I made a quick trip to Charlevoix last week. Without much planning, we needed to stop to eat a quick bite on the road. Although, generally, I prefer to eat at good independent restaurants, the lack of time and planning made me want to consider a chain restaurant.
A large chain restaurant is a brand, and the attraction of brands is that you know what to expect. Even is you arrive in a new place, you can walk in to a restaurant that you never been, and yet the experience will be pretty much what you expected it to be. No great surprises, but no awful experiences either. This is what makes people go easily to Starbucks in a new place rather than sampling an unknown little cafe, even if the upside of a better experience may well be there.
If I have been in San Francisco instead of in Chalevoix, I would have used Yelp to quickly find a non-chain place. Yelp has reached a critical mass in San Francisco and as such, you can pretty much find the place you want based on the reviews (well, you need to actually read a bit the reviews, not just the ratings if you want a fair idea of the place).
All that really made me think about how Yelp may be in fact an anti-brand hero. A shining light for all those small business that try hard, agains odds to offer a different and unique product. A way for potential customers to discover those great places and to steer way from large brands without risking an awful experience.
What do you think?
2010-08-15
2010-08-05
Data, information and news integrity in the age of clouds
The Internet as a network is often represented as a cloud. In some ways it may be an indication of how we are behaving collectively when reading or sharing information.
Not so long ago (10 years), I was sitting in Computer Sciences classes at McGill University where I was learning about good database practice to ensure data integrity, normalization and good quality results. Large database system that banks are using have been designed with this high quality in mind. After all, who wants to have a some money, maybe more maybe less, no real knowledge of bills or prices.
Yet, somehow, this is more or less what we get with news and information on the web today. Shall we trust what we read or share? Similarly, computer systems that are build to sustain huge number of user are now build more for the sake of giving quick response time to the user (loading your web page quicker) than for making sure that the data integrity is sage. This is partly the trend of what is called "noSQL".
After all, most outlets on the web today are desperate to show you more ads to try to make money than to give you accurate data, information and news.
Give it to me now, give it to me raw, share it quick, quicker than my friends so I get more exposures and prestige. Quantity, speed. I don't care about quality and integrity.
Is the cloud clouding our judgement?
Not so long ago (10 years), I was sitting in Computer Sciences classes at McGill University where I was learning about good database practice to ensure data integrity, normalization and good quality results. Large database system that banks are using have been designed with this high quality in mind. After all, who wants to have a some money, maybe more maybe less, no real knowledge of bills or prices.
Yet, somehow, this is more or less what we get with news and information on the web today. Shall we trust what we read or share? Similarly, computer systems that are build to sustain huge number of user are now build more for the sake of giving quick response time to the user (loading your web page quicker) than for making sure that the data integrity is sage. This is partly the trend of what is called "noSQL".
After all, most outlets on the web today are desperate to show you more ads to try to make money than to give you accurate data, information and news.
Give it to me now, give it to me raw, share it quick, quicker than my friends so I get more exposures and prestige. Quantity, speed. I don't care about quality and integrity.
Is the cloud clouding our judgement?
2010-07-19
About vision, execution and spins
Competition is harsh is the world today. Especially if you are in the technology space where borders have a lot less meaning today that it use to. You have to compete globally, with regional specificity (language, culture, regulations...) acting as a delaying factor.
Having a great vision is a definitive must have of course, but the key ingredient to success is really the quality of execution of that vision.
One common problem is that sometimes people with great vision don't understand technology very well. Of course, they seek to work with great technology leaders but this is a problem that is harder to solve that it seems. If you are not that technical yourself, how do you know who is very good with technology?
People who seems to know more in technology to you may not be up to the challenge. Often, the most impressive people are those who can talk the best about technology not necessarily those who are best at executing. Great teachers, great speakers, great communicators and salesmen can lead you to the impression that they are great in execution but this is in fact seldom the case.
Most of the time, the best people for executing the vision are those people that are completely immerse in their tasks at hand and don't care that much about appearing as such.
I witness such a case recently where the senior management of a technology company that had a great vision, didn't know that much about technology and actually was uncomfortable discussing it. Technology was clearly outside their comfort zone and their tendency was to push it down to lower levels.
Without a deep understanding of technology at the higher level, you make yourself an easy target to manipulations and spins. For instance, you may be convinced that your website is a great success and that all the metrics are looking good and are progressing on a great slope, when in fact a deeper analysis reveal that most people land on the site from misleads on search engines and are turning around with a single page view.
This is turn may create the illusion that your vision is well executed and that you are on solid grounds. Then after millions invested and years into your precious "window of opportunity" you realize that it is all fading away, that the execution has not been very good. It is now too late to take corrective measures, you don't have enough resources left and competition had time to appear and eat your pie.
Problem now is how avoid falling into that trap? How do you know who to trust and who not to trust? What is real, what is a spin? These are hard questions and there no simple recipe to answer that.
However, you need to trace the interests. People generally act for the interests of your organization as seen through the filters of their own interests. So they are going to come up with solutions and tactics that are strangely aligned with their personal interests. People who act first for the long term interests of your business before their own interests are rare but they do exist.
I am a strong believer in long term success over short term interests. My recommendation, search for such people. Believers in principles, solid in execution and who will tell you the reality like it is, not the one that you would like to hear.
Let me know what you think and I will do some more blog postings based on your reactions!
Having a great vision is a definitive must have of course, but the key ingredient to success is really the quality of execution of that vision.
One common problem is that sometimes people with great vision don't understand technology very well. Of course, they seek to work with great technology leaders but this is a problem that is harder to solve that it seems. If you are not that technical yourself, how do you know who is very good with technology?
People who seems to know more in technology to you may not be up to the challenge. Often, the most impressive people are those who can talk the best about technology not necessarily those who are best at executing. Great teachers, great speakers, great communicators and salesmen can lead you to the impression that they are great in execution but this is in fact seldom the case.
Most of the time, the best people for executing the vision are those people that are completely immerse in their tasks at hand and don't care that much about appearing as such.
I witness such a case recently where the senior management of a technology company that had a great vision, didn't know that much about technology and actually was uncomfortable discussing it. Technology was clearly outside their comfort zone and their tendency was to push it down to lower levels.
Without a deep understanding of technology at the higher level, you make yourself an easy target to manipulations and spins. For instance, you may be convinced that your website is a great success and that all the metrics are looking good and are progressing on a great slope, when in fact a deeper analysis reveal that most people land on the site from misleads on search engines and are turning around with a single page view.
This is turn may create the illusion that your vision is well executed and that you are on solid grounds. Then after millions invested and years into your precious "window of opportunity" you realize that it is all fading away, that the execution has not been very good. It is now too late to take corrective measures, you don't have enough resources left and competition had time to appear and eat your pie.
Problem now is how avoid falling into that trap? How do you know who to trust and who not to trust? What is real, what is a spin? These are hard questions and there no simple recipe to answer that.
However, you need to trace the interests. People generally act for the interests of your organization as seen through the filters of their own interests. So they are going to come up with solutions and tactics that are strangely aligned with their personal interests. People who act first for the long term interests of your business before their own interests are rare but they do exist.
I am a strong believer in long term success over short term interests. My recommendation, search for such people. Believers in principles, solid in execution and who will tell you the reality like it is, not the one that you would like to hear.
Let me know what you think and I will do some more blog postings based on your reactions!
2010-01-31
Want to extend the life of your TV network? Go Live!
On demand content is the domain of the Internet. If someone wants to see something specific, there‘s no better way today than making use of the Internet. Of course, the experience is not yet seamless to view high quality content on your big screen TV, but it’s coming quickly.
This week Apple debuted its new iPad, which in fact is the perfect device for personal media consumption. You can use it around the house or around the world. It has a screen big enough for quality viewing of shows (BTW, if I were in the magazine business, I would take note also!). For all on demand video content, this is a great device and that will tip the scale even further towards the Internet as the mainstream delivery conduit.
So, what do you do if you operate a television network or station? Go live!
Streaming live high quality video content on the Internet is still a challenge and it is very expensive to do so. Traditional, synchronous delivery of TV (broadcast, cable, satellite...) is very efficient and cost-effective for delivering high quality video content to a large audience. The advantage of live TV is that you don't know what might happen. So people will tune-in just in case something does happen and to witness it in the very moment. Sports is a good example: It's fun to watch the Superbowl when you don't know who will win, how the game will unfold... not so much when it is recorded. This also applies to shows where there is audience live interaction, call-ins etc.
Don't watch the audience disappear under your nose! Realize that things are changing and do something about it!
This week Apple debuted its new iPad, which in fact is the perfect device for personal media consumption. You can use it around the house or around the world. It has a screen big enough for quality viewing of shows (BTW, if I were in the magazine business, I would take note also!). For all on demand video content, this is a great device and that will tip the scale even further towards the Internet as the mainstream delivery conduit.
So, what do you do if you operate a television network or station? Go live!
Streaming live high quality video content on the Internet is still a challenge and it is very expensive to do so. Traditional, synchronous delivery of TV (broadcast, cable, satellite...) is very efficient and cost-effective for delivering high quality video content to a large audience. The advantage of live TV is that you don't know what might happen. So people will tune-in just in case something does happen and to witness it in the very moment. Sports is a good example: It's fun to watch the Superbowl when you don't know who will win, how the game will unfold... not so much when it is recorded. This also applies to shows where there is audience live interaction, call-ins etc.
Don't watch the audience disappear under your nose! Realize that things are changing and do something about it!
2010-01-20
About distribution and the control of the medias
This is my first vlog entry for "SavardFaire". Taking a look at media control from a distribution stand point and what it means in the Internet era.
2009-11-16
Future of Web and Media: Control of distribution is key
As many debates are going on over what will happen to media (print, TV, radio, music, movies) in this Internet age, I want to remind that distribution is the key.
Hollywood has not dominated the film industry for years because it came up with the brightest idea, it did so because it did concentrate the distribution channel.
Today, with broadband Internet becoming the norm and with mobile Internet progressing by leaps and bounds, the historical distribution model is collapsing. With diminishing audience on TV, less readers for newspaper and less sell of DVD the content producers are fighting to find alternative revenue stream.
Producing for less, trying to find advertiser on the web, restricting content access, suing illegal downloads are but a few of the ways that they are trying to achieve.
However, the question that we should be asking ourselves is "Who will control distribution?"
The answer is at two levels:
1) The Internet Access: A this point in time, the access to the Internet is controlled by cable operators and telco. As for the mobile Internet these are the mobile phone operators. All of these are quasi-monopolies and charge a increasing high fee as the need to higher bandwidth is increasing.
2) The content aggregator and directories: These are basically places where you can locate content. Some are big search listing such as Google (search) while others are repositories that are finance by advertising (youTube) or sales (iTunes).
These are really the new distribution channels of this Internet age. Those are the one that will have considerable financial resources to negotiate with content producers to buy content (or acquires them like the Comcast-NBC/Universal deal).
2009-09-17
Notes from IBC 2009 - AVID
If anything, IBC 2009 made me revise my opinion on AVID technologies.
I have known Avid since before they launch and have seen them like a
significantly arrogant company. They could obviously get away with it
for a while when they were basically the only game in town.
I have known Avid since before they launch and have seen them like a
significantly arrogant company. They could obviously get away with it
for a while when they were basically the only game in town.
However, during the past 5 years especially, things have changed
significantly. Another company that has an arrogant tendency (when
things go well in a market), Apple Computers has establish themselves
as a formidable competitor to Avid. Final Cut Pro is know the software
that people know and is use by far more people.
This forced Avid to rethink itself. I was skeptical when they
presented their new logo an image. I must say, their attitude has
change. This was a question of survival and they seem to have taken
notes.
2 years ago, I was dismissing them completely, not anymore. I would
look at them again for a project.
One thing that is fundamental and that we have to consider:
-Avid core business is video editing. They live and die by it.
-Apple Computers core business is computers. For them FCP is a way to
gain market share in a vertical market. Now they do.
How much motivation Apple has still to invest a lot in the video
market place. Their iPod and iPhone business is booming, Mac sales are
up. iMovie is certainly part of their offering with Quicktime. But
FCP? How much innovation are they going to do in it on the long term?
Avid on the other hand has no options. They must innovate and compete
in the video editing market or become irrelevant and disappear. In a
market where the high end is shrinking and where the low end is occupy
by a virtually free software, will Avid find enough business to prosper?
It's a question that only the future will solve, but I don't discard
Avid anymore and I hope they manage to grow their market back.
Competition is good for innovation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)