Category: future

  • The agents of change

    The agents of change

    It’s understandable technologists see technology as driving change. Often it’s true – technologies do build or destroy businesses, alter economies and collapse empires.

    Sometimes though there’s more to change than a new technology changing the economy and while it’s tempting to credit innovations like the web, social media and cloud computing with many of the changes we’re seeing in the world, we have to consider some other factors at work.

    The end of the 40 year credit boom

    In the 1960s, the United States started creating credit to pay for the Vietnam war; they never stopped and after the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks the money supply was kept particularly loose.

    The worldwide credit boom allowed all of us –Greek hairdressers, Irish home borrowers, Australian electronics salesmen, US bankers and pretty well everyone else in the Western world – to live beyond our means.

    In 2008, the start of the Great Recession saw the end of that period and now the economy is deleveraging. Consumers are reluctant to borrow and businesses struggle to find funds to borrow even if they want to.

    Any business plans built on the idea of almost unlimited spending growth are doomed. The era of massive consumer spending growth driven by easy credit is over and the days of expecting a plasma TV in every room are gone.

    The aging population

    An even bigger challenge is that our societies are getting older, the assumption we have an endless supply of cheap labour is being challenged as a global race for talent develops.

    The lazy assumption that economic growth can be driven by building houses and infrastructure to meet increased demands will be found wanting as the Western world’s populations fail to grow at the rates required to power the construction industries.

    Our societies are maturing and increased economic growth and wealth is going to have to come from clever use of our resources.

    Innovations in computers and the Internet – along with other technologies like biotech, clean energy and materials engineering – will help us meet those challenges but they are tools to cope with our transforming societies, not the agents of change themselves.

    Had  tools like social media come along in the 1970s or 80s they probably would have been massive drivers for change, just like the motor car and television were earlier in the 20th Century. In the early 21st Century they have been overtaken by history.

    Smart businesses, along with clever governments and communities, will use tools like social media, local search and cloud computing with the demographic and economic changes, but we shouldn’t think for a minute the underlying challenges will be business as usual.

    Similar posts:

  • A clear, guiding vision

    A clear, guiding vision

    Two weeks ago the Melbourne fashion store Gasp caused outrage over their attitude to customers and the business’ owners might have been relieved the story was finally pushed off the news pages by Steve Jobs’ passing.

    In a strange way, there’s a similarity between the Gasp stores and Steve Job’s Apple – a vision for their product and low tolerance for those who don’t share their ideals.

    Steve Jobs was notorious for dismissing those who didn’t ‘get’ Apple, famously saying “they have no taste” when asked about his biggest competitor Microsoft and stating “we don’t ship junk” when questioned by a journalist about Apple’s perceived premium status.

    Regardless of your opinion of Apple’s products, philosophy, labour practices or community relations, there was no doubt where they stood in the marketplace.

    A similar thing can be said of the Gasp store, while there’s no question the Gasp folk could have handled their customer relations better, they certainly can’t be accused of not having a clear vision of where their brand sits in the marketplace.

    In a world of bland mission statements where corporations and governments seem intent to paint the world a mediocre beige, having a strong statement on what your business stands for is a genuine competitive advantage.

    What do you stand for?

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Survivor Bias – the danger of learning the wrong lessons

    Survivor Bias – the danger of learning the wrong lessons

    A recent blog post by Chris Guillebeau on his terrrific Art of Non-Conformity site looked at the value of qualifications.

    Chris’ post is a great read and it’s obviously worked for him, though we always should keep in mind with these stories that we’re reading about someone who has managed to make it work.

    We all have a lot to learn from Chris and other success stories however the winners’ tales are only half the story; that for every success who dropped out, started a business or travelled the world and did well there are many more who – for whatever reason – didn’t.

    That’s part of the equation of risk, that for every success there are failures. For risking failure, the successes are rewarded – despite the best efforts of our political and corporate leaders to engineer away the risks and leave only the rewards for those best connected or placed to take them.

    For every winner, it’s also worthwhile listening to those who didn’t quite succeed. The lessons from “failure” are probably stronger and just as enlightening.

    Taking a jump, quitting your job, starting a business, becoming a freelancer or travelling the world isn’t for everybody. Many of us are happy staying in the cubicle or the workshop or the village and leading a comfortable, secure and safe life.

    Societies need a balance of the risk taking adventurers and the anchors of solid, secure working people. Neither is wrong, neither is bad and a balance of the two is essential for a healthy, prosperous and sustainable society.

    It’s not to say we shouldn’t take risks, just understand the dangers are there and your appetite for living with uncertainty before making a big step into business, travel or whatever it is where you see the opportunity.

    Similar posts:

  • The mobile payments revolution

    The mobile payments revolution

    Ten years ago when I was running a computer support business we spent a lot of time trying to find an mobile payment service for our on-site technicians to process payments.

    At the time there were plenty of options but they were all expensive, asking 6% in merchant fees at a time when our bank merchant facility charged us 2.75% to accept Mastercard, Visa and Bankcard. Interestingly, the cut the mobile providers wanted to take which was the same commission as American Express and Diners Club.

    We’d long before decided Diners and Amex were too expensive and it was easy to make the same decision about mobile payments. The technicians were given a manual card swipe to carry around and they phoned through authorisations. It was messy and time consuming but a lot cheaper than the then high tech alternatives.

    Given that history, I was keen to get along to the Australian Information Industry Association’s “Mobile Payments – Cooperate, Collaborate, or Abdicate” breakfast panel held in Sydney last week to see what has changed in the mobile payments space.

    The rise of smartphones – and the developing SoLoMo trend among consumers which brings together social, local and mobile technologies – should have meant the era of online payments should have arrived and it’s puzzling why it hasn’t happened.

    It isn’t for a shortage of operators; one of the panel members, Oliver Weidlich of Sydney’s Mobile Experience mentioned a number of the services such as Square, developed by one of Twitter’s founders that are changing mobile payment overseas.

    Interestingly it was the audience questions that gave the answers to why online payments haven’t taken off in Australia. The key question from the floor was “which authority handles disputes should a phone be lost or stolen”.

    As a customer, one hopes it’s the bank that takes responsibility as the idea of a telco – particularly their mobile phone divisions with their attitude towards billing customers – having control over your credit card or bank account would make most consumers’ blood run cold.

    The point was well made though as it saw the panel’s bank, telco and credit card representatives all ruminating over the question of ‘who owns the customer’.

    Oddly, while they argue about whose property the customer is, all of them may lose out. While services like Square and built in payment features on social media and mobile apps such as Foursquare or Red Laser may take a slice of the market, there is a bigger competitor already making huge inroads.

    The day before the AIIA event, Internet payment giant PayPal announced a series of deals with various group buying sites and online applications. Their press release pointed out PayPal’s mobile payments, or mCommerce as they call it, is growing at over 400% a year

    While it might not be correct to say PayPal were the elephant in the room at the online payments breakfast, it isn’t unfair to say Big Ears was just outside scoffing the morning tea while the incumbents argued about who would have first dibs on clipping the tickets of both merchants and customers.

    It’s too early to say the banks, or the telcos, have lost the market but players like PayPal, Google with their wallet service and possibly even Apple – should a Near Field Communication (NFC) equipped iPhone appear in the near future – are going to make the mobile payment sector far more interesting and competitive.

    For businesses, we need to keep a close eye on the mobile payments market as it is promising to offer a lot more options in banking and transactions that what we’ve been used to in recent years. The days of 6% merchant fees are well and truly over.

    Similar posts:

  • Digital art is more than iPod wielding basket weavers

    Digital art is more than iPod wielding basket weavers

    This is a transcript of the digital arts opening keynote for the Digital Culture Public Sphere conference discussing the Australian government’s cultural strategy.

    Thank you Senator Lundy. A little bit more about me, as well as being a writer and broadcaster on change I spent 18 months with the NSW Department of Trade & Investment setting up the Digital Sydney project.

    Digital Sydneyis a program designed to raise the profile of Sydney as an international centre of the digital media industry.

    One of the problems with Digital Sydney was that it was very inner Sydney centric and this is a perennial question we face as to where does Australian culture, and art, spring from? The first idea I’d like to throw to the room is that ‘digital’ frees us from many narrow geographic boundaries.

    When we add the term ‘digital’ we hit another problem, that almost every aspect of our lives – be it in art, business or our personal lives – is being affected in some way by the Internet and digitalisation. In reality all art is becoming ‘digital’ in one way or another.

    As broadband becomes more pervasive, particularly as the National Broadband Network is rolled out, we’ll see art and the creative industries become even more digitised.

    In many ways we are today at the point in history not too dissimilar to that our great grandparents found themselves a hundred years ago. In 1911, our forebears couldn’t imagine the massive changes the century ahead would bring and we’re in a similar position in the first decades of the digital century.

    The first half of the Twentieth Century saw radio start a cultural shift which was accelerated in the second half as television radically changed and redefined our culture. Today the Internet is doing exactly the same in ways none of us quite understand.

    Given the massive disruption and technical advances we’re going through we need to be cautious about being too prescriptive as we can’t foresee many of the new technologies that will become normal to us over the next decade.

    This provides a challenge for government agencies supporting the arts as the established gatekeepers such as galleries, production studios and regional organisations become less relevant as the means of distribution evolve and become easier to access.

    We’re already seeing the traditional model of government support to big producers; be they factories, movie producers or games studios suffering as economic adjustment undermines many of their business model. The old economic development models are becoming irrelevant as history overtakes them.

    It may well be that the role of governments over the next decade is to create a framework that allows new mediums, creation tools and distribution channels to develop.

    One area we should be careful of when looking at the digital future of the arts is not to follow the UK’s Digital Economy Act where the protection of existing rights holders took precedence over the creative process.

    It is important that governments create legislative frameworks that balance the rights of all stakeholders, consumers and new content creators with the objective of encouraging new works and innovations to evolve.

    In an Australian context we need to acknowledge and develop our diverse population and the opportunities this presents. Our indigenous and immigrant communities with their artistic and cultural traditions give our national economy advantages that many other countries lack, this is one thing I regret I wasn’t able to push more in my role with the NSW government.

    Education is another critical area, this isn’t just in the arts but right across Australian society and industry as new entrants into the workplace are expected to spring forth with the skills making them as productive as experienced workers, this is clearly a flawed idea, particularly when many of the tools business expects students to be skilled in weren’t invented when the students started their studies.

    Over the next decade we’ll also have to confront one of the great Twentieth Century conceits; that artists are a separate breed from scientists, Engineers and business people.

    Prior to the beginning of the last Century it was accepted a tradesman or inventor could also be an artist and this damaging idea of silos between creative and so called ‘real’ industries, suited only to a brief period of our mass industrial development, will have to forgotten. This will be a challenge to our governments, educators and training providers.

    The digital arts are not about iPad wielding basket weavers, they about giving today’s workforce the creative tools and flexible, imaginative thinking to meet the challenges our mature, high cost workforce faces in a world where the economic rules are changing as fast as our technology.

    We have a great opportunity at events like today to determine how we as a nation will benefit from the next decade’s new technologies that will change our arts communities and society in general.

    The great challenge to policy makers will be dealing with the rapidly changing and evolving world that the digital economy has bought in the arts, in business and in society in general.

    Today I’m sure we can bring together ideas on how we, and our governments, can meet these challenges.

    Thank you very much Senator Lundy, Minister Crean and Pia Waugh for giving the community an opportunity to contribute to the development of this valuable policy.

    Similar posts: