Cher journal

Malls are dead. Long Live showrooming

Fri, 10 May 2013 15:27:00 -0400

Over the past 10-15 years we have heard the term “online vs offline.” The term refers to if someone is connected or not to the internet. For example, currently I am online. When I was doing Yoga, I was offline.

With the emergence of smart phones, the terms online/offline are starting to refer to if you have your phone with you or not.

Online vs offline shopping used to be very clear cut. If I was shopping at the mall, I would be shopping offline. If I was shopping on Amazon, I would be shopping online.

As we move forward the online/offline boundaries are blurring and “offline” retail stores are having to adapt.

*This is because if I am shopping offline I can be shopping online. However, if I am shopping online it does not mean I have the option to shop offline.

As long as I have my smart phone with me, I can shop at the mall while comparing prices online. The “offline” store becomes a space for me to physically see the product, and try it out in order to understand if it is a good fit for me.

Unless the “offline” store is owned and operated by the product manufacturer, I am going to be able to find the product for 10-30% less online. From there it is up to me to decide if I want the product now or am willing to wait 2-5 days.

This is called showrooming and has caused “offline” retailers to maintain inventory, pay salaries and rent while marketing and promoting goods that consumers are not purchasing through them. This business model is clearly broken.

What is being done today?

Big box Exclusivity: Big box stores are demanding product exclusivity from manufacturers. If they don’t get exclusivity, they dont sell it.

Encourage connectivity: Rather than fighting showrooming, retailers are providing free wifi to ensure their shoppers are connected. This way they can track browsing, and match online prices. Savvy consumers can get what they want instantly and retailers can maintain loyalty while generating a smaller profit which is better than no profit.

Merging databases: Stores are now creating their own online shopping experience that is connected to their offline stores. Browse for product online and pick them up at physical locations. Returning products is easy, you can browse offline, maintain loyalty points, and compare prices.

What will be done tomorrow?

Boutique stores are dead: If you don’t manufacturer goods. If you are not big enough to demand product exclusivity or price discounts. Your business is dead. (Sorry to be blunt. I just feel businesses need to remove the emotional connection to their business, understand they got it wrong, and move on.)

Connected 24/7: As physical retailers stop fighting the online and start integrating it into the experience and as the “internet of things” grows around us. There will be no more online vs offline. We won’t disconnect or reconnect, we will just live. Everyone will have access to as much or little information as they want. Supply and demand will dicate the price of all goods. Offline retailers will be used for two things trying things and distribution.

How this changes business?

Showrooms will be a business model: Because consumers will be connected 24/7, meaning they will be tracked 24/7, showrooms will know if a consumer interacted with a product at their location and if he or she chooses to purchase that product anywhere else. With this information the showroom will be paid for generating the sale. Showrooms will hold massive amounts of product, but will be able to dynamically change micro-stores to suit the personal needs of the consumer. For example, if I am shopping for a TV, the showroom will create a micro-store specifically for me that understands size requirements, price point, and key features that are important to me. I can choose to purchase at the showroom and have it delivered or I can purchase later. The showroom will generate revenue when I purchase a product that I interacted with at the showroom.

Distribution: Because pricing will be universal, products will be unable to compete on price because pricing information will be accessible to all and distribution will be same day, inventory databases will be linked across all warehouses/showrooms. This means wether I purchase from Best Buy, Amazon, or Sony my product will ship from whichever warehouse/showroom has the product closest to me.

Be warned, adapt or don’t. Just don’t expect things to stay the same.

Photo

Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:36:54 -0400

Why do we leave our computers?

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:57:00 -0400

I can listen to music, watch videos, chat with friends, shop, play games, make money and date all via the internet. Why would I ever want to leave my computer?

We are physical beings and we crave physical stimuli. It is why we choose to watch sports in an arena, go to the movie theatre, shop at the mall, and go out to clubs.

Smart phones have allowed us to be connected while being physically stimulated. However they are still disconnected to the physical stimuli. This is because phones, currently, do not know what is physically stimulating us. It can only guess.

In the future this will change. Computers as we know them will be gone. We will be connected 24/7 while being disconnected from hardware. There will be no “plug in” or “please turn your phones off.” Data will be flowing through us and everything we interact with. Plants will send status reports on how they are doing. My fridge will order milk based on my consumption trends. My cloud ecosystem will manage scheduling, health vitals, family events, and finances. I will watch sports games in virtual arenas with millions of other spectators.

We will live an on-demand life. Anything we want we can get. We will know anything when we want to.

Life as we know it will change when technology starts to physically stimulate us.

Photo

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:11:59 -0400

Work Life Balance

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:16:06 -0500

I read an article online about work life balance. The conclusion of the article was if you want to be a top 5% CEO there is no work life balance instead it is work all the time.

The article got me thinking about this term “work life balance” and what exactly it means. I think a lot of people see it as a goal to spend 50% of your time doing shit you don’t want to do but is necessary and 50% of the time doing stuff you want to do but doesn’t pay the bills.

My question is, why does the shit you want to do not pay the bills? And why are you doing shit you don’t want to do?

Definition of work: Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.

Definition of life: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

The definition of work is in the definition of life. To be alive is to be able to do work.

Why are people stressing about when to “work” and when to “live?”

Love life without having to be important.

Video

Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:31:42 -0500

WTF is Social Media

Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:34:00 -0500

I was invited to the It’s All Social conference this week.

I find the types of people who attend social media conferences fascinating. I actually find the concept of a social media conference very strange.

The attendees are usually skewed to over 40, business owners or senior managers desperately trying to get on the social media wave.

Before I get into why I find social media conferences strange, I should share what I think “social media” is.

Social media, to me, is human to human interaction facilitated by an online platform. “Social media” seems broad and misleading to me. If media is defined as sound, video, photos, and text, is a letter sent to a friend social media? At its core, it is a piece of media shared with a friend. The term social media has no indication of being exclusively online.

Does “Social Media” have to happen on a platform that allows for one-to-many communication? To me that is broadcasting and has nothing to do with social. Also, if that is the case, if I direct message someone on Twitter am I no longer engaging in social media. I actually think a direct message is more “social media” than a tweet.

Why is a Facebook message social media, but an email isn’t.

My redefinition of social media is online social interaction.

Now this is why I find social media conferences strange. Imagine a conference that discussed how to interact socially. This would be strange right? You would probably wonder what kind of deprived upbringing did these attendees have. You might also wonder why they don’t just go to a bar or meetup and get some social skills.

This is how I feel about social media conferences or anything social media workshop related. These conferences remind me of the book how to win friends and influence others. The problem is they don’t realize this is what they are discussing which makes the discussions surface and lame.

With that being said, I did enjoy hearing the speakers at the conference. Lauren Out Loud had an informative and energetic presentation about memes and why brands suck at creating them. I enjoyed the story from Samsung Canada’s community manager on the interaction that took place between a brand fan and a picture of a dragon. There was also a lot of talk about why marketers rule the world and how amazing we are, which was a nice ego boost for most attendees and myself.

However, all of these stories are available online and if I wanted an ego boost I could talk to my girlfriend or mum.

What I really find strange is social media strategy. Do we need a strategy on how to interact with people? Is this the world we are living in where we need to define the goal of a human to human interaction?

When Samsung’s community manager sent a drawing of a Kangaroo on a unicycle back to a fan who sent him a drawing of a fire breathing dragon, was that a strategy? Drew Bomhoff admitted he was just having fun and thought if he had drawn a picture and sent it to a brand he loved, he would like to get a drawing back.

If there is a strategy, it is taught at schools and at home.

Treat others how you wish to be treated.

I think that people forget online interactions happen offline. There is a human being at the other end of the tweet, blog post, or comment. We do not live in computers. We live with computers. We are emotional creatures that love to be loved. We want to be hugged and appreciated. When others smile and are happy we become happy. A tweet is not a bunch of 0s and 1s it is an emotional connection to another human being.

The most frustration question I hear at social media conferences is what is the ROI of social media. Seriously?! Would we ever ask that about a social interaction? What was the ROI of helping someone cross the street? Or what was the ROI of giving someone directions?

Why are brands acting like robotic assholes?

Lets focus on making people smile because it makes us happy NOT because it makes us money.

*This blog post makes me wonder if brands are prostitutes in disguise?

Video

Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:18:29 -0400

Control

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:51:38 -0400

Imagine you were given a car to drive. You can control the direction the car goes using the steering wheel. However, you can not stop the car from moving forward.

Are you in control? Or is the car?

Commoditization

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:37:00 -0400

Commoditize: The act of making a process, good or service easy to obtain by making it as uniform, plentiful and affordable as possible. — www.learnaboutwallstreet.com/financial_terms_c.html

On-demand is a term used by many content service providers highlighting the ability to gain access to content when you want it.

You don’t need to worry about leaving your home, content being out of stock or having to schedule your life around when content will be available.

Content is ready for you, when you want it.

Just in time (JIT) is a term used by manufacturers who use a model called “lean.” Lean manufacturing means keeping resources as limited as possible in order to minimize waste and costs. JIT is when a factory needs parts to build a widget (lets say a car), parts are only ordered for that car. Nothing more and nothing less. The parts are ready just in time for the production of the car that has been ordered. In principal this is on-demand manufacturing. A customer puts in an order, and this demand call initiates the order of parts and the factory then builds what the customer ordered.

When I traveled to London recently, I found some pants that I loved. Unfortunately the only size that fit was in a colour I didn’t want. In the past I would say this is too bad and move on. Instead, I snapped a photo of the pants and looked online. Sure enough the size was available. I ordered the size I wanted and when I arrived back home they were waiting for me.

Distribution commoditization is here.

Can you tell the difference between youtube and Netflix? I am not talking about the interface, but the end product. The ability to stream video online.

Can you tell the difference between designer pants I ordered on Gilt and designer pants I ordered on Amazon?

The race used to be between online/offline. Now, I think we can safely say online will win. The questions is, when it does win, is everything going to be a commodity?

How will online retailers differentiate their offering? How much cheaper, and easier can stuff get?

Will we see intelligent ordering with devices all being connected to an online retail eco-system? We already see this with Amazon tablets, and Google Glasses (Glass.)

I keep seeing a very sad, technology dependent world where human-to-human interaction is limited and consumption is all we do.

The Race to the Bottom

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:10:07 -0400

Today is one of the hardest days ever to run a business.

Walk down any high street around the world from London, to New York and you see businesses closing down. Not just small and medium sized businesses but big businesses too. These businesses all have broken business models meaning every day they are open money is lost. We have seen this with models in video rentals, clothing, electronics, CDs, jewellery, and hotels. The businesses that have not ran out of cash yet are all scrambling to redefine how they make money in order to start doing it.

The problem is for over 90% of these businesses the only answer is to make their product cheaper and more accessible. NetFlix did this to Blockbuster, ITunes did this to HMV and now Amazon is doing this to BestBuy.

The race to the bottom is everywhere and threatens even the businesses that lead the race. NetFlix was once one of the most successful media distributors globally putting video rental stores out of business everywhere. They delivered a product cheaper and more accessible but others quickly joined in and the race to the bottom accelerated. Now players like Hulu, Google, Amazon, and other streaming video options fill the market with a lot of content becoming available free.

So what is the answer for the other 10% of businesses? The other 10% stop racing. They see the finish line and they don’t want to be part of it. Instead they stop and focus on brand.

Every company has a brand. A brand is a list of attributes that are tied to a name or symbol.

When most people hear McDonalds they think yellow, burgers, fast, convenient. McDonalds at one time had a brand problem. Their name was tied to unhealthy, fat, and cheap. They were going down a slippery slope of discounts and poor product. Instead of continuing down this path they focused on a brand re-shift. Healthier product offerings, new interiors, a focus on “fresh”products and transparent information. McDonalds is now not tied to the word cheap, instead it is quality. They might still have unhealthy product offerings on their menu but the Big Mac is no longer the focus.

Too many brands stand for cheap. You can not compete in this market because cheap is unsustainable.

Consumers want cost-effective products but they want experience, service, and quality with it. They want a product they can show off to friends. A product that makes them feel proud to own or consume it.

Video

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:54:18 -0400

The pursuit of control

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:19:00 -0400

What do we all want?

I think it is control. Control of our identity, control of our future, control of our bodies, and control over others. (I am sure the list could go on.)

We have been told we can achieve control through the consumption of goods and accumulation of wealth. However, it is clear that this is a lie. Every day individuals with a significant amount of money and material goods die of cancer, become incarcerated for fraud, become addicted to drugs or take their own life to escape depression. (Although there are many reasons for committing suicide. A main reason that is reported is the individuals belief that they can not change the situation.)

Although it could be true that every single person has absolutely no control over themselves, others and their identity; it causes serious distress when we feel as though we have no control over the situation.

What I fear is the constant pursuit for control to the point where one day we will choose to live a virtual life.

We see it already with the emergence of Second Life. The name says it all. The opportunity to create, a second life, a fresh start where you control what you look like. It doesn’t matter if you are overweight, a minority race, female or male, you decide how you want to look. No longer is your identity dictated by the clothes you wear or the shape of your nose instead it is dictated by how you interact, and what you say. However, this proposition quickly faded with the introduction of credits into Second Life. Again the pitch became control comes from wealth. You could purchase virtual goods, such as clothes, and real-estate. The virtual began to mimic the real. (This most likely happened because the creators of Second Life wanted to achieve control in the real-world and in order for this to happen they would need to accumulate wealth. Therefore get Second Life users to pay to achieve control in the virtual world while the creators can achieve control in the real.)

For any of us that read, watch movies, and play videogames we are all looking for a way to take on a different identity. Reading a book we become happy when something positive happens to a character, watching a movie we cry when something negative happens and playing a videogame we get excited when our character completes a task or scores a goal.

With advances in technology, what happens when movies, and videogames become more immersive? What happens when we become the character in a virtual world? 3D is only the beginning. Take a look at a group of people watching a movie with 3D glasses. Does it look weird. Maybe it looks like they are no longer experiencing reality.

The problem with movies is that they are movies. When we bring up a movie as an example, the immediate response is “it is only a movie, it isn’t real.” This true but one day will it become reality?

One day will we choose to plug ourselves in to experience a movie. Will we choose to live a virtual life because we can’t stand reality?

The Matrix is one of my favourite movies. If the Matrix was real, a few might choose to unplug from the matrix, but I believe most would not or plug back in.

And if you don’t think we are close, take a look at this video.

The program is called BrainGate and is focused on using the human mind to control computer systems.

Now take a look at this video

This is gameplay footage created by UBISoft. Designed to mimic reality you take control over a detective to solve crimes.

On December 1903, the Wright brothers accomplished the first sustained flight lasting 12 seconds. Today, in the United States alone, there will be 87,000 flights landing and taking off. Some flights lasting 12 hours and flying half way around the world. We now have unmanned aircraft that kill and spy on humans. We can fly at speeds up to 7,000 miles an hour and we are on the brink of commercial space travel. With time, anything is possible.

I know that I have no control in the situation. All I can do is observe and enjoy the ride. However, there are moments when I wish that we could all just relax and appreciate that this is an amazing ride filled with joy and sadness. A ride that we will never experience again. Life is amazing. Enjoy it or don’t the choice is not yours.

I am currently reading The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo....

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:53:23 -0400

I am currently reading The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo. This image is displayed in the first few pages of the book.

Similar to my thought that without bad there is no good, this optical illusion demonstrates that good and evil co-exist as one.

Philip Zimbardo raises interesting case studies about seemingly good people taking part in what is seen as evil actions. This can be seen during wars, psych studies and everyday life.

Is it really hard to believe that with the right social and environmental pressure we can be motivated to take an “evil” action. If marketing can persuade us to purchase and inhale carcinogenic fumes on a daily basis, why can’t the same methods persuade us to physically abuse another peson. If marketing can convince us that scented liquid will cause the opposite sex to become attracted to us, or that smart people drive expensive cars, why can’t it convince us that someone is worthless or inhuman.

This is what happened in the MIlgram electroshock experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, Abu Ghraib photos, and World War 2 concentration camps. This is what happens at work, in schools, at home and in government.

Are we in control of what we believe?

“You are not special because everyone is.”

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:39:05 -0400

“You are not special because everyone is.”

Cool by association.

Tue, 22 May 2012 15:22:05 -0400

Microsoft built an incredible operating system. They had a fantastic distribution strategy and generated billions of dollars in revenue from royalties. However they failed at one big thing. When people used Microsoft software they felt stupid.

Apple on the other hand created a premium product that costs more, did less and wasn’t compatible with many 3rd party add-ons. However it ran well, it looked good and if you had an Apple product you were cool by association.

This is marketing at its finest. A product that costs more, does less, and looks cool. We see this with a lot of luxury products. High-end designer clothing is usually non functional. You can’t get it wet, it not warm or too warm, and usually it is not very comfortable. However, it is cool.

So what looks cool?

If you are seen as cool because you are wearing, driving or somehow consuming something that is seen as cool, how does the product you are consuming become cool?

It seems cool products become cool by being consumed by cool people. Usually these people are celebrities. Look at perfume brands. Almost all of them have a celebrity who is seen promoting the product. Apple did and still does product placement very well. Apple products such as IPods, IPads, and laptops are all strategically placed on TV shows, music videos, and movies.

Apple didn’t stop there. They focused on ensuring users could show-off their Apple consumption. White head phones, Apple stickers, and “sent from my IPhone” email tags are ways of organically placing your product even when your product can not be physically seen.

Sounds easy right?

Not exactly. One thing is more important than anything else. Your product needs to get the job done.

Apple, Facebook, and Google all know their product needs to work and always work. When it doesn’t the finger will point to them and not the user. No jargon error messages, no excuses and justifications on why it might not be working. Straight up we should be doing better and we will do whatever it takes to fix the problem.

Because products that don’t work and brands that make excuses are not cool!

Microsoft made users feel stupid when their products didn’t work. They also made excuses such as you haven’t bought the latest update, your hardware is not good enough, or jargon messages like “please reset your cache.”

Brands need to realize it is their job to make people cool.

What is better?

Mon, 14 May 2012 13:24:47 -0400

My girlfriend is a big inspiration for me. She is constantly asking questions that make me think outside the box rather than with the status quo. For example one of the first times we met she asked if I thought Hitler could have gone to heaven because he didn’t believe what he was doing was wrong.

I sometimes bug her when she says “It is so much better that way.” I give the uncomforting answer of, “what is better?” In my last post I mentioned “Be different. Be better.” She was quick to give me a taste of my own medicine and asked “what is better?”

Is there a “better?”

I think we get caught up trying to find the “best” solution to a problem or deciding what the “best” way to spend our money is. (Yes, I will continue to highlight these words in quotation marks.)

We live in a subjective world one persons “best” could be another persons “worst.” I believe we live in a world of balance. It might not seem that way when we see some consume exponentially more than others. However, if we look at this world as a whole, everything balances out each other. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. Instead it can only be transferred. The same goes for wealth, resources, and I believe happiness.

I am a firm believer that without a balance we can not exist. For example without black, white can not exist. Without sadness, happiness can not exist. We need to compare in order to find value. We need the opposite to appreciate what it is not. Without contrast we have nothing.

When people use the words “better” or “best,” I am reminded of one of my favourite stories as quoted in the movie Charlie Wilson’s War.

Gust: Did I ever tell you the story of the Zen master and the little boy? On his 16th birthday, a boy gets a horse as a present. All the villagers say, “How wonderful!” The Zen master says, “We’ll see.” One day, the boy is thrown from the horse and is hurt and can no longer walk. All the villagers say, “How terrible!” The Zen master says, “We’ll see.” A short time later, war begins, and all the young men of the village are taken away to be soldiers, but this boy can’t fight, so he is spared, and all the villagers say, “How wonderful!”

Charlie: And the Zen master says, “We’ll see…”

Gust: You’re catching on…

The butterfly effect reminds us that everything effects everything. Cause and effect is not as simple as x = y. It is a chain reaction where the effect becomes the cause of the next effect. There is no root cause. For example the butterfly flapping it’s wings is both a cause of something and an effect of something else. (This makes for an interesting discussion about choice but will have to wait for another post.)

Is there a “better?”

I think we just live and enjoy the ride. Appreciate the “bad” and the “good.” We need both to exist. Contrast is life.

So as my girlfriend pointed out to me. In my last post I meant “Be different.” Because there is no such thing as “better.”

Everyone can have an idea. Not everyone can make it happen.

Sun, 13 May 2012 13:28:00 -0400

Instagram was recently in the news because it was bought by Facebook for $1 billion. What is interesting is Instagram is an incredibly simple product that gained in popularity very quickly and in turn got sold for a lot of money.

Why?

Be different. Be better.

Instagram realized phone camera are not amazing. They don’t offer a lot of features like point and shoots and DSLR camera. Rather than build a complex app that mimics these features such as aperture, red eye reduction, and digital zooms; Instagram chose to build an app that allows you to overlay filters on your photo.

Why did this work?

Everyone wants to be different. We want to be able to customize our stuff to fit our own preferred personality. Filters easily do this. Filters take our life and blur it into what we want it to look like.

Everyone can take a photo of food. However, not everyone can take a photo of food with an Instagram filter.

Instagram only recently rolled out onto Android and before that it was one of those apps that made IPhone owners happy to own an IPhone made Android owners wish they had Instagram. In fact I think it was a mistake for Apple not to buy Instagram.

Keep It Social Stupid

Instagram knew people want to show off. What is the point in taking a photo if nobody is going to see it? A social platform was allowing you to share photos on Twitter, Facebook and to Instagram users who can follow your photo stream.

A really interesting strategy was to close the Instagram galleries off to non-Instagram users. This meant you can view the photo shared but not all photos taken by a particular user. The only way to do this is to use the Instagram app.

Instagram built social status. That is the key. Your product needs to make people feel special.

"What would Banksy do?"

Sun, 13 May 2012 13:25:59 -0400

“What would Banksy do?”

"The problem with the Internet startup craze isn’t that too many people are starting companies; it’s..."

Sun, 06 May 2012 14:10:13 -0400

“The problem with the Internet startup craze isn’t that too many people are starting companies; it’s that too many people aren’t sticking with it.”

- Steve Jobs