innovation | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Building tech cities

What does London’s attempt to build a tech city teach others that want to create a Silicon Valley in their own town?

With the apparent success of the Silicon Valley business model, every city seems to want to emulate it. One region that’s probably gone further than most is supporting their local tech sector is London with its Tech City program.

But is it succeeding? The Guardian did an audit on the Tech City project and came away with some findings that aren’t particularly different from other cities.

What I personally find interesting is how the Digital Sydney project which I was involved in setting up during 2009-10 shares the flaws The Guardian has identified in the London initiative.

Identifying tech

One key criticism The Guardian has is that too many businesses are identified as being in the technology sector;

of the 1,340 companies, 137 are tech companies, 700 are PR or design agencies and 482 are “miscellaneous” – which includes charities, pubs, cafes and fashion boutiques. The remaining 21 companies were either entered more than once or entries with no information or link to an external site. So just 10% of companies in Tech City actually do technology, 53% are PR or design agencies, and 37% are “miscellaneous”.

This was true of identifying Sydney’s ‘digital hub’ – the vast majority of business surveyed were not actually tech businesses but movie post production, graphic designers and publishers. The technology sector was only a small group and the bulk of employment and investment came from large multinational corporations like IBM and Google.

Now it is possible to argue that businesses like post-production, publishing and broadcast media are ‘tech’, but then almost every industry could be thought of as ‘tech’ if you cast the net wide enough.

The problem is counting those businesses as being tech just on the basis they are heavy users of IT skews the numbers and gives an inflated view of how big the sector really is.

A capital city focus

One of the biggest criticisms of the Tech City initiative is that it is too London centric and The Guardian makes a good case about this, looking at cities like Brighton, Cambridge, Newcastle and Manchester.

A similar criticism could quite rightly be made about Sydney’s project, which focuses on the inner city enclaves of Surry Hills and Ultimo while ignoring most of the city or any of the state’s regional centres.

When I started at the New South Wales government I was warned by one old hand that “to these jokers NSW stands for North Sydney to Woolloomooloo.”

And so it proved to be.

Focusing on London’s Silicon Roundabout or Sydney’s Surry Hills also smacks of a ‘people like us’ syndrome where the support goes to nice middle class white folk – just like the politicians, public servants and captains of industry who run these programs.

Overemphasising tech

Another problem, not mentioned in The Guardian story, is the over emphasis on technology startups.

Projects like Tech City and Digital Sydney focus on last decade’s opportunities which Silicon Valley dominated. Governments look at California’s success and think we need to copy that when what we’re seeing is actually the fruits of the previous wave of opportunity.

It may well be that we’re repeating the mistakes of the 1950s and 60s where countries around the world imitated Detroit hoping to replicate the US’ success with the motor industry.

The costs of that error are still a millstone around taxpayers’ necks two generations later.

To be fair to those setting up projects like Tech City or Digital Sydney, they are attempts to harness the energy in their own cities but it may just be that government programs aren’t the best ways to bring entrepreneurs and inventors together.

Hopefully though their efforts will succeed although it’s more likely the next Silicon Valley will be just as much the result of a series of coincidences as today’s is.

3D printing comes of age

3D printing technologies are becoming available to home and business users.

It may well be that a technology has reached mainstream acceptance when the media starts writing scare stories and politicians demand that something must be done.

Should that be the case, then 3D printing has come of age with the story of the first gun being fabricated and demands that legislation be passed preventing people manufacturing their own firearms.

The story does raise a range of issues about community safety that 3D printing is going to present. When anybody can design and manufacture a piece of equipment, how can we be sure it is safe – or legal – to use?

We’re going to be facing these issues very soon as retail 3D printers have started appearing.

At $1299, the Cube 3D printer isn’t quite affordable for most households or offices but we can expect prices to fall as more devices come onto the market.

At the more advanced end of the 3D printing market, The University of Wollongong’s Centre for Electromaterials Science has opened a research unit at Melbourne’s St Vincent’s Hospital to create tissue material with biological 3D printers with the scientists beginning animal trials to reproduce skin, cartilage, arteries and heart valves.

So at one end of the spectrum we have hackers making plastic guns that freak politicians and scaremongering journalists out, while at the other there are scientists pushing the barriers of medical science.

We live in interesting times – and 3D printing is making things even more exciting.

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.

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

Can maps change the way we work?

Big data and mobile computing are changing the way business operates as maps become an important part of our normal work and leisure time.

“Work the Way You Live” is Google’s motto for their enterprise maps service which the search engine giant hopes to make as ubiquitous in business as it is in the home.

At Google Atmosphere the company showed off their mapping technology and how it can be used by large organisation. It’s a compelling story.

The technology behind Google Maps is impressive – twenty petabytes of images, one billion active monthly users, 1.6 million map tiles served every second and a target of getting those tiles onto the users screen within ten milliseconds.

Maps are one of the Big Data applications that cheap computing makes possible, until a few years ago even desktop computers would have struggled with the sort of mapping technology that we take for granted on our smartphones today.

Rethinking products

Adding mapping technologies to products allows businesses to rethink their products. A good example of this is the internet connected treadmill.

Using the treadmill a jogger, or a walker, can map out a route anywhere in the world and the screen will show them the Google Street View as they travel along the route. The treadmill even adjusts to the changing gradients.

The Google Maps driven treadmill is a trivial example of the internet of machines, but it gives a hint of what’s possible.

The search for truth

The success of a map depends on whether it can be trusted – this is what caught Apple out with their mapping application which was released before it was ready for prime time. Google, and most cartographers, take seriously errors and changes.

In the early days of Google Maps, the company would pass errors and changes onto the private and government mapping providers they licensed the data from. It could take months to fix a problem.

“It was really hard, you have to get maps from all over the world to create the product,” says Louis Perrochon, the Engineering director of google maps for business.

“That’s a limitation if you work with third party data so we started a project called Ground Truth where we build our own maps.”

Google pulls together its Street View data, satellite images and information sent in from the public through their Map Maker site and the Maps Engine Lite to build an accurate map of an area.

Changing consumer behaviour

Having accurate and accessible maps has changed the way consumers have behaved; “this revolution hasn’t happened slowly,” says Google Enterprise Directore Richard Suhr, “it’s happened really quickly.”

“Customers have become savvy about spatial. What this means is that businesses are starting to rethink the problem.”

“What are the exciting things I can do with maps, what else can I do with my data.”

That’s a big question of all businesses – how they use the massive amount of information in their organisation will mark the winners from also runs over the next decade. Maps are one way to visualise their data.

While Google Atmosphere was a marketing event for the companies mapping technologies the message is clear – mapping is changing the way we work and play and it’s affecting business.

How is mapping changing the way your business works?

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/

Hurtling into the post PC era

The latest computer sales figures are not good for those businesses who depend up personal computers.

Consulting firm IDC quarterly report on PC shipment figures this quarter shows a stunning 14% drop of global computer sales. On those numbers, the PC era is definately over.

Across the board the figures are horrible with double digit declines across the board. Market leader HP reported PC sales had fallen by nearly a quarter yet they retained their market lead as all of their competitors reported similar falls.

What’s also notable is the PC industry’s ultrabook attempt to wean consumers off cheap nebooks has backfired terrible, as the analysts note;

Fading Mini Notebook shipments have taken a big chunk out of the low-end market while tablets and smartphones continue to divert consumer spending.

Instead of buying higher priced ultabooks, consumers have abandoned portable PCs altogether and gone to smartphones or tablet computers.

The PC manufacturers must be rueing how they let the tablet computer market slip through their fingers during the 2000s.

Failing to ship decent tablet computers is symptomatic of a bigger problem for the PC manufacturers – their inability to innovate.

The PC industry is struggling to identify innovations that differentiate PCs from other products and inspire consumers to buy, and instead is meeting significant resistance to changes perceived as cumbersome or costly.

As IDC point out, even if they do introduce new products, consumers are wary that any “innovation” is going to be cumbersome. Basically the PC manufacturers have lost their customers’ trust.

How this affects Dell’s proposed buy out remains to be seen; it’s hard to see how investors would not be concerns at a 10% fall in sales, although Dell was one of the better performers.

For Microsoft, this news should further accelerate their moving products and customers to their cloud and enterprise products. For their Windows division it looks like there are tough times ahead.

The decline of the PC market is itself a study in product and innovation cycles. It could well be that the personal computer is going the way of the fax machine.

For some businesses that will be tragedy, but the market – and the opportunities – move on.

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.

Does Google have corporate Attention Deficit Disorder?

Are Google paying the price of not paying attention to their core business?

The news that Google were releasing a service called Keep designed to store things you find on the web for future reference received a hostile response yesterday.

It seems the company’s dropping Google Reader into the deadpool proved the final straw for many of the tech early adopters who’d invested too much time building their feeds and other digital assets only to find services taken away from them.

This isn’t just Google Reader, various other services are suffering; Google Alerts has become functionally useless while the Frommers guide book franchise is slowly dying after the company bought it from John Wileys.

Corporate Attention Deficit Disorder

Google are suffering corporate Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) where management find a bright shiny thing, play with it for a while then get bored and wander off.

This is trait particularly common amongst cashed up tech companies. In the past Microsoft and Yahoo! were the best examples, but today Google is the clear leader in the Corporate ADD stakes.

Corporate ADD requires a number of factors – the main thing is a big cash flow to fund acquisitions.

In companies with this luxury, bored managers find themselves looking for things to do with all the money flowing through the door and when a hot new product or market sector appears those executives want to be part of it.

So a company gets acquired or a project is set up and the advocate drives it relentlessesly within the corporation, usually with lots of PR and write ups in the industry press.

Then something happens.

Usually the advocate – the manager or founder who drives the project – gets bored, promoted or sacked and the project loses its driving force within the organisation.

Without that driving force the service stagnates as we saw with Google Alerts or Reader and eventually company closes it down.

This has unfortunate effects on the marketplace, users invest a lot of time in the company’s service while innovators in the affected market struggle to get funding as the investors say “we can’t compete with Google’.

A changed perspective

What’s interesting now though is the sea-change in the attitude towards Google’s Keep announcement – rather than dozens of articles describing how competing services like Evernote are doomed in the face of the search engine giant entering their market, most are saying this validates the existing startups’ investment and vision.

More importantly, most commentators are saying they are going to stick with the services they already use because they no longer trust Google to maintain the product.

This is what happens when you lose the trust and confidence of the market place.

One of the mantras of the startup community is “focus” – focus on your product and the problem you want it to fix. That large businesses lack that focus shows how far from being a lean startup they have become.

Google’s real challenge is to regain that focus. Right now they have rivers of cash flowing through their doors but in an age of disruption, it may well be that they could dry up if no-one pays attention.

Ritalin image courtesy of Adam on Wiki Images

Will Google Deals be the next service to join the graveyard?

Google Deals was an attempt to compete with group buying services like Groupon, that experiment has failed and another tombstone for Google’s Graveyard should be on order.

Google’s graveyard of discontinued services is getting crowded, with Google Reader being one of a dozen services to bite the dust in last week’s springclean.

As Google ruthlessly cut services that don’t make the grade, the question is ‘which ones are next’?

Towards the top of the list has to be Google Offers, the group buying service that was set up in a fit of pique after Groupon spurned the search engine giant’s $6 billion acquisition offer.

Google Offers has only rolled out in 45 locations across the United States over the last two years and the deals in recent times have become increasingly desperate, here’s a recent New York deal.

Schmakery’s Cookies may well be fine products, but getting one free cookie isn’t exactly a jump out of your seat experience and it shows just how Google are struggling with this service.

That Google are struggling with Offers isn’t surprising though, the daily deals business relies on sales teams working hard to acquire small business advertisers. Small business is a sector that Google struggles with and running people focused operations is the not the company’s strong point either.

Google’s exit from the group buying market may be good for Groupon and other companies in the sector. The Economist makes the point that Google’s presence in these markets distorts the sector for other incumbents while scaring investors and innovators away.

This is rarely permanent though as companies like Google and Microsoft often suffer a form of corporate Attention Deficit Disorder – Knol is a good example of this and Seth Godin describes what happens “when the 800 pound gorilla arrives”.

Eventually the 800 pound gorilla finds there aren’t a lot of bananas, gets bored and wanders off.

Which is what has happened with RSS feeds and Google reader. Now the little guys can get back to building new products on open RSS platform while Google, along with Facebook and Twitter, try to lock their data away.

For Groupon, the departure of Google from the deals business may not be good news as it could mean smart new competitors enter the field. Either way, there’s some challenges ahead for the owners of group buying services.

Are Small Businesses becoming Digital Roadkill?

We all agree that the internet is changing business, but how many smaller companies are prepared for the massive changes ahead?

Technology Spectator today discusses if fast broadband initiatives like the National Broadband Network will be good for all small businesses.

Andrew Twaites of Melbourne consultancy The Strategy Canvas posits that many businesses aren’t equipped to compete against global competitors.

The additional competitive pressures that the NBN rollout is likely place on segments of the small business sector that have to date enjoyed a degree of natural protection as a result of their customers’ inability to access super-fast broadband.

Once that natural protection falls away, many small businesses will for the first time be exposed to competition from interstate and overseas businesses

This is a very good point; many small businesses are transaction based service providers who can be easily replaced by lower cost overseas companies, particularly now foreign suppliers are easily accessible through services like O-Desk and Freelancer.com.

Every time I see Freelancer.com’s CEO Matt Barrie talk to a small business audience, I’m surprised the room doesn’t lynch him as he’s describing how their businesses are threatened species and many are living on borrowed time.

One of the reasons why small businesses are threatened is because they are under-capitalised, many simply can’t invest in the technology or training they need to compete.

There’s also a reluctance to embrace technology, that half of all small businesses – in the US, the UK or Australia – don’t have even a basic website.

On a recent holiday in Northern NSW, I checked dozens of tourism businesses’ online presences. Few had a website and almost none had bothered filling in their Google Places profiles, let alone set up social media presences.

Yet almost all of their new customers are looking for them on the web, increasingly through mobile devices or social media services where they are invisible.

Not having a website, local listing or Facebook page are trivial things; but the fact that most businesses haven’t done the basics doesn’t bode well as the speed of commerce accelerates over the rest of this decade.

That many small businesses will be put out of business by today’s changes isn’t unprecedented – blacksmiths were out of job shortly after the motor car rolled out and whale oil manufacturers by gas and then electric lighting.

As Andrew points out, we assume ‘creative destruction’ just disrupts big incumbent corporation. In reality it’s the little guys who feel more pain than insulated executives of big business.

Many of us little guys are going to have to start thinking about adapting to very changed times, the risks of being digital roadkill are real.

Doll roadkill image courtesy of Pethrus through WikiMedia

Risky business – is crowd funding too rich for investors and innovators

Do recent kickstarter failures show that crowd funding is too risky for most entrepreneurs and investors?

It’s sad when a Kickstarter project fails to meet its promises and the story of the Collusion Pen, a stylus designed for iPads, is a salutary lesson of how many people don’t understand when they buy into or set up a crowdfunding proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure image courtesy of cobrasoft on sxc.hu