managerialism | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Will the top level domain milk cow save Melbourne IT?

The new global top level domains promise to be a rich cash cow, but is it enough to save Melbourne IT?

Beleaguered domain registration company Melbourne IT hopes the new breed of global top level domains will be its salvation after a decade of indifferent returns and a wallowing shareprice.

When the top level domains – known by their geeky acronym of gTLDs – were proposed five years ago they smelled like a revenue grab and so it has turned out.

To date 1930 organisations have applied for one of the top level domains, with a $135,000 evaluation fee that’s a juicy 260 million dollar pot to be shared between ICANN and the various domain registrars. No wonder Melbourne IT’s management is drooling.

One of the assurances of ICANN when the top level domains were announced was that trademark ownership would be part of the expensive evaluation process. That Melbourne IT is now spruiking gTLDs as a defensive intellectual property tactic is a notable backflip from ICANN’s earlier position.

The trading names aspect of the new global TLDs is going to be problematic for the registers and ICANN, a quick look at the applicant list for the new names sees domains like Tennis, Fail and Compare being applied for.

Good luck with defending those names in court – although having a spurious claim on the global use of the word ‘tennis’ will no doubt keep an army of Tennis Australia’s well paid lawyers occupied for years.

Even more delicious is Telstra’s claim to the domain name ‘yellowpages’. Despite being a declining business the Yellow Pages trademark is fiercely defended by various incumbent phone and directory companies around the world so it’s hard to see how that application will get passed without strong objections.

The real tragedy in the Melbourne IT story is how the company has gone nowhere for over decade after being the darling of the stock market when it was floated in 1998.

When Melbourne IT floated, it attracted controversy with it’s shares being priced at 2.20 and opening at $8.80. A stag gain of 300% for the insiders who got shares.

Despite the beliefs of those brainwashed by government privatisation campaigns in the 1990s, a staggering stag (pardon the pun) is money straight of the pocket of the listed company’s existing shareholders – Melbourne University in this case – and is evidence of either gross incompetence or malfeasance by the board and its advisors.

Given the Victorian government’s Auditor-General cleared the Melbourne IT board of any wrongdoing, the only explanation for the company’s botched float is gross incompetence.

The company’s share price since is clear evidence that gross incompetence remains a problem within the organisation’s leadership.

Whether the strong demand for global Top Level Domains can drag Melbourne IT out of it’s long term mediocrity remains to be seen but with the management’s track record it’s difficult to be optimistic.

Disclaimer: I was a director of a company that was a Melbourne IT reseller. There’s a long blog post in the poor, 1995 IT systems used by MelbourneIT and those might be related to the company’s poor performance over the last decade.

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

It’s too late, baby – when digital reality bites

Sensis decide to move on from a print based model to digital advertising – a decade too late.

Yesterday Sensis announced it would restructure for digital growth by sacking staff, offshoring and “accelerate its transition to a digital media business”.

The directory division of Telstra has been in decline for years, a process that wasn’t helped by then CEO Sol Trujillo embarking on his expensive “Google Schmoogle” diversion.

A decade later, Managing Director John Allen has announced another 650 jobs to go from the remaining 3,500 workforce.

John’s comments are worth noting.

Until now we have been operating with an outdated print-based model – this is no longer sustainable for us. As we have made clear in the past, we will continue to produce Yellow and White Pages books to meet the needs of customers and advertisers who rely on the printed directories, but our future is online and mobile where the vast majority of search and directory business takes place.

Carol King put it best – it’s too late, Baby. These are words that should have been said a decade ago.

To save the community, we had to destroy it.

Can online communities like Lonely Planet’s Thorn Tree survive in managerial organisations like the BBC?

When the BBC bought a 75% of travel guide publisher Lonely Planet in 2007, many people were puzzled at what the travel guide added to the publicly owned broadcaster’s mandate.

In 2011 the BBC bought out the rest of the founders’ stakes and just over a year later management mistakes threaten to destroy the brand.

Lonely Planet is one of the most powerful internet media properties in the English speaking world having become the dominant travel guide in the 1980s and then successfully making the jump into the online world with its website and mobile apps.

In 2012, the site boasted of four million visitors a month with most under 35 years old.

Key to Lonely Planet’s online success has been its community. The Thorn Tree forum provided the bulk of the site’s traffic as thousands of members discussed exotic destinations and asked or answered travel questions.

The Thorn Tree also turns out to be the BBC’s undoing as management struggled to control members’ comments.

At the end of 2012, inappropriate content was bought to management’s attention, with the Jimmy Savile scandal still reverberating around the corridors of the BBC, the organisation’s management panicked and announced a temporary closure of the Thorn Tree.

Two months later, the site is back up again with strict pre-moderation of posts which has left many long time users upset and going elsewhere, if they didn’t already do so during the closure.

Online communities are a strong assets but they are surprisingly fragile, as many popular sites have found in the past.

For Lonely Planet users, there’s no shortage of other travel sites online and it’s going to be challenging for the site to recover.

The Thorn Tree saga raises the question of whether risk adverse, public sector organisations like the BBC have the risk appetite to run online forums and build communities.

By definition successful online communities are diverse and sometimes skate close to the boundaries of good taste for a careerist executive in a managerial organisation like the BBC, such risks are intolerable and have to be eliminated.

If this means shutting down the Thorn Tree forums or neutering them, then that will be done. Management careers come before the good of the organisation.

Time will tell whether Lonely Planet will continue to thrive under the BBC and its management, but the portents aren’t good.

Throwing your problems over the fence

Outsourcing, subcontracting and securitisation often shift costs and risk from those responsible. Usually the bill ends up with the taxpayer or shareholder.

I first heard the term “throwing the problem over the fence” from a telco project manager a few years ago, it describes how modern organisations shift risk to others.

Throwing the problem over the fence usually involves contracting out a task, the philosophy is once the contract is signed delivery is no longer management’s problem, it’s now the responsibility of the contractor. Once the job is over the fence it’s out of sight and out of mind.

Governments, financial institutions and most corporations have become very good at throwing their problems over the fence.

Contracting away your worries

A core tenet of 1980s management thinking is contracting out; freeing executives from the tedious task of actually doing their jobs lets them focus on the important things in life, like securing performance bonuses.

Of course you can’t contract out risk – risk is like toothpaste, squeeze it in one place and it oozes out somewhere else.

Unlike toothpaste, risks have a habit of growing if they are ignored. Which becomes a problem for whoever is unwittingly on the other side of the fence.

Railways and risk

In “The Crash That Stopped Britain” author Ian Jack looked at the causes of the October 2000 Hatfield train accident which threw the nation’s railway network into chaos.

Jack correctly predicted that no-one would be found responsible as the tangle of rail operators, maintenance companies, financiers, labour hire firms and regulators made it almost impossible to determine exactly where responsibility for a fatal failure lay.

Diffusing responsibility is partly by design although originally the idea was to save costs, the theory being that tendering work previously done in house to the lowest cost provider would save money.

Instead its caused an escalation in costs as contracting out meant an increase in middlemen as financiers, lawyers, project managers, contract administrators – of which I was once one – and many others are drafted in to manage the outsourced contracts.

Throughout the Anglosphere – the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – the results of embracing this mentality has meant skyrocketing costs and delays in public work projects, a good example being the Southern Sydney Freight Line which was three years late and 250% over budget.

Naturally no-one is held responsible for the delays, cost over-runs or lousy initial planning and estimating on that project, which is a happy result for everyone except the taxpayer who foots the bill.

The Global Financial Crisis

While the cost of building railways, schools and motorways is a chronic problem, a far more bigger issue is the role of “throwing problems over the fence” in the financial industry.

Securitisation was seen as a magic bullet for the banking industry in the 1990s, the Basel Accords allowed banks to bundle up their entire home loan portfolios and throw them over the fence to fund managers and their unwitting investors.

When the inevitable happened with the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, it was difficult to attribute exactly who held the mortgages, let alone who was responsible for the losses among the mass of brokers, ratings agencies, fund managers and bankers who’d profited so well from the boom.

The only thing we could be sure of was that it was the taxpayer – you, your children and grand-children – who ended up holding the problem when the GFC’s bills were hurled over the last fence.

On the other side of the fence

Risk isn’t something that can be thrown over a fence, eventually it comes back in a bigger and nastier way. The question is who ends up dealing with it.

The genius of political and business leaders in the last 30 years has been in how they’ve thrown their responsibilities over the fence while retaining the perks and privilege of holding responsible positions.

Generally it’s taxpayers and shareholders sitting on the other side of the fence who have to deal with the costs and they aren’t getting cheaper.

Australia’s grapes of wrath

The Australian wine industry is a good example of where the country’s industrial policies and business leadership have failed.

In a great post, The Wine Rules looks at what ails the Australian wine industry after the news of Cassella Wine’s problems.

Three things jump out of Dudley Brown’s article – how industry bodies are generally ineffectual, the failure of 1980s conglomerate thinking and how fragile your position is when you sell on price.

Selling on price

It’s tough being the cheapest supplier, you constantly have to be on guard against lower cost suppliers coming onto the market and you can’t do your best work.

Customers come to you not because you’re good, but because you’re cheap and will switch the moment someone beats you on price.

Worse still, you’re exposed to external shocks like supply interruptions, technological change or currency movement.

The latter is exactly what’s smashed Australia’s commodity wine sector.

A similar thing happened to the Australian movie industry – at fifty US cents to the Aussie dollar filming The Matrix in Sydney was a bargain, at eighty producers competitiveness falls away and at parity filming down under makes no sense at all.

Yet the movie industry persists in the model and still tries to compete in the zero-sum game of producer incentives which is possibly the most egregious example of corporate welfare on the planet.

When you’re a high cost country then you have to sell high value products, something that’s lost on those who see Australia’s future as lying in digging stuff up or chopping it down to sell cheaply in bulk.

Industry associations

“It’s like a Labor party candidate pre-selection convention” says Brown in describing the lack of talent among the leadership of the Australian wine industry. To be fair, it’s little better in Liberal Party.

There’s no surprise there’s an overlap between politics and industry associations, with no shortage of superannuated mediocre MPs supplementing their tragically inadequate lifetime pensions with a well paid job representing some hapless group of business people.

Not that the professional business lobbyists are any better as they pop up on various industry boards and government panels doing little. The only positive thing is these roles keep such folk away from positions where they could destroy shareholder or taxpayer wealth.

Basically, few Australian industry groups are worth spending time on and the wine industry is no exception.

Australia conglomerate theory

One of the conceits of 1980s Australia was the idea that local businesses had to dominate the domestic market in order to compete internationally.

A succession of business leaders took gullible useful idiots like Paul Keating and Graheme Richardson, or the Liberal Party equivalents to lunch at Machiavelli’s or The Flower Drum, stroked their not insubstantial egos over a few bottles of top French wine and came away with a plan to merge entire industries, or unions, into one or two mega-operations.

It ended in tears.

The best example is the brewing industry, where the state based brewers were hoovered up in two massive conglomerates in 1980s. Thirty years later Australia’s brewing industry is almost foreign owned and has failed in every export venture it has attempted.

Fosters Brewing Group was, ironically, one of the companies that managed to screw the Australian wine industry through poorly planned and executed conglomeration. Again every attempt at expanding overseas failed dismally.

In many ways, the Australian wine industry represents the missed opportunities of the country’s lost generation as what should have been one of the nation’s leading sectors – that had a genuine shot at being world leader – became mired in managerialism, corporatism and cronyism.

All isn’t lost for the nation’s vintners or any other Aussie industry, Dudley Brown describes how some individuals are committed to delivering great products to the world. There’s people like them in every sector.

Hopefully we’ll be able to harness those talents and enthusiasm to build the industries, not just in wine, that will drive Australia in the Twenty-First Century.

Picture courtesy of Krappweis on SXC.HU

Who rules the company parking spots?

While at school I worked at a local shopping centre and one of the many ways to irritate managers was to park in the spots closest to the shops.

“If the staff take all the spaces near the shops” said the store manager, “then customers have to walk further and might go somewhere else. The customers alway comes before the staff.”

That’s true and one of the surest signs of a poorly run business is the location of the staff parking spots, particularly when they are reserved for management.

Similarly the type of company cars management award themselves with can be a warning sign for wary partners.

If customers, staff and suppliers have to walk past an array of expensive prestige cars in the shady and sheltered executive parking spots they can be pretty certain they are not going to be the number one priority at that business.

While running PC Rescue I quickly learned this when visiting potential customers, one client in particular invited me to review their network and make recommendations.

On arriving, I had to feed a parking meter in the street before picking my way past a series of high end Mercedes, two Porsches and a Maserati.

After looking at their network, which hadn’t had a cent spent on it for the best part of a decade, I gave the Managing Director a ballpark figure of what he was looking at to bring his systems into this century.

“That’s way too much!” he thundered and proceeded to lecture me on why my rates were extortionate – all the while I politely listened while thinking I’d driven to the job in a base model Holden Barina and was paying for parking.

Needless to say we didn’t get the job.

One of the worst, most soul destroying things in business is dealing with entitled customers and this client was a classic example. I genuinely feel sorry for whoever landed the job.

Who parks where and what they drive is a good measure for the calibre of a business’ leadership and the egos of management. It’s a good starting place for deciding who you’re going to do business with.

Saving Hewlett Packard

Bloomberg Business week looks at the big challenges facing Meg Whitman as she tries to rebuild Hewlett Packard.

This site has previously looked at the massive task facing Meg Whitman as she tries to rebuild Hewlett Packard and undo the mis-steps of the company’s previous managerial failures.

Bloomberg Businessweek goes further with a deep analysis of what went wrong for HP over the last two and Whitman’s challenges in rebuilding the business.

HP’s decline starts with the biggest mis-step of Carly Fiorina, one of Whitman’s predecessors, in selling off HPs instrumentation business in 1999.

Power in the instruments

Industrial instruments were the core of HPs business, generations of engineers and scientists knew and trusted the HP brand which was synonymous with high quality, cutting edge technology.

The proof of the instrument arm’s strength is in the subsequent share performance of the spun off company – today Agilent trades at $43 while HP wallows at $15, half of what it was worth in 1999.

Making matters worse for HP was buying into the personal computer industry just as Dell and Gateway were commodifying the market. Fiorina’s high spending ways left Hewlett Packard incapable of competing against the lean operations of their nimbler competitors.

In many respects Fiorina’s successor Mark Hurd is the IT sales guy from central casting; aggressive, an excellent eye for numbers, intolerant of (other peoples’) wasteful spending and an ego the size of Uranus.

For HP he had some good points, making executives directly responsible for their division’s performance and cutting out management consultants. Anyone who shows Bain & Co or McKinsey’s the door, is not a wholly bad guy.

Cutting costs in the driver business

In cutting costs Hurd was ruthless – the Bloomberg story tells of how he cut HP’s driver division from over 700 to 64 staff. This in itself was not a bad thing.

Those who worked on HP products remember that period well. The software that came with Hewlett Packard equipment was buggy and overblown and Hurd’s reforms bought in a real improvement as drivers went back to being simple and effective.

Cost measures though also showed in HPs products and after sales support – increasingly the company resembled Dell during the dark days of Dell Hell where buyers of shoddy equipment found themselves dealing with poorly trained support desks over low quality phone lines. Customers started to flee HP products.

The perils of stack ranking

At the same time Hurd was using the crudest management technique of all – stack ranking, the practice of culling the bottom ten percent of workers each year.

Vanity Fair’s 2012 expose of Microsoft’s decline infamously blamed stack ranking for much of that company’s woes. The problem being that defining the bottom 10% of a team invariably involves politics and staff become more obsessed with currying favour with their managers than shipping good products.

People like Steve Ballmer and Mark Hurd like stack ranking because they thrive in that environment. The paradox is that characters like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg tend to be culled.

HP, and Microsoft, needed more geeks focused on shipping new products than political animals like Hurd and Ballmer but that’s not what they got.

While Hurd met his financial targets, HP’s position was becoming more fragile as cranking up margins on services and printer cartridges while slashing costs on PCs and hardware can only go so far. His implosion over his royal lifestyle was probably one of the best timed exits in corporate history.

It’s worth reflecting on Hurd’s management excesses as he slashed expenses for the lesser beings in his company, you can browse a list of his expenses at The Street. In this respect alone, Hurd personified the entitled managerial culture of modern western society.

Replacing Hurd with the quiet Leo Apotheker made sense in that the new CEO was the opposite to his predecessor, but just as he didn’t have Hurd’s ego he was also a dud who made strategic mistakes and let costs begin to slip.

In replacing Apotheker Meg Whitman has massive job ahead of her, an important part of getting HP on track is slimming down management ranks to make the company more nimble. That in itself is a big task.

The biggest task of all though is to recapture HPs position as being an innovative leader with high quality products. Over the Fiorina and Hurd years that position was squandered and replaced by companies like Cisco and Apple.

Right now it’s hard to see where HP can re-establish itself in the marketplace but the goodwill towards the company from a generation of engineers who were bought up believing Hewlett Packard means quality means the company has a chance.

Hopefully Meg Whitman is the right person to seize those chances and undo fifteen years of bad management.

Pennies for Apps – how Apple and Google dominate online income

Apple and Google dominate our online revenues while the creators of content fight over pennies. Is this a passing phase?

“App Store tops 40 billion downloads” trumpets Apple in a media release curiously timed to coincide with the opening of the Consumer Electronics Show.

While impressive, those figures aren’t great for developers. As writer Ed Bott points out they are getting 17.5 cents per download.

Making things worse, that return is trending downwards. Tech site Giga Om put the return at 20 cents a year earlier.

Giga Om also points out App Store returns are skewed towards the big successful game apps, meaning the majority of app developers are scratching for pennies.

This phenomenon is also happening with online advertising as Google Adsense partners find their income dwindling for pay for click adverts.

On top of declining revenues, there’s the cut that Google and Apple take. In the App Store, Apple’s take is 30% while Google pocket over 50% of Adsense revenue.

Working for pennies has become the norm for for creators like musicians, writers and app developers in the digital economy. The long tail is fine, but it barely pays the bills for all but a few outliers. Everyone else needs a day job.

In some respects this isn’t new – writers, poets, musicians and painters have generally starved in their garrets throughout history – but the Twentieth Century model of intellectual property, record labels and broadcast empires offered at least a decent living to many.

Right now the 21st Century model seems to be that creators can go back to starving, while the big four online conglomerates make the profits previously shared around by the movie studios, record labels and book publishers.

Maybe though the rivers of gold which are making Apple and Google’s managers rich may turn out to be just as vulnerable as those of the newspapers they’ve displaced.

It may well be that the current dominance of the App Store and Adsense are a transition effect as we move to other business models. It’s difficult to see right now, but we can’t rule it out.

Is Facebook the new Microsoft?

Are the internet giants – Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon following the same path as Microsoft did in the 1990s?

One of the problems with dominating your field is that to find new growth opportunities involves becoming distracted with your core business and damaging your reputation. This is what hurt Microsoft over the last decade and now threatens the internet’s big four.

App.net CEO Dalton Caldwell wrote an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg describing how the social media giant is trying to wipe out competitors through bullying them into being acquired.

If a business doesn’t succumb to Facebook’s seduction, then they risk being wiped out by the social media giant setting up their own version of the product which they can push out to a billion subscribers.

Jason Calacanis explores this strategy with Facebook’s launch of Poke, designed to compete with the instant messaging service Snapchat.

In many ways this is the same model that Microsoft employed in the 1990s as it worked towards dominating the desktop computer market – bully innovators into selling to them and, if that fails, copy the product and crush the opposition.

It worked for Microsoft because they controlled the distribution channels through their tight relationships with computer manufacturers.

Microsoft created their own applications, or features in their products, which would be bundled onto Dell, Gateway or Compaq computers. Once users had functionality built into Windows or Microsoft Office then they didn’t have to buy a third party app.

Bundling network protocols destroyed the business models of LANtastic and Novell, in the browser wars Microsoft killed Netscape by putting Internet Explorer on the desktop and in the office suite predatory pricing killed WordPerfect and Lotus while resulting in acquisitions of companies like Visio.

This way of business cemented Microsoft’s domination of their desktop, office productivity and server markets at the turn of the century. It was a true river of gold that continues to flow today.

Unlike the personal computer software markets, bullying or buying your way into market dominance doesn’t work online as the barriers to entry that protected Microsoft from competitors are nonexistent on the web.

Both AOL and Yahoo! learned this the hard way as their acquisition sprees through the dot com boom didn’t prevent them from sliding into irrelevance.

A good example of how hard it is for the Internet giants to execute a plan for world domination is the rise and fall of Google’s Knol as described by Seth Godin, who thought his own Squidoo startup would be crushed by the Internet giant. It turned out not to be so.

For the web incumbents the fundamental problem are, as Jason says, that they are not focusing on their core businesses and they have plenty of Plan Bs as Seth Godin described.

The manager who fails with Knol or Poke moves onto another division with a pat on the back and a safe claim on their bonus. The startup founders on the other hand are fighting for survival.

All four of the Internet’s giants have similarities to Microsoft in the 1990s as every single one dominates its niche and wonders how to expand outside their core business – for Google, and possibly the other three, there’s the added problem of managerialism as a large cadre of managers worries more about maintaining privileges over competing in the marketplace.

Managerialism ended up crippling Microsoft and continues to do so today, whether Facebook and Google can avoid that fate remains to be seen.

A bigger problem for Facebook is losing trust – Microsoft’s conduct, particularly with WordPerfect and Netscape in the late 1990s made a generation of developers and entrepreneurs cautious about dealing with the company.

For many that suspicion remains and is one of the barriers the company now has to overcome in the smartphone and cloud computing markets where it is one of the crowd of scrappy challengers.

In the social and online worlds, collaboration is one of the keys to success. If Facebook, or any of the others, lose the trust of the community then they’ll become irrelevant a lot faster than WordPerfect or LANtastic did.

Becoming irrelevant is the real worry for Facebook’s tenured managers and their investors.

Reskilling the workforce

The 1980s management aim of reducing training costs is now affecting business, the next generation of leaders will be finding opportunities in today’s skills shortages.

One of the core objectives 1980s management philosophy is to shift costs and risks onto others. Staff training is one area that caught the brunt of the drive to slash expenses for short term gain, as a consequence we have a skills crisis with offers opportunities for savvy entrerpreneurs.

In Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs: Chasing After the ‘Purple Squirrel Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli discusses his recent book that looks at this problem.

Cappelli’s argument is that companies aren’t offering enough for the skills they desire, they often ask too much of candidates and they won’t train staff.

In Cappelli’s book, he claims that staff training has plummeted;

One of your chapters in the book is called “A Training Gap, Not a Skills Gap.” You have some figures showing that in 1979, young workers received an average of two and a half weeks of training per year. By 1991, only 17% of young employees reported getting any training during the previous year, and by last year, only 21% said they received training during the previous five years.

The predictable consequence of neglecting training for the last thirty years is we now face skills shortages and those responsible – the managers and business owners who refuse to train workers – are now demanding governments do something about it.

In many ways today’s skills shortages epitomise the short termism of 1980s thinking and how we now find society, and business, is struggling with the long term effects and costs.

Wherever there’s a problem there is opportunity and there’s a breed of businesses, training companies and workers who will be taking advantage of the failures of the previous generation of managers.

For those stuck in the 1980s mindset that training, like most staff expenses, is a cost and not an investment they are going to struggle in a world where adding value is more profitable than being the lowest cost provider.

The photo THE BEAD MAKER — Apprentice Watches the Master — A Rosary Shop in Old Meiji-Era Japan was posted to Flickr by Okinawa Soba.

Poor journalism and social media

Fairfax gets the Sandy Hook shooter story wrong and blames social media and shows how broken their own journalism is.

Brother’s plea shows up online failings crows the Sydney Morning Herald over social media’s role in misidentifying the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

The problem for the SMH is that social media wasn’t responsible for the story. As the Washington Post reported, CNN and various other outlets misidentified the shooter as his brother who had to take to social media to correct the record.

For the mainstream media, the Sandy Hook shooting was not their finest hour; not only did they misidentify Ryan Lanza as the shooter, but they mistakenly reported his mother had worked at the school. When the Daily Mail does a better analysis of the story than many outlets, you know something is wrong.

Something is certainly wrong at Fairfax as the cutting of resources results in the Sydney Morning Herald being three days behind the story and factually wrong on key aspects – not to mention adding a smug headline that is embarrassingly incorrect.

While the writer of the SMH article should be held to account for sloppy work and poor research, the real responsibility for this embarrassment lies with the paper’s editors and management who should be ensuring what appears under the masthead is accurate and reliable.

Both The Age and Sydney Morning Herald are essential to the fabric of their respective cities, this story is a good example of the important role the SMH has in shining light on the arcane dealings of the city’s business community. Fairfax can, and should, do far better than a poor, badly researched story on social media.

Ironically, the mis-identification story quotes media academic Julie Posetti as saying “anyone with an internet connection could now contribute to and comment on the breaking news cycle without going through the filters of the traditional media.”

At Fairfax, those filters are broken with the breathing space from selling its New Zealand digital operation, the company’s management has an opportunity to fix their credibility problem and focus on its core business.