Category: Internet

  • Destroying your brand

    Destroying your brand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Is Groupon the small business saviour?

    Is Groupon the small business saviour?

    Since Google’s rejected offer of $6 billion dollars to buy deal of the day website Groupon, there’s been a lot of discussion of just what Groupon and the hundreds of similar services mean to online commerce and small business.

    Groupon’s CEO, Andrew Mason, even went as far as to declare his organisation the “saviour of small business” on the Charlie Rose show.

    John Battelle, founder of The Industry Standard and co-founding editor of Wired, examines Groupon’s business model on his Searchblog and concludes it will be the small business platform for the mobile Internet just as Google are to the web and Yellow Pages were to the telephone.

    The problem with these ideas is scale. If every small business had the capacity and wanted to be on Groupon, the service simply couldn’t cope and the model breaks down.

    In my area there are, according to the Yellow Pages, 115 hairdressers in my district. Even if Groupon were able to geographically target me to my neighbourhood, they’d need a third of the year just to cover hair stylists which is tough luck for the lawn mowing services, plumbers, patisseries and other small businesses that may also want to advertise on Groupon.

    Which takes us to customer motivation, when I’m looking for a haircut, hedge clipping, cleared drain or chocolate gateaux I’m not particular driven by finding a bargain – if I do that’s great – but it’s not my motivation to buy.

    Groupon, and the other deal of the day sites, are driven by customers looking for discounts, and the key to business survival – particularly in retail – is not to depend on discounts to drive your business. So business models that rely on discount hungry customers, or cashflow desperate merchants, are always going to be limited.

    Groupon is a great business and it may well turn out to be worth $6 billion or even $36 billion. The barriers to entry are not so low as anyone who thinks executing an idea like this is “easy” doesn’t understand the work involved in building a local sales team like those of Groupon or Yellow Pages.

    It could well be that Google wanted to buy Groupon simply for that sales team. The failure of Google to properly execute on their terrific local search product has baffled me for some time and the only explanation I can put down to it is what Silicon Alley Insider’s Ron Burk attributes to Cash Cow Disease, where companies like Google and Microsoft find themselves paralysed by the rivers of cash flowing into their businesses.

    Deal of the day sites have an important role to play for businesses looking at demand management or clearing inventory and Groupon is a good business just like Clipper Magazine or Shop-A-Dockets, but to claim they are going to be the next great revolution for small business is giving too much importance to these channels.

    There’s no doubt though that small businesses will be the big winner when we get local search on the web right. When we get it right we’ll probably see the hyperlocalisation model for the media start to take off as well. So it could save two industries.

    Groupon though is not the small business messiah we’re looking for.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Password safety

    Password safety

    Online news and gossip publisher Gawker Media was hacked last weekend with nearly 200,000 usernames and passwords released to the world.

    The Wall Street Journal’s Digits Column tabulated the results and listed the top 50 passwords used by Gawker’s subscribers.

    At first view, the reaction is to think what sort of idiot would use a password like 12345678 and would only confirm most IT and security professionals’ view that most computer users don’t protect their online details very well.

    But on reflection, is using a weak password on a site like Gawker so bad? Most of the users listed have only created accounts to make a comment on one of Gawker’s websites, they aren’t using their Gawker account for anything vital and should their Gawker account be accessed the only thing the bad guys can do is post under the account name.

    So if we assume that most of the 3,000 odd people that used the password 12345678 only do so for “disposable” accounts like the Gawker comments stream, then they probably haven’t risked anything at all.

    In fact it makes sense to do so rather than to use a strong password which also happens to be your banking login or work account.

    On my IT Queries site we suggest using a layered approach to passwords where services like Gawker, where it doesn’t really matter if the password is compromised, get a simple and easy password while sites where there are serious consequences like your online banking get strong and secure passwords.

    We should always keep in mind that accidents do happen and that there are a lot of clever bad guys out there who are keen to exploit weaknesses when they see them. So security mistakes like Gawker’s will occur from time to time. The best we can do is to arrange our security so that when bad luck strikes us, the effects can be contained.

    The real moral for all of us from the Gawker password hack is to take security seriously and not to use the same password on every site we visit.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • What businesses should learn from Wikileaks

    What businesses should learn from Wikileaks

    The Wikileaks Cablegate affair has been entertaining us now for two weeks as we see diplomats and politicians around the world squirming with embarrassment as we learn what US diplomats really think about the foreign powers they deal with.

    Both the leak of the cables and the treatment of Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, by various Internet companies raises some important questions about the Internet, cloud computing and office security in the digital era.

    Security

    It’s believed the source of the leaked cables is Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is alleged to be responsible for leaking the Iraq tapes released by Wikileaks earlier this year.

    The lesson is don’t give junior staff unrestricted access to your data, access to important information such as bank account details, staff salaries and other matters best kept confidential needs to be protected.

    You can stop data leaving the building by locking USB ports, CDs and DVDs through either software or hardware settings on your computers and you should ask your IT support about this, keep in mind that locking down systems may affect some of your staff’s productivity.

    Locking the physical means though doesn’t stop the possibility of data being sent across the Internet and access logs may only tell you this has happened after the fact. So it’s important to review your organisation’s acceptable use policy. Check with your lawyers and HR specialists that your staff are aware of the consequences of accessing company data without permission.

    Incidentally, the idea that Pfc Manning was just one US Army staffer of thousands who were able to access these cables raises the suspicion that the information Wikileaks is now releasing was long ago delivered to the desks of interested parties in London, Moscow, Tel Aviv, Beijing and cave hideouts in remote mountain ranges.

    Don’t rely on one platform

    Wikileaks found itself hounded from various web hosting and payment providers. As we’ve discussed previously, relying on other people’s services to deliver your product raises a number of risks. Make sure you have alternatives should one of your service providers fail and never allow an external supplier to become your single point of failure.

    Concerns about the cloud

    This column has been an unabashed fan of cloud computing, but the Wikileaks saga shows the cloud is not necessarily secure or trustworthy. Not only is there the risk of a PFC Manning working at the data center compromising your passwords or data, but the arbitrary shutdown of Wikileaks’ services is a stark lesson of relying on another company’s Terms of Service.

    Within most terms of service are clauses that allow the provider to shut down your service if you are accused of breaking the law or straying outside of the providers’ definition of acceptable use. As we saw with Amazon’s treatment of Wikileaks, you can be cut off at any time and without notice.

    Amazon’s shutting down of Wikileaks is a pivotal point in the development of cloud services. Trust is essential to moving your operations to the cloud, and Amazon’s actions shown much of that trust may be misplaced.

    Should you be considering moving to the cloud, you’ll need to ensure your data and services are being backed up locally and not held hostage to the arbitrary actions of your business partner.

    Don’t put your misgivings in writing

    So your business partner is a control freak? Great but don’t put it in writing.

    Be careful of gossip and big noting

    One interesting aspect of Wikileaks to date is how senior politicians like gossip and showing how worldly they are to US diplomats.

    That’s great, but it probably isn’t a good idea to tell your best friend they should consider beating up your most important customer. As mentioned earlier, this little gem was probably on polished desks of the Chinese Politburo long before the cables found their way to Wikileaks.

    Resist the temptation to gossip, remember your grandmother’s line about not saying anything if you can’t say something nice.

    Ultimately what Wikileaks shows us is all digital communications are capable of being copied and endlessly distributed. In a digital economy, the assumption has to be that everything you do is likely to become public and you should carry out your business conduct as if you will be exposed on Wikileaks or the six o’clock news.

    Wikileaks is a lesson on transparency, we are entering an era of accountability and the easiest way to deal with this is to be more honest and open. That’s the big lesson for us in our business and home lives.

    Similar posts:

  • What the Internet doesn’t know about us

    What the Internet doesn’t know about us

    In October 2010 Newsweek’s Jessica Bennett asked the the team behind the Internet service Reputation Defender to find all they could about her.

    The results were startling, within half an hour they had found her US social security number and a few more hours digging revealed her address, hometown as well as many other private details.

    But ultimately the picture of Jessica’s life was wrong. The team made mistakes about her personal habits, sexual orientation and the time she spends online.

    The fact the profile was incorrect shows how difficult it is for computers, or people, to understand an individual based on a series of data points.

    Most of us understand that making a generalisation based on single data point – say race, gender, appearance or sexual orientation – is usually incorrect, but when we add more data points things become even more difficult.

    Once we get more than one data point, we have to start weighting them. Would Jessica eating at McDonalds twice a week outweigh her exercising every morning in the eyes of an insurance company assessing her risk?

    That problem could be called the Google effect where a formula, known as an algorithm, becomes so complex that it becomes bogged down under the weight of its own assumptions as we saw with Tony Russo’s gaming of the search engine’s ranking system.

    All of us as are steadily revealing more about ourselves onto the web, whether we know it or not. Every time we like something on Facebook, subscribe to a newsletter or make a comment on a blog post, we are giving a little something about us away on the publicly accessible Internet.

    Over time, anyone can build a picture of us. However it may turn out that nobody will want to know about the detailed, complex and multi dimensional portrait each of our lives would be.

    As information about all of us becomes more available, we may enter a modern version of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine of the Cold War as each of us find that everyone around us has enough information to bring our careers, relationships and status crashing down.

    But equally we hold equally damaging data about all our peers as well and to bring anybody down based on this information we have would be to invite the wrath of many others who know about our intimate details.

    We may even find that because all of us, being human, have some damaging traits and history that employers, insurers and governments only care when you start hiding them. Today we see this with security vetting procedures which are more concerned about what we hide rather than the specifics of our foibles and indiscretions.

    The assumption of those security agencies is that a self admitted gambler, alcoholic or philanderer is a manageable risk while those hiding such secrets from their families and employers are the genuine threat to an organisation.

    So we come back to a society where a tacit agreement exists between us all that this dangerous power is only used when someone has acted illegally or hypocritically.

    Perhaps that is the future we are heading for, where the Internet knows all but we simply choose not to access it. Which assumes it’s all correct anyway.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts