JCL Blog

Deflation in the Technology Industry

In today's NY Times Paul Krugman says that the core rate of inflation is 0.6% -- the lowest number ever recorded.  Those of us in technology realize that current inflation measures are inadequate because they do not measure Moore's law.  We all know that the technology of tomorrow will be better and cost less -- and that is definitely deflation.

Economists fear inflation, but they fear deflation more.  Inflation can be addressed by raising interest rates.  There is no known cure for deflation because by the time we get there, we will have flooded the market with cash and it clearly will not have worked.  In addition, deflation incents people to do things that cause more deflation -- where inflation is self correcting.  After all, if a buyer cannot afford the inflated price, less will be purchased, and if less is purchased, the price should come down.  Falling prices is the same as falling inflation -- and there is the self correction.  

The two devastating effects of deflation are the increased relative cost of debt, and the underlying incentive to put off purchases until the prices go down more.  Both of which reduce demand for products or services.  Less demand is addressed with lower prices, and lower prices only make the trend accelerate in the wrong direction.  Deflation breeds more deflation.

Some years ago we had all of the computing power we needed.  We used to buy upgraded machines because we needed more computing power.  Features and functionality, often formed into the "killer app", drove sales.  It has been a long time since a new version of office brought us productivity enhancing new features.  

Realizing that their customers had no compelling reason to buy, the makers of the technology started eating other industries.  First was advertising.  Google is a technology company, but all of its revenues come at the expense of the advertising industry.  Google offers better advertising for 1/10th the cost.  Replacing analog dollars with digital dimes is clearly deflationary.

Next the technology industry is going to eat the labor market.  With all of the computing capacity moving to centralized data centers, also known as "the cloud", companies are going to need much fewer technology people.  It is already possible to run a 50 person business without any technology people on staff.  Lowering the demand for workers is absolutely deflationary.

After that the technology industry is going to eat the energy market.  A very large percentage of the power used to run today's computers is wasted.  Not only are the power supplies to PCs over sized by design -- and therefore consuming much more power than necessary, but many PCs just sit there using the electricity for no other reason that to create heat all night long.  The centralization of computing will address this too.  The result will be less need for electricity.  Less need for electricity is deflationary.

So I don't know if all of the QE going on will lead to out of control inflation anytime soon.  I do know that the technology industry is going to be contributing to deflation for as far as I can see into the future.

 

 

 

RetroDex is Tomorrow (and Comdex too)

If you are in Seattle or Silicon Valley (Mountain View) on the evening of November 16th, you should join us for RetroDex.  It should be a bunch of fun.  Info and registration here.  Use the code "CSGfriend" for a discount.

This has been a very fun project.  Starting new things is something I like to do and it is the all consuming part that I like the most.  I suspect my blogging frequency will be picking back up later this week.

We started this whole project because Comdex is being reborn this year as a virtual event.  If you have not yet registered for ComdexVirtual click here.  

Today we closed the loop on the Comdex theme with our new Escape from Las Vegas web based game.  So tomorrow when you are sitting there doing the Comdex thing virtually, you can have a little fun by playing our game.  Try it out and let us know what you think.

Also, we are partnering with the UP CON 2010 Cloud Computing Conference for discounted tickets.  If you did not get the special offer email, please send us an email at sales@retrodex.co.  If you are already going to UP CON 2010, check your bag for discounted tickets to RetroDex.

Google Reads Your Email, and Facebook is Jealous

Gmail is free – provided you don’t assign any cost to Google reading your email.  It is a simple case of risk and reward.  Gmail users have accepted this trade off because the utility (reward) of the service eclipses the perception of the risks associated with the lack of security.  Facebook aspires to be the owner of identity management for the purpose of selling personal information to marketers and cannot imagine being left out of the email reading business.  So this week Facebook will announce their own free email service.

It will be interesting to see how long users accept this lack of security.  Clearly Google crossed the line earlier this year when they pushed Buzz too close to gmail and got big blowback – so users are not completely ambivalent about security.  There have been a few cases (This American Life; Gizmodo) where federal officials have pursued people because of posts on Facebook.  A few more of these and law abiding citizens could start to fear Facebook, Google and other free/unsecure services.

Yes  it is legal for Google and Facebook to read your email because of the agreement you accept when signing up.  Of course no one reads those agreements, and most people know that their employers can legally read their email too – so adding Google or Facebook probably doesn’t really register.  If there is a tipping point on the horizon where security becomes as big or bigger than convenience, what will the users do? 

Last week I was at Mark Anderson’s Fire Global conference in Seattle where Steven Sprague (Wave Systems) proposed this idea:  “What if I could encrypt my data before sending it to Facebook and only my friends could decrypt it.”  Could this be the next Facebook:  a system that would manage connections and encryption keys?  There would have to be a different monetization model, and it is highly unlikely that Facebook itself would go this route.  Maybe someone is out there right now building such a system.

On the email front, someone could easily emerge as the secure provider.  ISPs offer email service along with their bandwidth subscriptions, so they would be in prime position to play up the security angle.  AOL is a trusted brand and their un-hipness may even be an asset.  Apple could capitalize with its mobileme service. And last but not least is Microsoft.  Sure the Hotmail people are reading your mail, but the new Office365 paid service could be better positioned than any of the others to take advantage of this shift.

This will be an interesting one to watch.

 

LATER (11/14):  Just noticed that AOL launched an email revamp today.  Read about it on ZDnet here.  I don't see any mention of security, so it does not look like they are playing up the angle I thought.

 

NY Times One Liners

There are just too many good one line quotes in the New York Times today.  Here are my favorites with links to the articles:

Dowd:  "W. never sweated the small stuff. Unfortunately, he didn’t much sweat the big stuff either." Article.

Friedman: "we won the lottery five times in a row — and that’s just the attempts we know about. " Article.

Rich:  "It means that Obama can make a comeback, but only if he figures out what he has to come back from and where he has to go." Article.

Kristof: "From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent." Article.

Lohr:  "I.B.M. and Apple can be viewed as the yin and the yang of high-tech innovation, as two companies with more in common than is generally understood."  Article.

Moss:  "And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture..."  Article

Happy reading.

Three Trends to Watch in 2011

I want to get a jump on this prediction season with a few thoughts about things I think will be significant for selling to the enterprise in the year ahead.  

  1. Protecting Corporate Data:  There is an obvious and large need for better protections for corporate informational assets.  Anyone who can address this need will jump ahead of their peers.  This is not just a technology issue – better policies and procedures will be required to address the ever growing willingness of employees to share everything with everyone.
  2. Run Ahead of Expectations Transference:  My favorite example of this is Mint vs Quicken.  Quicken has been the market leader forever.  Mint is elegant and easy to use.  Quicken users did not even know they were unhappy until they started using other elegant and simple systems that do complicated things (online banking for example).  They expected more than what Quicken was offering and as soon as they saw it – they jumped.  That is why Intuit bought Mint for $170 million.  This is going to play out in CRM and other legacy systems.  Anyone not yet unhappy with enterprise CRM – will be soon.  I bet the solution will look like Mint.com.
  3. Search/Location:  Enterprise search is way behind consumer search and getting farther behind.   We no longer have any patience for organizing things.  Searching the enterprise for people, things, expertise, and trends is going to be gigantic.  If you knew what your employees were searching for and if they found it – would that information be useful to you?  Why are we not doing this right now? Google just put one of their MVPs, Marissa Mayer, in charge of its location based initiatives.  Properly executed, location specific search will enable you to put “my house” in the search box and up pops your house.  In terms of the enterprise, I will expand this to include context specific help.  Being able to present different information to different employees based on their context will increase productivity and satisfaction immensely.

Who Is Driving Technology Sales: The Consumer or the Enterprise?

Even though a significant majority of technology purchases are made by businesses, the consumer is rapidly gaining a meaningful position in the market.  According to Gartner, in 2010 businesses will drive 72% of technology purchases.  The iPhone/iPad revolution is largely driven by consumer purchases.  As these devices are introduced into the enterprise computing environment, IT professionals are developing strategies for managing them.  Forward thinking technology marketing people are presently working to understand how these changes will impact IT purchasing decisions in the enterprise.

Here we examine the arc of this revolution and make an attempt to help marketers position themselves for the evolved technology marketplace.

The Cost of Selling is High for the Enterprise and Low for the Consumer

Maybe it is cheap to sell to the consumer because consumer products are cheap, or maybe consumer products can be offered cheaply because it is cheap to sell them.  Either way, it costs much less to sell to the consumer than the enterprise, and in some cases the cost of customer acquisition is approaching zero.   Alternatively, over on the enterprise end of the spectrum, we find companies like Salesforce.com – whose largest expense is for customer acquisition.  For 10 years SFDC has spent over 50% of their gross margin on sales and marketing – and this year they will spend over $700 million.  Ten times as much as it will cost them to deliver their services.  Right behind Salesforce.com are Oracle, IBM, HP and Microsoft each spending over 20% of their gross margin on Sales and Marketing. 

When it comes to selling the approaches cannot be more different, consumer companies like Google sell by getting their customers to act as their own salespeople (filling out a form on the web), quite a contrast to Salesforce.com and the others who are seeking business customers by blanketing the earth with salespeople and partners.

Getting to Market:  To Advertise or Not To Advertise

Even companies with buckets of money must select a go to market strategy and concentrate their resources in what they believe are high value activities.  There are as many opinions about which strategy works best as there are CMOs – but just about all CMOS will agree that resources must be concentrated in high value activities consistent with their strategy.  Anyone spreading their resources thinly over too many activities is doomed.  The decision tree starts with advertising.  There are companies like Apple and Dell that go big on advertising and PR and companies like Microsoft and HP that invest their resources in building partner ecosystems.  A completely different third approach is lowering prices so far that solutions sell themselves.  Google and Craigslist price their services at 1/10th of their offline competitors.  Prices this low promote themselves – a $3,000 car or a $1 movie ticket would not require advertising or salespeople – the newspapers would write about it and the message would spread virally.

Let Someone Else to Pay

There is no charge for using a search engine or web service like Twitter or Facebook.  Using a free product does not make you a customer however.  The customers of these companies are the advertisers, and their payments for advertisements make it possible for companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook to offer valuable services for no charge to those benefiting from them.  No monetary charge would be a little more accurate.  The truth is:  those not paying for a service are not the customer, they (or their data) are the product being sold to someone else.  This is where the gulf between consumer and enterprise gets interesting.  Individuals are much more willing to give up their data in exchange for a free service.  Enterprise data is almost always a strategic asset and therefore most businesses are reluctant to trade their data for services.  Salesforce.com’s clients are businesses and they pay for the service because giving up their data to be sold to a third party would undermine their viability.  Google gets right up to the line on this one because they are selling the data they have about their customers to third parties – and many of their customers are businesses.  Admittedly Google is not going to one client and saying they will sell the content of another client’s searches or emails.  They will however allow one client to present advertisements to a targeted audience that is likely to include its competitor’s customers or employees.  This is evidence that the gap between consumer and enterprise buying habits is closing.

Mixing it up:  Put the Blender on Whip

Twenty years ago, with the exception of a few intrepid door to door salespeople, the consumer went to the store and salespeople called on businesses.  Then Amazon.com brought the store to the consumer’s home, and Dell cut out the salesperson by giving businesses the ability to serve as their own salespeople over the phone and web.  The consumer and business buyers including those in the technology market had been oil and water, and they were about to get poured into the blender.  When the first killer app for the consumer oriented Mac turned out to be the business oriented use case of desktop publishing – it was like hitting the chop button on the blender.  Employees connecting their home computers to corporate networks, enabled largely by broadband deployment, was the equivalent of the stir button. Social media tools like MySpace, Friendster, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter turned the blender up to puree.  And as we are learning in our one question survey this month, the iPhone and iPad have cranked the margarita making machine up to whip and the water and oil have emerged as thick as chocolate mousse.  With consumer tech and enterprise tech all whipped up together, selling technology now takes on a combination of enterprise selling and consumer selling tactics. 

Enterprise Marketing Must Change

Right now there is a great deal of energy being invested by enterprise marketing people in social media.  This is important, but not the only area where the enterprise / consumer collision is impacting the market.  We will never know if the big brains at Apple developed their iPhone/iPad strategy with an eye on the enterprise market.  Intentional or not, their shiny new devices are changing the marketplace and buying patterns significantly.  Starbucks is moving to HTML 5 and away from dot net as a result.  Flash is being marginalized.  And products like those from Parallels that tie the new environment together, are ramping fast.  Enterprise marketers need to free their minds from a focus on making the things they have always done more efficient and start experimenting to develop new strategies that are effective in this new marketplace.

On the Horizon

As participants in technology marketing for the enterprise, these are the trends we expect to see accelerate as a result of the blending of the consumer and enterprise markets:

Social Media:  Clearly social media will be central to these changes, both driving and being driven by the marketplace evolution.  The key to social media is authenticity.  They key to authenticity is flexibility and IQ.  Companies with intelligent and autonomous actors on social media platforms will win.  It does not hurt that the highest value customers are the early adopters of social media.  100 years ago, when telephones had been deployed in 10% of the households, companies realized that the early adopters of the telephone were on the high end of the socio-economic ladder and should be treated as such.  Once telephones achieved 98% penetration, and the overwhelming majority of phone calls came from average customers, companies shifted their approach from high investment in high value customers to cost containment.  This is why a Comcast customer can get a high quality response from @comcastcares, and not from the Comcast call center.  Comcast knows the demographics of their social media savvy customers.  It will be some time before social media is democratized.  To Do:  Get smart people into the social media game.

Computer Operators:  Before the computerization of the telco central office, switching was done by telephone operators.  An operator could manage approximately 200 telephone lines.  We now have 180 million land lines and over 200 million mobile lines in the US.  If we had to rely on manual switching – we would now require 1.9 million telephone operators.  Thanks to automation we only have 22,000 telephone operators now and none of them are switching calls.  In the early days of the computer an operator with significant training was required to run the device.  This continued during the early days of the PC.  The devices were complicated enough that every user was essentially a trained computer operator.  It has only been in the last 10 years that computers could be operated without the barrier of significant training.  The iPhone and the iPad are revolutionary in that they require no specific training at all.  A child can pick one up and figure out how to use it.  Many businesses now operate without a single IT resource on staff.  Computer operators are not dead however, they have shifted to managed IT service providers, web service operators, and application developers.  This trend will continue to accelerate.  Business will be less technically aware and will purchase services from specialized service providers.  The service providers will have all of the computer operators and accordingly will increase in sophistication and technical capabilities.  This will split the marketplace into the sellers of the services and the sellers of the underlying technology.  The services will be purchased by people with business needs and a low level of technical sophistication.  The underlying technology will be purchased by people with an extremely high level of technical sophistication.  To Do: Market services by business use case and technology by engineering merit.

Partners Migrate to Service Sales:  The bifurcation of technology into unsophisticated (technically that is) buyers of services and very sophisticated buyers of the underlying technology will force a split in sales and marketing strategy.  The big technical deals will get bigger and will be increasingly sold using internal salespeople.  This will shrink the high end of enterprise technology sales and marketing done through partnerships. Who is going to sell servers to Amazon.com?  IBM, Dell, HP, and others will be competing for that deal directly.  Who is going to sell desktops to the law firm?  Channel partners.  Historically those partners have been companies.  Of course because partnerships are relationships, and relationships are between actual people, the reality has always been that the success of these partnerships depend heavily on the relationships between the people inside the companies.  For fifty years, people have been getting more and more mobile, a trend that has been accelerated by the latest economic challenges, and facilitated by social media tools.  Technology companies that are able to shift their thinking from partnering with companies to partnering with people will jump well ahead during this transition.   To Do:  Orient partner programs to individual people that sell services.

In the years ahead businesses will remain the most significant source of revenue in the technology industry. Businesses will however increasingly behave like consumers when purchasing service offerings. They will be looking for cost effective solutions to their most pressing needs, and they will be buying those solutions on short lead times and with relatively low technical sophistication. Vendors and solution providers that position themselves for this change will win in the transition.

Consumer and Enterprise: Oil and Water?

Somewhere around the fifth grade we learned that oil and water do not mix.  I was reminded of this lesson not long ago when my daughters did the experiment that we all probably did in grade school.  They put oil and water in a glass beaker and stirred them up – and then watched them separate.  Anyone who has introduced water into engine oil, via a blown head gasket on an old engine for example, also knows that with enough heat, pressure, and agitation: oil and water can be whipped into a grey goo that takes some time to separate.  Of course the lesson from grade five still stands and the oil and water do separate eventually, but it takes longer than you might think.  With constant heat, pressure and agitation the two incompatible substances can be mixed. 

Thanks to Steve Jobs, this same thing is happening right now in technology marketing.  The incompatible substances are the consumer buyer of technology and the enterprise buyer of technology and the mobile device is the heat, pressure and agitation.  Consumers are bringing mobile devices into the enterprise and disrupting the computing environment significantly. 

Here are some of the differences between Consumer and Enterprise technology buying:

We are currently conducting a One Question Survey of IT decision makers and asking them:  What one technology product changed your business computing the most in 2010?  The number one answer so far is the iPhone.  I thought it would be up there, but I did not think it would be number one.  Number two is VMware’s virtualization suite. 

The survey is still ongoing – so if you want to weigh in on this matter you can do so here.  It will only take one minute to fill out the one question survey.

We will be announcing the final results at our RetroDex events on November 16th.  You can learn more about RetroDex here.

The Microsoft Thread in the News

Here is an interesting post from Computerworld about Linux losing its spark.  I wonder how much of the Linux movement was or is powered by dislike of Microsoft.  If Linux is losing its steam it could be because the anger or angst about Microsoft has declined.  The article I link to here does not propose such a thing as the reason -- instead it lists too many versions of Linux and the decline of the fat client.

Here is an insightful post by Robert Scoble with an interview with Starbuck's CIO, Stephen Gillett, about their new in store digital network -- now live in 6,800 stores and attracting 31 million users per month.  The overwhelming majority of users are on iPhones and Ipads -- so that means Safari browsers and no Flash and no dot net for Starbucks.  

Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal about Steve Job's not so candid appearance on the earnings call (it sounds like he is reading a statement to me) where he blasts away at a bunch of competitors, calls Windows the most open system in history, links Android to Windows and makes an effort to sweep Microsoft and Google away at the same time.

Admittedly, Microsoft is not the center of any of these events or coverage, but there is an interesting thread running through them all.  Collectively they cause me to ask the question:  As Microsoft fades in industry importance -- who is going to fill the void?  I would argue that there is no one ready to fill Microsoft's shoes and that is creating a vacuum that makes everyone uncomfortable.

It will be interesting to see what news comes out of the Microsoft PDC next week

RetroDex Plan D

It seemed like such a simple idea.  Everything Channel decided to bring back Comdex -- but as a virtual event.  I could not imagine Comdex without after hours parties -- even if it was set in a virtual Las Vegas.  Plus I could not wrap my head around a virtual party.  I even joined second life and walked around in there looking for ways to have a party -- my old brain just could not put that together.

So RetroDex was born.  In its current form, RetroDex is two after hours parties in local markets timed to coincide with Comdex Virtual.  

Along the way we had all kinds of ideas and not all kinds of time. We chased our tails a bit.  Built up a team, and today we launched events in Silicon Valley and Seattle.  You can read all about it at the RetroDex site.

If you are one of the many people we talked to while we have been making our plans, thank you.  Your feedback has helped immensely.  If you are one of my amazing team members working tirelessly on this project -- thank you for making this possible.

Here is a list of things that surprised me along the way:

 

  1. Having a party just to socialize after a day of virtual event going is not compelling enough.  So we added great feature speakers (Robert Scoble and Larry Walsh).
  2. Bringing together like minded channel partners to collaborate on an event is nearly impossible. So we skipped the collaboration and just hosted the thing ourselves.
  3. Riding the media wave created by Comdex did not happen -- because so far there has not been a media wave.  I still think this could change, but I have been very surprised that the media has not picked up on the Comdex big, Comdex explodes, Comdex dormant, Comdex back as virtual, RetroDex as after hours Comdex parties story.  Seems interesting to me.

 

So here we are on Plan D.  This just would not be fun if we didn't make it to at least plan G before November 16th.

A few months back I wrote a post about how great things happen when they are tied to events -- because events have dates that cannot slide.  How true!

 

 

Trouble in Paradise

Boracay, an island in the Philippines with one of the most beautiful beaches in the world, is a place everyone who loves sun should see.  The sand is spectacular, and the water is about 85 degrees F -- all year round.  

Like any beautiful place, it is hard to spend much time there before entertaining the thought of moving there -- even if it is just a conversation for fun over drinks.  It only takes a few minutes to find out that due to the overnight popularization of the island there is essentially no such thing as free and clear title for property on Boracay.  You can buy land there, you can build on it, but right as soon as you are done someone may show up and say -- "hey, that is my property"!

By comparison, we have been very lucky in the US.  More than just about any other nation, we have a veritable paradise of titles to property.  When you buy a house, you are nearly 100% certain to have clear title, and you can actually find someone to insure that should there be any issue, they will cover you (title insurance).  In most communities we have 150 or more years of title history -- further solidifying that the person who says they are the owner of the property is actually the owner.  In order for property to sell, one must know that the seller can sell it.  Any uncertainty and there will be no selling and no financing, and certainly no investing in improvements.

It appears that the same people that brought us the mortgage crisis have a chance to bring end our confidence in free and clear title to property.  Check out this piece in Business Insider. Bear in mind that the bankers would not have to cast a shadow on all titles in order to ruin the market.  Even if a small percentage of titles are tainted, the title insurance would get very expensive or dry up all together.  Without title insurance, there would be no mortgages.  Without mortgages we would all be going back to buying homes for cash -- you know like Americans did before the civil war.

So it is a good thing the foreclosure factories were stopped last week.  Let's hope we can get out of this without erasing our confidence in our ability to own property.

One Question

Harvey Mackay wrote a great book in 1995 called Swim With the Sharks.  In it he tells a story about going to a convention of envelope makers (hard for me to imagine too, but he was in that business) where a veteran of the envelope biz asked him:  "what do you get for your scrap?".  That is with the "s".  Turns out that the difference between making it or not making in the envelope business is how much you get for those little scraps of paper that don’t make it into a finished envelope.  I gather the envelope business is pretty price competitive!

I bring up this story because in many situations there is one question that can tell the whole story.  There is one question that illuminates layers upon layers of information about a person, a project, or a business. 

That old guy at the convention of envelope makers learned all he needed to know about Harvey Mackay’s envelope business when he asked that one question.  From the answer he would discover if Harvey knew what he was talking about, if Harvey’s business was running well, and if Harvey might know something useful. 

Every business and many situations have a “one question” like this.

If you hire a lot of people, you probably have your favorite interview question.  Sure you ask 20 questions, but there is probably one that tells the whole story.  For me it is:  “Tell me about the worst place you ever worked.”  Our company culture is very important to me and I want to know how someone is going to contribute positively to our culture.  The answer to this one question tells me if the person will take ownership of their positive contribution to our company culture.  If you are hiring for a technical position, you might ask a question specific to the technology – something like “How do you get around the memory allocation problem in ___?”.  You can see here that I don't hire the technical people but you get the idea.  The answer to one properly asked question tells you the whole story.

Great salespeople employ this one question methodology all of the time.  Our clients are marketing people and asking them:  “What is the performance metric you are most worried about achieving next quarter?” tells a lot.  From the answer we find out if they are inclined to measure things, if they have one problem or many, and what they are going to be thinking about when staring at the ceiling at 3 AM.  Armed with that information we know if we can help them or not.  All in One Question.

Driving Less

I just cannot shake this gas price thing.  I took the data from NationMaster and converted a few of the notable countries to cost per gallon at the pump:

Some people say that we have so much money in America that even if we doubled the gas price, consumption would not change.  I think we should give that a try.  We currently use 378 million gallons of gasoline per day so a $3.00 per gallon gas tax (in addition to current taxes) would raise $137 Billion in tax revenue each year.  Sure, maybe our consumption would go down -- which would also be good  -- so let's call it $100 Billion.

That would not quite pay for the interest on the national debt ($164B), but it would pay for the State Department ($51B) and HUD ($47B).  See the Wikipedia page on the 2010 budget here

Hanging Out with Nambia and Bangladesh

In the event you are interested in knowing where we stand on gasoline taxes and the resulting price at the pump, there is a great website that you should check out called NationMaster.  There you can see a chart comparing us to all other nations.

It turns out that in America we pay 77% of the worldwide average price for gasoline.  Sounds pretty good until you look more closely and see who we are hanging out with on the list:

It seems like the weaker the government, the lower the gas price.  Gotta keep the people happy I guess.  All of the way at the bottom are Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, and Turkmenistan.  At the top are Uruguay (who da thunk), the UK, Israel, and Argentina.  They pay 2X the worldwide average, or 3X what we pay.

If they can do it -- why can't we?

Book Review: The Frugal Superpower by Michael Mandelbaum

We have spent all of our money and no longer have the ability to project power to all four corners of the globe.  We probably knew this was coming because it has happened to every world dominating superpower to date.  We inherited the role as the protector of the free world when the sun set on the British empire.  For a time we shared the responsibility with the USSR, the protector of the not free world, but on November 9, 1989 the job became all ours.

As Lord Acton pointed out in 1870, the Pope is not immune from fallibility.  If the Pope is not, we are probably not either.  Lord Acton is the guy that first said:  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  

Michael Mandelbaum does a very good job of surveying our current situation and placing it in the context of recent history.  His authority on the subject comes through in the writing as well as in his BIO (Yale, Cambridge, Harvard, professor at Johns Hopkins, 10 books...), he keeps to the point, and offers one simple solution:  Increase the tax on gas in the US.

Imagine that, we have a very complex problem that threatens our role on the world stage, and probably our quality of life, and it very well could be fixed with one easy to implement policy.  

Huh.

Here are some other reviews:

The Washington Times

The Guardian

Finding the Time

Since starting this blog I have stopped using time constraints as an excuse.  Reinforcing the fact that I have control over my time is one of the benefits of writing regularly for fun.  Clearly this activity is not essential -- so if I have time to write on my blog every day, I must have time for a lot of other things.

This weekend I started reading Clay Shirky's Cognitive Surplus.  Right in the beginning he sets up a very interesting contrast:  Volunteers editing Wikipedia vs watching TV.  Shirky estimates that the cumulative time spent on Wikipedia writing/editing is something like 100 million hours of human effort.  Say what you will about Wikipedia, but I find it quite useful.  I would trade 100 million hours of everyone's TV watching time to get a Wikipedia.  

It turns out that Americans watch about 100 million hours of TV commercials -- every weekend.  Can you believe that?  We could create something as valuable as Wikipedia -- every weekend -- just by not watching the commercials on TV!

Growing or Shrinking

I think it is a miracle that our economy grows at all.  I can't say that I have an intricate understanding of the way we calculate GDP or inflation.  But here are the things from my life that are pulling the deflationary lever: 

Computers:  In 1988 I bought at 286 machine for $5,000 -- now I buy computers for less than $1,000.

Cell Phones:  In 1990 my cell phone bill was $600 per month.  It is still $600 per month but I have 11 phones and a handful of data devices on it.

Housing:  I do pay more for housing because my family is bigger and we have upgraded our house.  But I don't see any reason to expand any further and at 30 years old, my house is a long way from wearing out.  On a larger scale, we have about 15% vacancy in housing units (empty houses, rental units, and other unoccupied inventory) I would say it will be a while before we need more housing as a nation.

Cars:  We just bought a car for about the same price as the last new car I bought in 2002.  And this one is nicer.

Media:  I pay less for my phone, internet, cable TV, music, and movies than in the recent past.

Travel:  We seem to get great deals on airfare and hotels whenever we decide to travel.  We may be traveling more that we used too -- so this could be a net increase.

Healthcare:  Our family spending on healthcare -- even with insurance -- goes up significantly every year.

Education:  My kids are now in private school because I could not risk a public education.  Up a bunch here too.

In the end, more items are going down or staying flat than items going up.  The ones going up, healthcare and education, are going up a lot.  So my personal net GDP change is up.  This "growth" is pretty much a demographic thing -- my kids are growing up and requiring more medical attention and more education spending.  Without those two things, my individual GDP change would be down.

Our Standard of Living

We put a good deal of weight behind averages.  Whether it is GDP, GDP per capita, inflation rate, cost of living, or even the cost of gas -- these numbers are national averages that only tell part of the story.  There was a good opinion piece in the NY Times (from Reuters Breakingviews) yesterday about how Americans have gotten used to continual increases in living standards and how the wind has now turned against that trend.

Of course the article is citing the average living standard.  With the polarization of incomes becoming ever more dramatic, the average living standard does not tell the whole story.  Some people are doing better, the wealthiest 10 percent of households got 35% of income in 1980 and got 48% in 2008.  And the other end of the spectrum are the unemployed, now numbering 20 million.  Here is a good article on this subject in Businessweek if you want to read more.

The rising tide is not raising all of the ships.  Those in the knowledge economy that can compete on the world market will do well.  Anyone that wants to earn 10 times what someone offshore earns -- had better figure out how to contribute 10 times as much.

The Dinosaurs Have No Money

One of the best ways to move a large marketing organization from unmeasured marketing to measured marketing is to test everything and kill the things that cannot prove their value -- then move that budget to things that can prove their value.

This is not new, every sizable marketing organization has been doing this for at least a decade.  This reality translates to a great deal of disruption -- even if the overall budget is only changing slightly.  

The same thing is happening in the labor market.  Our unemployment rate is stuck at 10%, but 3.2 million new jobs were created in August.  This number cannot be evaluated without also looking at the job separations -- also 3.2 million.  So no net new jobs -- no change in unemployment rate.

Some would say that nothing is happening in either marketing or employment.  I say that a great deal is happening.  For every dinosaur company that is letting people go, there is a rising company hiring.  For every dog of a marketing idea getting killed, there is a new one starting up.

The next time you hear "we have no budget for that" remember that somewhere else someone is saying "let's do it!".

LATER:  Jobs numbers just out:  95,000 net jobs lost in September.

The Media Spotlight Eludes the Enterprise

Even people immersed in enterprise computing would rather follow the latest product announcement by Apple or Facebook than the latest news about Network Attached Storage, or Business Intelligence Software.

You might be thinking that those business IT people probably have their own media outlets to follow and we just don't see them.  After all, we don't see news about the sewage treatment industry either but we know it is there.

I would think CIO magazine would be the place that the enterprise types hang out.  Top story today?  Windows Phone 7 and Verizon gets the iPhone.

According to Gartner the 2010 worldwide IT spending by the Enterprise will be $2.4 trillion of an overall market of $3.4 trillion.   Those of you doing the math know this makes the enterprise 72% of all IT spending.  Add into this the fact that many of the consumer tech companies like Google and Facebook are really paid in advertising dollars -- and we can't help but conclude that the technology industry is clearly dominated by the budgets of businesses.

So why no coverage?

According to Wikipiedia, Business Intelligence is computer based techniques used in spotting, digging out, and analyzing business data....often aimed to support better business decision making.  According to Gartner, the German firm SAP is the leader in the Business Intelligence market with 22.4 percent share.

This stuff is just not interesting.  No wonder we all just want to talk about the movie about Zuckerberg.

We have to figure out how to make enterprise computing interesting.

 

Facebook is the Paris Hilton of Tech

Smart phones, tablets, TVs, app stores, Twitter, and Facebook (and the movie) sure seem to get the bulk of media attention.  HP now has over $114 billion in revenues, the largest part generated selling to the enterprise, but their consumer products get all of the coverage.  IBM has 400,000 employees and also generates nearly $100 billion in revenues – rarely ever mentioned – because it is focused on the enterprise.  Microsoft, well Microsoft just never gets mentioned.  See my post the other day on the Pew Study.  If Larry Ellison wasn’t pulling stunts with the Americas Cup or Mark Hurd, no one would ever cover Oracle in the media.

Real work is being done hardening networks against cyber terrorism, lowering total cost of computing, developing and enforcing enterprise standards, safeguarding large amounts of sensitive data, and developing industry specific solutions.  This work is done with rarely a mention in the press.  My explanation:  enterprise computing is complicated, hard to understand or explain, and most of all it is boring.  To Journalists, Facebook is Paris Hilton.  Write about either of them and your web site gets hits.  Write about lowering energy consumption in data centers and you might as well be covering anything having to do with sub Saharan Africa’s problems.

We really have not had big coverage of business tech issues since Y2K – over a decade ago.  Could it be that we are due for a surge in enterprise coverage?  It may make sense to think for a minute about events that could cause this to happen and how it might impact the technology industry.

Here are three things that could bring enterprise computing closer to the center of technology media coverage:

  1. A Big Security Event:  Let’s hope it never happens, but if a big section of the power grid goes down, or all of the credit cards become inoperable, or a cyber attack crashes the stock market, the media will start to pay attention.
  2. Follow the Jobs:  If big tech starts hiring again and makes a dent in the unemployment rate it will be a big story.  Unfortunately, this probably is a result of the changes we would like to see instead of the cause. 
  3. Someone Connects the Dots: Google and Facebook are largely considered consumer businesses.  They are however, big enterprise operations in their own right however.  The media could latch onto the fact that Google’s network of data centers, gigantic databases, and all of the infrastructure required to run its business is cool and worth paying attention to.

What would change and why should we care?

  1. The Money Follows the Media:  A lot has been written lately about how the VC business is changing.  The story is that the investment exits are not there and new tech start ups don’t need as much money to start.  It is true that someone building for the Apple App store does not need to raise much if any venture capital, and may never go public.  Venture capital is needed just as much now as ever before.  The VCs do seem to follow the media, so if the media goes enterprise, maybe the VCs will too.  Thomas Friedman would sure be happy if we started funding green tech instead of another Twitter clone.
  2. Exports Up:  Technology innovation is something we can do well and we can export.  Enterprise computing is harder to knock off than a movie or an iPhone. If we build more capacity in our big business computing services – we could export it.  Companies like IBM, HP, Microsoft, Oracle, and others are already doing this in a big way – so we know how to do it.  And the balance of trade needs attention.
  3. Do Our Part:  If this were to happen, all of us could be proud of our contribution to the worldwide economic recovery.  Instead of presenting a military face to the world, or fancy financial engineering – which deploys just as much of a scorched earth approach as the military, we could be helping companies and governments around the world increase their productivity.  And they would pay us for it!  Good for us and for them. 

I hope someone figures out how to make enterprise computing interesting enough to get some media attention.  Could do us all some good.