Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Creating a retail community – A tour of Microsoft’s Sydney flagship store

Microsoft hopes to be able to build a community around its Sydney flagship retail store

Microsoft today opens the doors to its first flagship store outside of North America in Sydney, Australia. A look inside the project gives some insight into the company’s retail strategy.

Situated in Westfield’s Pitt Street Mall, the store promises “cutting-edge retail and experiential spaces that allow consumers to get hands on with products in an immersive way.” What’s immediately notable is the lack of obvious security with all the devices on display being available for customers to pick up and walk around the shop with.

Most of those devices showcase Microsoft’s various projects and alliances. Everything from XBoxes running Minecraft to Lumia phones are on display along with a range of laptops from partners such as Dell, Toshiba and Lenovo.

Notable among the devices is are the Surface Book and Surface Pro 4 along with the Microsoft Band 2 taking place of pride in the displays. As with everything else, customers can slip the wriststaps on and walk around with them. Microsoft’s representatives were coy on how they will prevent the less honest walking out the store with them.

Acting as a store greeter, the Answer Desk is the hub of store where representatives direct traffic whether it’s technical support – which like the Apple Genius Bar is provided free – sales, or directions to events in the upstairs community theatre.

Welcome to the Microsoft Store Answers Desk

Community is a big theme in the store and the company announced $4.8 million in software and technology grants to 11 not-for-profit Australian organisations to coincide with the shop’s opening.

That emphasis on ‘community’ is reflected in this quote from the company’s press release;

“Our new flagship store is here to showcase the very best of Microsoft to the local community and we are delighted Sydney has been chosen as its home,” said Pip Marlow, managing director, Microsoft Australia. “This is a key part of our commitment to delivering a truly interactive retail experience that gives customers, partners and community organisations the opportunity to see, experience and do great things, all made possible by Microsoft technology.”

Pip Marlow sees the upstairs community room as being an opportunity to engage with various school, business and technology groups. The space itself is a little cramped, however it can be isolated from the store’s general hubbub, unlike the Apple Store’s equivalent space.

Overall the store is modernistic but somewhat cramped and should the store be successful congestion is going to be a real problem, particularly around the Answer Desk and the narrow stairwell which, like its Apple competitor two blocks away, features a translucent stairwell.

In comparison to both the nearby Apple and Telstra stores, the Microsoft Showcase is surprisingly low tech with its retail experience. While the assistants will have mobile Point Of Sale terminals there’s little in the way of location technologies and contactless payments.

Overall the Microsoft Store comes across as a touch crowded and, dare one say, a little old school retail. As a showcase for the company’s products, it’s probably no more impressive than those of the better retailers.

However if Pip Marlow’s aim of building a community around Microsoft’s products is successful, that could prove to be the long term winning strategy for the company.

Open sourcing artificial intelligence

Google making some of its artificial intelligence open source could change the software industry.

Yesterday Google open sourced many of the features in its Tensorflow artificial intelligence service.

Making the services available to the community will mean many more opportunities to develop the technology. It could well prove to be a turning point for Artificial Intelligence in making it more accessible to the general public and business community.

ABC Nightlife – Australia’s startup goldrush and the overhyped world of wearables

The November ABC Nightlife radio program will look at Australia’s startup goldrush and the overhyped world of wearables

For November’s Nightlife tech spot we’ll be asking if wearable technologies overhyped and looking at what is going on with Australia’s sudden discovery of startup businesses.

Wearable technologies have been the next big thing. Two years ago Google Glass was all the news and earlier this year the Apple Watch was released to great fanfare.

Now Google Glass has been wound back in the face of widespread indifference and Apple are discounting the new watch as market experts find that wearable technologies are just not interesting to customers.

So are wearable technologies overhyped? We’ll be discussing where having a computer on your wrist or in your glasses may be useful and taking your questions on them.

Australia’s startup goldrush

There’s been a shift in the Australian business community since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister and now tech startups have become the new black with a wave of corporate initiatives being launched to support fledgling companies hoping to be the next Facebook or at least Atlassian.

So why now all the interest and can Australia be the next Silicon Valley?

Some of the questions we’ll be answering include.

So where can we get a cheap Apple watch?
Have Apple done this sort of thing before?
What are the experts saying about wearable technologies?
Are there some industries they can be used in?
So why is Malcolm Turnbull so keen on startups?
What sort of things are governments doing to support the startup communities?
How many Australian tech industry successes have there been?
Can Australia be the next Silicon Valley?

Join us

Tune in on your local ABC radio station from 10pm Australian Eastern Summer time or listen online at www.abc.net.au/nightlife.

We’d love to hear your views so join the conversation with your on-air questions, ideas or comments; phone in on 1300 800 222 within Australia or +61 2 8333 1000 from outside Australia.

You can SMS Nightlife’s talkback on 19922702, or through twitter to@paulwallbank using the #abcnightlife hashtag or visit the Nightlife Facebook page.

China’s investment paradox

How China has used investment lies at the heart of the nation’s opportunities and the challenges facing it today.

A great video by Professor Tyler Cowen on the Marginal Revolution University website looks at China’s successes, the challenges the nation faces and the economy’s likely future.

Ultimately Cowen brings the whole story down to one factor – investment. The post 1979 investment that saw the nation’s productive capacity explode, the post 2008 investments that he believes has distorted the economy and his optimism about China’s future because of investments made in the PRC’s human capital.

It’s fourteen minutes well spent in getting a basic understand of what China has accomplished in the last 40 years and the challenges the nation currently has to deal with.

Controlling the unicorns

Times could be getting tough for the tech unicorns as money starts getting tight

Last week Salesforce founder Marc Benioff warned the tech unicorns – companies valued at over a billion dollars based on investor funding – were leaving their stock market debuts too late.

The initial public offering of payments platform Square bears Benioff’s warning out, with the company’s IPO market value being less than the company’s implied value at its last private fundraising.

What’s notable about the unicorns’ reluctance to go public and the limited nature of the stock market floats – Square is only making 8% of its equity available – is the desire from founders and key investors not to relinquish control.

For the moment that desire not to cede control is tolerated by investors but in a declining market, shareholders may not be so tolerant.

Times could be about to get tough for the unicorns as the downside of massive valuations becomes apparent.

Getting crowdfunding right

The success of Flow Hives in raising money for its beehive project is a good case study on getting a hardware startup right.

Crowdfunding is not for every business or project, however the great story on the success of Flow Hives shows how it can be done right.

Flow Hives, based on the North Coast of the Australian state of New South Wales, is a father and son business that has cracked the way for consumers to raise bees and get fresh honey from the hives without having to suit up.

There’s a few notable points in Flow Hives’ story that challenges a lot of the basic wisdom about starts ups and funding we’re hearing at the moment.

Taking the long path

Flow Hives’ founders,Stu and Cedar Anderson, spent ten years getting the basics right. That’s a long time to get a Minimum Viable Product to the market.

On top of that, they were experienced bee keepers, not keen young outsiders looking to ‘disrupt’ what they saw as a staid industry.

Carefully choosing support

Like all good Australian businesses, the Andersons’ first stop was at the government where they found the support programs were too cumbersome and onerous. Another problem they’d have encountered with that path would have been the funds available are trivial compared to the time spent on compliance.

They found a similar thing with the courting of investors being too much of a distraction and, rightly, saw that VC and seed money is actually quite expensive. This made crowdfunding a viable options.

Selecting production methods

While 3D printing worked for prototypes it didn’t scale for production runs. Knowing they’d need injection moulding for their plastic parts, the Andersons chose a local supplier rather than dealing with the lowest cost operator in China so they would have better control over their supply chain.

Coupled with choosing a local supplier for their plastic components the Andersons’ also chose a US supplier for the wooden enclosures based upon the service they received.

Going with trusted suppliers meant they were able to get a good product to market quickly. When a Chinese company attempted a cheap imitation it failed because of the shoddy quality.

The Flow Hive story is a good reminder that the principles of the today’s tech startup culture are only applicable to small group of the businesses in specific sectors.

In a diverse economy, there’s many different other business principles and models that might apply. Trying to shoehorn one type of business into a different model may well be a mistake.

Building a digital hub – and why governments shouldn’t try.

The experience of the Sydney Digital Hub shows why Australian governments struggle to create industrial centres.

“I’m not sure what to do with this,” frowned the public service executive to a group of blank faced departmental staffers. “I’ll take it,” I said to break the silence.

With that, I was on a journey into exactly what Sydney’s startup and digital media communities looked like and learning why governments struggle to build technology hubs.

I’d been working for the state government for two months after a specularly unsuccessful exit from a business and in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis getting a public service job seemed like a good idea.

Vague ideas

The project being discussed by Bob, my then director, was a single line in the recommendations from the then Premier’s Jobs Summit which was convened in the panicky dark days of the 2008 global financial crisis – “A digital hub will be setup around the Australian Technology Park.”

Bob, and the management of the New South Wales Department of Trade and Investment had little idea of what a ‘digital hub’ was and my position of ‘Manager, Creative Industries” – with a staff of precisely zero – was vague given the state’s support to the creative industries was, and remains, based on throwing big buckets of money at the Hollywood movie studios.

So the Sydney Digital Hub was born and the quest to find out exactly was was needed, or at least would keep the Premier’s office happy, was on.

It immediately became apparent the Australian Technology Park wasn’t going to be the centre of anything as far as Sydney’s startup community was concerned. The complex was too far away from the city and too expensive for most of the businesses.

Replacing what’s existing

“We already have a digital hub,” was the other response. “It’s Surry Hills.” Which was a far call as a large part of the Sydney startup and digital media communities were based in the suburb on the edge of the city’s centre.

This actually worked well as the exact wording of the committee’s recommendation was “create a digital hub around the Australian Technology Park.” In this case, Surry Hills was ‘around’ the ATP.

Eventually the project became Digital Sydney and by the time it was launched, the state had gone through two Premiers, elected another party into government and I was long gone from the department, having lasted just 19 months.

Before leaving, I had managed to steer through a million dollars in funding for the project from the then Labor minister – since caught up on corruption charges surrounding coal mine leases – which, to their credit, was honoured by the incoming Liberal government that took power shortly after.

Dying a slow, unfunded death

That funding was renewed and the project died a slow death, which didn’t really matter as Sydney’s startup and digital media communities had developed despite of, not because of, any government policies. Indeed, the New South Wales’ government’s economic development policies were, and remain, focused on property development and coal mining.

Which brings us to the present day, where the Sydney startup community is upset at the Sydstart conference being poached by the Victorian government and moving to Melbourne on the promise of a million dollars in support as part of the state’s startup program.

The promoters of the now relocated and renamed conference are adamant it matters, but the truth is it doesn’t. In fact the biggest ticket item of NSW government support to the IT sector is the annual CeBIT conference that in truth has added little to the state’s technology industry and many similar initiatives in Victoria have had a similar lack success.

A lack of long term vision

Part of the reason for that lack of success is a lack of consistency and long term strategies, in fact the Australian Technology Park itself is under threat as the state government looks at selling the site to apartment developers despite the protests of the tech community.

Another aspect is state sponsored conferences, hubs and initiatives are not enough to create an industrial centre. There has to be an organic, or business, reason for a hub to develop.

For industry hubs, be they tech startups or anything else, the core need is a critical mass of investors and skilled workers with easy access to markets. For internet based businesses, the latter isn’t an issue which is why Wellington in New Zealand has done better than either Sydney or Melbourne in recent years.

Providing stable frameworks

The role of governments in this is to provide a stable framework for businesses to work within, something that hasn’t been a feature of state or Federal Australian politics in recent years with leadership instability and the increasing prevalence of policy by thought bubble, a good example being the latest scheme to create a new technology hub even further out of downtown Sydney on the site of disused power station.

While the talk of government sponsored initiatives is nice and keeps my former colleagues at the state government occupied writing ministerial briefings on pink paper, building the tech hubs of the future needs motivated entrepreneurs, investors and skilled workers. The best thing governments can do is make sure they encourage all three groups and leave the community building to the community.

The new one percent

In many ways the backlash against AirBnB and the tech community in San Francisco is of their own making.

Today San Francisco goes to the polls and one of the many questions being put to voters is Proposition F, an initiative to put restrictions on short term rentals.

Also known as the AirBnB initiative, Proposition F is also being seen as part of San Francisco residents’ push against the tech community’s takeover of the city.

In countering the Proposition F supporters, AirBnB hasn’t helped its case with a clumsy public campaign and an aggressive $8 million war chest to support the initiatives opponents, but the real problems for the service lie in the hostility towards the tech and startup community in general.

A notable thing about the new tech community is how their staff are isolated from the community around them. Probably the worst example of this in Southern California where Google has been accused of harassing homeless people on the public footpaths around its Venice Beach complex.

While having onsite facilities may make sense in remote Silicon Valley business parks, in city areas like San Francisco this only creates hostility from those who feel displaced by the new elite.

The remoteness of the new tech elite is also shown in their companies’ attitudes towards customer support. Services like AirBnB, Facebook and Google consistently try to reduce their support overheads by pushing responsibility onto users and contractors by making it difficult, if not impossible for the public to contact them.

Inevitably that remoteness from the general community breeds distrust and hostility. Which is what we’re seeing now being directed towards AirBnB.

Paradoxically, despite the hostility towards the tech community and AirBnB, they are probably not the reason for San Francisco’s soaring property prices as around the world the price of homes is soaring as the effects of cheap money filter through investment markets.

As long as those prices keep soaring beyond the reach of working and middle class residents, AirBnB and the tech community can expect to continue feeling the pressure. Although it’s not hard to think though that a bit of humility might help their case.

Malcolm Turnbull and the task of turning around Australia

Making Australia a globally competitive economy is a massive task facing the new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull

Watching from afar, the reaction to Malcolm Turnbull becoming Australia’s 29th Prime Minister has been remarkable as suddenly the nation seems to have collectively woken up to the fact they are fifteen years into a new century.

In a few short weeks Australian public servants have started engaging in hackathons and business leaders whose idea of an investment was a property plan disguised as a casino have started raising VC funds.

The question though for Australia is this too little and too late after three decades of concentrating on property speculation and betting on a never ending Chinese economic miracle?

New leadership

In Malcolm Turnbull – who only rejoined the Liberal Party in the early 2000s after careers as a journalist, barrister and banker – Australia for the first time in forty years doesn’t have a party apparatchik as Prime Minister.

While this wasn’t a problem during the 1970s and 80s under Fraser and Hawke, by the 1990s the shrinking membership base of Australian political parties meant increasingly the ‘talent’ coming up the ranks was lacking perspective outside the narrow factional groupings most of them were beholden to.

This became brutally apparent with the last three Prime Ministers who were fully hostage to their party factions. In Gillard and Abbott Australia had two party operatives who were no doubt talented in internal party manouvering but hopelessly out of their depths as government leaders – Abbott often seemed to be more interested in settling the battles of 1980s Sydney University student politics than governing the country.

Describing Prime Minister Rudd would take a thesis in political psychology which is way beyond the scope, or interest, of this writer.

The consequences of this were an Australian political leadership that was disinterested in the real economy beyond guaranteeing the social compact that property prices would double every decade and ensure their support in the key swing electorates of suburban Australia.

An insular business community

For the business community the insular focus of Australian society and its politicians worked well too. As the economy turned inwards in the 1990s under the Keating and Howard governments, so too did Australia’s conglomerates who realised clipping the ticket of a consumer economy was far easier than competing on global markets.

The best example of this were Australia’s banks which essentially gave up on lending to business unless it was guaranteed by property. This graph from Macrobusiness illustrates just how the nation’s banks focused on property speculation.

Australian bank lending, courtesy of Macrobusiness.

That focus on housing and consumer spending underpinned on rising property prices distorted the entire business sector and ingrained in the Australian psyche that the key to riches and prosperity was to get a relatively low skilled ‘safe job’ and borrow as much money as possible.

A good example of this are the regular stories of sweet twenty something wunderkinds who have built multi million dollar property portfolios while working in pizza shops or as administrative assistants.

Possibly the greatest damage Australia’s property obsession has been on the nation’s youth where the message has been ‘don’t gain a globally competitive skill set or education, just get an entry level job at the real estate agents and buy as much property as the bank will allow you.’

Turnbull’s challenge

Like Gough Whitlam, the last Prime Minister not a creature of their party factions, the reform challenge facing Turnbull is immense as 25 years of complacency have left Australia with an uncompetitive economy – as it had for the incoming Labor government of 1972 – with added complexity of having to maintain property prices to keep its economic miracle and social compact ticking over.

The similarities to Whitlam are also striking in the support Turnbull has from the population. One of the striking things on returning to Australia after spending most of the last three months in the United States has been the sense of relief that the inept horror movie of the Abbott government (Attack of the Clueless Zombies) is over and a realisation that Australia has actually entered the 21st Century and not regressing back into the 19th.

Agendas for reform

Entering the 21st Century won’t be easy though for Australia. Completing the reforms of the education sector, started half heartedly by Gillard and then trashed by Abbott in settling the scores of his student politics days, is one major challenge along with reforming tax and social security systems that focuses on asset hoarding and speculation over productive investment.

Possibly a greater challenge is to wean the Australia business sector off its ticket clipping mentality and rediscover its desire to compete globally. It may well be that encouraging the startup sector makes more sense in rebuilding the economy’s competitiveness as many of the nation’s insular conglomerates and their well fed executives are too used to milking the domestic consumer rather than taking on the world.

The end of kitchen renovations

The biggest challenge of all though will be to wean Australians off their property addiction, particularly those under 50 who have neglected their global skills as they focused on renovating their kitchens.

Given the scope of these reforms, such an agenda will require a clear mandate from an electorate that has been complacently accepting guaranteed good times as long as refugees are turned back, the terrorists among us imprisoned and gay couples prevented from marrying for the last 25 years. Making the argument for change is probably going to be Malcolm Turnbull’s greatest task.

For Australia the stakes are high. It’s not likely the 21st Century will be as kind to The Lucky Country as the Twentieth was.

Data and the art of Public Relations

The PR industry needs to better understand and use data analytics to stay relevant says AirPR’s Rebekah Iliff

The Public Relations industry has been mismeasured and undervalued, believes Rebekah Iliff, the Chief Strategy Officer of PR analytics company AirPR.

San Francisco based AirPR is an analytics company founded in 2011 on technology tracking the performance of PR campaigns. Despite being relatively young, the business counts among its customers Fortune 1000 companies such as Rackspace, Experian and the New York Stock Exchange.

Analysing stories

The idea behind AirPR is by analysing the responses to stories, be they articles in mainstream media sites, social media posts or the client’s own content, PR people are able to get a much better insight into what is working in the marketplace.

“You can no longer just throw out a PR campaign and say ‘oh, we got 200 million impressions.’ No CEO is going to buy that,” says Iliff. “You’re going to have to have deep data that you can dive into and then report the things that are going to work.”

Part of the reason PR is failing, Iliff believes, is because practitioners are only making decisions on ten to twenty per cent of the data they have. To make the most of the information they have available involves a rethink on how companies get their message out to the community.

Shifting PR thinking

“We’re trying to shift people from thinking about PR in a linear fashion to get into thinking about it in a networked fashion. A really good PR strategy or narrative looks like a spider web, there’s all these things connected to each other.”

Making those connections is creating a new set of demands on the PR industry as new tools and communications methods evolve.

“The PR professionals of the future who are be best placed to be successful will be the ones who take an interest in the analytics, who understand how to talk about so they can improve the storytelling.”

Stopping the pitching

In Iliff’s view part of the PR industry’s problems lie with how new entrants are taught is how to pitch to journalists, rather than to evaluate what works for their clients. “The second someone comes into an agency on a green level they should be bought into the analytics conversation and be taught how to measure it.”

“Instead they are taught ‘your job is to create storylines and pitch to journalists’, which by the way ninety percent of what you pitch no-one’s going to return because it’s irrelevant.” She says.

“Journalists give you credibility and they’re a third party endorsement but they can’t tell the story the way you want to tell it. There’s a disconnect between the role of journalist is, the role of the journalist is not to sell to your customers, the role of the journalist is to tell the story from an objective viewpoint that puts you in the context of where you fit in the industry. I don’t think people get that.”

“You should be writing the story, following it through and understanding the metrics around it so you can go back and create a better story. It’s like that connective tissue between parts of PR instead of siloing.”

Breaking the data silos

The siloing of the analytics functions of PR and marketing remains a problem for the industry as well, Iliff stays and her advice to communications professionals entering the fields is to understand the data aspects.

“Get a Google Analytics certification, it’s very simple to do,” she states. “Take a couple of Coursera courses on basic statistics and how to analyse data – what’s the difference between prescriptive, descriptive and predictive data – very simple things that if you know how to talk about so you can have a discussion with the engineers.”

As the media industry evolves as it becomes even harder to pitch to fewer journalists working for a shrinking number of traditional outlets, Iliff thinks the future for the PR industry is with making its own content.

Focusing on owned media

“I think in the next five years a lot of things will change because of a couple of things, one is that we have access to data so owned media programs will become stronger for the people who are focusing on it and it will become a huge component in driving leads and sales. So people will stop spending so much time pitching.”

“Things like owned media will be used in a more comprehensive and compelling manner to offset a lot of the things that aren’t working on the earned marketing side.”

“My hope is that brands just hire an internal storyteller like Dell has done and Adobe has done and HP to tell you the story and connect with their customers. That’s the closest point between A and B.”

Taking PR seriously

Ultimately Iliff believes PRs will be taken more seriously in business is if they show they can use the data they have to show companies how to more effectively communicate.

“The only way you’re going to get a seat at the table, the only way you’re going to be taken seriously, is if you have data and you have the most relevant data.”

With data analytics reshaping most industries, it’s hard to see how the PR sector can resist those fundamental changes. How public relations practitioners apply that knowledge to their work is going to be key to their relevance in the business of the future.