google | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

NBNCo’s storytelling failure

Why Australia’s National Broadband Network gets bad press

One of the baffling things in reporting the Australian tech and business scene is how the National Broadband Network project manages to get such bad press.

Part of the answer is in this story about Google Fiber sparking a startup scene in Kansas City.

Marguerite Reardon’s story for CNet is terrific – it covers the tech and looks at the human angles with some great anecdotes about some of the individuals using Google Fiber to build Kansas City’s startup community.

This is the story that should have been written in Australia about the National Broadband Network.

I’ve tried.

Failing to tell the story

Earlier this year I travelled to Tasmania to speak to the businesses using the NBN and came back empty handed.

In Melbourne, I finally made it to the Hungry Birds Cafe – vaunted by the government as the first cafe connected to the NBN – to find they do a delicious bacon roll and offer fast WiFi to customers but the owners don’t have a website and do nothing on the net that they couldn’t do with a 56k modem.

I’ve found the same thing when I’ve tried to find businesses connected to the NBN – nil, nothing, nada, nyet. The closest story you’ll find to Cnet’s article are a handful of lame-arsed stories like this Seven Sunrise segment which talks about families sending videos to each other, something which strengthens the critic’s arguments that high speed broadband is just a toy.

Businesses need not apply

This failure to articulate the real business benefits of high speed broadband after four years of rolling out the project is a symptom of a project that has gone off the rails.

It’s not surprising that businesses aren’t connecting to the new network as NBNCo and its resellers have continued the grand Australian tradition of ripping off small businesses. Fellow tech blogger Renai LeMay has quite rightly lambasted the overpriced business fibre broadband plans.

Even when small business want to connect, they find it’s difficult to do. The Public House blog describes how a country pub was told the cost of a business NBN account be so high, the sales consultant would be embarrassed to reveal the price.

“The cost for exactly the same connection (and exactly the same useage) is so much higher for a business that you wouldn’t be interested.”

The whole point of the National Broadband Network is to modernise Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure and give regional areas the same opportunities as well connected inner city suburbs.

Failing objectives

If businesses can’t connect, or find it too expensive, then the project is failing those objectives. So it’s no surprise that NBNCo’s communications team can’t tell a story like Kansas City’s because there are no stories to tell.

Apologists for the poor performance of NBNCo say it’s a huge project and we’re only in the early stages. In fact we’re now four years into a ten year project and we still aren’t hearing stories like those from Kansas City.

Telling the story should be the easy part for those charged with building the National Broadband Network, that they fail in this should mean it’s no surprise they are struggling with the really hard work of building the thing.

Little shots at the moon

Everyday there’s thousands of people risking all on their own little moonshots.

Today I wrote a story for Business Spectator on the Google Loon project, a pilot program to see if high altitude balloons can provide affordable internet access for the developing world.

What really fascinates me about Loon and the projects in the Google X program is the concept of the ‘moonshot’. Google explain it on their solve for [x] website.

Moonshots live in the gray area between audacious projects and pure science fiction; instead of mere 10% gains, they aim for 10x improvements. The combination of a huge problem, a radical solution, and the breakthrough technology that might just make that solution possible is the essence of a Moonshot.

Great Moonshot discussions require an innovative mindset–including a healthy disregard for the impossible–while still maintaining a level of practicality.

Missing in that definition is the concept of risk – it’s easy to propose a radical, audacious solution to a problem when it’s not your money or career on the line.

On the other hand, most organisations that have the resources to experiment with breakthrough technologies stifle any thought of true innovation or radical solutions.

The advantage Google has is that parts of the organisation encourage those moonshots, although there are divisions of Google which are just as bureaucratic and staid as a chartered accountant’s or quantity surveyor’s office.

Interestingly Apple were the reverse with only one guy allowed to do moonshots and everyone below him followed him either to the moon or hell, as this wonderful story tells.

Which brings me to the little folk – the startups, small businesses and backyard inventors who don’t have the resources of Google, Apple or the US space program.

For that matter there’s also the writers, painters, musicians and other artists who are risking everything for their vision.

Everyday these people are risking everything for their little ideas as their homes, livelihoods and sometimes their relationships are on the line for their one big idea or audacious vision.

These are the real risk takers and every day they are taking little shots at the moon.

How Green is the Internet?

What are the environmental costs of the internet, cloud computing and big data?

Earlier this month Google hosted “How Green is the Internet?“, a summit which looked at the environmental costs of the connected society and technologies like cloud computing and Big Data.

The environmental impact of the internet and related technologies is a subject worth exploring, like all industries there are real costs to the planet which usually aren’t bourne by those who make the profits or reap the benefits.

In complex modern supply chains which often span the globe, the costs are not often apparent either. What appears to be a relatively clean, innocuous product to city consumers could have terrible environmental consequences for others.

Google’s summit is a good example of overlooking many external costs in that most of the conversations looked at reducing energy usage, understandable given the company’s dependence on power hungry data centres which drive their cloud computing services.

Energy usage is important in the discussion about digital technologies – the businesses of bits and bytes almost wholly relies upon having constant and reliable electricity supplies and power generation is one of the most environmentally damaging activities we engage in.

Focusing on energy consumption though is not the only aspect we need to look at when examining how green the internet is, there’s many other costs in building the supply chain that enables us to watch funny cat videos in our homes or offices.

The entire supply chain is complex and the session on infrastructure costs by Jon Koomey of Stanford University touched on this; there’s the environmental costs of building data centres, of manufacturing routers, of laying cables and – probably the most difficult question of all – what do we do with the e-waste generated by obsolete equipment.

Little of this was touched on in the Google conference and it’s interesting that the tech industry is focusing on the energy costs while overlooking other effects of a global, complex industry.

That isn’t to say the energy story isn’t valid. A number of the Google speakers emphasized the indirect energy saving costs as cloud computing and Big Data allows more intelligent business decisions that make industries and daily life more efficient.

A favourite example is the use of car parking apps where drivers save energy and reduce pollution because they aren’t driving around looking for the parking spaces. This puts Google’s acquisition of traffic app Waze into perspective.

Reducing driving times is just one area of where the internet is improving energy efficiency and these are important factors when considering the ‘greenness’ of the web.

However without considering the full impact of building, maintaining and disposing the equipment that we need to operate the internet, we aren’t really looking at the entire impact the internet is having on the planet.

Google’s conference though is a good starting point for that discussion which is one that every industry should be having.

Steve Ballmer’s big platform change

Microsoft contemplates big changes as the computer market evolves around portable tablets and smartphones.

All Things D today reports that Microsoft is considering a major restructure to reflect changed computing markets.

One of the big messages from The State Of The Internet report is we are seeing three simultaneous changes to the computer industry – the shift from personal computers to smartphones, tablet computers and wearable systems – and Microsoft is at the centre of these transformations.

One graph, first released by Aysmco and expanded in the Meeker presentation, illustrates how fundamental these shifts are to Microsoft’s business.

Microsoft’s domination of the computer industry was almost total at the beginning of the century and remained so until the iPhone was released in 2007. Then suddenly things changed.

With the success of Android and the iPad, the market shifted dramatically against Microsoft and the WinTel market share is now back to 1985 levels when the Commodore 64 was a credible competitor.

The change that Microsoft faces shouldn’t be understated, although the company’s strengths with products like Office, Azure and Hotmail (or whatever this year’s name for their online mail product is) give the once untouchable incumbent some opportunities, particularly in the cloud.

At the end of Mary Meeker’s presentation at the D11 conference, Walt Mossberg asked her about Microsoft’s view that tablets and smartphones are just new computing platforms. Meeker dismisses that with the observation that the data is clear, the market has shifted to Apple and Google.

“Google and Apple are driving innovation,” says Meeker. “Microsoft is not.”

The numbers aren’t lying for Microsoft. That’s why Steve Ballmer has to move fast and think creatively about the company’s future.

Discovering an online media model

Who will be the David Sarnoff of the web?

Peter Kafka of the Wall Street Journal’s All Thing D blog has been closely following Google’s attempts to position YouTube as a successor to television.

Key to that success is getting advertisers on board to spend as much money with online channels as they do on broadcast TV.

To date that’s failed and most of the online ad spend has come at the expense of print media – the money advertisers spent on magazines and newspapers has moved onto the web, but TV’s share of the pie is barely changing and may even be increasing.

The challenges facing web advertising is discovering what works on the new mediums.

McDonalds Canada Behind The Scenes campaign is touted as one of the success stories of YouTube advertising, although Kafka isn’t fully convinced.

McDonald’s modest ad tells a story, flatters viewers by telling them they’re smart enough to go backstage, and still ends up pushing pretty images of hamburgers in front of them. That’s pretty clever advertising sort-of masquerading as something else but not really.

We’re trying to apply old ways of working to a new technology something we do every time a new technology appears.

Moving from silent movies

Probably the best example of this is the movie industry – if you look at the early silent movies they were staged like theatrical productions. It took the best part of two decades for movie directors to figure out the advantages of the silver screen.

Shortly after movie directors figured out what worked on the big screen, the talkies came along and changed the rules again. Then came colour, then television, then the net and now mobile. Each time the movie industry has had to adapt.

It isn’t just the movie and advertising industries facing this problem; publishers, writers and journalists are struggling with exactly the same issues.

Most of what you read online, including this blog, is just old style print writing or journalism being published on a digital platform. Few of us, including me, are pushing the boundaries of what the web can do.

Waiting for Sarnoff

David Sarnoff figured out how to make money from broadcast radio and television in the 1930s with a model that was very different from what the movie industry was doing at the time.

Sarnoff built Radio Corporation of America into the world’s leading broadcaster and the modern advertising industry grew out of RCA’s successful model.

Today both the broadcasting and advertising industries are applying Sarnoff’s innovations of the 1930s to the web with limited success. Just like movie producers struggled with theatrical techniques at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.

Figuring out what works online is today’s great challenge. Google are throwing billions at the problem through YouTube but there’s no guarantee they will be the RCA of the internet.

We may well find that a young coder in Suzhou or a video producer in Sao Paolo has the answer and becomes the Randolph Hearst or David Sarnoff of our time.

The future is open and it’s there for the taking.

Securing the security system

The hacking of a Google building management system shows how important it is to take security seriously.

How vulnerable building management systems can be hit me ten years ago when working at an expensive Sydney harbourfront home a decade ago.

The householder – a rich banker – had spent millions on physical security to insulate his family from the outside world. Yet anybody could dial in and monitor what was happening in the house through the building’s CCTV and management systems.

Not only were the building’s CCTV and management systems were open to the net, but that the system’s serve ran on an antiquated and unsecured version of Windows 2000 that shared the home network with a couple of enthusiastically downloading teenagers.

It was a matter of time, perhaps hours, before the system was compromised with worm or virus. The security implications were enormous.

Even the banker’s business was vulnerable as a targeted hack into the home would allow people to monitor traffic on the network and intercept work related messages.

What was really shocking however was how the system vendor and integrator who’d installed it simply didn’t care about the client’s security problems.

So the news that one of Google’s Sydney offices BMS is exposed to the net shouldn’t be a surprise. Building Management Systems, as we saw with the rich banker’s house, are notorious for their poor security.

For Google this security breach is embarrassing although the responsibility for this flaw lies firmly with the building owner who should have made sure their systems are locked down and properly secured. You can’t throw this problem over the fence.

One wonders just how widespread these problems are with other industrial systems like SCADA devices and other remotely operated equipment.

Internet connected systems have been around now for twenty years, there are no longer any excuses for not taking these issues seriously.

Image courtesy of Tacluda through RGBStock

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?

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.

Was telecommuting another broken technology promise?

Is telecommuting another broken technology promise?

Telecommuting promised, or still promises, to free caged office workers from their cubicles, relieve the sardine-tin conditions on our peak hour trains and reduce traffic congestion on clogged roads. But has that promise been lost like so many other predictions of the technology age?

Banning remote workers is the latest edict from Marissa Meyer as she continues her daunting task of turning around Yahoo!.

Meyer’s move follows Google’s Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette claiming telecommuting is counterproductive and discouraged at his company.

One of the great promises of the computer age – almost up there with the paperless office – is the ability to work from home as if you were sitting in an office.

So promising is telecommuting it’s one of the main selling points for Australia’s National Broadband Network.

Having two of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies come out against remote working, particularly Google with its reputation for innovation and creativity, seems to damn the practice.

This isn’t helped by Australia’s nanny state deciding that companies are liable for remote workers who manage to fall over in their own home – twice.

Risk is the real barrier to adopting telecommuting, the risk of a compensation claim for a remote working employee falling over while rummaging in their kitchen fridge is one aspect but a more a bigger risk in the mind of a bureaucrat is that a subordinate is not under their control.

Control is almost certainly what focuses Pichette’s mind. While Google is portrayed as a company full of original thinking, non-conformist geeks in reality only half the staff, at best, fit the stereotype while the rest are the same corporate bureaucrats you’ll find at an insurance company or a quantity surveyor’s office.

In the case of Yahoo! a decade of mismanagement has left the company unsure of who exactly works for them, Meyer’s solution is to order everyone into the office so she can count heads.

The fact that some Yahoo! staff will quit, others won’t be able to get to an office and some will turn out to have been long dead (with relatives gleefully cashing Yahoo!’s cheques) is a bonus for Meyer as she looks at reducing staff costs.

In reality remote working is growing, partly because so much of the white collar workforce has been contracted out and few freelancers are interested in hanging around clients’ offices if they can avoid it.

A bigger factor is that workplaces themselves are changing as fewer organisations need to have huge office blocks. While the cubicles themselves might not go away, they are going to be clustered where the customers and workforces are rather than locked away in modern ivory towers.

That has some major consequences for our workforces and cities which the bureaucrats – both in the private and public sectors – have barely started to get their heads around.

Photo of commuters at Liverpool Street Station courtesy of Genkaku aka James Farmer through SXC.hu

People like us – could poor hiring practices bring down Silicon Valley?

Are poor hiring practices putting Silicon Valley at risk?

A strange little story appeared in Business Insider a few weeks back, 9 Things Your Resume Needs if you want to be Hired by Apple or Google is a curious view into the mindset of Silicon Valley.

Purporting to be an extract from a book written by a former recruiter who claims to have worked for Apple, Google and Microsoft, the story exposes a weakness in Silicon Valley and the technological elite which may cause the very disruptions they have unleashed to work against them.

The nine items are fascinating for the elitist, US-centric view of the world they portray and each is worth investigating on their own.

If you graduated from an elite college, your chances of getting an interview vastly improve

Yes, where you went to school does matter to the tech giants. Of course there are exceptions, but McDowell says an Ivy League or other top university will get you noticed.

There’s not much more to add to this, except to note that the vast majority of students whose families can afford such an education are from the upper middle class.

The Googles and Apples like to see relevant internship experience.

If you waited tables when you were 19, that isn’t attractive.

If you are lucky enough to get into a an Ivy League school on a scholarship or manage to scrape together the money you may still not make the cut.

To the author, only those with sufficient wealth to participate in unpaid internships are going to get jobs at the top Silicon Valley companies.

Your major matters

Sorry liberal arts people or chemical engineers, you’ll need another way in to Google or Apple.

This is an interesting one, Silicon Valley boosters often talk about the creative process and how coders are artists however according to the recruiter that’s just lip service.

She encourages students to pick majors that are directly relevant to Google or Apple. Finance, accounting, marketing or computer science majors have the best shot of being noticed by a tech recruiter. At the very least, minor in one of those fields.

A focus on finance, accounting and marketing is the same as any old corporation – you could be going for a job with AT&T, Goldman Sachs or the government with qualifications like that. So much for unique.

Dissing chemical engineering is particularly interesting as Chem Eng graduates have passed one of the toughest university degrees. Whats more, the demands of mobile computing devices means battery technology is one of the most pressing issues facing Silicon Valley at the moment. Chemical Engineers are the folk who will solve this problem.

Big tech companies like to see people giving back to their communities.

Volunteering can be a great way to buff up your resume. That said, McDowell warns: “don’t serve soup in a soup kitchen.”

Instead she suggests hunting for a sales or marketing position, or offering to help a charity with its website and design.

This is a really obnoxious statement – basically saying we want to you volunteer, but we don’t want you to help people.

Just how many sales and marketing people are needed by soup kitchens, volunteer fire brigades or community pantries is open to debate.

A bigger issue with this mentality is that it favours bureaucrats and paper shufflers rather than doers. Which again is something anathema to the public statements of Silicon Valley’s leaders.

They also like good spellers and speakers.

Writing and communications skills aren’t just necessary for media jobs. They’re important in any career you’ll have.

Well, duh.

If you are buddies with college professors, that’s a plus.

Professors aren’t just impressed by how you do in their classes. McDowell suggests helping them with research projects, asking for help and attending office hours, or becoming a teaching assistant.

That doesn’t hurt, but it’s pretty basic vanilla advice and again it’s tough luck if you have to do a shift at the local fast food restaurant so you can feed yourself.

Show you understand multiple positions at Google or Apple

If you want to work at one of the top tech companies, it helps to have at least a basic understanding of multiple positions in the organization. McDowell calls this being a Generalist.

On one hand this advice makes sense but on another many technical roles are not generalist positions.

Generally having a knowledge of the company’s structure and roles is going to look good to any interviewer, assuming you can get past the gatekeeper at the recruitment company.

Entrepreneurs have a better shot of being hired.

This is a funny one, if you’re a real entrepreneur then the thought of working in cubicle at Apple or Microsoft while answering to a middle manager straight out of a Dilbert cartoon ranks with getting hot pine needles thrust under your toenails.

One of the conceits of modern corporate life is that they value entrepreneurs and the free-wheeling spirits – the truth is they don’t and the first true hint of entrepreneurialism among the ranks will be smothered quickly with a deluge of paperwork.

Funnily enough, being a successful tech entrepreneur is a path to getting a good job at a tech company although it’s more likely to happen as an acqui-hire than through a recruiter.

Good news: Your GPA doesn’t matter very much

Most people think tech companies, Google in particular, harp over candidates’ GPAs. McDowell says there is little truth to that rumor.

This is only good news if you’ve ticked most of the other boxes, which means you’ll be considered if you’re middling graduate from Stanford or Harvard but forget it if you went elsewhere, regardless of how good your marks are.

The danger of recruiters

What the Business Insider story really illustrates are the risks of relying on third party recruiters as gatekeepers to filter out new employees.

Regardless of how good the recruitment consultant is they are going to apply their own cultural filters and biases onto the selection process and as a result knock out most good candidates.

More importantly, a company risks developing a monoculture if the recruitment process is too effective at filtering out people who don’t fit a narrow stereotype.

A new breed of officemen?

Reading the Business Insider story leaves one with the feeling that many of these companies are beginning to look like IBM in the 1960s – monocultures more concerned about the colour of an employee’s tie and choice of shirts rather than the talents they bring to the organisation or the value they can add to customers.

This is probably the greatest risk of all to the tech industry, that they end up with an insular group of people with fixed mindsets.

Should that happen, then the wave of disruption Silicon Valley has unleashed on the world will end up being the industry’s undoing as smart kids working out of garages in Michigan or slums in Delhi will out innovate the staid, comfortable incumbents.

It’s also interesting to consider how many other industries are now suffering after several decades of similar recruiting practices where leading businesses are now dominated by insular, unworldly monocultures.

Image courtesy of Alexfurr on SXC.HU

Can hyperlocal media work

One of the promises of the web and a hoped for future of publishing was the rise of hyperlocal websites that report news on individual suburbs, or even blocks. It appears though the hyperlocal concept isn’t working.

One of the hoped for futures of publishing was cheap, hyperlocal websites that report news on individual suburbs or neighbourhoods and get advertising from local businesses.

Last week US TV network NBC abruptly closed down its Everyblock online service, leaving loyal users angry and bemused. Right now it appears though the hyperlocal concept isn’t working.

The failure of Everyblock

Founded five years ago, Everyblock had an interesting model of mashing up local data like Flickr pictures and government information with news so residents and visitors would have an accurate up-to-date picture of what was happening in their neighbourhood.

Everyblock’s failure follows AOL’s struggle to get their hyperlocal play Patch working, although AOL reported in 2012 that Patch’s revenues have doubled.

Whether that doubling is enough to save Patch remains to be seen, it’s quite clear that some question the sustainability of AOL’s growth in revenues and page views.

All of this raises the question of why hyperlocal isn’t working.

A game for amateurs

The main reason is that there’s not enough money it –anybody who is going to run a hyperlocal site is going to be doing it for love or because there’s a dumb corporation burning shareholders’ equity on the venture.

In most communities there simply aren’t enough advertisers interested to pay the bills and you can forget any paywalling.

Most critically for local publishing ventures, the local advertising market has been suffocated by the web. Twenty years ago, the local plumber or cafe would hit most of their market by spending $2,000 on their Yellow Pages listing and probably double that with a weekly ad in the classified section of the local newspaper.

Today, a web site with sufficient SEO smarts to come up on their first page of searches for their suburbs is enough, many can get away with a free Facebook or Google Plus for Business page, despite the dangers of using other people’s services to promote your business.

For the telephone directories this change has been catastrophic while local newspapers only survive thanks to their less than healthy relationship with real estate agents.

Local market failure

The interesting thing with the evolving local media market is just how poorly the web giants have performed.

Two years ago, Google appeared to have the sector sown up with the Google Places service but a combination of poor service, restrictive rules and an obsession with Google Plus have seen the company squander their advantage, leaving their local search service underused and irrelevant.

Similarly, Facebook looked like they could take that market off Google but they too haven’t executed well.

Which leaves local businesses reliant on their own websites and a hodge-potch of services like Yelp!, Tripadvisor and Urbanspoon.

This doesn’t serve the business or the customer well.

Where to for local news?

A bigger question though is where do people go to find local news?

Increasingly it looks like social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are the place as people see what their friends and neighbours post. It’s not great, but it’s better than the local newspapers increasingly stuffed with syndicated content with a few local stories from an overworked part-timer.

It’s not clear that hyperlocal news has failed, but right now it’s not looking good. Perhaps it needs somebody with a truly disruptive model to find what works in our communities.

image courtesy of davidlat on sxc.hu