Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Author: Paul Wallbank

Microsoft’s China crisis
That the Chinese Public Security Bureau is blocking your messages – and may even be reading them – would make anyone pause before they used a service.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports Microsoft Skype is doing exactly this with its Chinese customers. Anything deemed inappropriate is censored and referred to servers belonging to TOM Online, the company that runs the Skype service on behalf on Microsoft in China.

The Bloomberg story goes onto detail how one Canadian researcher is reverse engineering the Chinese blacklists, giving us a wonderful insight into the petty and touchy minds of China’s censors and political leaders.

What raises eyebrows about this story is how nonchalant Microsoft is about this issue, in a wonderful piece of corporate speak the software giant answered Bloomberg’s question with the following bland statement;

“Skype’s mission is to break down barriers to communications and enable conversations worldwide,” the statement said. “Skype is committed to continued improvement of end user transparency wherever our software is used.”

Microsoft’s statement also said that “in China, the Skype software is made available through a joint venture with TOM Online. As majority partner in the joint venture, TOM has established procedures to meet its obligations under local laws.”

Microsoft have to fix this problem quickly, glibly saying the Chinese government eavesdropping on conversations is a matter for partners is not going to be accepted by most customers.

It would be a shame should Microsoft’s Skype investment fail – Skype is a very good fit for Microsoft, particularly when the technology is coupled with the Linc corporate messaging platform, so squandering goodwill over protecting users’ conversation seems counterproductive.

One of the great business issues of this decade is the battle to protect users’ privacy. Those who don’t do this, or don’t understand the imperatives of doing so, are going to lose the trust of the marketplace.

Twenty years ago, Microsoft could have risked this. Today they can’t as they struggle with a poor response to their Windows 8 operating system and their mobile phone product.

Losing the trust of their customers may be the final straw.

Similar posts:
March 10, 2013
Australia welcomes the multi generational mortgage
At the height of the Japanese property boom in the 1980s, the hundred year mortgage came into being.

Pushing payments onto children and grand-children was the only way home prices could continue to rise once they hit levels which the average Japanese worker could ever afford with a more traditional twenty or thirty year mortgage.

Twenty five years later Australia finds itself in a similar position as parents guarantee their childrens’ mortgages.

Repeating the Japanese mistake

While the Japanese looked to sticking their mortgages onto their kids and grandkids, Down Under the kids are fighting back and getting mum and dad to underwrite their unaffordable loans.

This weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald features in its property section the story of how Sharon and Graeme Bruce guaranteed their son’s and his fiance’s mortgage in Sydney’s inner suburbs.

While the story isn’t clear on the size of the deposit (which isn’t surprising given the SMH’s shoddy editing), it appears the Bruces’ have guaranteed around $300,000 so his son and future daughter-in-law can grab a five bedroom, 1.45 million dollar mansion.

One wonders what great businesses Matt and Hannah could build if mum and dad were prepared to stump up a similar amount to invest in a start up?

Australia’s property obsession

Sadly we’ll never know – in Australia, the smart money gets a job, pays off a mortgage and accumulates wealth through investment properties. What cows are to African tribesmen, negatively geared units are to the Australian middle class.

The hundred year strategy hasn’t worked too well for Japan, with a declining population those mortgages entered into a boom level 1980s values now don’t look so attractive and are one large reason for the nation’s lost decades.

In Australia, things aren’t likely to work so well either. The Baby Boomers and Lucky Generationals – those born from 1930 to 1945 – guaranteeing their kids’ and grandkids’ mortgages are relying on ever increasing property prices.

This is understandable given that few of them have any experience of long term stagnation, let alone decline, of property values but it leaves them incredibly exposed should the Aussie housing market slump.

Can an Aussie property decline happen?

Many Australians, particularly those with vested interests, maintain such a decline can’t happen but the prospects aren’t good as the SMH story shows;

The couple had attempted to buy a small terrace in Newtown but kept getting pipped at the post by other young professional couples. At a higher price point they had no competition.

Despite his parents’ generosity he said he would still need to rent out a few of the rooms to help pay for the mortgage.

So Matt can’t afford the mortgage. That’s not good starting point and one that could cost his parents dearly, which they don’t seem to care about much.

”Obviously my dad guaranteeing the loan was the only way we were going to purchase this,” Mr Bruce said. ”You need to have a 20 per cent deposit otherwise the banks want you to pay insurance … it’s a bit of a rort really.”

It’s fair to call mortgage insurance a rort – as it certainly is – but its purpose is to protect the banks should a mortgagee default and the financiers find themselves out of pocket.

With Matt’s parents getting him out of paying that insurance his bank has much better default protection, equity in his parents’ property.

Guaranteeing risk and misery

I’m not privy to the finances of Sharon and Bruce, but most of their contemporaries can ill afford to lose several hundred thousand dollars in home equity in their later years.

That is where Australia’s multi-generational mortgages could turn very nasty, very quickly as older Australians find themselves having to deliver on the guarantees they gave on behalf of their over committed offspring.

In Japan, it’s taken a long time for the population to realise their national wealth has been squandered on twenty years of propping up unsustainable property prices and economic policies.

One wonders how long it will takes Australians to realise the same has happened to them and what the political reaction will be.

Similar posts:
March 10, 2013
Risky business – is crowd funding too rich for investors and innovators
It’s sad when a Kickstarter project fails to meet its promises and the story of the Collusion Pen, a stylus designed for iPads, is a salutary lesson of how many people don’t understand when they buy into or set up a crowdfunding proposal.

The idea behind crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter is that artists, designers and inventors can publicise their projects, interested supporters can pledge funds in return for benefits like advanced previews, a signed book or an early version of version of the product.

For the Collusion pen, it’s the early version that’s upset supporters who’ve complained that the device is unusable in its current form.

Not getting the product when it was promised is standard for Kickstarter projects, late last year CNN Money reported how 84% of the site’s top listed ventures missed their target delivery dates.

The reason for Kickstarter’s apparent failures is that ideas are risky. Often, entrepreneurs and artists overestimate their skills and underestimate the scale of the task they’ve given themselves.

Added to this, Kickstarter is an expensive way to raise capital. When another Australian startup Moore’s Cloud went onto Kickstarter to fund their internet connected light, they found that to cover the $285,000 development costs they had to win pledges worth $700,000.

Moore’s Cloud missed their target and have gone on to raising money independently.

Apart from the those risks we set our expectations too high – we believe the first versions will be perfect out of the box and every idea will make the founder a billion.

In his article The Fake Church of Entrepreneurship, US business founder Francisco Dao discussed how much of the start up community is based up on religious beliefs about the sanctity of founders and that everyone can become rich by selling their idea to a greater fool.

The sad thing is that ideas are like armpits – most of us have a couple and almost all of them stink.

Not that people shouldn’t have a go; having a hare brained idea and making it a reality is the foundation of human progress. It’s just that most ideas don’t work out.

Making matters worse is our inability to evaluate risk; notable in the Sydney Morning Herald story are the consumer and investor protection angles.

If someone isn’t getting what they thought they had been promised, then “the government aught to do something.”

The biggest risk of all to Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites is that governments will regulate them either as stores or as investments.

As investments crowdfunding projects will be hiring lawyers and bankers to draft densely worded product disclosure statements which will see ventures like Moore’s cloud having to raise a couple of million more to cover their legal costs.

Should crowdfunding be considered as a consumer issue, then projects will have be expected to deliver or face action from consumer protection agencies which would make most nonviable.

The stories of crowdfunding successes have to be considered in the same way as most artistic and entrepreneurial ventures; we hear about the winners, but we don’t hear so much about those who didn’t ‘succeed’.

While we – as consumers, investors and entrepreneurs – don’t think through those risks, we’ll be disappointed in tools like crowdsourcing which would be a shame as its a good way for some ideas to get a healthy start.

Failure image courtesy of cobrasoft on sxc.hu

Similar posts:
March 9, 2013
Door to door blues
The news that energy companies have decided to drop direct door to door selling in the face of prosecution is the latest example of poor thought out performance metrics and managers unsuccessfully trying to shift risks out of their business.

Electricity and gas distributors Energy Australia and AGL embarked on a door-to-door sales campaign to gain more customers. Like most modern corporations, they don’t do this stuff themselves and engaged outsourcing companies who in turn took on commission salespeople to do the ground level selling selling.

It didn’t work well and in face of complaints, both companies had to back away from their campaigns after suffering legal and reputational damage.

The sad thing this has happened before, at the time of telecoms deregulation in the 1990s telcos did the same thing to grow their market share. Door to door sales teams fanned out across the suburbs to sign households up to telephone plans.

In one example, a company hired dozens of backpackers, bussed them to outlying suburbs and sent them out on the streets to sign up as many households as possible.

Initially the campaigns were a success with providers reporting increased signups, greater market share, fat executive bonuses and happy commission earning salespeople.

Then the complaints began.

Customers discovered they’d been lied to, or in some cases falsely signed up, as hungry salespeople did everything they could to get a commission.

At first the telcos thought they could throw the problem over the fence so they blamed the contractors. Eventually the damage became so great the telcos had to back down on their door to door selling as problems multiplied and consumer protection agencies expressed their irritation.

At the heart of the problems with this type of door to door selling is the mismatch of incentives – for managers, contractors and the teams going door to door in the suburbs.

Door to Door Blues

At the coalface are the salesteams trudging around suburbs. In the 1990s telco boom they were largely made up of backpackers whose interests were to sign up as many customers as possible in order to fund the next stage of their travels.

Often, the telco or its contractor would only discover a sign up was the family dog or toddler long after the traveller was sunning themselves at Koh Phi Phi.

Using Indian students as the energy contractors were doing largely fixed some of the worst excesses of the 1990s but it didn’t address all of the problems

Management misalignment

Driving the rush for sign ups are usually poorly designed management Key Perfomance Indicators – a dumb set of executive benchmarks rewards poor behaviour and creates unforeseen risks. Particularly when those KPIs are focused on short term metrics.

Very quickly the risks in the short term focus become apparent and managers back off from these programs.

In this case it appears Energy Australia’s managers heeded the early warnings and backed off before the problem became too great, unlike the telcos who let the sales teams run rampant before reigning them.

What’s saddening about Energy Australia’s and AGL’s problems is they were totally forseeable and those who warned of the risks in a door-to-door customers acquisition strategy – and there were almost certainly some in these organisations – were overuled by enthusiastic executives aiming to bust their sales and market share metrics.

Sometimes we are condemned to repeat history repeatedly in business.

Similar posts:
March 8, 2013
Leadership in a connected world
Managing a business or government agency as information pours into organisations is one of the great challenges for modern executives.

As part of the Australian Cisco Live event, a panel looked at Public Sector Leadership in a Connected World, many of the issues discussed apply to private sector executives as they do to public sector managers.

Cisco’s Director of Global Public Sector Practice, Martin Stewart-Weeks, kicked off the panel with the observation that “we now live in a world where information has become completely unmanageable.”

Martin quoted from David Weinberg’s book Too Big To Know, Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren’t the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room. The author has a good explanation of his book in this YouTube clip.

Trusting the community seems to be the biggest problem facing politicians and the public service, policy consultant Rod Glover puts the general distrust towards governments on the failure of leaders to consult over changes and decision.

Economist Nick Gruen and Australian Industry Group adviser Kate Pound echoed this problem in that a change of culture is needed among leaders towards the way information is controlled and managed.

Nick sees that culture changing while Rod thinks there will need to be demonstrated successes before risk adverse public service leaders will be prepared to adopt new ways of managing.

Kate’s view is that culture change will require a realignment of incentives which will make managers accountable for the delivery of services. She cites a situation where businesses are obligated to register online but the agency’s website doesn’t work.

So the problem is as much gathering the right data along with processing the information inside an agency. Both are challenges for organisations with rigid hierarchies and information flows.

Information is no longer power — it’s how you use it. But the structures are still based around access and control of knowledge.

The big culture shift for politicians, public servants and corporate executives is we can no longer hoard information.

For managers in both the public and private sectors, the task is now to share information and trust the right people will use it well.

Paul travelled to Cisco Live courtesy of Cisco Systems

Similar posts:
March 7, 2013