business advice | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Doing social media right

Whoever runs your social media feed is an official spokesman, it’s important to choose the right person and give them authority.

After last week’s Associated Press hack and the stock exchange fallout, regulators are struggling with implications of social media and informed markets.

In a speech delivered last week the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s Deputy Chair Belinda Gibson and Commissioner John Price gave some refreshing commonsense views on how businesses should handle public information.

The continuous disclosure advice given by Price and Gibson is aimed at meeting the requirements of Australian corporate law, but it’s actually good social media advice.

Having delegations in place for who has authority to speak on behalf of the company – whether in response to an ASX ‘price query’ or ‘aware’ letter, or when they become aware of information that needs to be released to the market, perhaps in response to speculation.
Ensuring that there is a designated contact person to liaise with the ASX, who has the requisite organisational knowledge and is contactable by ASX.
Have a clear rapid response plan and ensure all board members and senior executives are fully appraised of it. Give it a practice run every so often – a stress test of sorts.
Have a plan for when you will consider a trading halt appropriate.
Have a ‘Request for trading halt’ letter template ready for use.
Have guidelines for determining what is ‘material’ information for disclosure, tailored to your company.
Prepare a draft announcement where you are doing a deal that will
likely require an announcement at some time, and a stop-gap one in case of a leak

Having a nominated contact person with requisite organisational knowledge is possibly the most important point for any organisation.

Even if you think social media is just people posting what they had for lunch or sharing cute cat pictures, it isn’t going away and those Twitter feeds and Facebook pages are now considered official communications channels.

The intern running your social media is now your company’s official spokesperson. Are you comfortable with this?

A good example of where this can go wrong is the Australian Prime Minister’s Press Office where an immature staff member has been put in charge of posting messages. The results aren’t pretty.

The funny thing is the Prime Minister’s office would never dream of some dill getting up and saying this sort of thing on her behalf, yet allows an inexperienced, loose cannon put this sort of material in writing on the public internet.

Here’s Twenty Rules for Politicians using the Internet.

On a more mature level, the ASIC executives also have some good advice on writing for social media.

Don’t assume that the reader is sophisticated or leave readers to read between the lines. Companies need to highlight key information and tell it plainly.

While the ASIC speech is aimed at the specific problems of complying with company law and listing requirements, it’s a worthwhile guide for any organisation needing to manage its online presence.

Don’t be like the Prime Minister’s office, understand that an organisation’s social media presence is an official channel and treat it with the respect it deserves.

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.

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.

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.

Driving a horse and cart in a digital economy

A lack of understanding about how to use digital tools threatens businesses in the 21st Century

“There’s no point in building a highway if no-one can drive” Tasmanian business leader Jane Bennett said about the Australian National Broadband Network during an interview last week.

Jane was touching on an important point about the digital economy – that most businesses aren’t equipped to deal with it.

That half of businesses in the US, UK or Australia don’t have a website illustrates that in itself. What’s really worrying is setting up a website is the easy part and has been standard for a decade.

In many respects this isn’t new, a similar thing happened when mains electricity or the motor car arrived. Many businesses clung desperately to their oil filled lamps and horse drawn carts way past the time these were superseded.

Well into the 1970s there were hold outs who continued to ply their carts despite the costs of keeping horses on the road being far greater than buying a truck.

That failure to learn about and invest in new technologies saw all those businesses die, many of them with the owner who’d eked out a living as a milko or rag and bone man for decades.

On a bigger level, the struggles of the local milkman with his Clydesdale is a worrying reflection of business underinvestment. These folk are stuck with old equipment because they didn’t have the funds to spend on bringing their equipment up to Twentieth Century standards.

In the 1980s I saw this first hand in some of Australia’s factories. A foreman at a valve manufacturer in Western Sydney boasted to me how he had done his apprenticeship on a particular lathe fifty years earlier.

That machine still had the belt and pulley assembly from the days when the factory was powered by a steam engine at one end of the plant. It had an electric motor bolted onto it some time in the 1960s but was largely unaltered since.

It was understandable many Australian factory owners wouldn’t invest after World War II – many industries were protected and property speculation offered, and still does, better returns.

Another reason for not investing was the sheer cost of buying new equipment, major capital expenditures are risky and for most businesses it wasn’t work taking those risks.

Today there’s a big difference, hardware and software are far cheaper than they were in the 1960s or 70s with the big investment being in understanding and implementing the new technologies.

Few businesses don’t have computers or the internet but most of the things we do online are just variations on how our great grandparents worked with documents, filing cabinets and the penny post. We have to rethink how we use technology in business.

It would be a shame if we find ourselves stuck on the side of the highway wondering what the hell happened in the early years of the 21st Century.

Stage coach image courtesy of Velda Christensen at http://www.novapages.com/

They do it different over here

Microsoft and Apple discover the downside of being multinationals in China

Among expats in Thailand the saying was “the locals can ignore the law, but multinationals can’t.”

Thailand has some pretty strict laws on employee wages, workplace safety and council permits. Pretty well every business ignores them except the multinationals.

Generally Thais don’t complain about businesses not complying with the rules and the authorities are reluctant to take action.

Unless you’re a multinational, in which case the slightest irregularity in pay risks a visit from the police.

A few days in the Bangkok Immigration Gaol while the misunderstanding is sorted out is a good lesson for any sloppy farang country manager who hasn’t been ticking all the boxes.

The recent protests in China against Apple and now Microsoft over warranties illustrate a similar situation in the PRC.

What’s fascinating though is how the complaints against Microsoft and Apple are part of the rising Chinese consumer movement.

It’s a tough life being a consumer advocate in China, leading protests against well connected local companies or their government cronies could be a career limiting move, or much worse.

On the other hand it’s safe to criticise an American corporation and its much more likely to get results.

So managers of foreign companies in China have to be far more responsive to complaints than their local counterparts as Apple and Microsoft have learned.

For multinationals there is an upside to this, foreign companies tend to get better staff as they don’t mess people around with pay and their products are seen as being better because they do honor warranties.

It ends up being swings and roundabouts, but it does emphasise the traps for inexperienced expat managers who can unwittingly get themselves in trouble.

Apple and Microsoft have learned their lesson about customer service in China, you wonder how many others are still to do so.

Apple and the argument for hybrid cloud computing

The argument between cloud computing purists and hybrid advocates continues with both sides suffering setbacks

There’s two different philosophies about cloud computing, hybrid and ‘pure’. In recent days the hybrid school hasn’t been doing so well, but the matter isn’t settled yet.

Pure cloud computing means doing everything in the cloud with all your software running over the net with the data stored on other people’s computers and everything is accessed through web browsers.

Hybrid cloud is where some of the work is done on your computer or smartphone with data often being synchronised between the device and the cloud storage.

Most smartphone and tablet computer apps do this and increasingly software like Microsoft Office and Apple iLife have a hybrid cloud computing angle.

Apple’s hybrid cloud service, iCloud, promised Apple users the ability to work on any device – laptop, desktop, tablet or smart phone – with the synchronised with central servers. Every Apple product you own can then access your iCloud data.

Recently though stories in the The Verge and Ars Technica report how Apple’s developers and customers are becoming steadily irritated by the lousy reliability of the company’s iCloud service.

Incumbent software and hardware vendors like Microsoft and Apple are pushing the hybrid idea for a good reason, it allows them to maintain their existing PC and laptop based products while being able to offer cloud services like their competitors.

For Microsoft and Apple, along with companies like Oracle, Dell and MYOB, the hybrid cloud gives them an opportunity to wriggle out of what Clay Christensen called The Innovator’s Dilemma.

Customers actually like the hybrid cloud as many distrust ‘pure’ cloud offerings as they don’t trust the providers or their internet connections. Basically they like to have a copy of their data stored in house.

The problem with the hybrid cloud is that it’s complex as Xero’s founder Rod Drury, one of the ‘pure cloud’ evangelists, said at his company’s conference last year, “hybrid technologies are cumbersome and add far more complexity into software. Cloud technologies are the right technologies.”

Complexity is what’s bought Apple’s iCloud unstuck as even some of best developers struggle with getting their programs to work with it.

All is not well for the ‘pure cloud’ evangelists either, as the shutting down of Google Reader has shaken many technologists and made them question whether the cloud is as safe as they would like.

Added to this uncertainty about the cloud is lousy service by providers, arbitrary shutting down of user accounts and the corporate boycott of Wikileaks – all of which have forced people to reconsider the wisdom of saving all their data or running applications in the cloud.

So the debate between the cloud purists is by no means over and it may well be that some form of hybrid, even just for local backup to your own computer, may turn out to be the common way we use cloud services.

What is for sure though is cloud software is biting deeply into the revenues of established software companies as people find the attractions of running programs and storing data on other people’s computers outweighs the risks.

Like all relatively new concepts it’s going to take a while for us to figure out how to use cloud computing most effectively in our business. The first step is how we manage the risks.

Social media’s irrational exuberance comes to an end

With the tech industry’s irrational exuberance ending, the focus is now on building good businesses rather than worrying about hype, spin and fools with more money than sense.

Last week saw the annual Y Combinator demo day where the startups funded by the incubator get to strut their stuff and it appears the age of social media hype is over.

In the Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog, Amir Efrati reports Social is Out, Revenue is In as the companies showed off their income streams rather than the number of users which has been the measure for free social media apps.

That social media is out shouldn’t be surprising as the services have been tracking a standard Gartner Hype Cycle with a boom in services, coverage and investments that’s now turning into the inevitable bust and a fall into the trough of disillusionment.

Coupled with that fall for social media services are the disappointing stockmarket floats of Facebook and Groupon which have cruelled the enthusiasm for investing in tech startups with lots of user but not much revenue.

Last week’s headlines featuring Yahoo!’s purchase of Summly for $30 million and Amazon’s acquisition of Goodreads for an estimated $150 million show how the days of greater fools writing billion dollar cheques is over as more sensible valuations take hold.

Amazon’s purchase of Goodreads is more interesting than Yahoo! buying a teenage wunderkind’s venture in that Amazon is cementing its position at the centre of the global book publishing industry.

Goodreads has been one of the quiet social media success of recent years having built its subscriber base to over 16 million members sharing book reviews and reading lists.

The book review site is a natural fit for Amazon although the head of the US Authors’ Guild rightly worries the company is becoming a monopoly.

Of course the obvious retort to this is that someone else could have bought the site and Forrester’s James McQuivey speculates on why an established publisher didn’t do so much earlier.

This year’s Y Combinator Demo Day and the acquisitions of Goodreads and Summly show the era of irrational tech exuberance is over.

For good businesses operators and investors this is not a bad thing as everyone can now focus on building good businesses rather than worrying about hype, spin and fools with more money than sense.

Photo of Ashton Kutcher speaking at Y Combinator by Robert Scoble through Wikimedia commons

Walmart pays for cutting staff

Cutting staff numbers is costing Walmart dearly as customers desert the retailer for better stocked competitors.

Along with the carpark test, a lack of customer service is one of the best indicators that a company has lost its way.

Unattended reception desks, closed cash registers and deserted delivery docks are reliable indicators management has focused on short term staff savings which will ultimately cost the business dearly.

Walmart is the latest example of this with Bloomberg Businessweek reporting that US shoppers are deserting the chain because shelves are empty and stores don’t have enough staff.

The claim stock is piling up out the back of stores is particularly concerning, the just in time inventory management of modern retail chains means there’s little room for error as outlets don’t have a lot of space whil the cash flow of the business and its suppliers is based on getting goods quickly into the hands of eager consumers.

Some of Walmart’s pain will be spread among suppliers as the store’s contracts will push undoubtedly some of the costs of rejected deliveries back onto logistics companies, effectively creating problems through the entire supply chain.

No doubt there’s plenty of angry suppliers and truck drivers who are grumbling about lost time and payments on Walmart contracts. That won’t be good news for the company’s buyers when contracts come up for negotiation.

Even though Walmart’s management can throw some of their problems over the fence, the fundamental issue of losing customers can’t be missed.

Walmart’s isn’t the only retailer who’s fallen for the short term fix of cutting store staff to give a quick profit boost as department stores and big box outlets around the world struggle with the damaging effects of not being able to serve customers.

That Walmart, one of the industry’s global leaders, would make such a mis-step shows the pressures on managements as economies deleverage and credit wary consumers decide that don’t need more junk in their homes.

Cutting costs isn’t going to address those bigger trends, it’s going to take original thinking and management commitment to adding real value to customers.

Service is just the start of a long process of refocusing the retail empires.

Image of Albany Walmart courtesy of UpstateNYer through Wikimedia

The Five Stages of abandoning a product

Microsoft show us how to kill a product with the slow abandonment of Windows 8

Killing a technology product is never a clean process, as Google well know. Microsoft show the way to deal with a failed project and we’re seeing their five stages of abandoning a product as they prepare to retire Windows 8.

The stages of Microsoft are abandoning a product are well known – the failure of Microsoft Vista is the best example, but not the only one.

As Microsoft smooths Window 8’s pillow and prepares for its imminent demise we can see the process at work.

Denial

At first the company denies there is a problem, the flashy advertising campaigns are boosted and the various ‘in the camp’ commentators get informal briefings from company evangelists to fuel their snarky columns about people getting Microsoft’s latest product all wrong.

This usually goes on for around six months until the market feedback that the product is dog becomes overwhelming – usually this happens at the same time the first reliable sales figures start appearing.

Anger

As the consensus in the broader community becomes settled that the new product isn’t good, the company’s tame commentators turn nasty and lash out at the critics for ‘misrepresenting’ the new product.

This is usually a touchy period for Microsoft and other vendors as they can’t risk being too aggressive but they have to allow their allies to both let off steam and try to recover the credibility they lost in hyping what’s clearly been a market failure.

Bargaining

Once it’s clear the perceived wisdom that the product isn’t very good isn’t going to be shaken, the vendor comes out with special offers and pricing changes to try and coax users over to the new service.

With Windows 8 Microsoft tried something unusual, rather than cutting prices, Microsoft announced they would increase the cost of Windows 8.

The idea was probably to panic people into buying the product and giving Microsoft a revenue and market share bounce for the quarter.

It didn’t work – the consensus that Windows 7 is a better product meant people stayed away.

Depression

As the realisation that pricing tweaks and promotional stunts won’t work sends the company, and its supporters, into a funk.

For experienced industry watchers, the silence around a product that’s been heavily hyped and defended for the previous year or two is a good indication that the next version is being accelerated.

Acceptance

Eventually the vendor accepts the product has failed and starts working on its own exit strategy – hopefully one that doesn’t see too many executives sacked.

With Microsoft’s this process starts with a quiet announcement that the replacement version of Windows is on the way, in this case Windows Blue.

At the same time, the tame commentators start talking about ‘leaks’ of the wonderful new system that is in the pipeline. Early beta versions of the new product start popping up in developers’ forums and file sharing sites.

Eventually you get stories like this one that appeared in The Verge yesterday – Windows Blue leaks online and we can be sure the Microsoft public relations machine has subtly moved onto the next version.

Vale Windows 8

So Windows 8 is coming to an early end. In one way this is a shame as it was a brave gamble by Steve Ballmer and his team to solve the ‘three screen’ problem.

Computer users today are using three or more screens or devices – a desktop, a smartphone and a TV or tablet computer.

Microsoft were hoping they could develop a system that unified all these platforms and gave users a common experience regardless of what they were using.

It appears to have failed, probably because the different devices don’t have the same user experience so a keyboard based system doesn’t work on a touchscreen while a touch based system sucks really badly on a desktop or laptop computer – which is Windows 8’s real problem.

Unrealistic expectations

Another problem for Microsoft were the unrealistic expectations that Window 8 would halt the slide of personal computer sales.

PC manufacturers have been baffled by the rise of smartphones and tablet computers – vendors like Dell, HP and Acer have miserably in moving into the new product lines and they hoped that Microsoft could help arrest their market declines.

This was asking too much of Windows 8 and was never really likely.

So the cycle begins again with Windows Blue, the question is whether it will be the last version of Windows as we move further in the post-PC era.