Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Starbucks Coffee as a digital innovator

Starbucks and IBM represent two very different ways that big companies are responding to the changing digital economy.

USA Today has an interesting interview with Starbucks CEO and founder Howard Schultz.

It’s worth watching as he maps out where the coffee chain is heading and the importance of innovation and relevancy to his business.

Schultz’s view about the coffee store of the future is intriguing – he knows it will be different but he doesn’t know in what way and that’s why his business is experimenting with different ways of doing things.

“Sure, we’re doing work now on the store of the future,” says Schultz. “It is not only linked to the physical but the digital experience.”

It’s not only the use of digital tools, social media and mobile payments that Schultz is exploring, it’s how does such a huge chain remain relevant to its customers.

“We have to answer the question in the affirmative about how to maintain relevancy. Relevancy can’t only be in the four walls of our stores, we have to be as relevant with our customers where they work, play and even on their phones.”

Relevancy is something that can’t be taken for granted by any business – becoming irrelevant to customers is a death-knell for most enterprises. This is something that challenging the media industry as its struggles to find its role in changed society.

On the same day that story was posted, IBM’s CEO Virginia Rometty made a pointed address to her 434,000 employees on where the company has fallen behind.

“Where we haven’t transformed rapidly enough, we struggled,” The Wall Street Journal reports. “We have to step up with that and deal with that, and that is on all levels.”

“Our performance reminds us that there are profound shifts under way in our industry.”

That the world’s biggest coffee chain is dealing with those profound shifts better than one of the biggest technology companies is a notable point about the times we live in.

Lessons from the Associated Press Twitter hack

The effects of a fake update from a hijacked Twitter account is a timely warning about the risks of online security and social media.

Today’s hack of the Associated Press Twitter account that sent out a fake report about the White House being attacked raises a number of issues about how business and the media industry use social media.

Attracting most of the attention is the stock market ‘flash crash’ triggered by the fake report where automated programs responded to unexpected selling on the exchanges.

This in itself is an example of a risky over reliance on technology by well paid people who should know better. There are a number of other risks that everybody, particularly business people should learn from the Associated Press hijack.

Twitter as a news channel

Without any verification, people started selling stocks based on a report spread through Twitter. This is understandable as Twitter has become the modern news ticker tape.

Also understandable is how news organisations could pick it up, most newsrooms are under resourced and journalists are under pressure to break news. This opens opportunities for misinformation to spread.

The real risk with the fake report was if it had been picked up by a mainstream media outlet or found its way onto the wire services. Fortunately this time it didn’t.

One clear lesson from this is social media postings are not a source of truth, they have to be checked and verified. This is something advocates for using social media as a disaster management tool need to keep in mind.

Think before you tweet

During the search for the Boston bombers, social media users went feral and it shows how false information can spread very fast.

For those of us using Twitter – or any other social media channel – we have to be careful about what we post and who we identify as lives can be damaged and misinformation spread.

Thinking before we tweet or post makes it harder for rumours and misinformation to spread.

Introduce strong social media policies

Almost certainly the Associated Press Twitter account was hijacked because the single person in charge of the @AP account clicked on a spam link and gave away the account’s password.

Social media sites don’t do a good job with their security which makes it difficult for businesses to monitor and control access to accounts.

While the services have to tighten their acts, companies need to be sure that they have security procedures in place and the right people maintaining their business accounts.

Hire the right people

Competing wire service Reuters discovered the importance of having the right person running their social media presence having fired its deputy social media editor for inappropriate tweets during the Boston Bombing scare.

Putting the intern or the youngest person in the office in charge of social media is a beginner’s mistake, a more serious error is to put a loose cannon in charge of the company’s online presence.

Given the potential business risks involved with social media, it’s necessary to put someone trusted and responsible in charge of what appears under the company’s name.

At the very least management has to do proper due diligence on the person they put in charge of their social media accounts.

Securing your business

Associated Press’ problem is typical of many businesses that don’t have tight security policies, the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently released a report finding that over 85% of British business have had some sort of security breach in the previous year.

Given the risks posed by poor computer security, managers have to take the integrity of their systems seriously.

Those who caught out by Associated Press’ hijacked Twitter stream learned important lessons about computer security, online trust and verifying information. All of us should be aware we can be caught out in the same way.

Jetstar vs Virgin

As a low cost carrier, Jetstar is the reality of flying’s present and a vision of travel’s future. For the Australian economy class business traveller it pays to choose carefully.

For the budget conscious business traveller, flying economy is an important way of saving money. In Australia, often that means the choice lies between Virgin and Jetstar.

When you’re self employed, you tend to watch your pennies and choose based on what you get for your money rather than just being focused on the perks when somebody else is paying.

Generally freelancers tend to be flying at the back of plane where it’s not so much worrying about whether Krug or Bolly to entitled executives but whether you’ll get slapped a $70 surcharge for your bag.

In Australia, affordable business flying tends to be between Virgin and Jetstar with Qantas being the best example of an Australian business exploiting its domestic market position while running down international operations.

Tiger doesn’t qualify as an airline suitable for anyone who needs to be somewhere at a given time so it isn’t relevant to business travellers.

Dollars please!

Much of the difference between Jetstar and Virgin are the underlying business models.

Virgin Australia was set up as a low cost carrier to compete against Ansett and Qantas but shortly after Virgin started operations, Ansett went bust and the startup airline found itself the nation’s number two airline.

Under CEO John Borghetti, any pretense of Virgin being a low cost carrier has been dropped and now the service competes on service against Qantas.

Jetstar on the other hand remains true to its roots as Qantas’ low cost operation and it plays firmly from the Ryanair book of screwing money out passengers at every opportunity.

While Virgin isn’t shy at trying to upsell you, booking a ticket though Jetstar involves twenty minutes of declining various options and additions. By the time you finish booking a Jetstar ticket, you’ll often find the price has gone up in the meantime and you have to start again.

Another irritation with Jetstar is its codeshare arrangement with Qantas which means the airline inherits its parent’s screwy seat allocation systems which block out availability based on a passenger’s frequent flyer number.

You will obey

A big difference between Jetstar and Virgin is the customer service, Virgin’s cabin crew tend to be helpful and cheerful while Jetstar’s seem to be on a KPI which encourages frowning and stern warnings.

Jetstar’s attitude to mobile phones is instructive. Unlike Qantas and Virgin who allow passengers to use phones until the cabin doors are closed, Jetstar order customers to shut down before boarding. This is a nuisance if you’re running your own business.

Another nuisance is the airline’s attitude towards laptops where Jetstar’s crew usually insist passengers have to shut down when the plane starts descending rather than when the pilot turns the Fasten Seatbelts sign on Qantas and Virgin.

This sounds trivial but just this alone should be a deal breaker for many small business travellers.

On a one hour Brisbane – Sydney or Sydney – Melbourne flight, this effectively gives a time poor business traveller twenty minutes work time from 90 minutes on the plane.

The Seventh Circle of Hell

While we’re on the topic of Jetstar’s Melbourne operations, a special mention should be given to their poorly signposted gates at the airport.

Situated at the most remote part of the terminal building – almost as remote as Tiger’s abysmal tin shed – Jetstar’s gates are disorganised mess that make boarding difficult. The airline advises getting to the gate half an hour before the flight and at Melbourne that is good advice.

For those arriving in Melbourne, getting off the plane involves fighting your way through queues, lost children, Bedouins building campfires and peasants clutching chickens. If you’re really unlucky you may find yourself accidentally trying to board JQ5749 to Wagga Wagga.

What’s good about Jetstar

Despite airline’s drawbacks Jetstar has some things going for it, the main one is the airline’s modern fleet compared to Qantas or Virgin. Jetstar’s A321s have better leg room than the 737s flown by the other carriers – Qantas’ 767s are comfortable like your grandad’s armchair and almost as old.

If you’re flying longer distances such as Melbourne – Cairns or Perth – Sydney, particularly the ‘red eye’ flights heading east from Western Australia, then Jetstar is the more comfortable choice for economy fliers.

Then there’s cost – usually Jetstar is cheaper than Virgin for most flights and at busy times the cost savings may be worth the irritations – but check fares from all three airlines before booking as sometimes the Airline Gods may decide Qantas has the cheapest fares for the time you want to fly.

As a low cost carrier, Jetstar is the reality of flying’s present and a vision of travel’s future. If you have visions of glamour when catching a flight, then shell out for a business class fare.

Crying over spilt Chinese milk

Australia’s missteps in the Chinese milk market are part of a far deeper malaise in the Australian business community.

East Asian based expats have many conceits – the greatest being that they understand Asia.

For a high paid executive based in Hong Kong or Singapore sitting in a comfortable air conditioned CausewayBay or Beach Road highrise it’s easy to not to know what you don’t know.

In Bangkok though the drinkers at Bangkok’s Cheap Charlies Bar are under no illusions about the complexity of Asia as every night brings another surprise.

During the 1990s it was a regular drinking haunt of those working on the ground in South East Asia – aid workers from Cambodia, oil explorers from Vietnam. gem traders from Laos or builders in Myanmar all swapped stories about their trials and tribulations.

One of the toughest jobs was setting up a diary industry in tropical Thailand, no trivial task in an environment that isn’t kind to soft, milk producing cattle.

Through the late twentieth century the Australian government spent millions helping build the Thai industry with the intention of it helping the Aussie industry build markets and expertise.

Sometime in the late 1990s, the Australian industry decided programs like these were all too hard and not only withdrew from the Thai and Malaysian markets but also let the Chinese opportunity slip through their fingers.

Today, as Business Spectator reported last week, New Zealand’s Fonterra is not only beating the Aussies in China but also has substantial holdings in Australia as the company’s website describes;

The company has NZ$11.8 billion in total assets and revenues of NZ$13 billion and employs more than 18,000 people worldwide. In Australia, Fonterra has revenues of $1.9 billion, processes 21 per cent of all Australian milk and employs over 2,000 people. This makes Fonterra very much an Australasian company.

Fonterra’s story, both in China and Australia, illustrates how something went amiss in Australia’s business sector in the late 1990s.

The point of Australia’s deregulations and industry consolidations through the 1980s and 90s was to make local businesses and industries more competitive. Instead those Australian conglomerates have been sold to overseas interests as domestic investors find they aren’t interested in investing.

Instead Australian businesses decided that having being allowed to consolidate they could use their market power to clip the tickets of the industries they controlled rather than innovating or expanding internationally.

At the same time, Australia’s compulsory savings scheme poured billions into the local share market leaving boards under no pressure to perform better than the index.

The lazy investing philosophy forced internationally focused businesses to look for overseas investors and has created the steady flow of Australian business, farming and mining assets being sold onto overseas buyers.

In the meantime, the shock jocks and populists whip up xenophobia rather than holding Australian business community to account for its failure to seek and build new markets.

This doesn’t mean bad news for young Australians, there are opportunities for smart, innovative and hard working entrepreneurs to challenge the country’s staid duopolies.

If we choose not to challenge the comfortable duopolies, it may be the next generation of Aussie expats find more opportunities at Cheap Charlies in Bangkok than at home.

Can Huawei come in from the cold?

Can the Chinese communications technology vendor come in from the cold?

Last Friday the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Broadband Committee met in Sydney, I’ll have a story on this in tomorrow’s Business Spectator.

An interesting exchange during the meeting was between the committee’s chair Rob Oakeshott and Mike Quigley, the CEO of NBNCo.

Rob Oakeshott: “You have advice that either as a department or a statutory body that says there are certain companies that should not be involved with the National Broadband Network build? If so, is that advice still in place?”

Mike Quigley: “Well chair, we work very closely with the appropriate government agencies in this area, obviously there are things we can and things we can’t say, but we have a very close working relationship with those entities and we obviously take their advice on things we should and shouldn’t do.”

“Their advice is still in place and we’re following it.”

I’m going to be in Melbourne tomorrow attending the Australian Davos Committee’s China Forum where, among other luminaries, the Prime Minister and various key people in the Australian-Chinese relationship will be talking.

The company in question is Chinese communications vendor Huawei and their banning from Australian contracts adds an interesting dimension to the discussion on trade relations between the two countries.

Australia has followed the US lead in blocking the Chinese communication hardware company from key contracts like the NBN on security grounds and it’s hard to see how this doesn’t test the patience of the PRC.

We’ll see how this issue plays out as it’s one that seems to be largely overlooked when we discuss trade ties and relationships with Chinese companies.

Cheap coffee and the changing service sector

The rise of cheap automated coffee machines in service stations and convenience stores shows how the assumptions about the service economy are being challenged.

I noticed the queues one morning when calling into the local service station to grab a carton of milk at 5am.

There was a line of tradesmen out the door waiting to buy a $1 self serve coffee. Freshly ground with your choice of espresso, latte or cappuccino.

No messing around, no being patronised by snobby barista – just a cheap, decent quality cup of coffee.

For the last few years these machines have been popping up in convenience stores and service stations, freshly grinding beans to order and delivering a reasonable cup of coffee for a dollar or two.

Cheap coffee at the local convenience store

None of the machine made cups will beat a coffee made by a good barista, but are half or a third of the price being charged by many cafes whose product often isn’t much better (and sometimes worse) than that made by the machines.

With the rise of the service economy in the 1970s it was assumed employment would move from factories to jobs like baristas and serving in cafes, now we’re seeing automation taking over those jobs as well.

The 1970s assumption that the service industries would become the mainstay of the economy turned out to be true with over two thirds of the workforces in countries like the US, UK and Australian employed in them them by the end of the Twentieth Century.

Now industries are restructuring again and the assumptions that worked well for the last fifty years are being challenged by automation and increased outsourcing.

The idea we could build an economy based upon us all making coffee and waiting tables for each other was always problematic and so it is proving to be.

It’s worth thinking about the opportunities this presents for your business.

Breaking out of the gilded cage – Microsoft’s challenge with Windows

How can Microsoft adapt to a market that’s shifting away from the products which have delivered spectacular profits over the last thirty years?

Update: With the announcement that Steve Ballmer will be stepping down as Microsoft CEO, the future direction of the company now becomes the biggest challenge for his replacement.

Over the last three weeks the news for the personal computer industry has not been good. How does Microsoft, the business that leads the sector, move on from the product which has been its mainstay?

Three stories in the last three weeks have shown how dire the situation is for personal computers, Windows and Microsoft.

Consulting firm IDC’s report that global PC sales had dropped a stunning 14% was a clear signal the PC era is ending.

A Gartner report two weeks ago warned that Microsoft faces a slide into irrelevance as Android device sales dwarf Windows’ numbers and Apple sales catch up with PCs.

Industry commentators Asymco made similar observations about the state of the PC industry noting that Apple takes 45% of all profits from an industry that is in decline.

In the past Microsoft has responded quickly to industry threats, one of the great management feats of the 20th Century was Bill Gates’ turning the company around to meet the challenges of Netscape and the newly popular internet.

So how can Microsoft meet the challenges of today’s much more competitive world, while protecting their impressive revenues and profits?

Replace the management

Steve Ballmer was employee number 30 at Microsoft having been hired in 1980. Since his appointment as CEO in 2000 the company’s stock price has wallowed.

Regardless of Ballmer’s performance, 13 years is a long tenure for a CEO in an industry that has radically changed in the last decade. A new perspective in the executive suite may well help the company leverage its strengths and weaknesses.

Microsoft’s management problems shouldn’t just be blamed on Ballmer however, a stunning Vanity Fair profile of the company last year blamed human resources policies, specifically ‘stack ranking’ employees, for poor performance.

Overhauling the company’s notoriously siloed management would give Microsoft much more flexibility in meeting the cloud and mobile challenges to its business.

Ditch Windows

At the core of Microsoft’s success is the Windows operating system which in 2012 delivered a quarter of the company’s revenue but has reported no growth for two years in a stagnating PC market.

It is still a cash rich business though and as a stand alone entity, the operating system division could still be an attractive private equity investment.

The story of Michael Dell’s attempt to take his company private is instructive as investment companies fight for a stake in a business with a turnover is less than Microsoft’s Windows division and far less profits.

Double down on Windows

The counter view to floating the Windows division is to double down and concentrate on the company’s core business. While the PC industry is fading, the need for embedded systems in machines is growing.

Microsoft though hasn’t executed well with non-PC operating systems – the continued failure of tablet versions of Windows XP is a good example – so it may mean a new management team to guide the company down this path.

Claim the cloud

The biggest cash generator for Microsoft is their business division that includes their Office and Dynamics products. These are most at risk by the market’s move to cloud services.

Paradoxically, Microsoft has a track record on the cloud products having acquired Hotmail in 1997, developed the Azure platform and taking steps to move its business products across to Office 365.

Microsoft’s experience with Hotmail is instructive of the company’s uncertainty with cloud services having renamed the product constantly. Currently its incarnation as Outlook.com indicates further integration with Office 365.

With a focused management, Microsoft may well be able to compete against both Google and Amazon on the cloud by leveraging its traditional market strengths and its army of evangelists, developers and support partners.

Buy Nokia

So far the alliance with Nokia has been underwhelming with Windows Phones being met with market indifference. A purchase of the struggling mobile phone giant would give Microsoft more depth in understanding the mobile marketplace.

A more interesting aspect of Microsoft buying the mobile vendor would be the acquisition of Nokia’s mapping technology. This would give Microsoft an advantage over Apple and give them an opportunity to compete with Google in the still developing mobile and local markets.

For Microsoft, sticking with the status quo is tempting – a business with seventy-three billion dollars income and $17 billion in profits still makes it one of the world’s most impressive businesses.

The risk though is all of the company’s major revenue streams are being challenged by mobile and cloud service and Microsoft have to adapt to a world very different to the one they grew in.

As Gartner have pointed out, the company risks becoming irrelevant in an era of mobile devices accessing cloud services.

The Challenge for Microsoft’s management and board is to find the spark that keeps the company relevant in a marketplace where the company is no longer the dominant player.

Moving to a subscription economy

Customer subscription models are changing many industries which opens up opportunities for smart businesses

One of the biggest changes in business is the move to subscription based services rather than selling one-off, lump sum products. This is affecting industries ranging from the motor industry to software.

Business Spectator has a good interview with Tien Zhou of Zuora on the subscription economy and how it’s changing the business world.

We’re pretty passionate in our belief that every company will be a subscription business in the next five, 10, 20 years. That’s certainly what we’re seeing with digital companies, whether they are technology firms (software, hardware), media and publishing firms, or telecom companies. The ideas of content and access are starting to blend together and we are seeing more and more commerce companies dip their feet as well. So we’re really see this as an across the board phenomenon.

Probably the industry most focused on the subscription model right now are newspapers – subscribers have always been an important revenue stream for the print media and the loss of their advertising rivers of gold means they are looking at ways to get more money from readers.

As Tien Zhou points out, businesses moving to subscription services is an across the board phenomenon.

Yesterday I mentioned the Google Maps connected treadmill, that is a subscription model where the treadmill seller gets money from the initial purchase, but also a revenue stream from the services attached to it.

The same business model applies to connected motor cars or the social media enabled jet engine. The aim is to replace lump sum purchases with lifetime subscriptions.

Getting customers onto lifetime subscriptions has been one of Microsoft’s aims for the past decade as the company realised that software users, particularly those using Microsoft Office, hung onto their CDs for years and increasingly decades.

Perversely it took Google and Apple to show Microsoft how to wean customers onto subscription services.

That Microsoft Office is a good example of the evolution of subscription software, or Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), isn’t an accident. The enterprise computing sector is currently the most profoundly affected as companies like Google and Salesforce threaten high cost incumbents.

A good example of the changing economics of software is the supermarket chain Woolworths moving onto Google Docs.

With 26,000 seats, the reseller can expect to make $260,000 a year in commissions based on Google’s standard terms of $10 per seat per year.

That total sum is less than the commission a salesperson would have earned for a similar sized IBM, Oracle or Microsoft installation.

A whole generation of IT salespeople who’ve grown fat and comfortable on their generous commissions now find their incomes being dramatically reduced.

Similar things are happening in industries like call centres with Zendesk, point of sale systems and event ticketing with Eventbrite – incumbents are finding their incomes steadily being eroded away by online services.

At the same time agricultural and mining equipment suppliers are introducing big data services for their customers where the information gathered by the sensors built into modern tractors and bulldozers are providing valuable intelligence about the crop and ore being gathered.

The subscription business model is nothing new, King Camp Gillette perfected the strategy with the safety razor at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. The razors were cheap but the blades were where the money was.

Microsoft and the rest of the software industry tried to introduce subscriptions in the late 1990s with Software as a Service, but failed because the internet wasn’t mature enough to support the model. Today it is.

Like many things in today’s economy, the subscription model is going to change a lot of markets. It’s a great opportunity for disruptive businesses.

Subscription envelope image courtesy of jaylopez through sxc.hu

Why Australia needs foreign ownership

Foreign investment is making up for the lack of Australian interest in local assets.

Such are the vagaries of radio that I’ve been asked to comment on ABC Radio South Australia about foreign ownership based on an article that was picked up by The Drum 14 months ago.

That article was written shortly after Dick Smith came out grumbling about the prospect of Woolworths selling the electronics store chain named after him to foreign interests.

My point at the time was that foreign owners would be preferable to some poorly managed, undercapitalised local buyer as the Australian retail industry – even in a declining market like consumer electronics – needs more innovation and original thinking.

As it turned out, Dick Smith Electronics was sold to Anchorage Capital, a private equity turn around fund with an interesting portfolio of businesses.

In the meantime, the argument about foreign ownership of property and businesses, particularly farms, has ratcheted up as opportunistic politicians and the shock jock peanut gallery that sets much of Australia’s media agenda have found a cheap, jingoistic issue to score points from.

So why is foreign ownership of businesses like farms, mines and factories important for Australia?

A fair price for hard work

The main reason for supporting foreign buyers for Aussie businesses is it gives entrepreneurs a chance to get a fair price for their hard work.

A farmer or factory owner who builds their business shouldn’t have to accept a lower price because Australians don’t want to pay for the asset.

It’s not a matter of being able to pay Australians as have plenty of money to invest – a trillion dollars in superannuation funds and three billion dollars claimed for negative losses in 2009-10 show there’s plenty of money around – it’s just that Aussies don’t want to invest in farming, mining or other productive sectors.

We’re already seeing this play out in the small business sector as baby boomer proprietors find they aren’t going to sell their ventures for what they need to fund their retirement.

Access to capital

Should the protectionists get their way then the businesses and farms will eventually be sold to undercapitalised Australian investors at knock down prices.

This is the worse possible thing that could happen as not only do the entrepreneurs miss out, but also the factories and farms decline as they are starved of capital investment.

Cubby Station

A good example of both the lack of capital affecting investment and finding a fair price for ventures is Queensland’s Cubby Station.

While I personally think Cubby Station is an example of the economic bastardry and environmental vandalism that are the hallmarks of the droolingly incompetent National Party and its corrupt cronies, the venture itself is a good example of why the agriculture sector needs foreign investment.

Having been converted from cattle to cotton in the 1970s, Cubbie grew as successive owners acquired water licenses from surrounding properties.

Eventually the company collapsed under the weight of its debts in 2009 and the property was allowed to run down by the administrators until it was bought by Chinese backed interests at the beginning of 2013.

At the time of the acquisition, the company’s former chairman told The Australian, “on reflection, I would go into those things with an even stronger balance sheet — in other words, with less gearing.”

In other words, the company was under-capitalised.

Competition concerns

Another reason for encouraging foreign ownership is that Australia has become the Noah’s Ark of business with duopolies dominating most key sectors.

Bringing in foreign owners at least offers the prospect of having alternatives to the comfortable two horse races that dominate most industries.

The property market

An aspect that has excited the peanut shock jocks has been the prospect of Chinese buyers purchasing all the country’s property.

For those of us with memories longer than goldfish, today’s Chinese mania is almost identical to the Japanese buying frenzy of the late 1980s.

Much of what we read about the Chinese buying homes is self serving tosh from property developers and real estate agents and what mania there is will peter out in a similar way to how the Japanese slowly withdrew.

This isn’t to say there shouldn’t be concerns about foreign ownership – tax avoidance, loss of sovereignty and Australia’s small domestic market are all valid questions that should be raised about overseas buyers, but overall much of the hysteria about foreign ownership is misplaced.

What Australians should be asking is why the locals aren’t investing in productive industries or buying mining and farming assets.

The answer almost certainly is that we’d rather stick with the ‘safety’ of the ASX 200 or the residential property market.

We’ve made our choices and we shouldn’t complain when Johnny Foreigner sees opportunities that beyond negative geared investment units or an tax advantaged superannuation fund.

Australia’s economic Hari-Kari

As the cheap credit era comes to an end, the Australian economy acts as if the party is never going to end.

“The Golden Era of Credit is Now Over” writes Maximillian Walsh in the Australian Financial Review today.

Max’s story relies mainly on the April edition of Bill Goss’ monthly newsletter where the founder of investment firm PIMCO writes about the talents of today’s market wizards;

All of us, even the old guys like Buffett, Soros, Fuss, yeah – me too, have cut our teeth during perhaps a most advantageous period of time, the most attractive epoch, that an investor could experience.

The credit boom of the last fifty years created many winners – investment bankers, property owners and those who sell things funded by easy finance.

One of the best examples of a fortune made through easy credit is Australia’s Gerry Harvey. Here’s one of Gerry’s ads from 1979.

Hurry into Norman Ross. You can use Bankcard or our easy credit system. You can even use cash!

Three years later Gerry was sacked from the business he founded and he set up Harvey Norman, promising John Walton and Alan Bond “I’m going to beat you.” By the end of the 1980s he had.

Gerry’s success is built on easy credit and the rise of the consumerist economy. From the hire purchase plans of the 1960s, the introduction of credit cards in the 1970s and the banking deregulations of the 1980s, Gerry was able to sell goods to eager consumers who could worry about paying later.

In the 1990s and 2000s a happy coincidence of easy credit and cheap Asian manufacturing – note the prices of electrical goods in that 1979 commercial – saw businesses like Harvey Norman grow exponentially.

Mao promised the Chinese a chicken in every pot, Gerry delivered a plasma TV in every Australian bedroom.

Today, as Bill Goss says, the credit party is over. Last drinks were called with the failure of Lehman Brothers on September 16th, 2008.

However this hasn’t stopped the Aussie economy, as the Sydney Morning Herald reports today Sales growth cheers Gerry Harvey.

In the same edition the SMH reports the government science organisation, the CSIRO, is cutting hundreds of staff. Notable in that article is a comment from the organisation’s CEO;

Dr Clark said more than 2000 companies collaborated with CSIRO but that industries were reducing the amount spent on research.

So at a time when the Australian economy is struggling with the effects of a high currency and exhibiting all the symptoms of the Dutch Disease, consumers are spending more on TVs and sofas while business cuts investment in research and development.

Karl Marx famously predicted that the last capitalist will be hanged with the rope they sold, Australians have a bunch of Harvey Norman branded credit cards for their financial seppuku.

Can maps change the way we work?

Big data and mobile computing are changing the way business operates as maps become an important part of our normal work and leisure time.

“Work the Way You Live” is Google’s motto for their enterprise maps service which the search engine giant hopes to make as ubiquitous in business as it is in the home.

At Google Atmosphere the company showed off their mapping technology and how it can be used by large organisation. It’s a compelling story.

The technology behind Google Maps is impressive – twenty petabytes of images, one billion active monthly users, 1.6 million map tiles served every second and a target of getting those tiles onto the users screen within ten milliseconds.

Maps are one of the Big Data applications that cheap computing makes possible, until a few years ago even desktop computers would have struggled with the sort of mapping technology that we take for granted on our smartphones today.

Rethinking products

Adding mapping technologies to products allows businesses to rethink their products. A good example of this is the internet connected treadmill.

Using the treadmill a jogger, or a walker, can map out a route anywhere in the world and the screen will show them the Google Street View as they travel along the route. The treadmill even adjusts to the changing gradients.

The Google Maps driven treadmill is a trivial example of the internet of machines, but it gives a hint of what’s possible.

The search for truth

The success of a map depends on whether it can be trusted – this is what caught Apple out with their mapping application which was released before it was ready for prime time. Google, and most cartographers, take seriously errors and changes.

In the early days of Google Maps, the company would pass errors and changes onto the private and government mapping providers they licensed the data from. It could take months to fix a problem.

“It was really hard, you have to get maps from all over the world to create the product,” says Louis Perrochon, the Engineering director of google maps for business.

“That’s a limitation if you work with third party data so we started a project called Ground Truth where we build our own maps.”

Google pulls together its Street View data, satellite images and information sent in from the public through their Map Maker site and the Maps Engine Lite to build an accurate map of an area.

Changing consumer behaviour

Having accurate and accessible maps has changed the way consumers have behaved; “this revolution hasn’t happened slowly,” says Google Enterprise Directore Richard Suhr, “it’s happened really quickly.”

“Customers have become savvy about spatial. What this means is that businesses are starting to rethink the problem.”

“What are the exciting things I can do with maps, what else can I do with my data.”

That’s a big question of all businesses – how they use the massive amount of information in their organisation will mark the winners from also runs over the next decade. Maps are one way to visualise their data.

While Google Atmosphere was a marketing event for the companies mapping technologies the message is clear – mapping is changing the way we work and play and it’s affecting business.

How is mapping changing the way your business works?

Sports cars, the cloud and the need for broadband

How the V8 Supercar races use the internet and networks shows why businesses need reliable communications and the way organisations are using cloud computing.

My relationship with sports cars is similar to horses – I have a vague idea of which end water goes in and where not to stand.

So Microsoft’s invite to the Launceston V8 Supercars to showcase their Office 365 cloud service as the race’s official sponsor wasn’t expected but it was a good opportunity to see how a sports organisation uses modern technology.

Riding the cloud

At the opening media conference V8 Supercars CEO David Malone and Finance Director Peter Trimble described the IT problems the organisation had in the early days.

“We were penny wise and pound foolish” said Peter about their small business system that couldn’t grow with the event.

To properly meet their needs V8 Supercars would have needed a bank of servers, cumbersome remote access software and a full time team of several IT staff for their scattered workforce and constantly changing locations.

With cloud services, they eliminated many IT costs while simplifying their systems.

That staff can now access documents regardless of location is a very good case study of where the cloud works well and understandable that Microsoft wanted to show off what their services can do.

Networking the cars

When challenged about the point of car racing, enthusiasts cite how the sport is a test bed for the motor industry.

The motor industry is one sector leading the internet of machines with one car manufacturing executive recently describing the modern motor vehicle as being a “computer platforms” on wheels.

Eventually we’ll see our cars connected to the net and reporting everything from the engine’s servicing needs to the driver’s musical tastes.

That’s reality in today’s high performance racing, both the drivers and the cars are in constant contact with the crews as sensors report everything from engine performance to the foot pressure the driver is putting on the accelerator pedal.

As continuous data feeds from the cars is essential to the teams the event has its own trackside network with receivers located along the course that are used for both vehicle telemetry and the video feeds from both car mounted and fixed cameras.

Owning the rights

In what’s becoming the future of sports broadcasting, the V8 Supercars organisers run their own camera crews and provide the feed to their broadcast partners and media outlets.

This allows them to control all the rights across TV, cable and online channels.

Having full control of the pictures also gives the V8 Supercars more revenue through signage and sponsorship by guaranteeing advertising placements which wouldn’t be available if they didn’t manage the feed.

Connectivity matters

v8-supercars-launceston-communications-cable — Spaghetti Junction as the various feeds come together

Getting the images out to the media and broadcast partners along with delivering the in car data to the racing teams is major challenge for organisers. The communications centres resemble a giant bowl of cable spaghetti as various groups plug into the network.

It’s no coincidence that part of the deals the V8 Supercar management strike with track owners and governments includes providing fiber and microwave links to the venue.

That single factor illustrates how vital communications links are to a modern sporting event.

Another important factor is that everything will be packed up and taken away. Following Launceston, the entire show is packed up and moved onto Auckland, New Zealand. This in itself is a major logistic challenge which would fail without good connectivity and reliable systems.

v8-supercars-launceston-truck-fleet — the fleet of trucks ready to move on

It’s easy to dismiss the V8 Supercars as a bunch of testosterone driven rev-heads, but the challenges in staging these complex events fifteen times a year shouldn’t be underestimated.

We also shouldn’t underestimate how important communication links are to any business. It’s why debates about the need for high speed internet services are last century’s discussion.