Safari Needs Competition

I just ran into one of my wife’s cousins at the supermarket. He told me he’s running for local state assemblyman this coming election. I asked him whether he thought he had a chance of winning. He told me it’s not so much about winning but about showing the current assemblyman that their is competition out there.

This comment resonated with me this morning as I came home and read about how Apple is not allowing Opera, a web browser, into the iPhone Application Store. Reasons being, it’s a competitor to Safari, Apple’s browser already included on each iPhone.

I can’t blame Apple for this decision…or can I? The iPhone is a locked operating system and anything that might potentially hurt Apple’s bottom line or existing relationships with partners is not allowed into the iPhone. But I think it’s a bad move on their part. The appeal of Android, Google’s mobile operating system, is that Google’s interest closely reflects the consumers. The consumer wants the entire web on their phone. Google wants the same. Apple wants to give you enough internet to make you happy so you’ll buy their product. At least that’s my opinion. And it seems, I’m right.

What should Apple do? They should manage the iPhone OS like they do their desktop OS. Anything that isn’t a virus or malicious program should be let in. No one can compete with the Apple’s UI design. They’re the best at it. But I could see myself, and many others, jumping the iPhone boat in a couple years if Apple doesn’t open up their system. Android will keep on  innovating based on the achievements of external programmers. How can Apple keep up if they don’t open the floodgates as well?

UPDATE: It seems that the initial story about Opera in the App store may be incorrect. John Gruber has a more in-depth look at the initial rumors. Thanks for the update Ricki.

Empower the Consumer via Transparency

The role of government intervention into the operations of businesses is always a heavily debated topic. To what right does, and to what extent shoud, the government get involved in the free market capitalistic business environment that we have built?

As someone who claims to be a consumer advocate, I’m not sure of the best approach here. Let’s take an issue that has become very significant over the past few years…enviromentalism. Some may say that the government needs to create laws that require companies to follow a minimum of standards regarding their environmental impact. This would be great for us consumers because we would be assured that the products we buy are meeting a certain quality standard. On the other hand, more government regulation means more expenses for the business (usually) which would trickle down to the consumer in the form of more expensive products. Where is the balance between what improvements I, the consumer, am willing to pay for and what I am not? And is the consumer trustworthy enough to make this decision?

The biggest problem is not the questions I just posed, but the fact that we have no measurement tools to find the answer. The current strategy is to have environmental groups lobby large corporations to change, and through the fear of bad PR, corporations start changing. I think that if this issue, or any issue, is seen as  largely important to the people of this country, than the government should get involved. Not to regulate operations, but to regulate transparency. I believe that government’s role in major social issues like this (global warming, obesity, etc…) is not to tell businesses how to act, but to require businesses to be transparent about their operations.

What if the government required that every product made must have a sticker that gives a number of that product’s carbon footprint on a regulated scale of 0 – 100. Companies wouldn’t have to change their operations (other than changing their label). Consumers would then be able to use their money to determine how important this issue is to them. The free market would stay as it is. There would just be another attribute of the product that the consumer would need to evaluate. We should have a slew of scales based on important social issues. In other words, government shouldn’t hinder businesses. They should empower consumers.

Pepsi Rebrands with a Lighter Feel

Pepsi announced that they will be redesigning their logo/brand in the coming months. The new logo can be seen on these new (supposed, didn’t get it off the official Pepsi site) bottles.

I like the new logo. It seems to portray a focus on giving the logo and the brand a lighter feel. I really like how the ‘lightness’ factor is portrayed by the thickness of the white in the logo. I find it odd, though, that soda is not light. It’s sugary. It’s not good for you. I don’t know if a lighter looking logo will help them sell more bottles. It might make the casual soda drinker, who is looking for that sugary substance, look towards a heftier looking brand. So while I like the approach for diet soda, I’m not sure if it’s the best approach for non-diet soda.

On the other hand, I’m sure Pepsi has done lots of market research and maybe they have found that consumers as a whole want to drink something healthier. By changing their logo and brand to look like a healthier drink, they might be keeping/gaining market share so I’m not going to judge them on that. All in all, it seems like a move in the positive direction.

Expertise is Overrated

There was an interesting article in Wired this week about the advancements in materials regarding the sport of bowling. Apparently the surfaces and balls have evolved to such a degree that there is a concern that the sport is getting too easy. The United State Bowling Congress have decided to start setting restrictions on these advancements to keep the challenge of the sport intact.

While I am not a big bowler, I think this story relates to everyone in the working world regarding our expertise. We spend decades refining our expertise in something so that our value to an organization is worthy of our hopefully increasing salary. With the advancement of technology, however, expertise could be replaced by improved programming and shifting industries. For example, I have heard that the role of actuary is being replaced in many instances by computer programs and other professions that can cover the actuarial responsibilities.

I’m quite worried about this. I’m so worried about this that I’ve built my career up to this point on not being an expert in one field, but knowledgeable in many fields and being an expert on overall strategy with that broad base of knowledge (well, I might not be an expert now, but I’d like to think I’m getting there).

Since I’m getting my MBA, I also relate many things to the educational system I currently find myself in. Many of the required courses I have taken are given because they were once relevant. A perfect example is Operations Management class where we learn how to create the most efficient operations process which is mainly used in manufacturing. How many MBA students from New York will be managing manufacturing facilities? The fact is, these classes are here because these professors are experts in a particular antiquated field, and they’re championing these courses to keep their jobs. It’s survival. I think this is happening to some degree in every industry. Eventually we’ll see the required courses change, and these professors will have find some way to stay relevant even if it doesn’t involve their expertise.

What do you think? As time progresses, will there be a need for real experts, or are the generalists more likely to succeed?

Facebook Will Be in ebaY’s shoes in Three Years

The recent backlash over the latest ebaY’s feedback changes is just the latest problem with the auction company. The fact is that ebaY isn’t exciting anymore. The newness of auctions is gone. I can, many times, get cheaper prices from Amazon for a new product than the price of a used product on ebaY. It’s still useful, but not something that I would use often. I think it boils down to a lack of innovation on ebaY’s part. Without innovation, there isn’t growth.

Today, I see a blog post by Michael Arrington talking about how Facebook is shunning the Android platform because of the bad blood between Facebook and Google. This situation, amongst many others, makes me think that Facebook is going to be the next ebaY. By that I mean, Facebook will continue to grow until it reaches maximum capacity within its own market. But I don’t see the seeds of innovation wihtin Facebook to continue that growth into new markets such as Google has done. In other words, Facebook is a one-note company, and once the excitement is over, that growth will stagger. People will still use it. People still use ebaY. But without constant innovation, that growth will disappear. I’m calling it now. I’d give it 3 years. Facebook will have major growth problems.

Did Microsoft Steal My Idea?

As many of you know, I’m in school full-time getting my MBA at Baruch College (Zicklin) in New York. Last March I entered the Baruch Microsoft Marketing Competition. The goal of the competition was to come up with a marketing plan that would use a $5 million budget to achieve 50,000 downloads of 3 or more Windows Live Suite services (Messenger, Write, Photo Gallery, Mail, etc) and 20,000 registrations of Windows OneCare ($50 a year).

My teammate, Jason, and I carefully weighed our options. We could play it safe and come up with a marketing plan that a typical agency would come up with. This would entail a nice mix of search, display and print advertising to the relevant target markets. Or we could come up with something totally unique and show the judges something they haven’t seen before.  We chose the latter option.

We immediately took aim at the metrics we were being judged on. Downloads don’t tell you much. Anyone can download something. Using the product is what’s important. We focused on product usage, not downloads. Inspired by AMEX points and Marlboro points, we created a program called Microsoft LivePoints. Users accrue points by interacting with the products they downloaded. They also accrue points by referring friends. Users with the most points win weekly, monthly, and yearly prizes. It’s not the best program. But at least it wasn’t typical.

We had all the details written out in our proposal document. Got accepted into the semi-finals where we presented our plan to high-level Microsoft executives. We made it to the finals and presented to some even higher-level Microsoft executives. Eventually we came in 2nd place. The criticism we got on our plan that while the execs loved the focus on use rather than downloads, they felt the plan required some implementation on Microsoft’s end and they have a history of not implementing well (I’m not kidding. That is what they said). We ended up getting a couples of Zunes as prizes. It was good experience and I’m glad I did it.

Last week Microsoft announced a new program called SearchPerks. The program allows users to accrue tickets by using their search engine. Users can submit these tickets for prizes. While somewhat different, this idea sounds eerily similar to the pitch my friend Jason and I gave to Microsoft execs 6 months ago.

Check out my presentation from the competition embedded below. Then check out SearchPerks. Our team was named after the first prize…an XBox, Zune and a dinner with Microsoft executives.

What do you think? Do you think my pitch had any influence on this new SearchPerks program? I’ll let you decide.

Consumers Need Better Representation at the Mechanic

A few months ago I went to a local car repair shop to get my oil changed. I don’t drive my car that often because I’m usually taking public transportation to school and work. About two weeks ago I noticed my oil light had gone on and I started hearing a strange noise from the engine. I had not even driven 1500 miles from my last oil change so I knew something was wrong. I didn’t have time right then to go, but I knew I had to take it back to the shop very soon.

My friend Avi, who, unlike me, is quite knowledgeable about cars, asked to take a look at it before I take it to the shop. Apparently, the mechanic forgot to put the cap back on the engine. Oil has been sputtering out of the engine causing me to be extremely low on oil. Yes, I know I should have opened the hood myself before I went back to the shop.

I went to the mechanic yesterday to complain and they quickly filled up my oil for no fee and replaced my engine cap. Then I mentioned, per Avi’s suggestion, that if I start hearing problems from my engine, I’m coming back.

I hate situations like this. They made a stupid mistake and should be held accountable. If my engine has serious issues, my mechanic should pay for it. And yet, I walked out of there with no guarantee that if I have issues, they’ll fix it without payment (or with a heavy discount). I hate relationship-based commerce. I also hate to haggle. I shouldn’t need to be pushy or have a better relationship with a vendor to get the exact same level of service or price as anyone else. I think the consumer could use a car agent.

A car agent would be someone who would look after the best interests of their clients at the mechanic. A car agent could represent many clients (cars that need servicing), and can negotiate bulk pricing for standard services (regular maintenance). If the mechanic tries to screw over a client, the car agent could threaten to move all his/her clients elsewhere. That would keep mechanics in check.

I’m not saying I’m getting ripped off (even though it would be nice if they remembered to put the cap back on my engine). I just don’t know if I’m getting ripped off and I don’t have someone who is looking out for my best interests. I’ll ask Avi, but I bet I’m not alone in this situation.

The web community has already recognized this problem and have come up with different solutions. MyDealerReport gives car dealerships ratings based on user reviews. RepairPal and DriverSide help you find user reviews and prices for local mechanics. I think these sites are a start but we need something more to represent the consumer’s interests when dealing with mechanics.

Free Market Bailouts is an Oxymoron

One of the courses I’m taking this semester in my MBA program is Business Ethics. As you can expect, discussions in today’s class focused somewhat on the recent events in the financial sector. Specifically, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the government bailout of AIG. Here is my dilemma with some of the opinions I hear floating around my school and in the papers.

The government just bailed out AIG. This approach signifies a move towards a more socialistic economy where the government controls more services that cater to public interests. I don’t necessarily think the government wants to be more socialistic, but by definition, this bailout is a move in that direction. I am basically hearing two different opinions. One, is that this bailout was a bad idea. The free market determines winners and losers and by bailing out losers, we are significantly decreasing the benefits of a free market. The short term pain will be rewarded by long term efficiency. The other opinion is that the government bailout was necessary because the system isn’t perfect. More regulation is necessary to allow the market to evolve without having it go too far and self destruct as we are seeing now. By having government bailouts, we can sustain the status-quo as well as add regulations and put a focus on business ethics so we can avoid a situation like the one we are seeing today.

The problem I have here is that I believe in the free market and yet if I was running the Fed, I’d probably bail out AIG as well. It’s the lesser of two evils. So what is the solution? How can we sustain a free market society without having the effects of company mismanagement hurt the general public too much?

Since I am in internet related businesses, I look towards the model of the internet for many of my solutions. The internet, for the most part, is the closest to a true free market economy that we can achieve. And some of the most successful internet companies are also the most ethical (examples: Google, ebaY, Amazon, etc). What this tells me is that in a true free market (or as close as you can get), the ethical companies are the successful companies. The free market rewards companies that look out for the general public.

With this argument in tow, it would seem that I would be fine with letting AIG, and Bear Sterns for that matter, collapse because the free market will bring along a more efficient service to take their place. The problem is that the world of finance is not a free market. If AIG collapses, we won’t see a new player take its place quickly. The barriers to entry are enormous. The consequences of a large company failure are far-reaching. Consumers and their needs are an afterthought in these companies. Money is what drives decisions. And normally, corporate social responsibility (CSR) would be connected with money-making decisions to ensure the best return. In finance, however, that is not typically the case.

Do I want the government to bail out companies? No. Do I think it’s necessary at times? Possibly. I think the best solution would be  a move towards less regulation and allow consumers to be more involved in the industry. By easing up on regulation and empowering consumers, you can level the playing field a bit and create more of a free market in the finance industry. That way, when some companies get greedy and make bad decisions, they’ll collapse, but it will be ok. Other companies will swoop in and take their place without much upheival. What do you think?

Can We Trust the Consumer to Make Good Decisions?

One of my friends told me a hysterical story that happened to him this past weekend. Needing to access his attic he grabbed a small powerful flashlight that he had had bought for $50. While ascending the ladder to the attic he noticed the flashlight dimming. In a sudden flash of light the device exploded and sent shattered pieces everywhere. The hilarity came from the description of how one of these shattered pieces hit my friend in the crotch causing a welt in a very uncomfortable area of the body.

The manual for the flashlight recommends that you don’t leave it on for more than a couple minutes at a time. It doesn’t make much sense that a device can explode if used for more than a certain period of time and be legally sold, but my guess is that it was some sort of imported knockoff built without any regard for safety regulations.

After the laughter subsided, the group of people I was with starting discussing responsibility for this accident. While the company that designed/manufactured the flashlight is the obvious culprit, how responsible is my friend? Should he expect better quality from a knockoff product that actually warns you of overusage explosions?

While this example is extreme, it drove home an issue that the United States is dealing with every day. Can we, as a country, trust consumers to make good decisions? In terms of products, healthcare, investments, etc… The fight over the range of consumer power and trustworthiness is debated in the halls of government every day. From my point of view, the upcoming presidential election is heavily focused on consumer power. The argument of small government vs. big government in its simplest form is “consumer makes the decision” vs. “government makes the decision”. While I am typically pro-consumer choice, I think it’s important to limit the metaphorical welts on metaphorical crotches.

The Market For Bad TV is Huge

All too often I hear ideas for businesses that are absolutely great but are targeting a market that is too small. If I’ve learned anything from working for startups, classes at business school, and talking with entrepreneurs, it’s that you’ve got to target a sizable market. Without a big market, your chances of success are much slimmer.

I think about markets as my wife watches “Exiled” while I type this post. It’s a new show on MTV where spoiled teenagers are taken to the middle-of-nowhere to perform manual labor for the first time in their lives and hopefully grow from the experience. MTV produces a lot of bad shows but this one is truly horrible. It’s as if MTV skipped the whole creative process and jumped straight into the focus group stage. They asked a bunch of perky high school girls what they wanted to see and followed every word. To watch this is…well…it’s mentally painful. It’s like I’m de-evolving.

I have to remember. The market for this type of crap is huge. And as bad as it is, it makes sense for MTV to keep on pumping out this junk. I’m just hoping that the teenage world learns quickly how bad these shows actually are. It took them a couple years to realize how bad the boy-bands music was. Hopefully they’ll quickly grow out of this as well.