Microsoft introduces Surface

A few hours ago, Microsoft introduced it's new computing platform, called "Surface".

Surface is tabletop computing featuring a multi-touch screen interface, with obvious applications in hotel, restaurant and retail industries. Using a combination of touch and gesture, users can work and interact in a more natural way, with computers.

New devices won't be introduced until the fall/winter and will cost between $5K and $10K. At the moment they will be offering a 30" tabletop with other form factors promised in the future.

What I find surprising is that no one seems ambivalent about this technology. Some reviewers write it off as "nothing new" while others see it as "the future". I'm somewhere in between.

For me, Surface looks like it was designed by Apple. I think the interface will resonate with future users and of course, that will be the key.

I doubt the machine will do away with waiters and waitresses or the hotel concierge - after all someone will have to be around to reboot the thing! (I couldn't resist!). Besides it's obvious "cool factor", the adoption rate will depend on the answer to the questions: will this help me sell more wine? fill more hotel rooms?

The Assault on Reason

I was reading Al Gore's new book yesterday. He argues that reason and civic discussion are becomingly increasingly absent from America's political landscape. Part of the reason is the fact that news organizations have become profit centers and therefore are required to draw audiences with distracting, eye-catching stories, rather than focusing on issues that really matter, and are falling short in helping to educate the country's citizens.

Here's an example from today's CNN.com home page.

Listed with news on Iraq is the terribly important story about 3 pigs who trash a foreclosed home. And let's not forget the story about how a crowd is snipping off pieces of a beached whale.

When I see CNN (just one example) doing stuff like this, it makes me realize that we get the government (war, economy, environment, energy, immigration and healthcare outcomes) we deserve.

And if you don't believe me that it's all about entertainment, just take a look at the "headlines" that have accompanying video. How many of these are important?

At least they led with the War in Iraq.

My Pictogame

Who say's blogs can't be fun? Brings me back to my old Pong days. (I said PONG). Have fun.

Put this game on your blog Create your own More games

So why insert this game in my blog?

Well, think about using eye-catching techniques like this to spice up your corporate internet - to involve your reader, like this example ad for a company picnic.

Give it some thought.

Another Great one from Hugh McLeod

I'm quickly becoming a fan of GapingVoid, Hugh McLeod's website. Hugh is a marketer who creates these tremendous cartoons which he offers as business cards.

His latest creation, really hit home with me. As someone who's spent a LOT of time in the information technology field, no message rings truer. As you can read in my profile, my motto is: "It's NOT the software, stupid!"

So go purchase 50 or so of these business cards for your CIO. S(he) will appreciate it!

When is being a cultural icon a BAD thing?

One thing you NEVER want to see happen to your company is to become a cultural icon - in a bad way.

That's just what has happened to McDonalds.

They are now the proud parents of the cultural term; McJob.

And apparently, this phrase is now in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Yikes!

Middle Ages Helpdesk Support

Thanks to my wife, Karen for alerting me to the following.



I especially liked the customer's comment about how he preferred the scroll.

Let's take some lessons from this:

1. Notice that the customer did not know why he now had to use a book? How many times have you come across systems users who had no idea why a change was being made or what the benefits were supposed to be?
2. Obviously whatever "book training" was given, there was no post training assessment to see whether the customer understood how to use it.
3. In the Middle Ages, just like today, it seems we still believe that Helpdesk "training by exception" is the way to support systems. Obviously in the Middle Ages they didn't believe in local (business side) subject matter experts.

Enjoy.

Getting Real

A friend invited me to the upcoming Wisconsin Entrepreneur's Conference held at the Hyatt in Milwaukee June 12 and 13th. One of the planned keynote speakers is Jason Fried of 37Signals.

Knowing nothing about Jason Fried or 37signals, I decided to hit their website for a quick "look see." About 90 minutes later, I was still there, finishing their online book, "Getting Real".

The book's subtitle is; "The smarter, faster, easier way to build a sucessful web application". It is pure gold.

It's the book I wish I had written.

Literally every single page, rang true. Whether you're an entrepreneur or a web application developer, a marketer or a CIO, you can takeaway a LOT from this book.

It's definately about "Less is More" in terms of web development. It's about agility. It's about focusing your attention on the things that matter. It's about executing a few things very well, instead of a lot of things poorly. It's about working within constraints. It's about not playing it safe. It's about David vs. Goliath and why David can have such a huge advantage.

It's about time everyone read this book.

Oh, and their web services look pretty cool, too!

Increasingly Irrelevant?

Does anyone else find this morning's Today Show interview with former President Jimmy Carter somewhat ironic?

In a nine minute segment, host Merideth Vieira spent seven and a half minutes talking about Jimmy Carter's weekend remarks, in which he stated that George Bush's presidency was the worst in history (context: when compared on the basis of foreign policy accomplishments vs. Richard Nixon's presidency.)

The press took his remarks out of context and then, for seven and a half minutes, tried to make a story about it.

I found the interview especially ironic when Vieira asked President Carter to respond to the Bush administration's characterization that he was becoming increasingly irrelevant. The question was posed against a backdrop of re-construction efforts led by Jimmy Carter's Habitat For Humanity, in New Orleans.

Only 90 seconds of the interview focused on today's announcement that Habitat For Humanity was completing the construction of their 1000th house, in a major effort to begin to restore New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina.

Carter also announced the beginning of a second building campaign to build another 1,000 houses.

It begs the question. Who's increasingly irrelevant?

I'm a Fan of Internet "Broadcasting"

Have you noticed that TV shows are starting a trend whereby, post television broadcast, they offer unscripted, causal dialog over the Internet?

I'm becoming addicted.

For me it started with Bill Maher's "Overtime" segment, where, immediately after the show, his guests stay back to answer random email questions posted by viewers .

Today I saw George Stephanopoulos' "Green Room", where the show's producer candidly talks with the three panelists about topics du jour.

Maybe it's that feeling that no one is watching. Maybe it's because it's done "behind the scenes" - without the set, the studio lights and rigid, time limited discussion format. But I'm really enjoying it.

The panellists seem far more relaxed, more accessible. The conversations approximate those you might have with your neighbors over the back fence. Everyone seems so much more civil. I'd love to see this phenomenon take off and perhaps surpass viewership of the highly formatted programming offered by the networks.

For me it really underscores the fact that one can't explore topics like the Iraq War, Global Warming, Immigration reform etc in five minute segments. The Internet format helps us escape from a "sound bite discussion" and move the discussion forward in a more meaningful way.

The "problem" is that the Internet segments are only about 7 minutes long. They should be MUCH longer. I'd "tune in" on my laptop to watch.

And I bet a whole lot of other people would too.

Plant a Seed. Change the World.

Thanks once again to Seth Godin's blog, I came across this video from Microsoft's Steve Clayton. He was given a cartoon (by marketer Hugh MacLeod) of a blue monster designed as a rally cry to re-engage Microsoft employees, partners and customers.

The interesting approach that I noticed is that they aren't trying to craft the message. They introduce the blue monster image (on business cards, email signatures, presentations) as an icon, provide the message "Change the World or go home!", then let the reader/viewer, internalize the message.

No employee meetings, printed brochures, website updates, letters to employees' homes. Just a cartoon. They simply planted a seed.

And now it's appearing in posters, at people's desks, in employee, vendor and customer conversations.

Here's the video.

Mission accomplished?

If you were to plant a seed to engage the employees at your workplace, what might it be?

Some Companies "Get It"

I was just reading Seth Godin's blog on How to be a great receptionist. I know of at least one company that already "gets it".

And that's my local Lexus dealership.

The last time I arrived at my dealer to pick up my car, I was shown to the customer waiting room. It was a very tidy, comfortable, well appointed place, complete with complimentary beverages, freshly baked cookies and fresh fruit. In one corner was a TV. The coffee tables were anointed with recent magazines.

While the receptionist paged the Service Manager, my salesperson, "magically appeared" to say hello, greeting me by name. Shortly thereafter, the Service Manager arrived and explained what repairs were done to the car.

After paying for the repairs, I jumped in my newly washed car and drove off. There's not one thing I could think of, that would have improved my customer experience (well, except maybe a smaller bill).

This dealership really gets it - and lives up to the Lexus motto - the relentless pursuit of perfection.

And that's what I told the person who called me the very next day, to ask how my service experience was.

Support your candidate online - lose your privacy?

The old "gold standard" for campaign data were voter registration lists and campaign contributors lists.

It suddenly struck me that the new data "gold standard" for political campaigning are the email lists that each campaign is building. While you may sign up to support your favorite Presidential hopeful, you may be signing up for more than you bargained for.

If you read the fine print in the Privacy policy, you might come across something like this: (example taken from the Barack Obama website).

"It is our general policy not to make Personal Information available to anyone other than our employees, staff, and agents. We may also make personal information available to organizations with similar political viewpoints and objectives, in furtherance of our own political objectives."

I suspect that candidates will profit handsomely from the lists that we've been so willing to help build. How much is it worth ($$$) to a future candidate to use Barack's supporters email database list for a future election?

When all the dust settles, and a new President has been selected, your email address will remain in the files of the candidate, unless "sold/rented/given" to his/her successor. So while your intention may have been to support a single candidate in the upcoming elections get ready, because in Dec 2008, you may start receiving unsolicited emails from the 2012 candidates!

Better learn how to use your spam filter now.

You've Got to be Joking, Right?

I've been following how Web 2.0 is changing political campaigning. When I came across the MSNBC headline: "Dean's Web Experts Boost 2008 Dems", I had to take a look.

Ironically, clicking on the link took me to MSNBC's Breaking News page instead.

Perhaps Dean's web experts should lend a hand to MSNBC?

The End of Mass Marketing?

Recent Neilson ratings are showing a dramatic drop-off of TV viewership. The network nightly news ratings are dropping substantially (and have been for some time). While the networks seem surprised, they shouldn't be.

It seems like the family dinner meal (with Walter Cronkite in the background) is long gone. The advent of 24 hour news channels (lots of them), make choices greater than ever. By the time the nightly news airs, the stories are already old.

Add a political filter to some news channels (appealing to Republicans or Democrats) and the viewing audience is segmented even further. With expanded choices, we have become a nation of niche consumers (and perhaps we've always been).

More content and more delivery options.....

Now we have many ways and devices with which we can receive content (DVRs, TIVO, cell phones, iPods, computers), that are not easily accounted for, using traditional ratings systems. While Neilson ratings include recorded content, they only count those shows viewed within 24 hours of original broadcast towards a show's rating.

In my case, I time shift everything I watch. For example, I record hour long shows throughout the week, which I watch each morning while on the treadmill. There's no urgency to view these shows within 24 hours because I only walk for one hour per day! In fact, we own three DVRs, all recording different shows, for different family members. We all time shift viewing.

The third big challenge for TV advertisers is the fact that just because a show contains ads doesn't guarantee that anyone is actually seeing them. My own "live" viewing habits have changed. I tend to "pause" live TV and skip past the commercials. (In the old days, we took bathroom breaks!). I always skip past ads on DVR shows. I'm actually a Zen Master at it - stopping just as the show resumes.

Can you imagine the angst that this is causing Marketing departments? As Neilson ratings drop, so will the advertising rates. Now what will Marketers do with those big ad budgets?

They may actually be forced to do what they should have been doing all along - to find audiences who are interested in their messages and passionate about their products/services. Then try to find a way to get their loyal consumers to spread this message via word of mouth.

Take a quick test. Answer two questions:

1. What's your favorite network TV show?
2. Who sponsors it?

If your answer to #2 was "I don't know.", you're in the majority. And that's why mass marketing is no longer effective.

To be honest, my favorite TV show is on HBO. And they don't have sponsors.

Pee Your Pants for the Brewers!????!

My son brought this website to my attention.

Pee Your Pants for the Brewers is designed to rally support for our hometown heroes, who haven't seen this much success since the 1982 season. While it's very premature to compare this team to the team from 25 years ago, early expectations and optimism seem to have some giddy fans ready to pee their pants.

In three days, the website has caused 420 fans to sign up.

Just in case you're not sure how to pee your pants, the site also offers suggestions. My favorite suggestion so far: "Closet Cardinals Fan: Injecting your penis with steroids so you can pee longer and farther than anyone else."

I have no idea how to react to this site. Shock and Awe?

A Cleaner Environment, thanks to Beer!

Today MSNBC reported that Foster's is looking at adding (sugar consuming) bacteria to brewery waste water, the results of which yield clean waste water and the potential of generating 2 Kw of power, when used in a 660 gal fuel cell.

The real news story is that scientists managed to find something on the planet that would consume Foster's beer.

Is it time for Webtrospection?

When is the last time you honestly evaluated your website? If you're like most of us, your good intentions of relevant, compelling, frequent content updates vanished minutes after your site launched - like New Years resolutions quickly forgotten.

You posted the new sales brochures, updated the product descriptions and maybe updated some photography. But somehow, only a month or two later, it seems a little stale or worse yet, boring.

Is it time for some Webtrospection?

If so, perhaps you need to ask yourself these questions.

1. Does my site feel "authentic"? Can readers get a sense of who we are and how we operate? Do we seem personable or does the copy read like a boring marketing brochure? Does the site display a personality?

2. How do I stand out? Can a reader differentiate you from the crowd? Do you sell the thickest pizza on the block or the brightest paint colors? What makes your customers drool?

3. Am I bold and brief? Does your site design and content tell a story that sticks in the mind of the reader? Is it brief enough to be read?

4. Am I relevant? Does your story matter to the person who comes across your site? Who is your audience and do they care about your content? Are your keywords, meta tags or site links attracting the right audience?

5. Boutique or Big Box store? Are you trying to be all things to all people or do you do something particularly well? Can your audience tell?

6. Dialog or diatribe? Does your site invite a conversation, question, suggestion? Or are you simply "blah-casting". Does your site involve your customers or prospects?

7. Am I measuring what matters? Unless you define website success metrics and are regularly collecting and analyzing them, you're shooting in the dark. It's not enough to have a website. It has to be put to work.

Now get to work.

Motivation or Self-fulfilling Prophecy?

I have to start keeping a digital camera with me at all times. I'd use my cell phone camera but it's pretty crappy and I'm pretty inept with it.

Yesterday I was at a car dealership and noticed a whiteboard behind the counter where all the "deals" are approved. It looked something like this: (names changed to protect the innocent)

Dan XXX
Sue X
Bill XX
Bob XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Jim X
Carol XXXXXXXX
Brian X
Dave X
Sid XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Clearly, this chart was showing each salesperson's productivity for the month.

And it got me thinking.....

If I were the dealer's general manager, what would happen if I let every salesperson go, except Bob, Carol and Sid?

I wonder whether Bob, Carol or Sid have any incentives to share their secrets with the rest of the staff?

What's the reasoning behind posting the sales results in such a public place? If the management is trying to motivate their poor performers, they'd better understand that they're also sending silent signals to their customers as well.

As a customer, would you rather deal with a high performer or a low performer?

Is the chart a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Digg: Frustratingly Addictive

I've recently added Digg to my iGoogle home page. It's both addictive and frustrating at the same time.

Digg is basically a collection of stories, comments, articles, presented to the Digg community for comment. Digg(ers) can promote or demote articles, with the most popular appearing in my iGoogle homepage.

At any time, there's at least two or three articles that I must read. It is addictive.

Now here's the frustrating part.

At the same time I want to read the atricles, everyone else wants to read them too! So intense is the server traffic, that in most cases, it takes persistence to even get the original article to load into my browser.

Some sites mirror the original content to allow better access and sometimes Digg(ers) will post the original content in a reply so people can see it.

Unless Digg can address this situation soon, I think my impatience will win out over my curiosity. My attention span is just too short.

My Own Radio Station

Today I discovered a very cool website called Pandora that allows you to create your own Internet music station.

By entering in the name of a favorite song or by naming your favorite artist, Pandora plays a selection and then asks questions to further refine what it is that you like about the song. Then it plays other songs that correspond to those attributes. With each selection, you can provide guidance as to whether you like the song - and thus the process is further refined.

It's a better version of Amazon.com's suggestions "other people who purchased this also bought...".

If you have eclectic tastes and have a wide variety of favorite songs or artists - no problem. You can create up to 100 different music stations.

They offer a free service if you don't mind ads, and you can also subscribe for an ad free service. I play my radio stations (minimized) in the background so FREE works for me.

If I were a record company, I'd be licensing this application to expose listeners to my entire music catalog.

Watery Mustard and other Gripes!

A week ago I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher. During his "New Rules" segment, he made the following observation;

"New Rule: Someone has to make a mustard container that doesn't squirt out yellow water before it gets to the actual mustard. Someone had to say it. I get all excited for lunch, and then Grey Poupon pees on my sandwich. I suppose I could shake the bottle first, but, f*ck you, I'm an American consumer! Not only should your mustard be pre-blended to my specifications, it should also whiten my teeth."

Based upon the crowd response (loud cheers) this would seem to be a problem everyone can relate to. The question is: does Grey Poupon know they have a problem? Do they know there are a large number of people who recognize a flaw in their product?

Have you ever tried to make a product improvement suggestion to a manufacturer? It's almost impossible. Most websites offer NO method by which to submit an opinion or suggestion. Yet there are thousands of consumers out there who would willingly offer ways to improve your product. I'm one of them. Can you imagine the product loyalty one could build if someone out there actually listened?

I drive a Lexus RX330. It's the small Lexus SUV. I love the truck - it drives like a dream. But there are two problems with it. The first, is that the low fuel alarm is very poor. It's a small yellow (size of a pinhead) light that silently appears on the dashboard when fuel levels are low..

No chimes, no flashing light - it just silently appears.

For me, it's useless.

My vehicle has integrated bluetooth phone, a touch screen navigation system - thousands of dollars worth of electronic extras - but no low fuel chime. I'm certain that most Lexus drivers have the same complaint - but they have nowhere to lodge it. I suppose I could mention it to my sales or service guy, but frankly, I don't have much faith that it would go anywhere. There's something more satisfying about lodging a written complaint/suggestion on a Corporate website - if only I had the opportunity.

The second issue I have is with the quality of the tires on the new vehicle. Lexus is so focused on delivering a quiet ride, they install relatively soft tires at the factory. Unfortunately they sacrifice tire wear in the process. I am very happy with the quality of the car and the driving experience, but get pissed off when I have to replace the tires after 25,000 miles. When ordering the new car, had I the option of paying the difference for tires that last (perhaps $100 more on a $45,000 vehicle) it would have been a no brainer.

Not only that, but when I went back to the dealer to get replacement tires and asked for a tire with a 50,000 mile warranty, they informed me that none of their tires carried that kind of warranty.

So I went to my local Tires Plus store and got outfitted with 60,000 mile tires, which are performing very well.

Not only did Lexus disappoint a customer, but they lost the replacement tire business as well.

I would gladly tell Lexus about these shortcomings, but have no easy way to do it. Can you imagine the massive amounts of positive goodwill they could generate if they offered an easy venue for customer feedback, then listened and made the changes? What a huge competitive advantage!

The folks at Lexus really do an excellent job during the sales and service experience. But the downside of all this service is that you've raised my expectations.

So go fix your website, your "low fuel" warning light and your crappy factory tires.

Make me a fan for life.

More Web 2.0 and Politics - Predictions

MSNBC today reports on how the Internet is affecting political campaigning. As I've been saying for some time now, Web 2.0 phenomenon changes everything. Barack Obama has energized over 130,000 contributors to date and has a far wider contributor base than any other Democratic candidate. His online efforts focus on building communities of interest, around ideals and issues. The effects of online campaigning will be felt long after this current race has concluded.

Here are some predictions.

1. The dialog won' stop after the election. Savvy politicians will continue to cultivate their bases, explain their position, strengthen the bonds between support base and themselves. This is an especially important point for the eventual winners.

2. Web 2.0 encourages dialog between ALL interested parties. This campaign isn't about the candidates just talking to crowds. It's about them talking to crowds who share their values. It's about those supporters talking to each other. And it's about those supporters helping to spread the word. Those politicians who understand this will win.

3. Perhaps as soon as this election, any politician who refers to "the internets" or "the Google", will be immediately written off as being out of touch. Being Internet savvy will become a criteria upon which to judge a candidate - a "relevancy filter".

4. Internet campaigning will help engage a younger demographic. Internet campaigns most importantly will engage first time voters, a full two years before their first election. Old white male politicians beware! Watch for voter registrations among first time voters to jump, over previous elections.

5. Can Web 2.0 generate lifelong candidate support? If these politicians identify and capture their support base early, (in their twenties) and are authentic (vote their personal values rather than their party line), they may be able to retain this support across elections, possibly for decades. Instead of lifelong Republicans or lifelong Democrats, we might have lifelong Huckabee supporters or lifelong Clinton supporters. Watch for candidate support to begin to trump party support.

6. The Internet strategy is far cheaper and far more effective that the mass-marketing strategy that campaigns currently employ. While it will be some time before we see the death of TV campaign commercials, they are becoming less relevant. The 2008 election will be won on "word of mouth", spread in blogs, and spread in people's homes. The Internet will be THE mainstream campaigning tool, post 2008 elections. This may help break down the mandatory fundraising barrier and pave the way for a broader field of candidates in future. More choice can't be bad for the process.

7. We may be seeing a tipping point in how campaigns are run. The Internet allows people to be "heard" in venues other than the 30 second sound bite. It allows for a thoughtful explanation of a vote or a point of view, that doesn't get reported (at least with any immediacy) anywhere else. It allows politicians control over their message. The recent TV debates demonstrate the weakness of TV as a campaigning medium, where short, unexplained answers to questions can't demonstrate what a candidate is all about. Post review discussions were constrained to whether a candidate made a "gaffe" or not. I don't think this format is the way that thoughtful Americans want to choose their next leaders. it was strikingly similar to American Idol (without the voting)!

8. Candidates beware! Authenticity matters. If candidates come off as "spinning a party line" or as being phony in some sense, their support will evaporate in a heartbeat. The Web offers immediacy. And that can work for you or against you.

Let's see how many of these predictions come to pass.

Moderating Web 2.0 Discussions Can Be Like Navigating a Minefield

...As the founders of Digg, found out yesterday....

Sometime yesterday, someone posted a digital key which is supposed to enable those with the know how to unlock the copy protection on HD-DVDs on Digg.com. Facing a Cease and Desist order, Digg decided to remove all posts relating to the digital key.

What followed was a huge backlash by the online Digg community.

Today, one of the founders has decided that to suppress the discussion ran contrary to what Digg was all about and vowed to allow discussion on this topic, regardless of the legal consequences.

The situation highlights a few (self-evident?) truths.

1. If you're going to host an online community, you have to be very careful when you insert your right to moderation (links to porn and hate speech are obviously banned).

2. We're still learning "the rules" in a Web 2.0 world.

3. Ownership in an online world is very muddy. Who owns Digg? The founders or the community? The answer is both. One doesn't exist without the other. And they're still figuring out the power sharing.

Is all of the pain worth it?

Absolutely.