Assumptive Direct Mail

I wonder what folks are thinking sometimes.  Take a look at this direct mail piece I received yesterday and let me know what you think could be improved.

Being in business today is tough.  With just one small change I bet these businesses would attract more new customers than they will this this direct mail.  It pays not to assume things about your audience.

Communication Networks are Not Equal

The government is once again expanding wireless spectrum so we citizens can have “more”, “better”, or “consistent” access to wireless networks.  The government is going to auction off the 500 MHZ spectrum that was “freed” up when old fashion broadcast stations, both FM radio and TV, became digital broadcast stations and “gave up” the spectrum.   According to the FCC -

“The FCC’s National Broadband Plan laid out a strategy for unleashing 500 Mhz of spectrum for wireless broadband; enabling incentive auctions and market-based solutions for driving spectrum to its highest, best and most efficient use; promoting flexible and unlicensed spectrum use; and generating revenue to fund a world-class mobile broadband network for our nation’s emergency responders.”

It appears that the government is moving spectrum that had been used for generations for public access with a relatively minimal cost to “market-based solutions” for access and use.  These “market-based solutions” do not appear to be held to the same standards that local, broadcast providers had been held for generations.  Where is the public welfare being protected by this action?

I have no objection to companies making money.  I have no objection to changing technologies when better technologies are available.  I am no Luddite.    I am, however, concerned about the public access to information which has driven citizen participation in the United States since its foundation when pamphlets were printed and circulated informing all as to the arguments during founding the country.  It is a widely accepted principle that when information flow is not widely available by all engaged in speech, the ability to weigh information and make informed decisions is inhibited.

I advocate that the new owners of the spectrum, Wireless Providers,  be subjected to the same public service requirements to which the prior owners of the spectrum were subject.  To extend this logic, the owners of the other networks, commonly referred to as CableCos, which are subject to a patch work of local regulations to provide local content access to their networks, are not subject to constraints that Wireless porviders.   Network owners are as vital today to public access as printers were in colonial times.   The difference is that only individuals that have paid for access can get the information today.  In colonial times, once a pamphlet was purchased it could be passed around.  Today, depending on whether or not the signal is encrypted and the subscriber has the proper equipment, only those that pay to be connected will be able to have access to the information.

It appears to me that the FCC is trying to manage 21st century technology with 20th century tools.  Today networks are everywhere and yet not everyone has access to these networks.  I ranted in prior posts that Network Neutrality is false argument.  I believe that the users have to pay for what they use, but I also contend that those that control the networks must provide access to baseline content as a public service.

The FCC needs to change their paradigm to account for the change in technology.  All information will soon be IP based.  All networks, including local access, will  soon be IP based.  As I type this, I am listening to Supreme Court Nomination Hearings on my computer but I could also do it on my iPhone.  I can just as easily watch any movie, listen to music, or video conference with anyone throughout the world because all these applications rest on IP.  They are all just another IP stream.  Yet the FCC is concerned with antiquated concepts wired, wireless, broadcast, and cable.  It is time to recognize that all networks are IP.  Content will find the least cost path to end users and needs to be managed in open environments, not closed systems.

The only difference between wired networks (I would include wired cable and telephone networks) and wireless networks is mobility.  Content will flow based on cost and access modality.  The FCC needs to manage the networks in the context of 21st realities, not 20th century realities.  The free market principles will provide for economic rewards.  People need to pay for what they use.  But those that cannot pay should be able to have information to make informed decisions.  It is a fundamental to our form of government that information flows.  The FCC needs to figure out how to maintain information flow within the context of the reality of new technology.

Broadcast Advertising – Who wants it?

Next time you watch TV or listen to the radio, count the number of commercials that relevant to you.  You may think SPAM is bad, but this stuff is worse.  My 8 year-old son can recall verbatim commercials.  That is not necessarily a bad thing especially when he tells me that smoking will kill you.   Maybe his generation will not be afflicted with the stink and cancer hoisted upon earlier generations by the tobacco companies.  I am raging about the commercials for which I just have no use.

I think by now we all know what Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis are for.  I think we know about Glucose meters, anti-depressants, and birth control pills.  However, by watching network TV, any cable channel, or listening to any radio station, you may come away with impression that we are a society in great need of medication.  There is a pill for almost everything. And we’ll learn about it at any time!

Companies need to be sure that we know they have solutions to problems we may have.  But, for goodness sake, do they need to tell me on Cartoon Network?  On Discovery Channel?  How about during a baseball game?  Is broadcast/cable TV in such poor financial shape that I have to see ED commercials while watching a ball game with my son or daughter on a Saturday afternoon?

Many years ago during a short stint at a market research company, I had the task of researching when viewers would accept advertising for condoms.  HIV – Aids was just starting to be rampant and TV stations were assessing when they could promote the use of condoms.  It turned out that viewers would accept condom commercials during the same hours as feminine hygiene products, during the day when kids were in school and after they went to bed in the evening.  Twenty-five years ago we had some decorum.

Today, we have none.  During the evening news, I get to “. . . be ready when the time is right.” and learn about PMDD.  I get to know more about memory loss and the pill that cures that.  Is it any wonder that the internet is becoming the modality of choice for accessing programming?  At least there, I can manage the commercial content.

Broadcast and Cable Media are guests in my house.  I know I have a choice to turn it off, but then what happens to the 4th estate?  How can we support independent journalist without supporting the entertainment and editorial content produced by the companies that depend on funding from big pharma?  Print is also under siege.  I guess something eventually had to take the place of tobacco advertising.  I almost prefer that to big pharma.  shigh……

Maybe cable could make more money by allowing me to select the kinds of adverts I want to see.  Wait, that would be creative and we know they are more interested in the status quo.

The answer for me is narrow casting.  I really like getting Tweets from the Birmingham News.  I get updates regularly.  I can click through when I have the time and read the article and view the advertising then.  I also use my iPhone app for msnbc and keep up with news and video there.  npr has a great iPhone app and I can even listen to my local station. MLB will let me watch a game on my iPhone.  The major question is: How much will I pay to be advertising free?

More innovation will come and I will eventually dump cable and broadcast.  I will be able to watch when I want without intrusion.   I can’t wait!

Be Bold, Move Forward

A freind of mine sent this quote attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (although it is somewhat disputed).

It encourages you to focus, commit, and momentum will meet you there.

“Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now.”

Smash the Silos

Silos can kill great ideas. Companies that know how to bridge them succeed. http://ping.fm/EedAG

Better Start Running –

I am reading “The World is Flat”.  I had to share this African proverb today that is quoted in the book:

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up.
It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion of it will be killed.
Every morning a lion wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It does not matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle.
When the sun comes up, you better start running.

Sometimes wisdom comes when you don’t expect it

It happened after one of those early Monday morning flights from Nashville to DFW.  The best reason to get up at 4:00 AM to make a 9:00 AM meeting in Richardson was to tuck my kids in on Sunday night and complete the weekend at home.  I really did not like leaving on Sunday night if it could be avoided.  It was on such a flight in 2002 that I was treated to a bit of wisdom.

By taking the first flight out on a Monday, I was able to use some frequent flyer points to upgrade to First Class which got me some leg room and a bit of breakfast.  Being tall, the leg room was the best treat.  Early in my career, I wore a hole in a pair of suit pants because my knees rubbed the back of the seat in row 12 or what ever row I was sitting behind.  I upgrade whenever I can to save my suit pants.  I was one of the first on board.  The flight attendant hung my jacket and I snuggled into 5A on a MD 80.  Soon I was joined by an older gentleman who was none too happy to be there.  As the flight attendant asked us for departing drink orders, she could tell she was in for a rough ride.

He was upset that he did not receive his snack to go along with his early morning Scotch.  (It was ether Scotch or Bourbon, I really cannot remember).  He was not pleased with the “silverware” which has been replaced with white plastic after 9-11.  The warm towels were paper.  After breakfast service which was not what he wanted because that choice had run out by the time she got to us, the flight attendant came by and empathized with the passenger.  She wanted to provide the services that he had become accustomed to receiving, but since 9-11, the airlines had cut back just to survive.  She provided him with a card that contained a phone number and email address for him to register his complaint if he so desired.

Throughout the flight, she remained pleasant, responsive, and did what she could to make the flight enjoyable.  From my perspective, I was just happy to have leg room, a bite to eat, and some time to read the meeting material again.  We exchanged glances throughout the flight and I thought she managed the situation well.

We landed at DFW on time.  I gathered my belongings and headed toward the exit.  Then something unusual happened, the flight attendant asked if I had a moment and motioned me toward the galley.  I stepped aside to let the passengers by.  She thanked me for my patience and shared this bit of wisdom.

“Do you know the difference between optimists, pessimists, and realists?”

“I’ve heard about the optimists and pessimists,” I said, “what about the realists?”

“Optimists see the glass half full.  Pessimists see the glass half empty.  Realists know the glasses have to be washed.   Over the past year I have learned that the glasses have to be washed.”

I smiled, thanked her for her service and went off to my meeting.

I have pondered this story often since that day.  I have become what I would call an Optimistic Realist.  I look for the best in every situation, but fully understand that hard work and routine pays off in the long run.  Looking ahead with a positive attitude while in the trenches makes the most sense to me.

Fiat is Back

The Wall Street Journal published an update on Chrysler today.  No one should be surprised that Fiat is driving the product change at the company because Chrysler has done a poor job building vehicles that people want.   Based on my experience, Fiat deserves the opportunity to succeed in North America.

During my vacation this past summer, I spent ten days in Italy driving a Fiat Punto.  It was a great drive.  Whether I was driving on the expressway or the narrow streets of a country hamlet, the car met the challenge.  I was pleasantly surprised with the acceleration, the ability to keep up highway speeds, and the fuel economy.  The Punto is a 4 cylinder diesel,  5 speed manual, 4 doors and hatch that holds enough for a weekend get away.  The car I had was almost new and the quality showed.    The car exemplified that Fiat knows their market and meets that challenges of the Italian consumer.

The page one article in the WJS indicates that Fiat will be contributing management and technology to Chrysler.   Given the years of poor management at Chrysler, the risk is high that they may not make 2012, but as a tax payer, therefore part owner, I am hopeful that the dealers, workers, and current middle management will work together to return both Chrysler and Fiat to profitability in the US market.

E Readers will fail unless . . .

I love the concept of E-Readers.  Just think, to have access to my library while on the go without carrying around books.  In grad school I remember carrying around 8-13, 400 plus page books so I could stay up to speed on assignments.  The thought of carrying around a one pound device with all my text books, being able to write notes and study from it as well is almost overwhelming.  Fewer trees killed for paper, fewer visits to the masseuse, and a smaller back pack are other benefits to E-Readers.  But, they are doomed to failure.

The history of printing need not be reprised in this posting.  The thing that made printing powerful is that almost anyone could do it.  The more resources, the better printing press you could afford.  Initially only the educated class was the only one that benefited from the printing press.  However, the availability of printed materials provided the catalyst for all classes to become empowered through books, newspapers and other printed material.  An author only needed paper, ink and capitol to publish a book.

Today, each E-Reader is backed up by a distribution network, The eBook Store from Sony, Amazon for the Kindle.  Recently,  Barnes and Noble recently launched their own reader software and electronic titles.  Several years ago, Microsoft launched the Microsoft Reader that was usable on desktops and hand held platforms with their own commercial offer.  Google has added to the fray with the work they are currently doing with their virtual library project.  Authors today are presented with a conundrum.  Not only do they write the books and deal with publishers, but they have to decide if, how, and where to publish electronic versions.

At the core, each of these approaches is based the economic value of the E-Reader, the electronic book and distribution.  Commercial offers are a combination of E-Reader devices and distribution of content.  Users are limited in content available based on device choice.  Publishers and authors are seeking to ensure that the intellectually property is protected from unwarranted copying and distribution.  I get that, but do users need to have multiple readers and software programs to read electronic books?  Will schools be limited in their choice of text books because of the device they choose to use?  Will the small, niche publisher have greater problems to overcome because they have to join a certain E-Reader platform or multiple platforms?

Digital Rights Management (DMR) for written word needs to be managed differently than DMR has been for the recording and movie industry.  Books don’t suffer from the relative ease of copying that movies and music experience because they were digital in the first place by being sold on CDs and DVDs.  Very few of us are going to scan a 300 page book and post it to the web for all to view.  We need to get a bunch of bright people in a room and figure this out.

Commercially, the E-Reader vendors will be able to focus on the appeal of their devices, the ease of use and other features.  We don’t need to worry that they will go under.  Let them compete with their intellect and engineering skills.  Let’s not continue to confuse content and distribution so that users have to have a certain device to use read a certain book.

Let’s remove the requirement of killing trees to read the latest novel, political biography, or treatise on social economics.  Give users a place to trade and sell used e-content

You may be wondering what lit my candle this week.  I was reading the Wall Street Journal (yes I still get a hard copy delivered) and wanted to read the books that were driving the policy discussion at the White House on Afghanistan, A Better War and Lessons in Disaster. Not only were all the copies sold out at book stores in and around the White House, but the delivery times for on-line purchases were 2-3 weeks and no electronic copies were available.   How many more copies could have been sold if this problem had already been solved?  Surly the conversation about an important public policy would be enriched by more people having the information from the source rather than relying on digests provided by news outlets or pundits.

This is not rocket science although we treat it that way.

Copyright 17 STS Marketing Group 2009

Bifurcate Access and Content

Access and Content

It is rare that an issue so central to the life of a country is embedded in the confluence of science, politics, business, and individual choice.  The conundrum of network neutrality is such mired in this confluence.  For those that want to know more about the science and engineering issues involved in the transmission of information across wire, cable, optical fiber and air wave spectrum this WikipediA* article is helpful and outside the scope of this posting.

Access and Content “management” are at the core of the network neutrality discussion.  Whether the discussion is Comcast “managing” the bandwidth available to streaming media or AT&T “managing” the functionality of the iPhone by not allowing Google Phone app, the crux of the discussion is around the companies that have responsibility for managing the network also being able to determine what content is available to the users of the network. “Managing” content is they technique used by the carriers to mask issues of network capacity and reliability while protecting revenue streams.

Access

The network owners that achieved that status through government licenses are in a tough spot.  They developed their networks in the age prior to permeation of the network by IP [Internet Protocol] which decentralized the control of content.  When cable was needed to deliver video content and twisted pair were needed to deliver voice content, the network builders were able to price and manage the network and content together because the particular network was needed for a particular content type.  Similarly, wireless networks were also built to manage a specific content.  The business implications are that the network companies built business models based on the combination of content and access.  For a price, a user got both.

The first chink in the business model came when AOL leveraged modems for dial up access across the voice network.  Suddenly networks that were designed for voice traffic voice were taxed by the increased, data driven data traffic.  Customers were requesting additional phone lines so that they could surf the net and receive calls.  Telcos and their equipment suppliers (Lucent, Nortel, Alcatel, etc) tried different engineering and equipment techniques to solve the problem, and with the creation of DSL, met the requirement pretty well.  The business model, however, still relied on selling voice application along with the data access.

Cable network providers hit the next bump in the business plan road.  The cable infrastructure is much more adaptable to bandwidth expansion compared to the twisted pair infrastructure of the telcos.  It was relatively easy to add data and voice to the cable networks because of the ability to adapt to the increased bandwidth requirements.  The business of cable relied on the ability to tier video content.  Once the cable was in the house, customers could choose multiple program bundles and increase the revenue stream to the cable companies.  The data (internet access) and voice produced additional revenue streams.  However, Vonage, Google Voice, Skype and others started eroding the voice revenue.

Wireless networks are currently constrained by that ability of the radio spectrum to carry large amounts of data.   With the recent auction of spectrum and the transition of broadcast TV to another part of the spectrum, the constraints will be reduced.  The network equipment providers are working on the solution, but the current economic slow down as impeded progress.  The wireless network providers are constrained by the same business issues of their counter parts, the access to the network is based on the provision of content.  In this case it is voice along with text messages, SMS, and limited data access based on the intelligence of the devices that are themselves subsidized by the network providers.

The business of all providers of network access is subsidized by the intermingling of the content because of way the networks were developed and regulated.

Content

One of the primary reasons that networks exist is to share content.  That is true of coffee shops where the regulars share the morning cup of coffee, the chat at the “water cooler” in the office, or the network of news stands selling magazines and newspapers.

The communication networks are no exception.  Regardless if it is a private network sharing company’s data internally or an old AM station broadcasting rock and roll networks share information.  Networks considered to be under discussion when the topic of network neutrality comes up are electronic networks designed to communicate content in the public environment specifically telecommunication, cable and wireless networks.  As previously mentioned, each has evolved from providing both access and content management as part of their commercial offer.  With the advent of IP, the necessity of the combination of access and content has been severed.

The business of each of the network providers rests on the integration of content and access.  When AOL began to stress the voice networks with data content, the networks had to be re-engineered.  Telcos are in the midst of re-engineering again with fiber optics so they can provide video content along with voice and data to compete with the cable companies which have more bandwidth in their networks because of the nature of the cable with which the networks were built.  The business plans rest on the ability to provide content as well as access.  IP changes the game.   IP provides the ability of content providers to create their own content rich distribution points.

Content providers have their own plans.  Sport fans have noticed MLB and NFL develop content outlets on the web.  Fans can purchase access to MLB on the web, wired and wireless.  Users can have access to broadcast TV on the web from FANCAST for free but at a later time.  Content providers are selling subscriptions and advertising to increase their revenue and disintermediate the access providers.  Access providers have to revise their business plans to adjust for this change.

Bifurcation of Access and Content

The FCC is challenged like never before in making new rules for the internet.  The first step in the process is the bifurcation of Access and Content so we can have a set of rules that manage each separately.  Until that happens, the carriers [telephone, cable, and wireless companies] will have vested interest in managing access so that they can have the most positive impact on their content revenue.

*Copyrights and Trademarks used in this posting are property of their owners.

Copyright 17 STS Marketing Group 2009