcast owners point of view to his local broadcast sphere of influence is available.

The reason the issue remains important is that even as Internet use rises, local television remains the No. 1 source of news for vast majority Americans.

Brian points out how in San Angelo, Texas that calling a reporter at the CBS television station might result in "an anchor for the NBC station who calls back. Or it might be the news director who runs both stations’ news operations.
These Texas stations KLST and KSAN, though separately owned, operate from the same building and share office space, news video and scripts.
 The stations "compete for viewers, but they cooperate in gathering the news — maintaining technically separate ownership, but sharing office space, news video and even the scripts written for their nightly news anchors. That is why viewers see the same segments on car accidents, the same interviews with local politicians, the same high school sports highlights.
The same kind of sharing takes place in dozens of other cities, from Burlington, Vt., where the Fox and ABC stations sometimes share anchors, to Honolulu, where the NBC and CBS stations broadcast the same morning show."

He cites a  University of Delaware study that last year found sharing agreements in at least 83 of the nation’s 210 television markets.
"The agreements are more prevalent in smaller markets, although even cities as large as Denver have them. There, the study found, newscasts on the Fox station and the CW station had the same stories, scripts and graphics more than half the time.
The sharing is evident, too, in San Angelo, a low-rise city of 93,000 where the market price of West Texas intermediate crude is shown before the Dow, and where hunting and fishing times are shown after the weather report.
The anchors are different at the NBC station KSAN and the CBS station KLST, but they read similar scripts in side-by-side studios. It’s almost comical, for a viewer flipping the channel back and forth, to see identical segments about spot news and health. (The weather segments, however, have different graphics and hosts.)
KLST and KSAN have the only local television news in town. The Fox station in town, KIDY, rebroadcasts the news from San Antonio, a four-hour drive away. On the bottom of the screen, headlines from local newspapers scroll by, the product of another kind of a shared services agreement — this time with the E.W. Scripps Company, the owner of the papers."
                           
This is where the Free Press people come in, as Paul interviewed them:
"Public interest groups have criticized the cutbacks at local newsrooms because they reduce the number of editorial voices in a given market. They assert that because TV stations hold licenses to the public airwaves, they have a responsibility to serve local communities. “The same cookie-cutter content above a different graphic doesn’t cut it,” said Craig Aaron, the head of Free Press, a nonprofit media reform group that has gathered case studies of sharing by stations.
“Worst of all, maybe, is that we’ll never know what’s missing — what dirt isn’t being dug up, what questions aren’t asked, what stories are going uncovered,” Mr. Aaron said, calling the sharing “covert consolidation.”
Some station owners say they would prefer to have more overt consolidation. They share, they say, because federal media ownership rules forbid them from outright ownership of more than one of the top stations in a single market. (Many exceptions exist, however, called duopolies.)
If Nexstar could own both KLST and KSAN in San Angelo, for instance, “we could generate further efficiencies,” Mr. Sook said, “and some of that additional operating income would be reinvested into the local news product.” That outcome, however, would still diminish the media diversity of the market, a major goal of the government’s ownership rules, which are now undergoing a review."       

Follow the link to read the full article at the New York Times website. Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. You can learn more about them at www.freepress.net


   photo of shared studio facility by Brian Stelter  

25 May 2012

The Credit Card Transcending Global Religious Restrictions

Neil MacGregor of the BBC discusses the global adaptation of plastic money and shares how one card is now compliant with Sharia law.

A very nice primer on how the credit card has gone global. "Islamic law forbids exchanging money for profit and this version of the card is Shari'a compliant, meaning that interest cannot be received on savings, or charged on borrowings. Shari'a compliant banks also cannot invest money in socially or morally damaging businesses and are mindful that Muslims must use their wealth to help the less fortunate.

In the 20th century financial transactions in many western countries were increasingly no longer made in cash but through credit facilities, cheques and electronic money. The first credit card was the Diners Club Card, created by businessman Frank McNamara in 1950, after an occasion when he did not have enough cash to pay for dinner. Today, over fifty percent of all transactions in the USA and UK are made on plastic cards, although in the rest of the world cash is still used for the majority of purchases."

From the radio program created by the BBC - A History of the World - Object : Credit card is the 99th of 100 episodes making up the series.

The program can be heard via this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b00vcqcz#

gold credit card
You can read along with Neil and the program here:
'If you asked anyone which twentieth century invention had most impact on our daily lives today, instant answers might include the mobile phone or the personal computer. I suspect not many people would think first of the little plastic rectangles that fill our wallets and purses. Yet since they emerged in the late 1950s, credit cards have become, in every sense, part of the currency of life. Bank credit is now, for the first time in history, no longer the prerogative of the elite and, maybe as a result, the long dormant religious and ethical debate about the use and abuse of money has been reborn in the face of this ultimate symbol of triumphant consumer culture. Today's object, our penultimate in this History of the World through things, is indeed a credit card. But it's a slightly unusual one, and it leads us to a perhaps unexpected conclusion about the way our world now behaves and believes.
"If everyone were able to make every transaction through a credit card, then would you actually need money in the conventional sense at all?" (Mervyn King)
So far this week, I've chosen objects with which to explore some of the key elements of twentieth-century life and living - sex and human rights, revolution, war and the aftermath of war. It's now the turn of that third great constant of human affairs, money. I couldn't finish this History of the World without going back to it.
It's featured throughout the series, from gold coins of the proverbially rich King Croesus, to the paper currency of Ming China and the first currency to go global - the King of Spain's pieces of eight. Today's global currency is neither metal nor paper, indeed it's not really money at all, it is a promise in plastic.
We all know the dimensions of this particular piece of plastic, because every credit card in the world is of the same internationally-agreed size and shape, so that they can all fit into the "holes in the wall" that now puncture our urban universe. It's got on it the name of the bank, and the usual run of numbers that identify it, and us as its user. This one happens to be coloured gold, and it's got a confirming inscription which says, in text on the top right-hand side of the card, "Gold". It wants us to know that it's a portal to big spending-power. This virtually weightless bit of plastic is worth a good deal of gold.
Of course, a credit card as such isn't itself money, it's merely a physical object that provides a way of promising money, moving it and spending it. None of us is now ever likely to see the money we've saved - it appears simply as long strings of numbers on statements and receipts. Money has lost its essential materiality and, with the flick of a few fingers, it can be conjured up virtually anywhere in the world, instantly.
All the coins or the banknotes we've looked at so far in this series have had king or country stamped on them, but our card acknowledges no ruler or nation, and no limit to its reach, other than its own plastic mortality, its expiry date. This new way of handling money gives us cash without frontiers, and it has conquered the world. Yet, even on credit cards, the aura of traditional money remains. The card that's telling our story proudly bills itself as a gold card. Croesus is still with us. This card is telling us that, like all the best money, it is as good as gold. And so even a complete stranger can be confident that he will ultimately be paid.
For Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, these cards are merely a new solution to the age-old problem of how far you can trust a stranger. Here he is:
"As in all types of money or cards used to finance transactions, the acceptability, the trust, which the other side of the transaction puts in it, is paramount. If I could give a different example, which I think illustrates the importance of trust here . . . when Argentina had its financial collapse, and it reneged on its national debt in the 1990s, the currency became worthless, and in some of the villages in Argentina, the use of IOUs as a substitute for paper currency started to grow up. The problem with an IOU is that the 'U' has to trust the 'I' - and that may not always be the case. So what happened was that, in the villages, some of them would take the IOU to the local priest, and ask him to endorse it. Now that was an example, in terms of the use of religion, which was not fundamentally about religion as such, but was about enhancing the trust that people had in the instrument that was being used."
In the absence of a village priest with global reach to endorse our IOUs, we use credit cards which span the world. This particular gold card carries two brand names familiar all round the world. One tells us that it is issued by a London-based bank, a name familiar on every British high street. The other tells us that it functions through the backing of a US-based credit association. But the card also has on it writing in Arabic. In short, this card is connected to the whole world, part of a global financial system, backed up by a complex electronic superstructure that most of us hardly think about as we key in our PIN numbers. All our credit card transactions, carried out with cards like this one, are tracked and recorded, building a huge dossier of our movements and purchases, and slowly writing our economic biographies as we move around the world.
It's an extraordinary development. We are free now, as never before, to spend our way round the globe, but most of us haven't the slightest idea how this system of moving money actually works. Even more important, we don't know who is monitoring our spending, or what they do with the information they gather. As they know more and more about us, we know less and less about them. The one thing we do know is that the banks - that this recent technology makes possible - are far beyond anything previously known, and that their global power transcends national boundaries. Here's Mervyn King again:
"The spread of a wide range of financial transactions, whether using cards issued by international banks or using the other services that they offer, have created institutions which are trans-national, which are bigger than the ability of national regulators to control, and which, if they do get into financial difficulties - fortunately not many have, but where they do get into difficulties - then, as we've seen, they can cause enormous financial mayhem."
In one respect, cards are like traditional coins and banknotes. They've got two sides, each holding important information. But the difference is that the back of the credit card holds information we can't read. That black magnetic strip is the electronic verification system that allows us to move money around the world relatively securely, and that permits instant communication, instant transactions and instant gratification. It's this micro-technology, one of the great global achievements of the last generation, that has made the worldwide credit card possible, and with it, worldwide banks. This little black strip is the hero, or the villain, of this programme. All the rest is simply a consequence of it.
Credit cards do something that was never possible before. They allow ordinary people to borrow at relatively low cost, avoiding both the pawnbroker and the loan-shark. Of course, such opportunities bring risk, and easy credit undermines traditional values like thrift - you don't have to save before you can spend. So it's not surprising that this new instrument of credit quickly became a target of concern for moralists and religious leaders, branded as dangerous, even sinful, in its very nature - and that it led to a new, loaded vocabulary. The "shopaholic" is our equivalent of the old-fashioned "spendthrift" and "wastrel". "Flashing the plastic" would certainly figure in any modern 'Rake's Progress'. Type in "credit card debt" on a search engine on the web, and you will find harrowing tales of lives wrecked by profligacy. It's merely the latest manifestation of the perennial dangers of living beyond our means, and of the perils of money-lending - always an urgent issue for the world's religions. Which leads us back to our card.
In the middle of it is a decorative rectangular strip, with criss-crossing red stars. It's curiously reminiscent of an object we discussed in one of last week's programmes - the drum from Sudan. This is Islamic patterning, and we know that it was carved on the side of the drum when it was taken to the Islamic north of Sudan, and branded to show the new world to which it now belonged. The decoration on our card makes the same point. It shows it was not just issued by a London bank, but by that bank's Islamic finance wing, based in the Gulf. The decoration announces that this card is different from ordinary credit cards - it's compliant with Sharia law.
All the Abrahamic religions have worried about the social evils of usury - the charging of interest. Both the Bible and the Qur'an have forthright things to say about it, from the prohibitions of Leviticus - "Thou shalt not give him money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase" (Leviticus 25:37) - to the scathing words of the Qur'an - "Those that live on usury shall rise up before God like men whom Satan has demented by his touch." (Qur'an, 2: 275)
The most recent manifestation of this age-old concern has been the rise of Sharia-compliant Islamic banking, offering services consistent with Islamic religious belief. Islamic banks are not permitted to invest in alcohol, the arms trade, pornography or gambling, and our Islamic credit card is paid for by a fixed service charge, not by interest. Here's Razi Fakih, from the Islamic wing of HSBC, known as Amanah, and based in Dubai:
"Islamic finance is a very new industry, the industry related to conventional industry. Conventional banking and finance has been around for as long as we all remember. Islamic finance started some time in 1960s Egypt, and I think it is only in the 1990s that it actually took off. If you were to go back to the early beginnings of Islamic finance, that's about just four decades old, but if you are to look at the recent development, and where it has really taken on a significant usage, it's only since 1990. So it's just less than two decades old, in that context."
This recent development, tying religion to the heart of commercial activity, runs counter to what, for most of the twentieth century, had become the received wisdom. Most intellectuals and economists from the French Revolution onwards, including Marx himself, assumed that religion would steadily dwindle as a force in public life. One of the striking facts of the first decade of the twenty-first century has been the return of religion to the centre of the political and economic stage in large parts of the world. Our gold Islamic credit card is part of that growing global phenomenon, one of many attempts to find a new accommodation between those old opponents, God and mammon."

About A History of the World in 100 Objects

The other 99 items in the series is worth investigating. "A History of the World in 100 Objects uses the British Museum’s collection to tell an epic history of humanity spanning over two million years. This 100-part series is narrated by Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum, and was originally broadcast on BBC Radio 4. You’ll find the objects from the British Museum, programmes and downloads on the A History of the World site:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/

22 May 2012

Distruptive Technology - The Nikola Tesla vs Thomas Edison Wars Continue

Alex Knapp, the staff writer over at Forbes who concentrates on science and technology wrote an essay this week titled Nikola Tesla Wasn't God And Thomas Edison Wasn't The Devil - .
It was in response to a cartoon done over at the Oatmeal blog site. In it, he starts with negating that "Tesla invent(ed) radar as The Oatmeal claims. Nope. He pitched an idea, but never developed a prototype. That said, a lot of his work did become the backbone for radar research in the 1930s, but there was a lot of work done between Tesla’s work and the eventual development of radar. Tesla pointed the way, but there was a long road that had to be dug out of the jungle.

18 May 2012

Graphic Shows How Ludicrously Complicated Social Media Marketing Is Now

Charlie Minato at Buiness Insider offered this great graphic that has gone viral by itself.

Maybe this is the reason General Motors went "mental" and pulled its Facebook ad budget.
Digital marketing is confusing—really confusing—as this insane graphic shows (below).
Trying to navigate through the various new social media categories, blogs, sharing sites, and social media firms is an absolute mess.
This depiction of the digital marketing landscape was shown at a Buddy Media event marking the launch of the social marketing software agency's new suite of measurement tools.

buddy media social marketing
Buddy Media / Luma Partners

Find the graphic and more associated articles at: http://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-marketing-landscape-complicated-2012-5?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29

17 May 2012

The Renaissance in Retail Banking

Jonathan Rosenthal over at the Economist has informed us that "after several weeks in the making", he is offering his take on the future of Retail Banking.

Jonathan explains, "This report will argue that retail banking is going to be the most exciting part of the banking business over the coming years. Yet unlike the bricks-and-mortar bookshops, travel agents and record stores that have been swept away by the internet, banks have two enormous advantages in adapting to change and adopting new technologies. The first is that in the minds of consumers, money is still special. Few customers like to switch banks, even if they are unhappy with their own, and even fewer seem ready to trust one without a physical presence. That is changing with time, but slowly enough to allow banks to adjust."

 

Highly recommended reading.

Retail renaissance | The Economist

Excellence in Reconciliation and Exception Management

New Point of View: Achieving Excellence in Reconciliation and Exception ManagemeThe folks over over at Investance have published a new Point of View written in partnership with Fiserv that they have titled "Achieving Excellence in Reconciliation and Exception Management".
Working from the premise of a environment of increasing transaction volumes and regulatory pressure, processing transactions continues to represent a major operational and technical challenge for Financial Organizations it is making it increasingly important for business and technology partners to embrace an end-to-end vision of the reconciliation process. They are offer their new Point of View identifing key issues and examining the range of possible solutions to address these challenges.
As they explain it, Financial institutions are now focused on implementing new capabilities and services to ensure better internal controls of transactions through improved reconciliation and exception management processes. "Business and technology leaders play an equally crucial role in delivering the changes required. They will have work together to make the right investment and implementation decisions to address this new set of challenges relating to data quality, end-to-end execution and total cost of ownership.
So, today and in the next 5 years, what will Internal Controls and Reconciliation challenges look like?
How should organizations respond to new Reconciliation and Financial Control regulatory constraints and manage the practical implications? How can Technology prepare and be positioned to offer a robust architecture framework and what key components are needed to support the challenge of an end-to-end reconciliation process?"
Their point of view identifies as what they see as the key issues and sets out the range of possibilities that can be better exploited to address these challenges. 
More importantly, it invites the financial industry to recognize the importance of having an end-to-end vision of the controls, reconciliations and exception management processes needed in their organizations - a future where there are efficient and effective methods, processes and technical solutions in place for all classes of assets and transaction types.
Investance is offering a download of the thought piece at their website:
Research & Publications | Investance

15 May 2012

GM Says Facebook Ads Don't Work - Opel Branding, Anyone?

GM Says Facebook Ads Don't Work, Opel Branding Might be Their Bigger Solution.

Joann Muller, the Detroit bureau chief at Forbes reported the awkward announcement that General Motors is pulling it's advertising from Facebook. Awkward in that, the news comes days before Facebook's $105 billion IPO scheduled for Friday.

In a statement, GM said: “We regularly review our overall media spend and make adjustments as needed. This happens as a regular course of business and it’s not unusual for us to move our spending around various media outlets – especially with the growth of multiple social and digital media outlets.
“In terms of Facebook specifically, while we currently do not plan to continue with advertising, we remain committed to an aggressive content strategy through all of our products and brands, as it continues to be a very effective tool for engaging with our customers.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, GM spends about $40 million a year on Facebook marketing, about $10 million of which is for paid advertisements. It will continue to post relevant content about the company and its brands on GM’s Facebook pages.

The timing, it seems, was purely coincidental. “There was no planned release,” said GM spokesman Pat Morrissey. “It’s not like we planned to wait for the week of their IPO to put this out.”

GM marketing chief Joel Ewanick told WSJ that GM “is definitely reassessing our advertising on Facebook, although the content is effective and important.”

The Journalsaid the carmaker began to question the effectiveness of its Facebook ads earlier this year and GM marketing executives met with Facebook managers to address their concerns but remained unconvinced that advertising on the website made sense.

Former Detroit bureau chief for The New York Times, Micheline Maynard, blogged on Forbes the question as to whether the issue is really with the effectiveness of Facebook or the GM offering this model year.  Facebook is an especially popular social media tool with baby boom, Generation X and Generation Y women, who make up both the prize portion of the car market, and Facebook’s user base. Micheline points out that women, in particular have been ignoring all domestic vehicles (with the exception of the Jeep Compass).

With the Chevy Sonic in particular, GM is trying to attract millenials and has turned to MTV for marketing help. Facebook would seem the logical companion outlet.

Amy Chozick wrote an article in the New York Times back in late March that explained how "G.M. hired John McFarland, a 31-year-old marketing executive who previously worked at Procter & Gamble, to oversee the company’s MTV-ification. Mr. McFarland said it had been a challenge to prove to his bosses that young consumers had money to spend ($170 billion in buying power, according to the market research firm comScore), and did not just rely on their parents.
“There’s been a lot of pessimism in the auto industry towards this generation,” said Mr. McFarland over a plate of brisket at Slows Bar BQ in Detroit’s Corktown district.
But signs of change are there. On a recent Tuesday morning in the General Motors Technical Center, which was designed by Eero Saarinen, a couple of car executives huddled around a “persona board” in the color and trim laboratory.
They studied a collage loaded with images of hip products like headphones created by Dr. Dre, a tablet computer and a chunky watch. The board inspired new Chevrolet colors, like “techno pink,” “lemonade” and “denim,” aimed at “a 23-year-old who shops at H&M and Target and listens to Wale with Beats headphones,” said Rebecca Waldmeir, a color and trim designer for Chevrolet. This rainbow of youthful hues will be available on the Spark this summer.
Still, any turnaround will not be quick. Car designs have around a three-year lead time. The paint has to dry (colors are baked in the Arizona desert for a year before they are approved and introduced to consumers). And the car industry, from assembly line to union to smooth-talking dealer, revolves around a powerful and entrenched culture.
It is also unlikely that G.M. will adopt some of Scratch’s advice. After installing “secret shoppers” at select nationwide Chevrolet dealerships, Scratch recommended that salespeople abandon the hard sell and that the traditional system, based on commissions, be reimagined. Young buyers, they realized, are used to the Apple store, where salespeople do not push products. (Joel Ewanick, G.M.’s global chief marketing officer, said the automaker was training dealers on how to adapt to young car buyers.)
“We tried to teach dealers how to calibrate conversations,” Mr. Martin said. “Stop trying to be cool and give them the fist pump. They can tell you don’t get it.”   

Amy also interviewed Ross Martin, the vp of MTV Scratch, who told her that many young consumers today just do not care that much about cars.
That is a major shift from the days when the car stood at the center of youth culture and wheels served as the ultimate gateway to freedom and independence. Young drivers proudly parked Impalas at a drive-in movie theater, lusted over cherry red Camaros as the ultimate sign of rebellion or saved up for a Volkswagen Beetle on which to splash bumper stickers and peace signs. Today Facebook, Twitter and text messaging allow teenagers and 20-somethings to connect without wheels. High gas prices and environmental concerns don’t help matters.
“They think of a car as a giant bummer,” said Mr. Martin.

I believe General Motors when they say the ads are not working and I agree with them that keeping the brand pages on Facebook remain extremely valuable. The ads are a needless extra expense for models Facebook users are not interested in. That said, here's My Advice to GM:
1. This is when GM should look at it's own history for help and recognize that the original concept and approach of how Saturn's were first sold should be employed with this demographic. Car seller's need to take their proper cues from social media marketing and remember that this is the generation where pull is far more effective than push. Removing the ads is a good first step.
2. The truth is that GM models remain boring. Although almost as generic, comparable models from Asian competitors are still less expensive and ever so slightly more stylish. (Example: an equipped Hyundai Veloster actual selling price remains less than an equipped Sonic) GM needs it's own break-out model or model that is unique in space. I would offer for unique...GM has lacked a small 4x4 since ending it's Suzuki built Tracker line. Imagine the interest that would be generated by a diesel-powered mini-SUV getting close to 50 miles a gallon. 
For consumers born from 1981 to 2000 — that would be a “millennials” game-changer. Actually, it would be an industry game-changer.. Have the Opel guys design it and market it with an Opel logo... make Opel your millennial brand... it will make up for having kept Buick around instead of Pontiac.
3. Which is already part of #2, but bears repeating. Use the still existing, but U.S. absent, Opel brand to bring in consumers that just refuse a Chevy or a Buick moniker on their vehicle. You need a "cool" brand and Chevy and Buick are not and won't be anytime soon.

10 May 2012

The Rise in Customer Focus

Among the conclusions of a study of Middle Market companies by Forbes Insights and BMO Harris Bank were indicators in that sector of a rise in customer focus.

They surveyed more than 300 senior executives at mid-market companies across the US, asking them how they achieved growth in the past and how they expect to sustain it. (In addition to the survey, the folks from Forbes Insights interviewed executives from companies that were listed by Forbes as being among the 100 Best Small Companies in America for 2011.)
Their finding included these results:
One of the most consistent sets of findings across the whole of the survey is that middle market companies appear to be operating with a heightened awareness of the importance of a customer focus. Improving the customer experience has already been highlighted as the priority most frequently cited as extremely important. But responses to three additional questions show that customer awareness and focus literally pervades middle market mindsets.
For example, asked to identify the factors contributing most to their organization’s growth, the most frequently cited is a focus on customer experience – mentioned by 46% of respondents. Then in another question, executives were asked to evaluate the criticality of a list of potential external forces or game changers.
Here, four of the top five issues most frequently rated as extremely significant all exact an impact on customer relationships, including: pricing pressures, decreased customer budgets/spending, falling customer demand and increased domestic competition.
And in a third survey question, executives were asked where they would be focusing their resources going forward.
Here, three of the top four areas are again customer-related, including: customer service, new product/service development and sales.
All of the above underscores the middle market’s belief in the importance of customer relationships. It also goes a long way towards explaining why many middle market companies feel they need to devote greater resources and attention to these issues.
A copy of the full report is available at the Forbes Insights website.

http://www.forbes.com/forbesinsights/inspired/?BMO_VSC=HB^BMO^exFRB^DT10088^thlead

07 May 2012

Kodak Didn't Fall Victim to Disruptive Technology... It was Bad Management

Kodak didn't fall victim to disruptive technology. They owned the technology and mismanaged it.
Kodak fades into history
Shutterfly Inc.has agreed to acquire Kodak Gallery from Eastman Kodak Co. for $23.8 million after no other bidders came forward with a higher bid for the online photo service.
Kodak is selling Kodak Gallery as it restructures its operations in bankruptcy court.

Kodak warned that because the migration "will be a massive undertaking, involving the movement of billions of photos," customers' images may not appear on Shutterfly for months. Photos will appear under a "Kodak" folder in Shutterfly.

Kodak also announced that it is killing its digital cameras business and plans to focus on printing in an effort to save money.

At one time, Kodak -- the pioneer of modern-day handheld film cameras that brought into popular culture the phrase "Kodak moment" -- had more than 90 percent of the market share of film sales in the U.S. But the 131-year-old company struggled since the introduction of digital cameras.

For the company that actually invented digital photography it's a sad end. The fact that the firm is restructuring to concentrate on PRINTING?! is probably the saddest part of the story and points directly to why it has failed.
Printing?!... at a time when electronic readers are replacing books, magazines and pretty much any form of correspondence? 

It was a stagnated leadership with no vision that brought the firm to this point. Because it had a sweet 90 percent of an analogue market to themselves and didn't acknowledge that the world would change with or without them, management froze from marketing the very innovation they created... instead, they licensed and sold it away.

Of their photography contempories... Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Fuji went digital and are thriving....Minolta and Konica went into the copier business and are surviving... is that the best model they could have chosen to emulate... when Rochester neighbor Xerox is moving on to consulting?

Producing and processing film in K-14, C-41, E-6 chemicals was a profitable business and why would management want to disrupt the status-quo? They didn't, and the business of imaging all went away to other firms with cleaner technology... their next move?... they are concentrating on the diminishing use of ink and paper. Oy vey.

With the accepted explanation for the demise of Kodak being the victim of disruptive technology, should anyone at the bankruptcy court share with the folks planning their future that being determined "and doomed" to stay analogue til' the very end might not be the long term solution.

Back in October Tony Jackson wrote in the FT about Clayton Christensen and of how Christensen's explanation of disruptive technology applied to Kodak :

Properly defined, a disruptive technology is cheaper than the existing version and initially not as good. For established players, this poses an acute cultural problem.
They got where they are by giving their customers what they wanted at the highest practicable quality. Faced with a cheap and dirty alternative, they may address the challenge, but it goes against the grain to devote resources to it.
Thus, makers of mechanical diggers failed to meet the threat of backhoe loaders and integrated steel producers were caught unawares by mini-mills making steel from scrap.
Both products were for niche markets – those who could not afford the real thing. By the time they were of equal quality – while still cheaper – it was too late for the old guard to respond.
These examples were laid out in 1997 by the US academic Clayton Christensen in his remarkable book The Innovator’s Dilemma. As it happened, Kodak’s price peaked in that same year at $94.25. Last Friday it closed at $0.78.
Kodak’s predicament was not then advanced enough to figure in the book, but it illustrated the theme to perfection. For a century, it had based its business on silver halide film and paper. It was aware of the threat of digital imaging and had spent considerable sums tinkering with it, but to no useful effect.
In the mid-1990s I paid several visits to Kodak’s headquarters in Rochester, New York, and the cultural mindset was – with hindsight – on full display. Various executives told me how wonderful silver halide was.
Professional photographers could not do without it, nor could Hollywood. Digital was for amateurs. And even they would always want prints for the family album and home movies to send to distant relatives.
Kodak’s then chairman, George Fisher, was in an excellent position to know better. A technologist to his fingertips, he had recently moved from running Motorola. But faced with the stubborn Kodak reality, he took an awkward halfway position.
Film would co-exist with digital. If nothing else, he argued – in an upside-down version of Prof Christensen’s thesis – it was cheaper.
A picture taken with Kodak’s top-of-the-range digital camera would print out on silver halide paper with no loss of quality. But the camera cost $27,000. Even Kodak’s cheapest, with a poorer image than film, cost $1,000.
That would change, he conceded. But “the popular scientists get carried away with the pace of those things”.
It is instructive that Mr Fisher – a thoughtful and well-regarded manager, as well as a technologist – could get it so wrong. But in the event, it was not merely film that was doomed.
The camera itself was to be largely swept away. Today people take pictures with their mobile phones and chat face-to-face with distant relatives on their laptops.
So was Kodak’s fate inevitable? Not entirely.
In the days of film, it shared world domination with Fuji. Founded in the 1930s as Japan’s answer to Kodak, Fuji has had a tough time recently. But not as tough.
Thus, while its sales have fallen 8 per cent in total over the past decade, Kodak’s are down by nearly half. Fuji’s net earnings are down 20 per cent, while Kodak last made a profit in 2007.
And crucially, Fuji still had net operating cash flow last year of $2.4bn, while Kodak has had negative cash flow for the past two years running. Indeed, last week’s share price drop was prompted by fear that Kodak is finally running out of cash.
That looks increasingly plausible. Kodak has just drawn funds unexpectedly from an existing credit line and has hired lawyers specialising in restructuring – while stoutly denying that it contemplates bankruptcy. But why the difference between two so similar-looking companies?
Part of the answer, no doubt, is that whereas the US is the home of IT, Japan has for decades been the home of consumer electronics – digital cameras now included. Another cultural clue: Kodak did not attend the annual Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show until 2004.
Meanwhile, the company tries to eke out a living from its dwindling patents and a belated push into ink-jet printers. The lesson: when that disruptive technology gets you, the company is never the same again.Image Detail

03 May 2012

To Increase Revenue, Stop Selling - Don't Push, Pull

To Increase Revenue Stop Selling - Forbes

Matt Myatt has a column over at the Forbes website that again makes the case for how upfront and honest marketing (vs. sales) is becoming ever more relevant in the transparency of business in the digital age. It's no longer Push, it's Pull.
"The truth is most corporations have a hierarchy of sales that comes with a very established and entrenched pecking order. The enterprise sales folks and key accounts reps sit atop the food chain, followed by inside sales reps, and at the bottom of the latter you’ll find the customer service reps. The hunters are revered and the farmers are tolerated.... Frankly, most people I know would rather talk to a knowledgeable customer service person over a sales rep any day of the week. The reason for this should be obvious – the perception is a customer service professional is providing information and helping them meet their needs. A sales person is trying to sell them something.

It’s time for companies to realize that consumers have become very savvy and very demanding. Today’s consumer (B2B or B2C) does their homework, is well informed, and buys…they are not sold."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/05/01/to-increase-revenue-stop-selling/

02 May 2012

Dewey And LeBoeuf And The Evolution Of The Legal Industry

Dewey And LeBoeuf And The Evolution Of The Legal Industry

Tom Ashbrook's On Point radio program looks at the business of law in trouble and the crumbling of the venerable New York firm Dewey & LeBoeuf.
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/05/02/dewey-leboeuf-and-the-woes-of-the-legal-industry/player

For years, we’ve watched giants of American industry fall down and wondered where it would end. Well, the law is an industry too. Law firms. The legal profession. The business of law.
And this week one of the biggest law firms in the country – the world – Dewey & LeBoeuf, out of New York, is flying apart in spectacular fashion. Millionaire partners fleeing. Meltdown. And a whole industry, from law schools to lone lawyers, wondering what comes now.
This hour, On Point: the business of law, in trouble.

The commentators on the panel include:
Jennifer Smith, legal affairs reporter for the Wall Street Journal.
Michael Trotter, partner at the law firm Taylor English Duma, he’s practiced corporate law for five decades. Author of “Profit and the Practice of Law: What’s Happened to the Legal Profession.”
Bill Henderson, professor of Law and Val Nolan Faculty Fellow at Indiana University. Director of the Center on the Global Legal Profession at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law.

Press quotes noted by the On Point folks:
DealBook “The crisis confronting the law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf has stunned the legal profession. About 70 of Dewey’s 300 partners have left since January after their salaries were slashed because of the firm’s weak financial performance. Dewey’s woes hardly surprise Michael H. Trotter, a partner at Taylor English Duma in Atlanta who, in addition to a five-decade career as a corporate lawyer, has written two books about the economics and management of law firms.”
Businessweek “Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, as it faces a possible bankruptcy after losing more than 80 lawyers, is near an agreement with banks about extending its line of credit, a person familiar with the talks said.”
The Wall Street Journal “The former chairman of New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP was stripped of his remaining leadership roles Sunday, as law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP called off discussions on a possible deal with the struggling firm. While official talks are over, Greenberg leaders are continuing informal efforts to cherry-pick certain Dewey lawyers and practice groups, a person familiar with the situation said Sunday.”

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/05/02/dewey-leboeuf-and-the-woes-of-the-legal-industry/player

Venus De Milo sculpture in front of the Calyon building in Manhattan, home of the Dewey & Laboeuf LLP headquarters. (Courtesy Michelle Verdugo)
Venus De Milo sculpture in front of the Calyon building in Manhattan, home of the Dewey & Laboeuf LLP headquarters. (Courtesy Michelle Verdugo)

01 May 2012

America’s Nine Most Damaged Brands

America’s Nine Most Damaged Brands - 24/7 Wall St.

The folks at 24/7 Wall St created a somewhat subjecive list of what they called America's Most Damaged Brands. Regardless they offer a useful primer on brand and some fun examples:

"Highly recognizable brands can be invaluable, but they require constant attention. Their value can rise or fall because of management decisions, changes in the competitive environment, and the beliefs that a brand has aged beyond its useful lifetime. Often, though, the true causes of drops in brand value are folly and arrogance. 24/7 Wall St.’s review of nine brands that were badly damaged recently shows that even the most powerful brand cannot survive horrible decisions.

A brand derives its value from several factors. the most obvious being how much it can earn. This is not the least evident with Marlboro — the best-selling brand for its two owners, tobacco companies Philip Morris and Altria. The companies have fostered the cigarette brand through hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising and marketing support. The brand has evolved, adding other versions. Today there are also Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Reds (which are larger than standard), and Marlboro Menthol. One version of the brand is not enough, in the wisdom of its owners. The evolution of the brand has kept its customer base over the years, and probably added to it.
The brands on this damaged brand list often rose based on lofty claims, and fell when those claims were not realized. The Chevy Volt was meticulously engineered by GM to be its flagship car of the future. Then there were the misreports that it had engine fire problems and the damage was realized. The Nokia Lumia 900 was built to compete with the Apple iPhone. Just as it was introduced in the U.S. market, it was discovered to have a software flaw that could prevent data downloads. The Airbus A380 “super jumbo” was made to be the most advanced passenger jet in the world, until its wings began to crack.

For our purposes, a brand doesn’t have to be a product or service. People can be brands. Famous sports figures count on their images for large endorsements. Tiger Woods proved how swiftly a sports brand can be destroyed. A country can be a brand. Street violence in Jamaica in 2010 triggered a warning about travel to the island from the U.S. State Department. All of these brands are among the most widely recognized and consumed brands by America.
Continue Reading America’s Most Damaged Brands
http://247wallst.com/2012/04/13/americas-nine-most-damaged-brands/2/

The Case for Why Google and Facebook Might Disappear in the Next 5 Years

Here's Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years - Forbes

In the tech world, we’ve really had 3 generations:
  • Web 1.0 (companies founded from 1994 – 2001, including Netscape, Yahoo! (YHOO), AOL (AOL), Google (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY)),
  • Web 2.0 or Social (companies founded from 2002 – 2009, including Facebook (FB), LinkedIn (LNKD), and Groupon (GRPN)),
  • and now Mobile (from 2010 – present, including Instagram).
In an article over at Forbes, Eric Jackson presents the case of how the evolution of technology would make Google and Facebook, as is, obsolete. Cynics are pointing out that Facebook thinks this too and made the decision for an IPO while the going is still good.
Eric JacksonHe points out: "With each succeeding generation in tech, it seems the prior generation can’t quite wrap its head around the subtle changes that the next generation brings. Web 1.0 companies did a great job of aggregating data and presenting it in an easy to digest portal fashion. Google did a good job organizing the chaos of the Web better than AltaVista, Excite, Lycos and all the other search engines that preceded it. Amazon did a great job of centralizing the chaos of e-commerce shopping and putting all you needed in one place.
Facebook is also probably facing a tough road ahead as this shift to mobile happens. As Hamish McKenzie said last week, “I suspect that Facebook will try to address that issue [of the shift to mobile] by breaking up its various features into separate apps or HTML5 sites: one for messaging, one for the news feed, one for photos, and, perhaps, one for an address book. But that fragments the core product, probably to its detriment.”
Considering how long Facebook dragged its feet to get into mobile in the first place, the data suggests they will be exactly as slow to change as Google was to social. Does the Instagram acquisition change that? Not really, in my view. It shows they’re really fearful of being displaced by a mobile upstart. However, why would bolting on a mobile app to a Web 2.0 platform (and a very good one at that) change any of the underlying dynamics we’re discussing here? I doubt it."

A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in i...
A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)