Context reared its potent head in the New York Times on the subject of Google.  Here is the bit:

“Google’s high-profile mistakes hurt because they convey the impression that Google’s behavior is increasingly inconsistent with its ‘Don’t be evil’ mantra.”

And again on the matter of electoral politics.  Here is that bit about the primary defeat of former Republican, now Democrat Arlen Specter:

“’The legacy of political switches is that you can’t do it,’ said Chris Mottola, a Republican consultant who ran Mr. Specter’s media campaign.”

The lesson keeps getting taught, but it too often goes over the heads of those who could most benefit.  “Who” you are is the most important asset a company or a politician has on which to make the public case for a sale or a vote.  Not only does the answer need to resonate (by filling a need or aligning with beliefs), but needs to be consistently portrayed.

Too often a change in course comes across as cynical, as when “I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here” is uttered by Inspector Renault in Rick’s casino room.

This does not mean no change is possible.  Selling a unit once acquired, authoring a bill that flies in the face of a once sacrosanct policy, a price rise at a time of economic uncertainty, any seeming inconsistency, even “I voted for it before I voted against it” can be seen as principled if it helps extend the story of a strong and valuable “Who.”

Make change a story about growth and the market — whether consumers or voters — will listen.  That is the first step toward leadership.

Share

At the round tables on privacy held by the Federal Trade Commission, Indiana University law school professor and member of the board of The Privacy Projects, Fred Cate said out loud what long has been silently known about consumer protections based on the notices web sites post to describe their data protection practices and the consumers’ choice to click on or away. Cate said: “Choice is an illusion.”

There is more than a bit of substance behind the bumper sticker.  “The flurry of notices may give individuals some illusion of enhanced privacy, but the reality is far different. The result is the worst of all worlds: privacy protection is not enhanced, individuals and businesses pay the cost of bureaucratic laws, and we have become so enamored with notice and choice that we have failed to develop better alternatives.”

FTC Chairman Jon Liebowitz offered a more basic indictment of “notice-and-choice.”  More than the length or legalese of the written notice, more than the specific liberties they allow, more even than their non-standard  placement, he says “consumers don’t read privacy policies…”

None of this would pose a problem if the cost of violating a consumer’s sense of privacy did not result is real penalties.  It does.  Just ask Facebook.  Or Google.

Charting a new course with more teeth without raising the stakes of consumer participation and offering companies a “safe harbor” will take some doing.  One way may be to focus on encouraging corporate accountability and requiring a specific outcome.  Rather than dictate specific behavior — collect this, not that, hold it for a month or a quarter, require an opt-in or opt-out — government can require outcomes that can be monitored and enforced.  A breach is best prevented by companies focused on customer loyalty, not government guidelines.

While it is best to act online as if you are in public, each of us leaves a mandatory trail of data as we go from one digital public square to the next. The current ability to collect, analyze and link what in an earlier day was dust on our sandals makes the burden of privacy more than our own. If the companies from whom we buy do not buy that, we ought to go elsewhere.

Share

A report today from Information Week supposes that Microsoft will introduce its own slate-type tablet computer.  The key bit in the story had nothing to do with the quality of the product, but the lack of enthusiasm it has so far engendered.  “Microsoft has not officially confirmed the (New York) Times’ report, and investors largely shrugged at the news. Microsoft shares were up .16%, to $31.01, in early trading Wednesday on the NASDAQ.”

True, this is the company’s second bite at the tablet apple (pun intended) and so naturally would not create the “shock of the new.” But it is more likely a response rooted deeply in the minds of consumers who more comfortably categorize Microsoft within the four software walls of Office, than among untethered consumer-focused devices.  It is a matter of context.

We make sense of a noisy world by applying context created at the point we first encounter a company or product and is then reinforced by performance.  This makes it really hard to expand or pivot a company’s reputation.  If Apple is a design company, what isn’t it?  If Dell is a manufacturing company, what isn’t it?  If Microsoft is a desktop software company, what isn’t it?

Google, with its introduction of the Nexus One “smartphone” has demonstrated one way to break away.  Afterall, if Google is an advertising-driven search service, what isn’t it?  It is not so much advertising-driven as it is advertising-disruptive.  It has taken the market’s acknowledgment  of these qualities — shaking up the stodgy for the benefit of consumers — to add new services (like gMail), buy other companies (like YouTube) and enter new markets in need of disruption (like mobile phones).   Microsoft has no such market permission.

It can get it, though.  The early reports on its new operating system suggest the kind of exceptional performance in a core business that is required for acceptance in adjacent ones.  This is what helps the success of the company’s market leading Xbox game console.  Think of it as a desktop for the home.

Increasing market demand for wireless devices will earn Microsoft a second look for its software-driven smartphones and tablets.  Turning consideration into market leadership will depend on the company’s ability to reveal how it has been looking out for our interests all along.

Share

Type the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 28,829 results.

The impending Senate hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a key driver this week, as were the Independence Day weekend announcement by soon-to-be-ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Obama/Medvedev summit in Russia.

The number of results had been holding steady in recent weeks at about 32,000, but the 10 percent drop this week may not mean less emphasis on the value of context, but its unspoken inclusion in ever-widening set of human, industrial and political issues.  Health care reform has not yet taken center stage, but it is unlikely that it will compete in the near term with the stories of the McNair homicide and the Michael Jackson memorial at the Staples Center in LA.

Share

Earlier this month, IBM made its official leap into cloud computing.  The news was no surprise, after all, in many respects “Cloud” is just a fresh label for what companies have been doing for years to increase capability while reducing costs.  More than a breakthrough, IBM’s announcement is more likely all about its competitive set.

Each of us is known by the company we keep, but companies can better promote their products and services by keeping the right competitive set.  Embedded in the New York Times report on the IBM move was this:

“Already, Amazon.com, Google and Salesforce.com, among others, offer cloud-based Web services to companies, including e-mail, computer storage and customer management software. But many big companies and government agencies have been reluctant to get on board because of traditional corporate-computing concerns like the security of data, reliability of service and regulatory compliance.”

In one context-setting paragraph, the company lines itself up against a specific set of competitors with high Q Ratings who it then suggests are not match for IBM’s market-accepted position as a leader in industrial-strength computing.  The result is a chance to create real separation in the mind of potential customers.

Morning after postscript

In a story about philanthropy in the New York Times was this comment:  “People are known philanthropically by the company they keep,” said Reynold Levy, the president of Lincoln Center and author of “Yours for the Asking: An Indispensable Guide to Fund-Raising and Management,” published last year. Being asked to join cultural boards is “as much a recognition of the status you’ve enjoyed as it is acquiring it,” Mr. Levy said.

Share

Type the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 30,628 results.

The death of the self-proclaimed “King of Pop,” Michael Jackson, House passage of a climate bill and the continued fall-out from the Iranian crack-down on those protesting the outcome of the recent election there were the drivers this week.

The number of results has been holding steady in recent weeks, but the value of context continues to be applied to an ever-widening set of human, industrial and political issues.  With the debate over health care reform moving into its battle over health care reform phase, that may be the driver that prompts a real uptick in our ticker.

Share