Crisis Management for Lion Killers

The story of the Dr. “Lion Slayer” Palmer is all over the internet and people are outraged, for good reason. His dental practice is in limbo and he is in hiding after receiving death threats. Well done Internet… you have already surpassed the attention span of a #hashtag with this one.

I am conflicted on this story for many reasons. Big game hunting is deplorable, and there is no justification for it with licenses sold to the ultra-wealthy who are partaking in the experience for the sport of it. If the goal is herd management, have trained naturalists do the killing in a clinical manner and take advantage of the carcasses for research instead of skinning it and mounting the head as a trophy.

Here’s where my conflict hits a high pitch, the outrage that is being expressed by this story is disproportionate to the actual harm. In no small measure, this is due to the victim is an animal, a majestic animal rather than a deer or furry ground squirrel. African lions are threatened, not endangered, and the bulk of them live in a cluster of habitats like the one the one that was killed. Habitat destruction is a bigger threat to lions than hunting.

syrian atrocitiesHow do we square the universal outrage expressed about the killing of a lion with the antipathy to 200,000 people killed in Syria, including women and children gassed to death by the Assad regime? What about the near 8 million Syrians who have been forced to abandon their homes because of this civil war? Where can I post a satirical comment on Bashar al-Assad’s Yelp page?

The Internet is a marvelous creation that engages and connects people throughout the world. However, the unintended consequence of social media activism is that it is often a substitute for actual activism but with far less impressive results. We live in a world of #hashtags that create a false sense of engagement and deludes people into believing they made a difference. The half-life of a hashtag is hours; it is nothing more than an expression of vanity to attach your online personality to a cause… and then move on.

Where is the outrage about African countries selling the rights to kill these animals to the highest bidder? That, to me, is missing in focus here.

Here’s what I recommend that the Lion Slayer do to rehabilitate his image:

  1. Ride it out: We hit the crescendo of public outrage yesterday and by the end of the week the majority of people will have moved on. Making statements now does nothing to quell the firestorm and based on what he has already released, more damage is being done.
  2. Ignore the Zimbabwe authorities: This is a country run by a notorious thug, Robert Mugabe, who has ruined the economy and perpetuated many human rights abuses over his 33 year dictatorship. The U.S. ignores him, so should Palmer.
  3. Rebrand the clinic: River Bluff Dental is cooked, time to start over. He will have to actively manage the social media and review sites for NewCo. so plan on hiring a firm to do that over a protracted period of time.
  4. Focus on the local community: A dental practice is inherently local, it doesn’t matter what “Kim T. from San Gabriel, CA” thinks. Palmer needs to reach out to his local community and focus on the collective values of the practice, the people who rely on it for jobs, and the many people who have been served (apparently he is an accomplished dentist).
  5. Give up big game hunting: As already stated, it’s just immoral so give it up. Hunting is a big part of life in Minnesota so his local community will not object to hunting for local game. If he wants to go to Africa, take a camera instead of a bow.
  6. Take up animal conservation: His crime was in killing a majestic animal, the penance for that is supporting the preservation of majestic animals. I would recommend a strategy of donating a fixed percentage of revenue from the clinic to vetted causes, and being transparent about it.

If Michael Vick can rehabilitate his image after going to prison for dog fighting, I think Palmer has a good shot, no pun intended.

Tough Doesn’t Quit, Except at Breakfast

I was at a dinner on Sunday night and seated next to me was retired Admiral Eric Olson, who had a long and distinguished military career. He retired from the Navy in 2011 as the commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Interesting man, to say the least, but also incredibly gracious and unassuming.

I asked him what qualities he could identify that would be indicators of success as s Navy SEAL. His response was predictable in some ways, unexpected in others. Above all, he said, the SEALs look for problem-solving, intelligence and mental toughness in candidates. I expected to hear this, and he added that chess and water polo players seem particularly well suited for special operations, which certainly fits the profile.

seals-toughnessWhat he added, which was unexpected, is that they study the well-documented attrition rate during training. Within each cohort, they looked at the time of day that candidates would quit and found that the majority of drop-outs quit at breakfast and lunch. In other words, they didn’t quit during the grueling training exercises but in anticipation of them.

It makes a lot of sense in retrospect because this training program is designed to instill the commitment of team and capacity of the human body to go far beyond believed physical limits. Giving up occurs not in the moment of exertion where your team is counting on you but in the comfort of being alone and anticipating the grueling assignment.

Draw your own analogies to everyday life.

More on this topic (What's this?)
Is This The Beginning Of A Larger Equity Market Correction?
I'm Rich: Nigerian prince out, Hosni Mubarak in!
TierPoint Acquires Xand, Doubles Footprint
Jen Psaki Video: It's amateur hour at the US State Department!
Read more on Lingui Development, Admiral at Wikinvest

Corporate Activism: The Uber Edition

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio really stepped in it by picking a fight with Uber. Acting as the puppet for the powerful taxi medallion owners in NYC, who despise Uber, the mayor proposed capping the addition of new Uber cars to 1%. Given the customer growth that Uber has been experiencing in NYC, a 1% increase in drivers would kneecap the company.

Uber fought back, which seemed to catch both City Hall and the yellow cab cartel off guard. Anyone who has watched Uber grow will tell you the company redefines the term being aggressive.

Making critical arguments that they were creating jobs, customers are being served that are neglected by taxi cabs, and the congestion claims didn’t match the numbers. Indeed, the congestion argument that De Blasio relied on was particularly curious because it is now clear that is based on anecdote.

In addition to a wave of advertising and protests by the very people who rely on Uber to earn income, Uber enlisted allies across the political spectrum. However, it was the use of the application as a tool for activating customers that is particularly brilliant. The de Blasio mode that rolled out provided every Uber customer in NYC with a picture of what service would look like if de Blasio successfully capped growth.

img_7479

What is different about Uber fighting City Hall versus WalMart or an energy company, is that Uber has user experience on their side. This is where De Blasio fatally erred in taking on Uber. He attempted to use worn our arguments about safety and employee rights to define Uber as a threat to the public welfare when anyone who has ridden in a yellow cab – anywhere – will tell you it is quite the opposite. The data didn’t back up De Blasio’s claim, on the surface or at that level that we just intuitively know.

de Blasio backed down and his allies are attempting to spin a victory out of this defeat. Highlighting the fact that Uber agreed to “restrain” growth to their current level (it’s hard to imagine Uber juicing growth in NYC at this point) and sharing data for the traffic study. Make no mistake about this, it was a defeat for De Blasio and only further weakens him in the eyes of New Yorkers who are already fed up with him.

This loss comes on the heels of a humiliating showing in Albany. Mayor de Blasio sought permanent control of the city school system; instead he got a 1-year extension on the current oversight agreement. He bitterly opposes charter schools, doing the bidding for the teacher’s union, which bitterly opposes charter schools, and instead of reducing their numbers he was handed 50 more. He wanted pro-tenant changes to the rent control laws, he got nothing but a 4-year extension on the status quo. He wanted changes to the 421 real estate law, for which he got bupkis. His showing within NYC politics shows much of the same. He opposed hiring more police officers, and Bratton got 1,300 new officers pushed through.

And now he just lost to Uber.

In the end, it is customers that win. For years, the taxi industry has one constituent, regulators. The regulators derived their power from the fact that there was an organized industry to regulate and did little to improve customer experience and affordability. The money generated by taxes was spread around to mass transit projects and used to enrichen organized labor, who like the taxi industry had little incentive to improve customer experience. Just ride on San Francisco’s MUNI system, a textbook example for why a municipality should not be entrusted with public transportation.

Uber and Lyft came along and demonstrated that superior customer experience wins every time. It’s not just the taxi industry that sees this threat, cities with crowded and inefficient transit systems are watching their ridership shift to ride services and as companies introduce car-pooling services the trend will accelerate. Preparing for a long battle ahead, it is obvious that Uber and their counterparts are prepared to wage a direct and aggressive battle on behalf of their interests, and because their interests align with consumers I am okay with that.

The Coming Robot Invasion in Fast Food

102277923-IMG_3958.530x298I was driving up Woodside Road last week and the KFC store had a huge “Hiring!” banner hanging on the front of the outlet. This caught my attention for two reasons.

It’s well established that cost of living on the Peninsula is not amenable to the income generated by low skilled, fast food work. It just isn’t and raising the minimum wage or whatever you want to call it isn’t going to make a difference. As a result, few people want to work these jobs. How can you blame them if flipping burgers and banging on a cash register all day isn’t providing an income that makes it possible to cover the basics?

It used to be that fast food was a job that kids filled in their off hours or during summer, it is not a career. Today’s young people have many competing demands on their time, from school to sports to activities that they are expected to participate in order to make them competitive for college admissions. There is also a youth entitlement factor that comes into play in wealthy communities. However, in my conversations with small business owners the number one problem with hiring teens is that they cannot commit to the time that is required to hold down a job.

Today I read an interesting piece on McDonald’s:

“For example, labor needed to run stores during lunch hour,” one franchisee wrote. “Our competitors have 6-8 people to run close to the same volume that we need 20-25 people.

It’s a perfect storm of changing consumer tastes, poor brand management, and food quality hitting McDonald’s at the moment. If we throw in labor efficiency, we may have hit the tipping point that results in an unsalvagable business. It is this last issue that is most interesting to me.

robot-fast-food.0.0There is no reason at all why fast food restaurants could not be staffed primarily by robots. I’m not talking about cute humanoids delivering food to tables but rather the heavy lifting part of fast food… the kitchen.

Fast food is designed to be repeatable in preparation and presentation, a perfect scenario for robotics. Fast, efficient, and consistent preparation of food can be accomplished with sensor heavy automation that manages food quality, consistency, and safety far better than humans can at the pace that is required in a fast food process. The novelty factor of automation would soon give way to a preference in much the same way that other businesses have used automation for competitive advantage.

robot-restaurant-3.0If you carry this forward, the interesting thing to consider is how automation informs the fast/casual dining user experience from a design standpoint. Automation completely changes how a kitchen would be laid out, how logistics are managed and even how we use technology to interface with the front end processes as a customer. A maps interface on your phone could now include order entry while driving and beacons could interact with me while en route and in the restaurant itself. It’s pretty exciting to think how everything changes as a result of robotics in the fast food process.

I will close by saying that for McDonald’s these issues cannot be tinkered with. Re-establishing leadership will require bold strategies that remake the entire fast food experience, not just the McDonald’s brand experience. Automation won’t address the menu issues they have, but it will address the labor issues that are plaguing the franchise model. They could start incrementally and insert automation in the kitchen but they also need to lay out a vision for the total experience they are designing to.

Hillary Clinton Attacks Uber, Airbnb

On the wrong side of history yet again, Hillary Clinton has decided that her road to the White House is tearing down one of the great economic movements of the last decade, the sharing economy. 

In an economic speech she is planned to give, Clinton will highlight the stagnating wages of the middle class and points to causes that include Uber and Airbnb. This is mind blowing for two reasons, one is that the bloc of voters that she absolutely has to appeal to is not only benefiting from these services but sees them as a part of their economic portfolio. Secondly, the marketplace for services is fundamentally shifting from one of hardened connections between companies and employees to one of loose connections that increase and decrease based on personal preferences.

Clinton’s aide said she will discuss some of the structural forces conspiring against sustainable wage growth, such as globalization, automation, and even consumer-friendly “sharing economy” firms like Uber and Airbnb that are creating new relationships between management and labor (and which now employ many Obama administration alumni). But she will argue that policy choices have contributed to the problem, and that she can fix it.

Hillary Clinton wants to return Americans to an era where earning income happened exclusively in the context of an employee-employer relationship. In addition to that, she wants to restrict individuals access to a market where utilizing assets like home, apartments, and vehicles for income is an option and is effectively excluded from the worst aspects of government, rent-seeking, which conspires to depress the stagnated incomes that Clinton is right to call out!

UPDATE: I finished the above paragraph after my friend, Paul Greenberg, alerted me to the incomplete sentence in my original post. He also made a comment about this not being a “sharing economy” but rather a new dimension on renting and I largely agree. More than anything else, Uber and Airbnb are just two examples of a bigger movement that enables income to be extracted from 2 of the biggest capital expenses of the middle class, homes and cars. 

Mary Meeker’s recently published 2015 Internet Trends Report highlighted some of the generational changes that are occurring and the impact on the future of work. See Slide 111. Flexible hours and freelancing are integral beliefs underpinning economic freedom for this generation and Clinton’s position is directly at odds with that.

Far from being a cause of middle-class stagnation, the sharing economy offers a rare moment of optimism. Roy Bahat recently published an outstanding essay titled Your Career is a Mess that highlights one of the seismic shifts affecting employment in the 21st century, which is that we are no longer single threaded in the employee-employer relationship.

Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign is emerging as a grab bag of tired progressive policies that have actually attacked the middle class rather than empowered it. Wage growth has stalled because growth itself has stalled, this is not shocking to any economist and yet the candidate continues to parrot talking points about childcare and paid time off, infrastructure investment, and clean energy. Rather than embracing and expanding the economics successes of the last decade, Clinton would take us back to the last century, proving that she is on the wrong side of history yet again.

PS- Comments were not enabled in the original post, I corrected that with this update.

Forced Encryption Rendering Nexus Devices Useless

UPDATE: I unlocked the devices and installed a modified bootloader that disabled encryption. It was a bit of a hassle I had to reformat the device storage but Google has a nice recovery feature for apps in Lollipop. The results were beyond expectation, the phone feels 3x as fast and the Nexus 9 no longer has any of the lag issues that were causing problems with Chrome.

I have a Nexus 9 and a Nexus 6, both running Android Lollipop 5.01. Almost immediately I noticed that there was a lot of lag in the UI and performance was generally slow. After doing a lot of research it appears that forced encryption in 5.0x is a huge performance drag on hardware that would otherwise be quite snappy.

Lollipop 5.1 is rumored to be available but despite being on Nexus devices I have not received OTA updates (Verizon for the 6, T-Mobile for the 9). I can sideload 5.1 on the 6 but there is not image available as of yet for the Nexus 9.

While this feature is well intentioned, the fact remains that it should never have gone into production with the enormous performance penalty it imposes. Furthermore, Google knows of the issue and has removed the forced requirement but has not yet made a fix available to those devices that already have it.

As much as I like the Nexus hardware, I would not recommend buying any Nexus device until Google disables encryption.

Let’s Stop Badgering Companies for Trying…

NikeLabI gotta give Nike credit for this, it’s edgy and pushing a boundary of what athletic apparel for women should be.

Predictably, the outrage factory spun up and without a hint of irony this BI piece (well it is BI) has decided to represent all women in the headline. I have no doubt that Nike has access to women athletes, so I would put strong odds on the idea that not ALL women are outraged.

“The Sacai collection is undoubtedly a vanity project for Nike, but its premise — that female athletes prize style and appearance over functionality and performance — is completely tone-deaf,” writes Megan Wiegand for Slate.

Yeah, I’m sure all that LuLuLemon stuff is being bought on the basis of performance alone…

Let’s imagine a world where companies play it safe and design to the lowest common denominator of what every segment of a demographic wants; in that scenario are women consumers better served than one that caters to individual preferences? No. Fashion is personal and women – outraged or not – will simply vote with their dollars.

 

Starbucks As Race Uniter: Piss Everyone Off Equally

Starbucks found itself in hot water this week after encouraging baristas to write “racetogether” on coffee cups and discuss race relations with customers. And of course their is a #racetogether hashtag campaign. Sigh.

I give you Starbucks leadership team… you can’t blame them for being so white, there aren’t many sunny days in Seattle. I can’t explain why they are predominantly men.

It didn’t help when head PR honcho at the coffee purveyor, Corey DuBrowa, deleted his Twitter account after the deluge of negative reaction. This only reinforced the perception that this was little more than a marketing gimmick and the company really wasn’t interested in a “conversation”. Euphemistically or not.

No matter how you spin it, this is not a good day for Starbucks, which to it’s credit does have real diversity programs that throw business to minority and women owned businesses. These are the kinds of programs that companies like Starbucks should be investing in, because most people don’t want and won’t accept being talked to about serious issues through patronizing slogans written on coffee cups and 140 character missives anchored with a hashtag.

Outrage in America has itself been elevated to a cause, and there may be an element of that here but the critics seem to have a valid point by highlighting the hypocrisy of talking about diversity in a company led by old white guys. Fair or not, Starbucks can’t ignore that fact. This leads to an important threshold that companies wading into social commentary have to meet, which is your moral authority. It would be hard to argue that Starbucks has any moral authority to lead this debate given their leadership and customer demographic (break down the stats on store locations for further evidence of this). Of course you could also argue that no one is uniquely qualified to talk about race just because of their skin color… I could make the case either way but what I won’t defend is the idea that corporate sloganeering will lead to positive change.

Another element at work here is that most cause marketing that isn’t linked to explicit act is in itself a sham. Hashtag campaigns have jumped the shark and I believe that people are actually a lot smarter than advertisers give them credit for. People pick up on the cues and can call BS on these activities even if they don’t do it explicitly. Advertisers should do themselves a service and ditch the hashtags and calls for “conversation”… it’s the kabuki theatre of going through the motions without doing the work.

Look no further than the kidnapped school girls in Nigeria. #BringBackOurGirls may have made people feel good but a year later the girls are still missing and their fate a mystery… Boko Haram was, apparently, not impressed by a hashtag campaign.

Companies can be a force for social good when their good intentions are coupled with policies and hard work. Marketing slogans and diversity officers that are little more than paper tigers won’t qualify nor improve the standing of companies when called to stand up for diversity as a cause.

PS- If Starbucks is serious about race relations in America, put a Starbucks in Ferguson Missouri and contribute generously to the rebuilding of that city where white and black residents are paying the price for shameful yellow journalism built on a hands-up-don’t-shoot lie. There is no Starbucks in Ferguson, I’m sure the residents would appreciate the jobs.

smart +/- watches

So it’s been a long time since I last wrote and I don’t have a good excuse for that… family life has been busy, work is hectic, I’m too heads down, my vitamin D is low, yada yada. Truth is, I just haven’t felt like writing.

However, that does not mean I have stopped thinking and experiencing. Like many of you I have been following the wearables category with great interest, in part because it represents a huge growth segment for end user devices and infrastructure to support them. The bigger reason for my enthusiasm is that these devices have the capacity to greatly enhance our experiences with technology.

Moto-360_Map-820x420Last year my wife got me a Moto360 and despite being kind of particular (snobbish) about watches I have to say I was looking forward to this device. It looks like a traditional watch and has nice build quality, including a well made leather strap. It looks and feels nice on my wrist.

I used the watch for over a month straight and came to some conclusions that I believe apply to the entire category. Smartwatches are inherently limited in capability because of form factor (you can only pack so much hardware in one), the telecom infrastructure that limits the ability to have multiple devices paired to one mobile number, and battery capacity. As such, the majority of vendors who are putting these out have opted for a paradigm of the watch being an extension of the smartphone for notifications and voice activated engagement.

The way these interactions work is actually pretty cool, in the case of the Android at least. The basic operating mode is that you do something on the phone and the phone will react to the watch with the full UX of the smartphone. For example, “ok google…. navigate to 650 Townsend St.” and the phone will pick up with the maps app loaded with the desired address and navigation underway.

This is actually a really useful interaction providing that the voice function on the watch works as it should. As anyone who has used Siri or Google Now on a busy street or with your kids chattering away in the car knows… voice is good when you have a low noise environment.

The limitations of voice commands impacts many of the other functions of the watch where the smartphone is playing a background role, such as note taking. We’re in the early days of wearables but we’re not in the early days of voice technology and the latter just needs to get a lot better.

There are apps for the phone and aside from the magic 8 ball app I did not find much to be interested in. The fitness app trend seems to have peaked but it may be that the first generation of these apps has peaked an we’ll have a big leap forward in the next iteration. Sending SMS is cool but you have to double check the voice-to-text so it’s not a convenience… same with email. Timers and other watch functions, as you might expect, are useful but not enough to compel anyone because that’s a basic watch function and in some respects my smartphone is just better at this.

After using the watch for more than a month I lost interest in it and put it on the shelf. The primary reason for this is that I simply prefer the feel of a mechanical watch and I’m of the generation that has more invested in the tradition of timepieces. However, another big reason is that the smartphone just got annoying… I felt spammed with notifications when I just wanted to see what time it was.

We really need to develop a better solution for notifications and I’m not alone in voicing this frustration. If wearables and IoT means I’m going to get 10x the number of notifications that I already get on my phone, count me out.

Now on to the Apple watch, and in the spirit of self-deprecating full disclosure, I’m not your guy for apple predictions.  I will say that the Apple watch looks pretty clunky but that in itself will become a compelling aspect of the design language… and if they sell watches as a precursor to selling iPhones they will still win.

I am pretty interested to see how other devices interact with smartwatches for authentication and user engagement. Given enough development of the platform and supporting apps, smartwatches could end up unlocking an entire new wave of device proliferation and things like in-vehicle services. With a “guest mode” capability smartwatches could also serve as a really compelling interface to public services and facilities.

UPDATE: I neglected to highlight one really annoying aspect of the Moto360, which is that it only charges via NFC. It has a very stylish dock that the watch “sleeps” in to recharge but what are you supposed to do when you travel. I try to minimize the crap I have to carry with me so when I saw that I could only take it with me if I hauled the special charger around (because who carries an NFC base station with them?) I ended up leaving it at home every time I traveled.

SaaS Status Pages and “Trust”

logo_okta@2xOkta has a status page called Trust, and because I compete with them I pay attention to it. At Ping Identity we also have a status page on our IDaaS service and our team makes this a focal point for the service, ensuring that we have realtime data and that it is broken down into the component services along with response times. It is this level of automation and granularity that I think is the underpinning of “capital T” trust.

okta mistrustIn reviewing the Okta page last week I noticed something interesting, well 2 things actually. The first is that the minutes of uptime didn’t correlate to the number of minutes in the year to date, it was off by 6 days. I didn’t think much about it until I went back to the page this morning and noticed that the number had jumped up by a large amount.

With the help of EpochConverter, I calculated the number of days in the year to date, multiplied by 24 and then by 60 to establish the number of minutes. Today is Day 251 in the year and that translates to 361,440 minutes will have elapsed at the midnight tonight… which is pretty far off the “minutes up” reported by Okta today, at 393,120.

Reversing the math on the 393,120 number gives me 273 days, and EpochConverter dutifully reports that day to be September 30, 2014. In other words, Okta is reporting the full month of September as being 100% uptime even though we are only on September 8th. So we know they aren’t automating the calculation of uptime, which also means the number is only as good as the incidents that are reported.

Which brings me to the second observation, there are no definitions of what each unit of measure means. Okta reports “100% global service uptime” for 2014 (rolling forward to the end of the month), but in the “infrastructure” and “features” uptime there are incidents that have impacted uptime.

For 2014 there are 770 minutes of infrastructure and features incidents that affected uptime, which calculates to almost 13 hours of service time (12.83 hours to be exact). How can you acknowledge you had 13 hours of incidents this year and then confidently assert that your service was 100% available and therefore meeting SLA promises? That’s just playing lawyer-ball using a synthetic measure of the service being reachable for 100% of the customers as opposed to the reality of that at various times during the year the service was not available for at least some of the customers.

Where this gets meaningful is that 770 minutes of incident time against the actual minutes to year of 361,440 means the service was 98% available and that is a material amount off the 99.9% SLA guarantee.

Trust is a truth between a company and a customer and when that truth is impaired, so goes the trust. Realtime data is a wonderful thing and in the world of on demand systems there is no reason for not offering a realtime perspective on system status.

UPDATE: I called them dishonest but have since deleted that because it was unfair. I really don’t know what their motivation is, and it could well be that they simply put up a page that doesn’t have the necessary systems connected in the backend.

About Me: I work at Ping Identity, a competitor to Okta. Obviously that means I’m not an objective observer here but math is a stubborn thing nonetheless. Hopefully you will read this objectively and make up your own mind… but needless to say, this is my personal blog and these are my personal opinions.