Stormy's Corner

Small companies or mega companies?

I finished listening to the The Wal-Mart Effect this weekend. The author's main point is that Walmart has gotten too large - or at least larger than we ever planned for when we planned how companies should be regulated. He argues that Walmart with $375 billion worth of sales is beyond market capitalization and beyond the checks and balances that the market is supposed to have.

And this morning I read a Wired article in which an MIT professor named Tom Malone says that large companies will grow so large that they will fall apart and become small companies that can communicate more effectively among each other than a large company can within itself. The article goes on to say that we are seeing this right now. Walmart is closing stores, huge financial companies are falling apart and large corporations are being more regulated, encouraging a lot of smaller companies.

I don't know if I buy it since the Walmarts near me seem to be doing really well and I don't see a lot of new small businesses. But I personally would like to see a world with lots of small independent companies than a couple of megalithic companies.

Book Review: The Marketing Playbook

I really enjoyed the first part of The Marketing Playbook by John Zagula & Richard Tong but it took me forever to get through the last two parts.

In the first part of the book, the authors (old Microsoft Windows and Office marketing guys) explain the five basic marketing strategies they see.

1. The Drag Race. This is the scenario you think of when you think of competition. Microsoft Word versus Word Perfect. Visa versus Mastercard. There are two players and you both solve the same problem in pretty much the same way. Drag races are very expensive money wise and time wise. A lot of people think that GNOME/Linux are in a drag race against Windows. I'd argue that we aren't going to win that way.
2. The Platform Play. This is the play for the company that won the drag race. They keep potential competitors away by making them into partners. Think Amazon.com and all the brands they sell within their store. Amazon makes it easy for those potential competitors to be their partners.
3. The Stealth Play. This play is about identifying and targeting a couple of niche markets and becoming really good at them. Then you can either take over the whole market one niche at a time or you can grow until you can win a drag race. I think this is where GNOME/Linux should go. There are niches that we are well suited for like users with accessibility needs, netbooks, mobile, ... You don't have to do lots of PR and adverting in this mode. You want to stay some what quiet and just talk to people in the niches you've identified. It's not about sitting back though - you have to be one step ahead of the big guy (the one that's won the drag race) in each of the niches you are targeting. The goal of this play is to eventually move to one of the other plays.
4. The Best-of-Both Play. This play is about defining a whole new offering. Think of the car industry when Japan had cheap cars and Germany had luxury cars. Toyota decided to market a "Japanese luxury car", an oximoron at the time. This is the personal computer - somewhere between a calculator and a mainframe. This play is about the product (a whole new offering) and marketing (you have to tell everyone about it.)
5. The High-Low Play. This play is for someone who dominates the high end or the low end, or both, and is trying to compete with someone coming out with a best-of-both worlds product. You tell your customers that compromise, a product that meets the low-end and the high-end, can't possibly work and you market your low end and high end products agressively. It's a temporary play - the book recommends that you actually develop your own best-of-both products while you keep the competition from winning by critisizing their best-of-both product. This play is all marketing. (And in this play, the marketing they were suggesting definitely felt like lying!)

In the rest of the book the authors explain how to map the terrain (yourself, competitors, what's missing, etc) and how to run your marketing campaign. I found those sections to be much less applicable to things I do in real life. I don't know if it's because I don't work at a large company like Microsoft or just that they couldn't put enough detail into a couple hundred pages, but it definitely didn't give me much useful information. One interesting point though was who is the most important player in a given strategy.

1. In the Drag Race, the main player is the salesperson. In an all out competition it's about convincing people you are the best, whether it's more features, faster, better, whatever-better than the other guy.
2. In the Platform Play it's all about business development because you are trying to build an ecosystem of partnerships.
3. According to them, in the Stealth Play it's all about the CEO. However, reading why, it's really all about leadership. It's about dedication, patience, long-term plays, staying flexible and motivated. That takes lots of leadership. (And I've found that leaders are all over an organization, not just in the CEO's office.)
4. In the Best-of-Both Play, it's the product team. It's really your product that will win this strategy.
5. In the High-Low Play it's all about marketing. You're trying to convince people that two very opposite products are both the best without confusing them. So you need to define both in a way that doesn't compete with the other and market each one to the right audience.

If you decide to read The Marketing Playbook: Five Battle-Tested Plays for Capturing and Keeping the Lead in Any Market, my advice is to quit reading when you get bored and you won't miss too much.

P.S. If you are interested in trying out marketing, please join the GNOME marketing team!

Book Review: Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It

Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It is a great book.

I've always thought that traditional work would eventually transition to contract work where people get paid to produce certain results. The problem with that is not all work fits contract work. Cali and Jody have envisioned (and implemented!) a workplace with traditional employment instead of contract work where people are measured by results, not time. I think that's pretty amazing. They call it ROWE, Results-Only Work Environment and they've implemented it at Best Buy.

The problem with most work environments today is that they reward the amount of time we work, not the amount of work we get done. The authors suggest a couple of strategies:

• Stop making negative comments about time, "Sludge". So don't joke about how late someone got in, don't apologize for getting stuck in traffic, don't note what time email was sent. "Stop using the words early and late and antiquated terms like by the end of business today. Stop talking about how many hours you work or how hard you're working."
• Make sure you are results-orientated. Every employee should know what their goals are and be measured on their results, not hours worked or time in the office.

By doing this, you treat employees like adults, they'll be happier and they'll do more real work as opposed to more made up work to look like they are working. (Like arriving at 7:30am and reading the paper online for the first hour.)

While the authors had a lot of good advice and how to, I wish they'd spent less time talking about how great peoples' personal lives are in a ROWE environment (I buy it but I think their examples just made ROWE seem like a boondoggle.) and more time on how much more work gets done. Because in order to get companies to buy in to ROWE, they need to understand that much more work will get done. Or at least the same amount of work will get done and employees will save hours and hours of "being in the office" or attending unnecessary meetings.

I also think that open source embodies the results-only model. In open source people only see what is done. They don't care how many hours you spent sitting in front of your computer. They don't care how many meetings you attended or how many conferences you went to. You are measured by what you get done. (I also think they are pretty good at recognizing non-code type work, but that's for another blog post.)

FYI, I liked the book Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It: No Schedules, No Meetings, No Joke--the Simple Change That Can Make Your Job Terrific much better than I liked the authors' blog.

You get what you measure. What my treadmill taught me about metrics.

Everyone knows that you get what you measure. But what my treadmill taught me is, you get what you measure whether you have goals or not!

I decided to start running again and I set three guidelines or goals for myself:

1. Run everyday.
2. Run 3 miles a day.
3. Run on the treadmill.

I decided it had to be on the treadmill because when I run outside I have a tendency to start walking if I start thinking about anything interesting. (Hey, my brain needs that oxygen!)

But running on the treadmill turned out to be really good for another reason: I track those numbers, I measure those numbers, I compete with those numbers. Because my treadmill tracks time elapsed, speed, heart rate and average speed, I do my best to make those numbers better. Not because I have a goal set for them but just because they are there. If I'm going to look at those numbers, I'm going to make those good numbers.

So because those numbers are staring at me, I've created my goals for speed, heart rate and average speed. And every time I run, I work really hard to make those numbers better than the last time.

So if you want to make sure things get done, make sure you are measuring the numbers that you want to improve. If you want lots of Friends of GNOME, don't just say you want to raise $20,000 in 2009. Publish how many people have signed up, how much you have raised and update those numbers frequently in a prominent place. (And think about whether you want lots of people or lots of money or both because whichever one you measure, you'll get.)

P.S. And I should point out that since my goal was 3 miles/day, I only run 3 miles. Never 4. Another thing to think about when setting goals.

Photo by buzz.bishop.

If you have a problem, talk to the person!

A long, long time ago, in a land far away, when we used to dial a phone number to get to the internet, HP gave me a 1-800 number for internet access when I was traveling. Since I traveled a lot, I set my default number to the 1-800 number and merrily went along my way, dialing in on the road and at home.

Until I ran into a problem. I don't remember what the problem was, but I had to call the help desk. The guy that took my call went "Oh, good! I'm so glad you called. You are our number one user, you spend thousands of dollars a month on dial up costs and it's been my number one priority to lower your costs."

(Silence.)

"Um, you could have called me?"

Comcast's announcement that they are going to add a usage limit to residential customers - a usage limit of 250 GB that won't affect 99% of their customers - reminded me of that conversation. Um, why don't they just call their residential customers that use over 250 GB and see what they can work out? And not worry or anger the 99% of people that aren't a problem.

If I hadn't called the help desk, I could imagine the company starting a policy that nobody could use the 1-800 number for more than 10 hours a month which would have inconvenienced hundreds of people and still cost them extra money if I used it 10 hours a month at home when I wasn't traveling. (The solution we came up with was a local number to call when I was at home.)

Companies are not people - to think so is dangerous

One of the things that concerns me most with our society and legal system is not copyright law, it's not patent law, it's not our overcrowded jails, ... it's how we treat companies as people. Not only do our laws treat companies like people, but as people tend to do, we anthropomorphize companies. Companies are not people and we cannot expect them to behave like people.

It worries me when people attribute good or bad intentions to companies. Such as when Matt Asay points out the pitfalls in Google's Chrome license and then says (I added the bold):

My concern is that this language is so broad that Google could, if it were so inclined, invade user privacy on a grand scale. The terms of service allow it. Only Google's best intentions prevent it.

I also believe that Google's current management has no intentions to do evil things with the data that Chrome gathers. But Google will own the copyright to all that data, and Google is a publicly traded company. Which means that Google can be bought. And no, that's not bought like a person's loyalty can be bought. That would be anthropomorphizing. Google could be literally bought - everything they own, including that personal data, could be sold, for money, to the highest bidder. And all that personal data would be owned by somebody else - or some thing else. And they might feel like they had a right to use it since they paid for it. They (if they is a company) might even have a legal obligation to their shareholders to use that data to make money.

So speaking of companies as people, with intentions, with goals, as good or evil, is a very dangerous way to think.

Companies are not evil. They are also not human beings. They can do great good or great evil ... but not for the same reasons that you might do great good or great evil.

501(c): (3) versus (6)

501(c) organizations are US non profit organizations. 501(c) is actually the name of the IRS tax code that defines non profits.

There are actually 28 kinds of 501(c)'s. I'll focus here on just two:

• 501(c) (3) - the GNOME Foundation is a 501(c) (3)
• 501(c) (6) - the Linux Foundation is a 501(c) (6)

They are both nonprofits, exempt from federal income tax.

Here are some of the main differences: (Note that I am not an attorney nor an accountant, so you should consult other experts if you are actually creating one of these organizations!)

                                                                                                                                           

501(c) (3)	501(c) (6)
Benefit to the public.	Trade organization or group of professionals with related business interests. Benefit to the organizations members.
Donations are tax deductible.	Membership dues are a business expense, but donations are not tax deductible.
Very limited political lobbying allowed.	Any amount of political lobbying that is related to member interests.
Eligible for grants.	Not eligible for grants.
Must limit activities to specified cause.	Members must have common business interest.

The GNOME Foundation is a 501(3)(c) that supports "the goal of the GNOME project: to create a computing platform for use by the general public that is completely free software." The GNOME Foundation is supported in its mission by many individuals and companies.

3 ways Amazon makes it really easy for me to give them money ...

Amazon has perfected one part of the sales cycle: they have made it very easy for me to give them money. Anyone selling anything should think about their models.

First, they had Amazon Prime shipping. I pay $79/year. (I think it was more like $69/year when I signed up.) In exchange, when I order a book from Amazon, I don't pay shipping and they deliver it in two days. (And often by the next morning.) So if I want a book, I just go online, find it, hit "Buy now" and it shows up tomorrow morning. It's easier than getting in my car and driving 10 miles to the bookstore. (And cheaper now that gas is so expensive. Cheaper once I've already spent that $79/year that is.) So I give my money to Amazon instead of the local (chain) bookstore, because it's easier. I also buy more books because it's easy. (And before you tell me to use the library ... most of the time my local library doesn't have the books I want to read and when they do, there's always a waitlist for them. That said, I love libraries. I still go hang out in them.)

Then they introduced Subscribe & Save. I never even think about diapers now. When we need them, they show up on the door step. Not only do I not pay shipping but I get a 15% discount. So I give my money to Amazon instead of to the local grocery store because it's easier.

Then came the Kindle. Now I don't even have to wait for the next morning. I just hit a button and I can read the first chapter and if I like it, I hit another button and they charge my credit card and I get the book. So once again, I give Amazon my money because it's easier than waiting for my turn on Paperbackswap or going to the local bookstore.

And they've encouraged me to tell all of you about it, because if you click through and buy any of these (very addictive) products, they'll give me a payback. You have been warned!

(And if they listened to me, I have ideas for how they could make it even easier for me to give them money. For starters, their wishlist functionality is so bad, I use several other tools to manage my wishlists. Also, my Kindle needs to be open source so that I can get all the features I want. But even without all those they are doing a pretty good job of making it really easy for me to give them my money.)

OSCON versus OSBC, True or False?

OSCON and OSBC are two big open source software events. I like both of them but I find them to be very different conferences. During OSCON, I had a conversation with Larry Augustine where we tried to define the difference between OSCON and OSBC. We debated whether it was different companies or people that made the difference but I didn't feel like we figured it out.

I had this thought today:

True or false? People go to OSBC to meet with companies represented by people. People go to OSCON to meet with individuals who sometimes happen to work at companies.

You could obviously ennumerate a lot of specific differences between the conferences (panels vs lightening talks, sponsor keynotes, booth prices, type of speaker, etc) but I think it's more than conference organization that gives them different flavors.

Trade a ride

We need a trade-a-ride program for people needing a ride like Paperbackswap does for books. To be honest, I wasn't thinking of commuters when I thought of this. I was listening to a Science Friday program on brewing beer while sitting in traffic and thought, we don't have good public transportation so people often don't drink responsibility - what if people took turns being the designated driver. And not going to the party and drinking coke but just showing up at the end of the evening to give a ride home. If you made a good social networking application with good tools, people could send a text message when they needed a ride and people that said they were available would get a text message. A potential driver could then accept the ride, key in when they would be there and go give someone a ride. You'd get points for miles. Then you could use your miles to request a ride from someone else. (On a different night of course.) It'd be useful for nights on the town, rides to the airport, times when your car is in the shop ... and maybe just plain old carpooling.

There'd be some security problems. You might want to make everyone show up somewhere and show their driver's license so you could verify who they were if there were any issues. And you'd want to only give addresses to people actually giving rides. Maybe you could start with a known "safe" pool of people like a university where you know everyone's identity.