Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

The global online sales battle

The fight between governments, retailers and online traders has some big stakes.

Gerry Harvey’s and Bernie Brooke’s Fair Go for Retailers campaign drawing attention to the GST treatment of online overseas purchases is part of broader battle being fought around the world between multinational corporations, governments and small business. How it is resolved is going to affect all of us.

Last week, while Australians were focused on their major retailers campaigning for changes to GST rules, Internet retailer Amazon wrote to its Illinois affiliates warning that should the state legislature pass a law imposing sales tax on Internet purchases, the company would cut off their partners in that state, just as they already have in Colorado.

The actions of the Colorado state government, the Illinois proposal and Amazon’s ruthless response are just the latest phase in a longer term struggle between borderless online retailers and those governments, and businesses, limited by their physical locations.

What’s making this particularly acute in the United States is state governments are struggling to balance their budgets and sales tax is the one of the few avenues they have to raise revenues in an economy where incomes and property markets continue to stagnate, if not fall outright.

That balancing act isn’t just confined to the US, the UK government has increased VAT rates from the beginning of the year for the same reason and is facing discontent over increasing tax burdens, particularly on fuel prices.

For the moment the UK government and customs authorities seem to be fairly relaxed about the leakage of VAT income that has seen some British supermarket chains shipping online orders from their Channel Islands branches to avoid local taxes in the way Gerry Harvey and Bernie Brookes proposed last December when the floated the proposal to move their online stores offshore.

The British public hasn’t shared their government’s sanguine response with organisations like UK Uncut blockading stores accused of dodging taxes or owned by alleged tax avoiders.

Governments aren’t the only ones affected, while in Australian it’s the retailers who are publicly worried about their loss of sales at present, other sectors, particularly those providing business to business services, are even more at risk.

Last month The Economist described how US law firms are seeing high margin but relatively low skilled work moving offshore to India and it’s likely those contractors are offering similar services to Australian law firms and corporate clients.

Online bidding sites such as Freelancer.com, O-desk and 99 Designs are offering almost every business support service imaginable, from virtual offices to logo design. Anyone competing locally against foreign contractors on those sites starts from exactly the same GST disadvantage as Harvey Norman, Myer and the local shoeshop.

The power of international retailers and service providers like Google and Amazon to avoid taxes and deliver lowest cost products to customers are challenges to both businesses and governments.

Julia Gillard’s and Bill Shorten’s almost condescending responses to the retailers shows the politicians are somewhat more in tune with the public mood than the retailers. But we can be sure that should the porridge in Australia’s Goldilocks economy start going cold, then Treasury will start looking for those lost GST dollars.

While we can criticise Gerry Harvey, Bernie Brookes and the others behind the “Fair Go for Retailers” campaign for being out of touch and failing to respond to obvious threats to their markets, most businesspeople – and politicians – shouldn’t think for a moment they are immune from the same forces the retailers are complaining about.

Few of us, whether we run businesses or not, will be untouched by these forces realigning the global economy. We all need to understand what these changes mean to our livelihoods and investments, lest we get caught out like Australia’s big retailers.

Trusting the web

How the Wikileaks scandal has damaged the cloud computing industry

The US court orders demanding Twitter and others hand over Wikileaks related information may have killed the cloud computing trend.

Paul Carr in Techcrunch raised his concerns about how this has affected his views on storing his personal life and details online. He’s not alone.

Cloud computing relies on trust and confidence; for us to use it we have to trust our data is safe, secure and confidential. That many of us are even suspicious that Google and Amazon have quietly handed over the Wikileaks details shows how that trust has been eroded.

The behaviour of the US cloud providers shows most will buckle under the slightest political and government pressure, let alone a letter from the FBI of which the New York Times claims over 50,000 are sent each year.

That tens of thousands of these orders are made each year in the US alone – and we should have no doubt that governments in other countries are just as eager to seize online details – shows how insecure our information is in the hands of third party providers.

This is more than just activists who have upset the US government; in the event of a trade dispute, spurious copyright claim or a simple case of political malice or opportunism a businesses’ service could be shut down, often without any warning, due process or appeal.

Which is exactly what Amazon and various other cloud service providers did to Wikileaks.

Cloud services offers great business advantages, particularly to small and startup enterprises. But the Wikileaks shutdown scandal shows the managements of many cloud computing providers are untrustworthy cowards.

For many businesses it will still be worthwhile sticking with cloud services for the convenience, cost and scale however it’s also important to keep in mind these providers cannot be trusted and a backup plan has to be available should they fail.

The data we keep online has to be considered as well, it appears we cannot trust cloud services with our critical business and personal information so we need to be discriminating about exactly what we put online, this includes social media services like Facebook and Twitter.

Cloud service providers have to prove they deserve our trust, right now it’s difficult to see how they can regain it.

The entrepreneur’s biological clock

At what age do you stop being an entrepreneur?

In backpacker circles, when you turn thirty people ask “what’s wrong this guy? What you can get away with in your twenties, you can’t get away once you’ve passed the big “three-oh”. It’s not dissimilar to the “biological clock” many women in their thirties confront as they perceive their days of easily having children are coming to an end.

A similar phenomenon exists in the business world, both for employees and business owners, that there are age limits on what someone can easily do. Like the backpackers, it’s more a perception than a reality.

Once upon a time you were past it at fifty years old. Through the 1980s, 90s and the early part of this century that “past it” age contracted, along with the deskilling of the workforce, to 45, then 40 then 35.

In the eyes of many in the corporate world today should you not have an established corporate career path by your mid-thirties then you are well “past it” and destined for a middling career and income.

With entrepreneurs a similar quandary exists, once over forty there’s a feeling that the aspiring business owner should just stick to buying the local doughnut or lawn mowing franchise. Startup land is no country for old men.

The underlying cause of this view is the belief every successful business founder is rich beyond their dreams by thirty – Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind – that’s clearly silly given most businesses never come close to the successes of Microsoft or Facebook but it’s a persistent one nevertheless.

When the entrepreneur turns thirty, things begin to get tricky; sleeping on a friends sofa, working eighteen hour days and living on instant noodles isn’t an option when you have kids, partners and mortgages. At the same time, family, friends and potential employers start to ask “if this guy’s so good, how come he isn’t a millionaire?”

To make things more difficult, risk adverse peers start bragging about how their safe, well paid job is allowing them to buy second homes or go on holidays most business owners can’t contemplate.

Probably the hardest thing though is that the doors of the corporate world start slamming shut; for a 40 year old entrepreneur who has been running their own businesses for 15 years, it’s difficult to get a job in the business world and any position available won’t recognise the skills developed in running your own enterprise.

Similarly, the warning to anyone with a decent corporate career who chooses to leave their safe office job to run their own business is usually “how can you risk throwing all of this away?”

Risk is the difference between the ages; once you’re over 40 with there being little prospect of a plan B involving returning to a nice corporate position, then the cost of failure is a lot higher.

In some ways this can be better; an individual staring down the prospect of a long, poverty stricken retirement has a very good incentive to get their business right and doesn’t have time to waste on speculative or “me-too” projects.

The idea there’s an age limit to launching new, innovative businesses and products is silly, but it’s a persistent one nevertheless. The great thing though with being your own boss is you don’t have to pay attention to other people’s dumb ideas and this one is a dumb as it gets.

Choosing the business battlefield

Working from a strong position is a great help to success.

Across the world industries are in turmoil as the Internet and globalisation allow new competitors into once safe markets. How do the incumbents deal with the upstarts and how do innovators challenge the establishment?

One way is to redefine the market, instead of taking on the incumbent or challenger on their own terms, aim the product at a segment that hasn’t been properly developed. The best example of this is Apple’s iPod.

When the iPod was released there were hundreds of MP3 players on the market including those from Sony who were expected to continue their dominance in the personal entertainment device market which they had developed around the Sony Walkman in the early 1980s.

Apple took that market and redefined it on their terms, they then repeated the strategy with both the iPhone and the iPad.

While not every business will have Apple’s design talent, or the market opportunities that allowed Apple to time their entry with those products, their experience shows how choosing where you fight your market battles matters.

In the United States, major airlines are deciding not to compete with cut price carriers on travel websites, the reasoning being that these online comparison services only compare products on price which is not the legacy carriers’ advantage. Instead airlines like American and Delta are pushing their own websites that emphasise their advantages such as free baggage allowances, lounges, inflight meals or downtown check-in facilities that their low cost competitors don’t offer.

Qantas in Australia carried out a similar strategy when faced with low cost carriers entering their market. They set up Jetstar as a low cost carrier which started flying the price sensitive routes, mainly the leisure and holiday services, leaving the expensive full service legacy operations to focus on the business dominated routes that weren’t so concerned about price.

In doing this, Qantas chose where they were going to fight and on what terms, which has helped them remain profitable at a time when many other legacy airlines have struggled.

Traditional retailers are facing a similar problem to the airline industry as online stores are taking growing share of the shopping market. Some commentators are suggesting they need to compete with online services, but for many entering a field where someone else has the advantage would be a mistake.

Instead it may be better to choose where a business’s existing strengths lie and build upon those. For a bricks and mortar retail store, this may mean service and convenience.

A good example of this is the cornerstore of our grandparents days. With the rise of supermarkets, most of these smaller shops went out of business as they tried to compete with the better range, prices and convenience of the self service stores. We saw a similar process happen with speciality shops like butchers and greengrocers.

In recent times we’ve seen the corner store being reborn as retailers have discovered that consumers are prepared to pay more than supermarket prices in return for convenience. The modern convenience store is different to the corner shop of our grandparents’ days, but it is a recognisable descendant which caters to the changed society and customer needs.

This changing society and evolving customer demands is what today’s retailers, and every other industry, needs to consider as they look at the future of their business. The economy is going through a period of massive change and disruption.

Building on strengths and recognising other’s advantages and weaknesses is the key to survival in such an environment. For a traditional, bricks-and-mortar appliance store, an e-commerce solution might be the answer as could a social media strategy or offering bid discounts to Internet shoppers.

The key is to choose the marketplace where your business have the strengths, either by redefining markets as Apple often do or by focusing on key advantages like Qantas and the US airlines are trying to do.

A similar rule applies when challenging the incumbents in the marketplace, in fields where barriers are low and it’s difficult to simply undercut the established players, you have choose the areas in which they are weak and the demand is strong.

This isn’t to say incumbents shouldn’t adopt new technologies, they should and they can use them to build on areas they are strong while looking at how new methods can fix their weaknesses. Similarly upstarts can compete in an incumbent’s core market if the existing players are weak or aren’t adapting to changing conditions.

Choosing the battlefield is the key, whether you’re an incumbent protecting your market position or an upstart looking at building a new market, working from a position of strength makes success far more likely.

The customer is always right

Australia’s new business laws have a sting in the tail

From the beginning of 2011 a new consolidated set of national consumer laws took effect across Australia. These change a number of definitions and rules on business matters like sales, refunds and contractual arrangements that businesses need to be aware of.

While most of the regulations are revisions of existing Federal and state laws – the main changes seemingly aimed at tying down definitions of things like unconscionable conduct – there are few gotchas which even the most well intentioned business owner or manager needs to be aware of.

For most businesses the most difficult aspect will be the ACCC’s definition of “unsolicited supplies”. It appears the main thrust of the changes is to tighten up on invoice scams and dodgy door-to-door sales people, but the Commission’s interpretation of what is unwanted work may be a bit too restrictive in the real business world.

“If the client didn’t ask for it, they don’t have to pay” is the ACCC’s interpretation of the new laws. On the face of it, this black-and-white view seems fair enough but often what the client and supplier agreed isn’t so easily determined.

In fields where quoted work is the norm, the “unsolicited supplies” definition means the ACCC will now advise your clients not to pay any part of a bill they believe wasn’t authorised.

Most scrupulous service providers already check with customers before going ahead with additional work. The example in the ACCC’s handbook of a car repairer is a good case, as most mechanics already call up customers should they find unforeseen problems which will add to the bill.

One interesting aspect of the ACCC’s interpretations is how they will fit in with the duty of care that mechanic, just to choose one example, has to the customer should they find the car unroadworthy; do they repair the dangerous items and risk wearing the bill or do they let the customer drive off should they be unable to agree on the cost of making the vehicle legal and safe?

A more common example is the tradesman who finds midway through the quoted job that there’s a serious problem that prevents them completing the agreed work.

Does this mean the plumber who finds a tree root blocking a pipe, a carpenter who uncovers an extensive termite infestations or a computer technician who discovers a dying hard drive simply down tools until an agreement on the cost of the extra works has been agreed?

These are the sort of issues where the ACCC’s black and white interpretation of the law may come unstuck.

Another area where the narrow definition of the ACCC will fall down is where customers say “just fix it” with an ensuing argument over what was fixed. Advising the customer not to pay the bits they believe are excessive puts an unfair burden on the merchant and may not stand up to review by the courts.

It’s safe to predict the ACCC will find their interpretations being challenged in the courts sooner rather than later, though for the moment businesses will have to live with these definitions.

As a consequence businesses have to be precise in defining what work is covered in a quotation and scrupulously note every conversation and instruction from your clients, particularly ensuring you have clear approval for any works that might fall outside your initial agreement.

For businesses operating in areas where it’s difficult to give a fixed quote with a defined scope of works such as emergency plumbing or computer repairs, it’s probably going to be best to accept the uncertainty and just build an extra overhead allowing for these disputes into your cost structure.

Apart from the “unsolicited supplies” aspect most of the guidelines around these rules are general commonsense and there’s little that’s really changed for ethically run businesses.

The full guide to the new regulations is available for download from the ACCC website. You and your staff – particularly your sales team – need to read and understand how these rules affect your business.

The age of the whistleblower

Wikileaks shows how anonymous online channels undermine old media models.

“I would have done it anonymously” when the girl in the middle of the Australian football “dickileaks” scandal was asked what she would have done differently after being ordered by a court not to post any more nude photos of star players she had obtained through a relationship with one of their team mates.

Having unsuccessfully tried to pass them over the local Melbourne press, who instead tipped off the governing Australian Football League, the girl posted them on Facebook and was quickly shut down by lawyers and a hostile local media more concerned about their access to star footballers than the ethics or behaviour of their beloved sports teams.

The lesson has been learned with events like this and the systemic corporate shut down of Wikileaks; that the media, big business, governments and the media cannot be trusted.

For anybody with sensitive information that upsets people in power – be it Julian Assange, a girl with nude footballer photos or a US pilot posting inconsistencies in the Transport Security Administration’s policies – it is essential to get your message out, you don’t have to wait for a producer or editor to decide to publish the story based upon whatever news values they think have priority.

The next wave of Wikileakers won’t be waiting for Julian Assange to do deals with The Guardian, New York Times or Der Spiegel, they’ll be setting up anonymous websites on services like Blogger or WordPress and hiding their IP address to publish the details directly.

Sure most of them will get caught, but instead of finding the leaker in ten minutes, as would happen should they post on Facebook or contact a journalist more loyal to powerbrokers than their readers, it may take the authorities weeks or months to find them and shut them down.

For the media – who have largely sat on the girl’s story since it first broke in May last year, kept silent on the TSA’s flaws and ignored much of the obvious that is stated in the Wikileaks cables – they are no longer the trusted brokers. Too many journalists and media proprietors have cosy, safe relationships with the organisations they should be reporting upon.

For those journalists, their cosy world is over. No longer are they the trusted gate keepers with the privileges that come with the position.

The next generation of media proprietors and journalists understand this and are figuring out the ways to regain trust as sources of factual, useful information.

Digital technology means there will be many Deep Throats and Daniel Ellsbergs in the future, while they won’t need a newspaper editor to get the message out, a channel to vouch for their veracity will be needed and that’s where trusted journalists will matter.

Wikileaks and similar direct publishing channels won’t kill media, but it’s going to be a very different world from that of the 20th Century.

The invisible hand

Sometimes a quiet market is trying to give you a message

It’s great to be passionate and believe in your business, without them it’s difficult to see how an enterprise can succeed.

But if you simply can’t make money out of your passion then it’s the market telling you there is no demand for what you believe in.

Sometimes a slap from Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is the best wake up call we can have in business.

The innovation myth

Is innovation really the lifeblood of an organisation?

Innovation is the buzz world of the moment, along with the belief is that all organisations have to innovate to survive. Recently the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan Review looked at what they believe are the five myths of innovation.

All five have good reasoning behind them, particularly the rebuttal of the idea that every innovation requires a “Eureka” moment as most good business ideas are steadily developed over time.

One of the writers’ ideas that can be taken issue with is that today’s innovations are now about business processes. This overlooks that innovation and the resulting competitive advantage throughout the industrial revolution – such as Henry Ford’s mass production, Josiah Wedgewood’s sales stategies and Alfred Sloan’s building of General Motors – were about applying innovative business processes to new production technologies.

While dispelling some myths, The article perpetrates one of its own by concluded “innovation is the lifeblood of any large organization” as not all organisation are innovative, or need to be innovative.

The innovative drive might actually be the wrong thing for many institutions. For instance, we certainly don’t want doctors and nurses trying out innovative treatments without first going through various ethical and safety tests.

For public service departments, being innovative is usually outside their mandate as they are legally required to carry out a function, such as registering a motor vehicle or collecting statistics. While innovation may help them carry out their mission it isn’t necessary or the lifeblood of the organisation.

In the private and public organisations innovation can be anathema to many managers who didn’t get to where they are by taking risks. In many larger organisations, successful managers are a group selected by survivor bias, they are there because they didn’t take risks and their innovative colleagues long ago dropped away when their ideas “failed”.

Many of those big corporations operate in markets where two companies dominate the market, so there’s little incentive to be innovative, just do enough to differentiate yourself from the competition through some expensive marketing. Telecommunications providers, television stations and cable TV companies are good examples here.

Some of these businesses, to be fair, are highly regulated so managers and staff are cautious to be innovative as they are wary that implementing new ideas or business processes may find them in breach of various laws or regulations. This particularly true in industries like insurance and the legal professions.

We can also see how innovation doesn’t matter even in companies that appear to be innovative; the tech sector provides some case studies where businesses like Microsoft and Google have steady cash cows so the innovative sides of their businesses don’t matter. They just need to do enough to protect their critical cash cows and all other innovation, while fun and stimulating, is largely irrelevant.

Innovation is the lifeblood for high growth and start up businesses. If you are challenging existing players, as Google did with Yahoo!, then you need to be innovative and if an organisation wants to grow fast, it needs to be innovative in what it offers to its customers.

While innovation is important it isn’t the lifeblood of many organisations, particularly bigger ones. That’s where the opportunity lies for new businesses.

Misunderstanding risk

Have we lost the capacity to judge physical and financial danger?

During the recent snowstorms that affected Europe and North America, the summer floods that struck Australia were almost unnoticed except for those living in the inundated areas.

The authorities wisely advised people, particularly tourists on their summer holidays, to avoid the affected areas.

A friend of mine decided to ignore those warnings and take his family on a drive through those backroads despite multiple flood warnings and evacuations. In disregarding the risks, he’s not alone in Western society.

Living the risk-free life

In the Western world we believe we’ve engineered risk out of our society, that we can make investments without risk, that we can build houses in fire, flood or earthquake prone areas without risk, that we plan a holiday without the risk of snowstorms, volcanoes or accidents disrupting our trips.

As a society we believe the government will bail us because we’re good people and life, and fate, is always kind to good people.

When things do wrong, our mobile phones will work, our emergency services will come promptly and the government will quickly shelter and support us until the insurance company comes good on the damage.

Though it’s not just natural calamities where we believe this. It’s evident with people who quit their cubicles to find new enlightenment and riches as entrepreneurs.

Most of them misunderstand the risk-reward ratio that for every wildly successful new business founder, there are dozens who blow their money chasing the dream and hundreds of us that would have been better off working for a salary.

Finance markets and risk

The subprime crisis is another good example; millions were lulled into buying property on the promise that real estate values never fell and that their no cash down, defray your payments for years deal was bullet proof. These folk did not understand, or were equipped to understand, that real estate prices could fall.

During the subprime boom, the lenders thought they’d engineered out risk – Collateral Debt Obligations, default swaps and securitisation meant risk was a thing of the past – and they were proved wrong.

Indeed, the most frightening thing is our banks today believe they are still bullet proof and their profits and executive bonuses are risk free as governments will bail them out at the slightest hint of trouble. When the history of The Great Recession is written, and we are still in the early chapters, the guaranteeing of our “too big to fail” banks may prove to be the biggest mistake of our generation.

Because we believe there are no costs and little genuine threats to our lives, income or savings we don’t understand risks and therefore miscalculate them. If we think someone will be there to catch us, we’ll head up that flooded road, build that house in an earthquake zone or invest in that Ponzi scheme.

We have to understand there are risks and there are limits our governments and societies have in responding when things go wrong. If it’s clear we don’t understand those risks, then it’s probably best not to take them in the first place.

Endnote: My friend and his family made it back from the floods, although he ended up taking the family on four hour detour through some areas that sensible people would have avoided. Hopefully he’s learned a lesson about evaluating risks and won’t be taking his family into disaster areas again.

AB6N9E4DEW64

Destroying your brand

How your online presence can hurt your reputation.

One of the constant business tips in the last few years is that be competitive in the new economy an enterprise – big or small – has to blog, tweet and have a credible online presence. But there is a downside to this, a business or individual that lets too much hang out runs the risk of trashing their brand.

Two recent examples of this are a PC Repair business on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast and a bar on the Gold Coast, there’s no links to the businesses in this post as the intention isn’t to trash their brands any further.

Customer service is always a tough business and the Gold Coast bar their blogger, who bills themselves a “jaded bar worker” and is obviously one of the younger members of the staff, recently wrote a post on customer “whining”. Some of the whines include;

asking to change the music
wanting a drink in a different glass, or with less ice
preferring a decent head on a beer (referred to as “foam” in the post)
asking for a table to be cleared
complaining about a wobbly table

While all of those customer requests can be irritating, and sometimes unreasonable, there’d be little sympathy for the bar staff dealing with these complaints from any hospitality professional or a customer expecting any standard of service.

It appears the blog’s intent is to be a local, chatty version of the successful Waiterrant blog whose author, Steve Dublanica, chronicled the adventures of New York waiter. Waiterrant was good for Steve’s brand, but would have been disastrous for some of the restaurants he worked at.

Steve got around this problem by remaining anonymous until he landed a book deal – always a bad sign for a blogger – along with never identifying the establishments he served at.

While whining about customers is a necessary pressure relief for anyone serving the public, it’s not a good idea to do it publicly unless a particular patron has done something spectacularly rude or stupid. Asking to clear a table or for less ice in their drink does not qualify as even being unreasonable.

By just moaning about the typical day to day work that most of us have to deal with, this blog is not helping the bar’s brand. They might want to consider shutting it down or getting a more senior person to write or edit it.

A little further North on the Sunshine Coast, a local computer tech has built a successful YouTube channel with 20,000 subscribers based around his rough, Aussie larrikin persona featuring some very, very robust language and views.

With eight million views, the YouTube channel is doing well, but as an advert for the business it doesn’t portray his outlet in a particularly positive way and as the video clips become more popular, the damage to the shop’s brand becomes greater – along with the risks given he’s already had one legal threat against him .

Online channels give us the opportunity to get our businesses before the world but with every opportunity comes a risk. When we post a blog, video or tweet online the entire world can see what we’ve said.

Understand those risks – and they are very real – and be careful with what you post and which staff members you trust to post on your business’ behalf. What might have once just upset a few people can now turn the market against you.

When the smiling stops….

a business isn’t working if you can’t smile at a customer

I was asked a while ago why I stepped away from my PC Rescue business despite it doing well.

The reason was I’d stopped smiling. I found myself dreading calls from customers.

When serving your customers becomes a chore, when you spend more time whining and moaning about your clients or you start fearing their phone calls, then you’ve crossed the line in the sand and it’s time to move on.

Business tech 2010

What did the year bring for the connected enterprise?

2010 was always going to be an interesting year as the tech and business worlds came to grips with the economic shocks of 2008 and 2009 and the big tech companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft made their moves to meet various challenges and changes in their marketplaces.

Microsoft’s release of Windows 7 late in 2009 and the release of the new Windows Phone operating system made us think 2010 would be the year of Windows, but if anything 2010 will be most remembered as the year of the iPad.

The iPad
At the end of 2010 it’s difficult to think that the iPad isn’t even ten months old such has been the way Apple has captured the tablet computer market. For a decade, the corporate market had been gagging for a decent tablet system but had been continually let down by poorly designed Windows based models. The iPad delivered what the market wanted and the second version, expected in March 2011, will probably cement Apple as the leader in this segment.

Cloud computing

The iPad’s success was partly due to the plethora of cloud based applications available for the device. Being able to store your data or run your software on a remote server that can be accessed from anywhere made portable devices like the iPad and smartphone killer business tools. While the underlying principles under cloud computing are nothing new in the IT world, cloud products really started to take off in the business and consumer world.

Wikileaks
The fundamental flaws in the cloud and how the Internet works were exposed by the visceral reaction to Wikileaks’ release of the US State Department Cables. Wikileaks’ release of the Climategate emails, Iraq war tapes and finally the State Department Cables forced us to look at security, the ease of setting up websites and how dependent we are on the arbitrary whims of the privately owned corporations who own great chunks of the Internet.

Investment mania
As Helicopter Ben and his counterparts in Europe and China printed money to avoid deflation and to save big to fail banks from failing, hot money started to slosh out of the bank vaults and into the venture capital market with a mini dot com 2.0 boom beginning to appear. This was illustrated best by the group buying mania, best illustrated by Amazon’s $175 million investment in Living Social and Google’s rejected offer to buy Groupon for $6 billion.

Plagiarism
An entertaining side issue was the Cook’s Source plagiarism scandal which showed how much content is being stolen on the net, the attitude of many who do copy and paste other people’s work and how the Internet can quickly mobilise angry mobs.

Crowdsourcing
Probably the biggest buzzword of 2010 was crowdsourcing, the technique of getting those Internet mobs onto solving your business problems. While there’s still some confusion on the difference between outsourcing, crowdsourcing and running dodgy pitch competitions – which raise even more interesting questions about plagiarism, IP protection and business ethics –we’re seeing the hype die down and the real business models start to evolve.

The march of Facebook
With the passing of the 500 million user mark, Facebook showed it was a market force to be reckoned with. The launch of Facebook Places in August seeks to extend their network strengths into the local search business, making them an even greater threat to Google and smaller startups like Foursquare.

Politics meets technology
Something no-one would have expected is how the National Broadband Network became the defining issue of the 2010 Federal election. The fact it did probably speaks more for the policy vacuum on every other issue the two parties presented to the electorate. In many ways it’s a shame the discussion of how we should build such important infrastructure became bogged down in cheap partisan politics on both sides and it illustrates the hollow “Restaurant At The End Of The Universe” mentality that is the feature of modern Australian politics.

As 2010 draws to a close, a reflection on the year would see it’s been the year of connectivity. Businesses, particularly those in the retail and media sectors are beginning to figure out what drives the online economy and how it can be profitable for them.

2011 will be the year we start to see more businesses experimenting with iPads, Groupon, Facebook and other devices or services that help them connect with their markets and communities. it’s going to be an exciting year and we’ll have a look at what’s in store for January’s first column.