PR Week ran an article this week Google backtracks over concerns on Google Buzz privacy settings. I commented as part of the article on how Google at the moment has the permission to innovate, but with too many failures that permission may be rescinded.
I wanted to expand on a couple of concepts around the article as I realise that it maybe read by many people particularly in the PR industry who don’t understand how technology works and how the sector works.
Firstly, Google’s Buzz problems and ‘real-world’ product recalls that other industries from toys to cars face are very different. Since Google provides a service and the ‘product’ never leaves the Google data-centre it is really easy to make iterative improvements fast.
When I worked at Yahoo! we could roll out normal, (not high-priority) changes every fortnight; usually during the middle-of-the-week. It will be a similar situation at Google. When you have something as high-priority as the privacy issue, you can bet that heaven and earth will be moved, so that once-a-fortnight schedule can be shrunk a bit and it has been with the first fixes rolling out within a few days.
Contrast this with Kryptonite who took months to rectify their lock problem when it became worldwide news six years ago, or the months of fixing braking systems that Toyota is going to go through.
One of the things that Mark Pack was concerned with was that Buzz was obviously an early ‘beta’ release, but not labeled as such. Beta release is a software term that traditionally means that your mileage may vary on a product. Features may vary, appearances change and the service may be flaky.
But with the advent of web services beta has become more than a label or a stage in software development: into a state-of-mind. Google has helped train at least some of the public into the into the beta mindset. Most of the time that consumers bet on Google has been rewarded with a product that provides superior utility; for example Google Search, Blogger and GMail. This earned Google their licence to innovate.
So what would it take to have Google’s licence to innovate revoked? Will Buzz have it revoked? No. Not by a long shot. Google has made some products that disappointed (Q&A, Wave, Jaiku, Orkut - big in Brazil is a fact, not an excuse) of which Buzz may be one of them, but the licence being revoked will be a cumulative ’straw-on-the-camel’s back’ kind of thing.
As a good rule of thumb, check out the way the world slowly turned against Microsoft. It wasn’t Microsoft Bob and Windows’95 was a ‘greater-than-Vista’ technical cock-up that turned into a classic case study into how you can make lemonade out of lemons. It was a number of things: the anti-trust case, the devastation of the start-up industry as no one wanted to start a business in an area Microsoft may want, the BSOD (blue-screen-of-death) that told you it was time for a coffee break, the ‘I love you’ virus and countless other Windows perils that ran the goodwill meter down.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that Google is not slipping into darkness, despite Buzz not being the company’s brightest hour. This was originally posted over at my personal blog renaissance chambara.
Its a new decade, new paradigms and ways of reaching consumers nothing will be the same again. Now that I have your attention, I’d like to bring things down to earth. One of the smartest things Bill Gates ever said had to do with technology and future adoption. It was something to the effect of: we over-estimate the speed of innovation and technology in the short-term and underestimate it in the long-term.
According to Forrester, digital marketing spend has increased almost five-fold over the past decade to account for 12 per cent of marketing spend. Most of this is email marketing, search and display advertising. However, thedeclineofclickthroughrates (or effectiveness in terms of acting on the call-to-action) of these marketing vehicles has been well-documented as far back as 2007.
In addition, Google search advertising has largely become optimally priced from an economic point-of-view, so smart online marketers are becoming more open to experimentation.
I expect this to continue and expand in 2010. A second reason why expect this to expand is that with the recession-led decline in spend on above-the-line (ATL) marketing through reducing spent on advertising inventory in print and broadcast media marketers are starting to think differently about their relationship with current and prospective customers. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if Google sees a corresponding decline in spend on keywords as well.
A classic example of this ATL change came out of an interview that Tyler Brule did with Gildo Zegna(pronounced Zen-yah), CEO of luxury brand titan TheErmenegildo Zegna Group for the Monocle magazine podcast series. Zegna is interesting because he sits at the head of a dynamic family-owned business not hamstrung by institutional investors trying to second guess him.
Tyler Brule: Share with us three or four business lessons that you learned over the past year?
Gildo Zegna: From a personal standpoint, I think that what I learned was stick to the DNA of the brand. Be real, be genuine, try to keep a very close contact with the customer, listen to him and if he or she says something that you don’t like just be sure to execute rapidly.
It could be something about the service, it could be something about the price, it could be something about the creativity, it could be something about being more aggressive on how you enter markets so I think that in one word: stick to the DNA of the brand.
Tyler Brule: What are your key focuses on 2010/11?
Gildo Zegna: I just had my management meeting last week in Milano, I said listen guys back to new normality and back to growth. Cost control, shorter lead time, work with low inventory and keep investing. I think that I can believe that if you cannot afford new investment today, because unless you are a brand that has the capacity whether it is your money or money you borrowed from the financial system: now you will not make it.
I think that speed and the way you make a well thought decision is important, but surely don’t stop investing either in your store, new markets, new people and of course marketing. I think one of the biggest cut I had to do this year is in media, but you know above-the-line, below-the-line I did not save anything, events - I have never done so many events in-store. Why? Go and meet the customer, talk to them, even if he doesn’t buy anything he will come back next season. Because next season he will be poor not to buy, or not to enjoy. These are some of the activities, you know, working with you guys (Monocle) on new ideas: co-branding or new products or new services. So I think just be energetic and be creative, but at the end you have to have the resources to do it. You just can’t do it by mouth and if you do it well and if you do it in the right way then I think that business comes back.
New areas of experimentation are likely to include the use of location-based services. For instance, restaurants are already offering discounts through Foursquare and Plantronics sponsored the development of the Work Snug iPhone application (which is awesome) targeted at road warriors and digital nomads. In common with all the applications utilising GPS it eats batteries like nothing else, so use, but use sparingly. There is a lot of life left yet in cell triangulation yet.
In common with me-too social media campaigns and applications, users will soon tire of overused mobile ideas in the same way that Vampires, poke variants and re-skinned Flash platform games bored them in the past.
I hope that the biggest change will come from businesses not thinking of social marketing in terms of Facebook or Twitter; but in a more holistic way which takes it into the analogue world just like Mr Zegna’s small store events because this is all about people, everything else is just facilitating stuff. And if business becomes a more human thing, it is harder to replicate and easier to turn into a lifelong customer relationship. This was published over at my personal blog.
On Wednesday this week the Queen will stand before the House of Lords and present the Government’s agenda for the coming year. This is an extremely important event; a chance for the Government to highlight its upcoming priorities and for the opposition parties to take them to task over their proposals and suggest how they would do things differently. With a General Election to be called by June 2010, this is to be the last Queen’s Speech before the election. For this reason I’d like to take a look at the importance of the speech and give some predictions of what to look out for:
Why is the Queen’s Speech important?
I think there are three fundamental reasons that this year’s Queen’s Speech is so critical:
Policy: In a normal year the Queen’s Speech is important because it sets out the Government’s policy agenda for the coming year and outlines the Bills that will be proposed. As this is an election year the speech is essential as it is one of the Government’s last chances to state publicly and formally their agenda for the coming year and stake a claim to hold onto power come the election. It is also a good opportunity to draw the battle lines with the Conservative Party on key policy issues such as finance, education, crime and health ahead of the General Election. For this reason the opposition parties will be looking to discredit the Government and highlight their own policy priorities
The Polls:4 of the last 5 UK polls have put the Conservative Party 14 points ahead of the Labour Government with the Lib Dems trailing 4-10 points behind Labour. Taking the average scores for each party over the last five polls the Conservative Party would have a majority of 58 if these trends were reflected at the next General Election. But just a 2 point drop for the Conservatives and a 2 point rise for the Labour Party would deliver a hung parliament. So for Labour the Queen’s Speech is a chance to showcase a range of policies and hopefully reduce the Conservative Party’s poll lead. For both opposition parties it is a chance to analyse Gordon Brown’s proposals; discredit them and promote their own policies. It is important for the Conservative Party and Lib Dems not to give way significantly to Labour in the polls and it gives the opposition parties a chance to look at some of Labour’s headline policies in detail and criticise them publicly
Time is running out: With only 70 more sitting days of Parliament until the next election Labour only have three big opportunities to state their case before the election is called: The Queen’s Speech; the Pre-Budget Report and the Budget. Of those three opportunities the Queen’s Speech is most focused on policy direction and prospective bills and sets the policy agenda. Also, it does not have to focus so much on important economic figures such as economic growth and unemployment, which have been sources of distress during the economic downturn. The opposition parties will be keen for the Government not to steal a march in the polls on the back of the Queen’s Speech. They will see it as a small victory if the polls do not radically change on the back of the Queen’s speech as it will mean that Labour are running out of high profile opportunities to change public perception.
The Conservative response: The Conservatives are likely to oppose the Speech in two different ways. Firstly, David Cameron will almost certainly criticise Gordon Brown for announcing policies late in the day; not having the time to bring them through before the next General Election and that this is blatant headline chasing, which does not change the fact that Gordon Brown has lost the voters’ trust. Secondly, each Shadow Secretary of State will outline both the principles they disagree with in the Speech and the detail. They will be looking to define their position in opposition to the Government’s proposals. The Conservative Party will face a race against time; they will want to wrest control of the electoral battleground from Labour by defusing any popular Labour announcements made in the Speech and highlighting their counter measures. David Cameron will want to try and focus media attention on Gordon Brown’s weakness and the failings in the Speech rather than allowing the media debate to focus on Brown’s new policy announcements.
The Lib Dem approach: As the third largest party the Lib Dems are in a difficult position. The Leader, Nick Clegg, has come out and called for the Queen’s Speech to be scrapped in favour of an emergency announcement on political reform. Clearly this is not a viable option as the speech is a long-standing tradition, but it has given Nick Clegg front-page media attention before the Speech and gives him a platform from which to discredit the Government’s proposals. For Nick Clegg it is a case of chasing any possible headlines lest the Lib Dems be sidelined in favour of the main battle between the Conservative Party and Labour Government.
These are just predictions of course, so follow Ruder Finn on this blog and on Twitter (@Ruderfinnuk) on Wednesday 18th of November from 11am for our build up and live minute-by-minute analysis of the Queen’s Speech.
Please leave your own predictions or any insights as I would love to have a flavour of any important issues people are focusing on or awaiting from the speech.
They all came from an era when their mistakes, blunders, gaffes were less highlighted. There are no videos surviving of the time when Winston Churchill mixed up his words or when Mahatma Gandhi forgot someone’s name or when Calvin Coolidge accidentally said something inappropriate - but I am certain it must have happened.
Their careers, whether good or bad, are largely remembered by their witty remarks, political judgement or important policy actions. Their careers are not defined by gaffes, because a gaffe is much funnier when seen on television than when reported in the news. If you read about Dan Quayle (see above) misspelling potato, whilst visiting a school, it is funny, but it does not encapsulate the gut-wrenching horror or cringeworthiness that the video brings.
What has spurred me to write this is the fate of Alan Duncan. He is Shadow Leader of the House of Commons and what he does day to day is largely unknown to the general public. His good decisions and policy initiatives are not discussed or made public. What is known about him is that he made an off the cuff remark about MPs expenses that is becoming an internet video sensation. Poor old Alan.
I do not have sympathy for him personally, but I feel that Alan Duncan is not a new breed of blunderer. I’m sure there were many serial blunderers in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. But, sadly the rise of video combined with the internet has meant that political gaffes now travel the world phenomenally quickly and will last for years. I’m afraid that Dan Quayle will forever be known as Mr ‘Potatoe’. For this reason politics has changed. There is such a thing as a career ending ‘political gaffe’, which may be caused by little more than being filmed at your most tired, most forgetful or when you just seize up in front of the cameras.
At least in yesteryear politicians knew roughly which decisions would land them in trouble with the press. In the modern age of all-pervasive media and rapid distribution of material globally you can go from great television performer (as I have heard Alan Duncan described) to loose cannon in an instant.
Chants of ‘Just say no’ have echoed around town hall meetings as Congressmen, in favour of the proposals, have faced angry crowds.
And now Republican senators have come out and said that if Ted Kennedy were in the UK, with a free for all Health system, he would be left to die because he is too old to be saved.
For a UK citizen it is hard to see how an issue like this could have exploded in the manner it has. The biggest public campaign in the UK recently was about allowing Gurkha soldiers to reside in the UK, but even that pales in comparison to the furore engulfing the US.
One of the key questions I think is: who is driving this issue - concerned public or wily politicians?
I would say concerned public driven by wily politicians.
For the overwhelming majority of Americans, who have access to healthcare at the moment, the health reforms seem like they would make no practical difference. There would be a shift towards the system that we have in the UK and there would be more health coverage to those who cannot afford health insurance. But it does not seem like quality of service would be affected or tax rises would be very great.
Yet, the public are being fed half-truths and catch phrases that have understandably got them scared. Death panels - obviously would not be introduced; leaving old people to die - obviously would not happen and an EVIL system, WHAT DOES SARAH PALIN EVEN MEAN BY THIS STATEMENT?
Well, like the other Republicans whipping up this saga, she is thinking that finally the messianic image of Barack Obama can be tarnished. The Republicans are blatantly getting their own back for Obama’s success over the last year, which has seen him become the first Black President and enthuse the US with optimism. This is an issue of politics. The Republicans, supported and encouraged by lobbyists from the health industry, are desperately hanging on to the system they know and benefit from and tearing down Obama’s polls in the process. A win, win situation.
More importantly for Republicans grandees like Sen. Mitch Mconnell - Obama has been too much to swallow. He has strolled into the White House with little Capitol Hill experience and announced a flurry of reforms, carried by a troupe of supporters shouting “YES WE CAN”. Well now the old guard are showing him he truth about Washington politics - “NO YOU CAN’T”. Or certainly not easily.
Republicans, angered at his free thinking and public mandate, are showing Obama that US politics does not run as smoothly as he thinks. Great Washington negotiators like Lydon B Johnson were respected on Capitol Hll because their years of experience taught them that in order to change things it takes months of negotiation with colleagues, lobbyists and interested parties.
Obama has attempted to bypass this system by using the public mandate to popularise his proposals. But sadly the Republicans are on to him and fuelled by lobbyists and anti-reformers have whipped up the public into a frenzy. He has learnt a valuable lesson, which sadly may have come at the price of his health reforms: if he wants to be successful a public mandate is not enough, he needs Washington insiders to guide him through and turn his rhetoric into action.
At 1.06 am on Monday morning the British Geological Survey stations in Herefordshire, Aberdeen and Devon suddenly began registering a tremor at magnitude five on the Richter scale. These tremors did not occur along a fault line and did not have the complex mix of P-waves and shear waves that are the tell-tale sign of an earthquake. Instead the tremors seemed to be caused by an explosion, which had its epicentre in the county of Kilju, deep in the mountains of north-eastern North Korea - the home of the P’unggye-yok nuclear test site.
South Korea stated immediately that these readings were probably caused by an underground atomic explosion by the North Koreans - an explosion the size of Hiroshima.
Suddenly Douglas Hogg’s moat; Jacqui Smith’s adult films and Damian McBride’s puerile emails, which have ruled the media in the last 2 months, are thrown into relief as the world is plunged into a serious, deep crisis. It is one of those challenges like the Bosnian war, the Suez Crisis and the Rwandan Genocide where you cannot help thinking that the UN looks feeble. Realistically what can the UN do to stop North Korea’s nuclear ambitions? They have the power of sanctions and the threat of isolation for the aggressor nation. For the UK during the Suez Crisis of 1956 these measures were enough to force the UK to back down over its intervention in Egypt. These measures designed and condoned by the US, Europe and the UK are effective against similar countries because they all want to be at the centre of the western world and genuinely fear being cast out by the international community.
But, for nations outside the western world, with a history of antagonism towards Europe and the US - do sanctions or the fear of UN condemnation court influence? I say no. North Korea has strong links with China and Russia - the two megaliths of Asia. With these alliances Kim Jong-Il can laugh in the face of UN pressure, as he has the support of two of the largest energy producers manufacturers and exporters in the world and permanent members of the UN Security Council. Also, which countries around the world would really stand in North Korea’s way if they further developed their nuclear ambitions? It is clear that despite having nuclear capability and strong armed forces the UK would do almost anything rather than use force against North Korea, because as Iraq and Vietnam show - foreign wars lose popularity very quickly. The world’s policing system, therefore, is almost solely confined to diplomatic measures.
In the last 5 years this crisis has developed and has shown the world’s inability to stop North Korea’s march towards developing a nuclear arsenal. In 2004 North Korea carried out its first nuclear test; in 2007 under multilateral pressure North Korea agreed to shut down its leading uranium enrichment site, but in April 2009 it seems these promises were empty as they fired a multistage rocket and vowed to start up the site once again. A month later and this latest nuclear test is recorded.
This is a dangerous situation - even more so since it must be asked why is North Korea absolutely determined to develop nuclear weapons? Are they really prepared to fire or is it, as one commentator suggested, just a means of making President Obama stand to attention. I hope it is political manoeuvring because for anyone who has read Nevil Shute’s On The Beach - the thought that North Korea might actually use its nuclear technology harbours up images of ghost towns, tumble weeds and nuclear fallout on a worldwide scale.
Hopefully the North Koreans are aware of the stake as well, because as has always been the case the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is the best mean of ensuring nuclear safety. Hopefully Kim Jong-Il is aware and afraid of the nuclear backlash if he ever uses nuclear weapons. But that is a leap of faith and since it is evident that the western world can do little to stop the North Koreans if they have their mind set on gaining and using nuclear weapons the situation is suite terrifying, when you think about it. It seems like 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell we still have to place all of our faith in North Korea not using its technology. Personally relying on Mutually Assured Destruction, knowing that the West is powerless to do much more, is not particularly reassuring.
Armistice Day, a time to remember. To remember those who died in the great wars of Europe in successive generations and the conflicts beyond. Today, three of the four surviving British World War One veterans will lay wreaths to mark the 90th anniversary of the Armistice which ended the Great War.
Over 40 million people died in the First World War, just under one million Britons. Up to 60 million people in total died worldwide in the Second World War.
100 million people - nearly twice the population of the UK.
Stalin, responsible for many deaths himself within a generation of the first world war said “one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic”.
How do we even begin to imagine figures are great as these? I don’t think we can.
Rather it is through the individual acts of courage, of heroism and the individual daily acts carried out by many millions in the face of sheer terror. It is through the personal stories of those that fought that the realisation of the horrors of war become known.
The re-telling of these individual acts and stories ensure that there is nothing vague about the realities of war and in a few years time, when the First World War is no longer within living memory, the existence of these stories will ensure that the memories remain for successive generations and will not be lost.
In the words of the poet Lawrence Binyon “we will remember them” because we dare not forget.
