amazon | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Fighting a loss making business

Uber follows the Amazon tactic of hurting the market with its deep pockets

Having deep pockets is a great help in business as the online cab war in San Francisco shows.

As competition heats up on the streets of San Francisco, Uber is trying to put Lyft out of business by offering fares below what they pay drivers.

This has been the long term tactic of Amazon; raise a lot of money and then run your main line of business at a loss.

Amazon have shown you can do this for a long time if investors stay patient. Fighting it is difficult if you don’t have deep pockets yourself.

In the long term though you can’t see this being good for customers, although in the meantime San Franciscans can enjoy cheap taxis.

Amazon and the battle for your pocket

Will an Amazon phone succeed in tethering customers to the company?

Today Amazon is expected to launch a smartphone which the New York Times suggests will tether consumers to the company.

With 240,0000 apps in its Kindle store, Amazon will be formidable competitor to Google Android devices and Apple. Like iTunes, Amazon also have a strength in already knowing the customer’s credit card details.

The question is can Amazon be trusted? As we see with the Hachette book publishers dispute, Amazon is a company that’s ruthless in bullying suppliers and has a mandate to do so from its shareholders.

With the smartphone becoming the centre of the connected lifestyle, the stakes are high as whoever controls the customer’s pocket controls the customer’s smarthome, smartcar, retail and health applications.

Of course whoever wins this battle, they’ll still have to pay Microsoft for patents.

Limits of the black box business

Many of the leading tech companies hide beyond mysterious algorithms or impassive customer support. That may prove to be their weakness.

One of the paradoxes of the modern tech industry is that while its leaders preach openness and collaboration, their own businesses are mysterious unaccountable black boxes.

This website has often looked at how the Silicon Valley business model leaves users and partners exposed to arbitrary enforcement of vague policies and indifferent customer service.

A good example of the black box business model is eBay’s major security breach where it appears millions of users have had their personal and banking details compromised. Instead of informing customers immediately, the company’s management hid the problem and hoped stonewalling inquiries would make the problem go away.

Lacking accountability

In the black box business model, not being accountable is the key – we see it with Amazon’s bullying of book publishers, Google’s high handed identity policies and Facebook’s puritan censorship.

Those high handed attitudes to customers’ and users’ rights is born out of arrogance; all of these company’s managements, and the corporate bureaucrats who enforce the policies, believe their hundred billion dollar businesses are untouchable.

Such arrogance might though be ill-founded as each of these businesses is less than twenty years old and, while they themselves have deeply disrupted existing industry models, there is no reason why their own market dominance and huge cash flows can’t be usurped by new technologies or challengers.

In age where trust is the greatest currency, hiding beyond a block box of algorithms and impassive customer support may not turn out to be a successful management strategy.

Amazon’s death grip

Booksellers, and readers, are learning the consequences of Amazon’s domination of online book retailing

Hachette Book Group is the latest victim of Amazon throwing its weight around the bookselling industry reports the New York Times.

While it’s not the first time this has happened, Amazon’s willingness to bully suppliers – and disappoint customers – is a taste of what happens when one company controls a choke point in the distribution network.

In the early days of the internet we believed the web would eliminate the middleman, instead the net put the existing intermediatries out of business and gave us a new, global breed of gatekeepers.

The galling thing about Amazon is the company has barely made a profit in its 20 years of operation, one wonders how profitable it will be once should the operation manage to wrest control the entire bookselling industry.

In many ways, Amazon is a cautionary tale for everyone trading online; beware of allowing any one platform too much power over your business.

A question of incentives at Microsoft and Apple

Incentives create a company culture as we see within Microsoft, Apple and Amazon

Ben Thompson on his Stratechery blog speculates what Apple would be like were Steve Ballmer running the company.

Thompson makes an excellent point – that Ballmer has been very good in building a company driven by incentives like salaries, bonuses and titles. It describes Microsoft very well and highlights the companies strengths and weaknesses.

Were Ballmer to run Apple, Thompson concludes, it would be a far more profitable company than it is today but it would be fading into irrelevance just as Microsoft is.

That makes sense as Microsoft under Ballmer has been able to profit from the dominant market position it built up in the late 1990s, but the company has struggled against innovative competitors or the big market shifts following the arrival of smartphones and tablet computers.

Where Thompson is on more shaky territory is citing Amazon as another example of where profit is less important than innovation;

Amazon famously makes minimal profits; Microsoft made more money last year than Amazon has made ever, yet Amazon too is far more relevant in the consumer market today than is Microsoft.

Amazon may well be more relevant to the consumer market today than Microsoft, but that’s largely on the back of a business model built on shareholders subsiding customers – something that Apple has never done.

It may well be that when investors get sick of propping Amazon up, the company’s business model will have to change. Should Amazon have a Microsoft like dominance of the online retail or cloud computing markets then customers might be in for a nasty dose of sticker shock as profits are maximised.

Ultimately incentives are what shapes a company’s culture – whether the incentives are built around stack ranking, commissions or currying favour with the founder, they will determine how the business behaves.

Taxing the internet

US laws making online retailers levy state taxes are going to spread internationally as lawmakers look at closing loopholes.

One of the competitive advantages for online shopping has been the difficulty in levying taxes on internet transactions.

This has been particularly true in the United States where individual states, counties and cities have different sales taxes, meaning a consumer in Birmingham, Alabama might pay 10% more than their friends in Billings, Montana.

Amazon in particular has been aggressive in exploiting these price differentials, right down to threatening states where ‘Amazon taxes’ has been proposed.

Now the US Congress looks set to pass a law which would make online sellers responsible for buyers’ state sales tax obligations.

The next stage will be treaties between countries on the collection of sales or value added taxes.

For many retailers though this won’t be particularly good news as price differentials are more than just the 10% GST or VAT and online shopping sites compete as much on product range and customers service.

What the US Congress’ bill really shows is how online retailing is maturing – rather than thinking of companies like Amazon, eBay or niche operators like Shoes Of Prey as being disrupters they are the new normal.

Should Amazon focus on shareholder returns?

Is Jeff Bezos the digital Nelson Bunker Hunt as Amazon continues to gain value while not making any money?

“Shareholder returns” has the been the mantra for the modern manager – particularly when justifying fat salaries and bonuses.

Amazon though is very different – despite the company’s massive market position it doesn’t make profits, founder Jeff Bezos claims he prefers to focus on customer needs.

On a fundamental level Bezos is right – the business that delivers what customers want will succeed. The market doesn’t give a fig about shareholders’ returns or management’s KPIs.

Although making a profit is helpful.

That Amazon is spectacularly unprofitable should worry shareholders, it’s fair enough for a startup in its early days to incur losses but Bezos’ baby is nearly 20 years old and it still isn’t capable of walking on its own.

Yet this doesn’t deter shareholders. Comparing Amazon’s stock price against Apple’s and Microsoft’s is instructive.

Microsoft currently trades at a Price/Earnings ratio of 15.8 while Apple’s is 9.7 – Amazon trades at an infinite P/E.

A school of thought is that Amazon will reap monopoly profits once it conquers the world’s online retail and owns a big chunk of the cloud computing market.

However these are big markets and its unlikely any one company can ever dominate them. Indeed Amazon has failed to do so for nearly two decades despite undercutting most competitors and buying out nimble new rivals.

It’s tempting to think of Jeff Bezos being a modern day Nelson Bunker Hunt.

Bunker Hunt and his brother William spent most of the 1970s trying to corner the global silver market. At the peak of their attempt, silver prices went from $11 an ounce in September 1979 to $50 an ounce in January 1980 only to crash back down to $11 by Easter 1980.

The brothers were bankrupt by the end of the 1980s.

It’s doubtful whether Amazon’s shareholders want to follow that example, so it’s going to be interesting to see how long Jeff Bezos can continue to see the story of putting customers before owners.

Image by By The Cuba Company, New Jersey [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

PayPal struggles with the Soviet customer service model

Just as Silicon Valley’s new businesses has challenged a whole range of incumbent operators, they too are at risk from upstarts who value their customers. This is something PayPal’s management has to face.

CNN reports that internet payment giant PayPal is looking at an “aggressive changes” to its fraud detection systems which see thousands of customers accounts frozen every year.

PayPal’s announcement follows last year’s promise by CEO David Marcus to institute a “culture change” at the company,

Our intention has always been to protect our customers. Not to mess around with our merchants.
I want to share two things with all of you:

#1 — there’s a massive culture change happening at PayPal right now. If we suck at something, we now face it, and we do something about it.

#2 — you have my commitment to make this company GREAT again. We’re reinventing how we work, our products, our platforms, our APIs, and our policies. This WILL change, and we won’t rest until you all see it. The first installments are due very soon. So stay tuned…

Screwing around merchants and buyers has become synonymous with PayPal and their parent company eBay who together are the poster children for the Silicon Valley Soviet Customer Service Model.

Reader comments to the CNN article cited at the beginning of this post give a taste of just how bad the problem is at PayPal.

Once your business attracts the attention of PayPal’s algorithms, you’re locked into a Kafkaesque maze of dead ends and arbitrary, made up rules.

To be fair to PayPal and eBay this problem isn’t just theirs, it’s shared by Google, Amazon and almost every major online company. Their view of customer service is to shoot first and ask no questions, they certainly won’t answer anything from their victim beyond a trite passive-aggressive corporate statement.

Part of the current Silicon Valley mania around web and app based services is that, along with providing free content, users will provide support for each other and that customer service is an unnecessary overhead which should be kept to a minimum.

In this respect, many of these new businesses are little different from the legacy airlines, telcos and declining department stores who have spent the last thirty years stripping away customer service with the result of locking them into shrinking commodity markets.

That failure to value customer service is the biggest weakness for companies like eBay, Amazon and Google. The very forces that favour them, the reduction of the entry barriers, also makes it easier for more customer orientated businesses to grab market share.

Customer lock in as a business asset

Barnes and Noble’s problems show how high the stakes are when locking customers into an online business.

US booksellers Barnes and Noble has been struggling for years and things aren’t getting better reports the New York Times.

An important part of the New York Times story is the quote from a Forrester industry analyst,

“The problem is not whether or not the Nook is good,” said James L. McQuivey, a media analyst for Forrester Research. “What matters is whether you are locked into a Kindle library or an iTunes library or a Nook library. In the end, who holds the content that you value?”

Locking in customers lies at the heart of the Kindle and iTunes business model. Once users have a substantial investment in their book or music collections on one platform it’s unlikely they will go elsewhere as the costs, and risks, of moving are too great.

This doesn’t always end well for the customer and it gives online businesses great power which they often misuse.

Every online business tries to lock their customers into their ecosystem – Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple are the most successful but every single social media and cloud service tries to make it hard for users take their business elsewhere.

In some respects this is no different to the phone company or bank which have historically tried to lock customers into their services, but the online social media, cloud computing and e-commerce platforms make a much more ambitious grab for their users’ data and assets like music and book collections.

The New York Times article illustrates just how critical that user lock in is to the success of online businesses. The question for us as consumers is how much we want to be locked inside the web’s walled gardens.

Has Yahoo got its mojo back?

Yahoo’s offer of three months free access to their Flickr Pro photo sharing service could be the start of CEO Marissa Mayer’s plan for the company’s recovery.

One of the disappointments with Yahoo in recent years has been management’s inablity to effectively use the impressive portfolio of online assets that they’ve built up over the last 15 years. Could this be about to change as Marissa Mayer finds her feet as CEO at Yahoo?

A first step may be Yahoo’s free offer of Pro accounts on their Flickr photo sharing service which is coupled with a new iPhone app and a marketing drive.

Their timing is exquisite as Instagram, the file sharing service of the moment, struggles with privacy concerns. Flickr offers far better control over photographers’ rights than Instagram or most other social media services.

While the Flikr offer won’t reverse Yahoo’s long term decline on itself, it could be the start on a long journey of re-establishing the company’s credibility as one of the leading web companies.

2013 promises to be a turbulent year for the big four online empires as Apple adapts to life without Steve Jobs, Amazon fights on a number of fronts, Facebook tries to justify its massive market valuation and Google digests Motorola while dealing with declining internet advertising rates.

If Mayer and her management team can get a coherent strategy that realises the strengths of Yahoo’s product portfolio, then the company might be in a position to challenge the Internet’s big four.

Trapped in a walled garden

Can social media services like facebook stay relevant as they manage content?

Following up on last week’s criticism of Facebook, US entrepreneur Mark Cuban clarified his position about the social network.

Central to Mark’s criticism are three points about Facebook’s business model; that it is a time waster, it takes control away from users and it doesn’t succeed in connecting people to information and friends.

All of this is true, and these features are key to the walled garden model that all of the internet empires want to build.

Central to this strategy is the “time on site” metric and so far Facebook beats all comers, with a huge 400 minutes per month per user.

Users who spend a long time on a website are more valuable than those who don’t hang around and Facebook’s success has been in capturing the attention of their members and locking them into their platform.

The willingness of other websites, particularly media companies, to lock themselves into Facebook’s platform has puzzled many observers as they are giving their customers away to the social media service.

How willing internet users are in hanging around Facebook’s, or Amazon’s, Google’s and Apple’s, walled gardens remains to be seen; it depends upon how compelling the content and value is.

If Mark Cuban’s right, viewers’ eyeballs and advertising dollars may start moving away from Facebook when people realise they are missing out on relevant information.

The real value in media organisations, whether we talk about old media such as newspapers or new media like social platforms, is in presenting relevant information to visitors and readers. As the many news organisations are learning, when you stop being relevant then people stop paying attention.

Being relevant is the great challenge for Facebook, newspapers and all media organisations.

ABC Nightlife computers – who owns your data?

For November’s ABC Nighlife we look at how digital rights management can affect you.

Paul Wallbank joins Tony Delroy to discuss how technology affects your business and life. For the November segment we look at the perils of digital rights management.

If you missed the spot, the podcast is available from the ABC Nightlife website and the answers to listeners’ questions is available in the following post.

We all value our collections of CDs, books and photos, but what happens when we completely lose the digital equivalents? Tonight on the Nightlife we look at who really owns e-books and computer programs.

Last month a story appeared on the Internet where Linn, a Norwegian lady, lost her entire collection of eBooks from her Kindle reader when Amazon decided she had breached their conditions.

What happened to Linn and her ebook collection?
How did Amazon respond when she complained?
So who actually owns those ebooks?
Is this shutting down of accounts common?
At their big event a few weeks back Apple focused their iPads and iBooks on education, could this happen to schools?
It’s not just ebooks though, can this happen with other online services?
Is this a problem with cloud computing services?
What about the data you’ve saved, do you lose that if the account is shut down?
What about businesses and all the work they go to build a Facebook or Pinterest following, are those online friends the business’ property?

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

Tune in on your local ABC radio station or listen online at www.abc.net.au/nightlife.

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