Fiddling the prices

Has the Internet’s promise of transparency failed as online retailers vary prices.

Discriminatory pricing is nothing new, a good salesperson or market stallholder can quickly sum up a punter’s ability or willingness to pay and offer the price which will get a sale.

Anybody who’s travelled in countries like Thailand or China is used to Gwailos and Farang prices being substantially higher even for official charges like entrance fees to national parks and museums.

The Internet takes the opportunity for discriminatory pricing even further arming online stores armed with a huge amount of customer information which allows them to set prices according to what the algorithm thinks will be the best deal for the seller.

Recently researchers found that the Orbitz website would offer cheaper deals for people searching for fares on mobile phones and prices would vary depending of which brand of smartphone people would use.

Writers for the Wall Street Journal did an experiment with buying staplers and found the same thing.

Interestingly, one of the factors Staples’ seems to take into account is the distance customers live from a competitors’s store – the closer you live to the competition, the lower the price offered.

There’s also other factors at play; sometimes you don’t want a customer, or you don’t want to sell a particular product and it’s easy to guess the formulas used by Staples and other big retailers do the same thing.

One of the great promises of the internet was that customers’ access to information would usher in a new era of transparency. In this case it seems the opposite is happening.

Similar posts:

Did online democracy ever exist?

The idea of democracy in an online world dominated by private interests is a misnomer.

“Democracy is dead” proclaim online pundits as Facebook closes down their corporate governance feedback pages.

The question though is whether democracy really exists online; the internet is largely a privately run operation which makes the hysteria about the International Telecommunication Union’s attempts to impose standards on the web all the so more fascinating.

As a consequence of almost every internet service being run by private organisations, rights and concepts like “democracy” are pretty well irrelevant and have been since the first connection to ARPANET.

When we use services like Facebook, or even our internet provider’s email account, we are only being allowed to do so within the companies’ interpretation of their terms and conditions.

Often those interpretations are wrong or bizarre as we see with Facebook’s War on Nipples and often the results of misinterpretation are costly for businesses.

But we have little recourse as these sites are private property and the owners can do pretty well what they like within the law.

Just a like a shopping mall, if the managements of Amazon, Google or Facebook want you to leave their service then you have no choice but to do so.

We can squeal about rights online, but in reality we have few.

That’s something we should keep in mind when investing our time or business capital into any particular platform.

Similar posts:

What is an Internet company?

Does having a website make a company an internet business?

Deloitte’s 2012 fast 50 list of Australia’s fastest growing technology companies announced last week is an impressive list of diverse businesses ranging from online retailers to technology support firms, but it raises the question of what exactly is a ‘technology’ or ‘internet’ company.

A quick look at the top twenty illustrates how broad the “internet” category is, with eleven coming under the classification;

. 1 brandsExclusive (Australia) Pty Ltd 1335.1% Internet
. 2 Australian Renewable Fuels Ltd 1235.7% Life Sciences
. 3 SolveIT Software Pty Ltd 678.9% Software
. 4 Kogan Technologies Pty Ltd 515.6% Internet
. 5 Neon Stingray Pty Ltd 467.7% Internet
. 6 Infoready Pty Ltd 418.1% Software
. 7 SMS Central Australia Pty Ltd 371.6% Communications
. 8 Cohort Digital Pty Ltd 295.6% Internet
. 9 Redbubble Pty Ltd 275% Internet
. 10 astutepayroll.com 256.7% Software
. 11 SurfStitch Pty Ltd 252.7% Internet
. 12 BizCover Pty Ltd 249.9% Internet
. 13 Appen Holdings Pty Ltd 225.5% Communications
. 14 MyNetFone Pty Ltd 216.7% Communications
. 15 Appliances Online 206.2% Internet
. 16 Time Telecom Pty Ltd (Smart Business Telecom) 205.6% Communications
. 17 BigAir Group Ltd 202.2% Communications
. 18 Observatory Crest Australia Pty Ltd 198.1% Software
. 19 Tom Waterhouse Pty Ltd 196% Internet
. 20 Bulletproof Networks Pty Ltd 178.4% Internet

Included among those eleven ‘internet’ companies is the winner, Brands Direct, along with Redbubble, Appliances Online and Tom Waterhouse.

Tom Waterhouse is an online bookmaker, Appliances Online is a whitegoods retailer, Red Bubble is a design marketplace and Brands Direct is a fashion retailer.

While the internet is the core distribution channel for all of these companies, they are not ‘internet’ companies – they are retailers, marketplaces and bookmakers. The web is important, but it isn’t their business.

Calling them “internet companies” in many ways misses the point of just how ubiquitous the net has become to business operations. It also risks double counting as Appliances Online’s staff are counted both as retail and internet employees – something government agencies are notorious for.

We’d understand a lot more about the web’s reach if we didn’t label these fast growth businesses with the somewhat meaningless term of “internet companies”.

None of this detracts from the achievements of these businesses, their managers and proprietors. These companies are on track to being the leaders of the future.

Similar posts:

Ending the era of the computer password

Has the humble computer password reached the end of the line?

Earlier this year, Wired Magazine writer Mat Honan had his entire digital identity stolen from him when hackers cracked his email password and then systemically took over all of his cloud and social media accounts.

Matt writes of his experience on Wired and proposes it’s time to kill the password.

The problem with Mat’s proposal is that he doesn’t suggest an alternative.

The age of the password has come to an end; we just haven’t realized it yet. And no one has figured out what will take its place.

Every alternative authentication method to passwords has flaws just as serious, if not worse. Many are plainly impractical.

All of them, including passwords, have the common weakness that those holding the information can’t be trusted either – one of the greatest ways for passwords to get into the wild is when incompetents like Sony give them away.

Security is evolving, in the meantime we need to keep in mind some basic rules.

  • Use different passwords for different accounts
  • Only access accounts from trusted and up-to-date computers
  • Create strong passwords for accounts that matter, like online banking and email
  • Strong passwords are multiword phrases
  • Use two-factor authentication if its available
  • Don’t link unnecessary social media and cloud accounts together
  • Be very careful

We should also remember that a skilled, motivated hacker will probably break into your account regardless of your computer security. In this respect it’s no different to the physical world where a determined criminal will get you regardless of the locks and alarms on your house.

It’s also important to remember that security is more than just evil hackers; data can be damaged or given away by a whole range of means and people breaking into systems is only one risk of many.

Computer security is an evolving field and while it might be premature to declare the password dead, we’re going to see big changes as we try to lock down our valuable digital assets.

Similar posts:

What business are newspapers in?

To understand the future of news, we need to define the business

The problems of The Guardian and other newspaper groups around the world raises the question of what business they are actually in – news or advertising?

“Going digital only is not an option” was an agenda item for a meeting of Guardian executives claims the Financial Times.

Digital only however is the option most of the readers are taking with the Guardian’s online channels attracting 9.5 million UK readers a month compared to a print circulation of 6.5 million. The Guardian’s total global online audience is 65 million, ten times the size of the print edition.

Making matters worse is the trend, according to the UK Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), newspaper sales are declining at 16% per year while online readership is growing 14%.

As the Guardian readership figures show, the number of readers isn’t the problem and the same is true for the New York Times or the Sydney Morning Herald. More people are reading these publications than ever before, but the advertising has gone elsewhere.

Essentially a newspaper was an advertising platform, the cover price barely covered the costs of printing and distribution while the classified and display advertising provided the “rivers of gold” that made the business so lucrative through most of the Twentieth Century.

Most of those rivers have been diverted as dedicated employment, real estate, travel and motoring websites have stolen much of the advertising revenue that sustained newspapers.

As classified advertising platforms, newspapers have reached their use by date and now they have to build a model that is more focused on online display advertising and getting readers to pay for content.

Getting readers to pay is difficult when the market has been trained to expect news for free or pennies a day, a problem not helped by some newspapers chasing online eyeballs with low quality content.

Equally difficult is training sales teams to sell digital advertising, too many sales teams have grown fat and complacent over decades of flogging lucrative and easy real estate print ads.

The challenge for newspaper managements around the world is figuring out how to get the advertisers onto their online platforms and providing a product which readers value and are prepared to pay for.

It may well be that The Guardian’s management are right, that print does have a role in the newspaper’s future but first they are going to have to define what their company is and what it does.

Similar posts:

What are businesses thinking about?

The City of Sydney Business Awards recognised the best of the city’s commercial communities, but what’s going through the minds of the finalists?

Last night the Sydney Business Awards honoured the city’s best enterprises at a gala dinner where a whole group of great businesses were acknowledged for their great work.

The awards were the result of a three month process where the public voted on several hundred businesses to determine ten finalists in each category. The finalists were then evaluated by judges for each category. I judged the Online Business group.

The Events Agency who organized the awards today sent me a word cloud taken from the winners’ entry forms. This illustrates what the entrants were talking about in their submissions.

A wordcloud of the Sydney Business Awards winners entries
The word cloud of the Sydney Business Awards winners’ entries.

Staff is the biggest issue for businesses, followed by the two instances of ‘increase’ caused by one having a capital and the other not. If we combined the two instances ‘increase’ would probably be the biggest word.

Given training is one of the other big words we can see the real challenge is training up staff. Marketing and funding also figure prominently.

While basic and from a very narrow survey base, that word cloud gives us some ideas of what worries business owners and a base to start answering those challenges.

The word cloud also explains why education, training and industrial relations are such important issues to the business community which is something both politicians and the media should consider.

Overall the quality of the businesses entered into this year’s awards was terrific. In the online section I really struggled to separate the great finalists and there was very little between Appliances Online who won the category and the two runners up.

What’s also interesting is how many of the finalists in other categories had strong online presences, illustrating how the web is important for all businesses.

Congratulations to all the entrants and particularly Climate Friendly who not only won the main Business Award but also the Sustainability and Environmental awards. Glebe Medical Centre was the winner of the Small Business Award and the Healthcare and Fitness category.

For those who didn’t win this year, it’s worth entering next year as good businesses only get better with time. Hopefully we’ll see your business or vote next year.

Similar posts:

A website can’t save a dying business

Online tools can’t fix an organisation’s structural problems

The last week has seen some interesting changes in the local online business community.

Embattled department store David Jones’ announced they are following Harvey Norman into an “omni channel strategy”.

Harvey Norman chief executive in turn appeared on national television to state the “internet drives no sales.”

In the political field, it was reported the Australian Labor Party are looking at using Blue State Digital tools to counter voter and member apathy.

Each one in it’s own way illustrates how organisations can be distracted by shiny new technology while ignoring much deeper problems.

In the case of David Jones, the department store ignored their core competencies and tried to ape their down market competitors in milking the financial services cow.

This worked fine while they could offer 24 and 36 month interest free deals and as soon as their partners American Express started charging a monthly “Administration Fee” that business evaporated.

One of DJ’s down market competitors is Harvey Norman, co-founder Gerry Harvey has spent his life building a fortune based upon providing cheap credit to consumers.

It was always going to be a mistake for DJs to compete with Harvey’s as Gerry is far better at the business than the well connected, genteel board of David Jones and their snappily dressed friends in the store’s executive suite.

Worse for DJs, the whole strategy alienated their core markets and while management focused on financial services customers went elsewhere to find the quality goods and services that the upmarket department store should be providing.

For both though, the financial services business model is now fading as the 20th Century debt supercycle comes to an end; consumers no longer want to load up on “buy now, pay later” schemes.

So all the talk of “omni-channel strategies” really doesn’t address the underlying weaknesses in both business.

This disconnect with reality is true in politics as well where the ALP is reported to be considering using the Red State Digital tools that Barak Obama used so well in his 2008 US Presidential campaign.

While the tools are impressive, they don’t address the problem that the electorate – and the member bases of the major political parties – have become rightly disillusioned and disconnected from the political processes that exclude everyone except an increasingly smaller circle of cronies and insiders.

The only good thing that will come of using US political communications tools in the spectacular eruption the first time one of the ALP’s factional warlords encounters a grass roots online campaign like The Great Schlep.

Heck, the resulting furore might even see some of the apparatchiks distracted from partying and whoring on their union credit cards for a day or two.

All the frivolity aside, the reality for the Australian Labor Party, David Jones and Harvey Norman is their problems are far deeper than a well designed website and impeccably executed social media strategy can fix. These organisations need major rethinks about how and why they exist.

It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at the web or how effective your social media strategy is – if the foundations of a business are shaky then a nice “omni-channel strategy” aren’t going to fix things.

For some of organisations, a failure to embrace the online world may be one of the causes for their problems, for many though there are far more basic issues they need to address.

Similar posts: