The Internet has done as much as the jet engine to shrink the distance between where we are and where we want to go.  Even the propeller-type connectivity of dial-up was a giant leap forward.

But as much as the technology has allowed us to go with ease to any place we choose — to learn, to be heard, to promote — equally powerful is the platform’s ability to help us gather.  The phenomena of social media services like LinkedIn and Facebook are present day proof of this human urge.

It is the ability to gather rather than just go that will be the most important outcome of the recent decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — ICANN — to allow the unlimited expansion of domain names.  A “Big Bang” that is potentially more meaningful than any development since the launch of the browser.

Most web users are familiar and comfortable with Internet addresses ending in .com or .org or .net.  These are the generic top level domains, or gTLDs, that have been the most recognizable marks on the web.  Now, though, companies, communities and cultural groups will have the opportunity to own their own landscape.

The most successful will be those that draw people more closely together rather than just serve as pointers to some distant corner of cyberspace.  While it is true that a .ibm or .coke or .orange will be additional marketing channels, they are a better investment in customer loyalty.  So, too, is a .music or .green or .gay an innovative way to create a center of gravity to help inform, fund and advocate.

Even a “dead language,” like Latin, could see a rejuvenation (from the Latin root iuvenis, meaning “young”) should a .latin gTLD be created.  There are already translation engines online, but this new space could be a forum (yes, pun intended) for those with the interest.

This ought to draw keen attention from companies dependent upon keeping and growing customer relationships at a time when the cost of acquisition continues to rise.

For consumer-facing companies, already accustomed to multi-million dollar advertising expenditures, the cost of applying for, operating and promoting participation in their own Internet neighborhoods will be a familiar if not intuitive calculation.  But even those companies without the comfort of such a track record, they should view the possibility to own a new gTLD as a reason to rethink their approach.

Ultimately, a new gTLD will not be for everyone.  Will a product company like .levi be as useful as a service mark like .amex?  Will a city designation like .nyc supplant travel guides like .orbitz?  Will cultural groups convene or will it all be .greek to me?

As new Internet landscape opens for development, it will be — it must be — more than just more of the same.  It is an opportunity to create relationships that are as deep as they are wide.

Share

Misdirection has long been a short-term cure for crisis.

Over 100 years ago, while then-President Teddy Roosevelt sought to bust the Standard Oil trust, its chair, John D. Rockefeller, handed dimes to chidren from the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.  In more recent days, art has imitated such life in movies like “Wag the Dog,” where a fake war helped a damaged politician limp to victory.

Ultimately, the root cause of the crisis is adressed or it symptoms — a loss of confidence, market share and standing — reassert themselves in more virulent form.  The lesson to be learned is that admitting the problem, making the changes necessary to meet it and moving on in more transparent fashion may be a hit to the bottom line and the ego, but is far less expensive than sweeping it under the rug.  Witness Enron and Arthur Andersen.

Too many executives of the companies they lead and of the public relations agencies they employ continue to think of this as less of an immutable law than an unfortunate anecdote.  How else can you explain how Burson Marsteller created a crisis when it  mis-handled its assignment for Facebook even though it has a history of working through such crises?

It is a good thing that executives don’t have to go it alone in fixing the problem.  As the world — and each of us in it — becomes more fluent in the social media, there is no rug to cover what otherwise might be swept under it.  It is essential to align a company’s actions with its stated intention.

Which gets us back to misdirection.  As the word suggests, it is the wrong way to go.

Share

The current Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover story on the U.S. Postal Service can be read as a bill of particulars in the case against a company unchanged in 200 years  or as evidence that even the best business, when locked in amber, suffocates.

The postal service is both.  ”The USPS is a wondrous American creation…For the price of a 44¢ stamp, you can mail a letter anywhere within the nation’s borders. The service will carry it by pack mule to the Havasupai Indian reservation at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Mailmen on snowmobiles take it to the wilds of Alaska. If your recipient can no longer be found, the USPS will return it at no extra charge. It may be the greatest bargain on earth.”

The problem is that such commitment is no match for innovation.  Witness the rise of email and overnight delivery — neither of which are the primary province of the postal service.  Innovate or die, it seems, is proved again.

A dozen years ago or so, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen looked closely as the way technology was remaking markets and concluded that “companies’ successes and capabilities can actually become obstacles in the face of changing markets and technologies.”

This point was made recently again, this time in the pages of the Harvard Business Review.  In the “Ambidextrous CEO,” researchers concluded that “(a)lthough most executives acknowledge the need to explore new businesses and markets, they almost always bow to the more-pressing claims of the core business.”

As a result, “innovation (is) at a disadvantage as it struggles to match up to a well-established business that has proven itself.”

Ultimately, there may be a skunk in all this.  No, not the proverbial critter at the dinner party, but the one that gave its name to the landmark Lockheed Aircraft “skunk works.”  Driven to innovate by the demands of supplying aircraft for the military in World War II, the idea was to keep objective-driven development from under the weight of any General’s opinion.

What was sound practice in the ’40s makes as much sense 70 years later.

Yet there still are far more examples of companies falling short, as did Toyota in dealing with the problem of sudden acceleration, than exceeding expectations as Steve Jobs and Apple have.  With financial and market share fortunes closely tracking the trajectory of a company’s success (or failure), it is hard to see how the lessons have not already been learned.

Share

Sitting in the crowd at a get-together measuring the angles at the intersection of privacy, identity and innovation made one thing clear: the digital divide is no longer about whether one has access to the Internet but whether once you get there, you know what personal data is being collected and how it is being used.

Here is how the conference planners put it: “While there are big challenges associated with managing and securing the vast amounts of data being generated in our increasingly connected world, there are also huge opportunities for innovation if done properly.”

The pivot happened sometime after the release last year of the National Broadband Plan from the FCC, the response to Congress which asked for a plan “to ensure every American has ‘access to broadband capability.’”  And just before the Direct Marketing Association announced this year that it was “beginning enforcement activities to ensure industry compliance with the Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising…”

The two halves of the digital world have moved from those who “have” access and the “have-nots,” to those who know what and how their personal information is being collected and used and those who don’t.  The new divide will only grow, too, as new businesses are built on the increasingly granular ability to collect and mine data to target customers and existing companies begin to look in new ways at the mountains of data they already hold.

But while government can have a direct role in solving the macro problem of access, its ability to foster privacy and data protection at the micro level is less certain.  Self-governance solutions like the DMA’s is a start, but it ultimately falls to individual consumers to speak for ourselves.  The question is, How?

One way may be emerging in the wake of the massive data breach suffered by Sony Playstation.  After more than a dozen years of data breaches, identity theft, phising and pharming without real effect on the companies involved, Sony’s gamers may have decided to stop playing.

Admittedly, this is a blunt reaction to a specific event, but it speaks to the permission people have to be heard.  Legislation will never be able to keep up with the pace of technology’s development and technology can’t automate protection.  The best answer needs to come every time we click through to the next page.  It starts with knowing; the companies that help people do that will benefit from the effort.

Share

It has long been true that change happens most, maybe only, under duress.  High cholesterol eliminates hamburgers, a speeding ticket leads to slower, safer driving and a plummeting share price becomes a problem to be solved by a new CEO.  In this way, the lack of change is to be lauded.

Now, though, companies, institutions and others are coming to see change as a way t0 avoid duress.  As the corporate world has come to appreciate the value of cultural values that include innovation, openness and transparency, companies missing them in their DNA are trying to evolve before a crisis.

This land between crisis and stasis was seen as fertile soil for change — significant change — 40 years ago by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould and his fresh take on evolution.  Called “punctuated equilibrium,” he argued that rather than gradually and consistently, “evolution tends to happen in fits and starts, sometimes moving very fast, sometimes moving very slowly or not at all.”

It seems to me he was saying that it is the pressure of little things that trigger the biggest changes.

For companies seeking to manage their evolution — whether from a command-and-control organizational structure to one where decision-making is distributed or re-setting a business model focused on efficiencies and cost control to one based on innovation or opening up to customer dialog in the social media after operating in silence — managing the “little things” gives them the opportunity to manage the “biggest changes,” too.

Companies like Ford, IBM and Apple are examples of those that have survived crisis.  Their evolution might have been punctuated by their deaths if not for — in the same order — financing before the storm, a relentless focus on the customer and a return of a savant CEO.

For companies who are managing their own change, a better set of examples might be Starbucks, Kia and the USA Network, a unit of NBCUniversal:

• As one trade magazine put it Starbucks “…struggled to keep customers away from lower-priced competitors…The multi-layered overhaul paid off—while Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s continue to do well, Starbucks has reclaimed its dominant position in the U.S. market and even plans to open more domestic stores in the near future.”
• The Wall Street Journal noted that Kia’s “new models are part of a revamped brand strategy, under which Kia has overhauled its designs, guided by Peter Schreyer, a former top designer at Audi and Volkswagen.”
• And, as told by the New York Times, “executives at the USA Network cable channel decided to have some fun with the first large-scale presentation to advertisers, agencies and reporters of their coming season by sending out the stars of USA series to speak in their place.”

In each case, the companies taught themselves new ways to present themselves and interact with customers.  Sure, social media were a part of the plan, but the important stuff was how they managed their evolution.  The result was higher revenue and higher marks for their products and services.

Share

If there is anything to be learned from the recent Sony Playstation consumer information breach it is that data security ought to be as much of a corporate virtue as targeted marketing.  Until it is (and even then), the loss of personal information and identity theft will be regular events.

Unlike other instances when business falls short and government legislates a fix, technology moves at a pace far faster than Congress can match.  Even laws lauded for reining in bad behavior are susceptible to loop holes that undermine their effectiveness.  For example, the “Do Not Call” legislation, cited daily for helping make the dinner hour again more about the mean than telemarketing, is silent on non-profits (like your alma mater) and political campaigns (which now have no season).

Right now, as a privacy bill authored by Senators Kerry and McCain begins its journey to law, critics note it does not include a “Do Not Track” proposal based on that earlier legislation.   Based on that earlier legislation, such a proposal might be palliative, but no cure.  Nick Bilton in the NY Times put it bluntly:  ”Technology also has a way of advancing far ahead of the law.”

At times when government falls short, it is often left to consumers or our advocates to step in.  But managing our “data relationship” with every website we visit is way too confusing and will only grid-lock the information superhighway.  To paraphrase the sage, Yogi Berra, perhaps we’ll stop going there because it will be too crowded.

The only real option is for the company we keep to keep our data secure.  Consumer trust is essential for commercial success and appropriate data collection, use and retention policies are the unglamorous guts of it. Companies that seek new and larger markets are compelled to excel.  It needs to be a competitive point of pride.

In Sony’s letter to Congress the point is well made: “Protecting individuals’ personal data is the highestpriority and ensuring that the Internet can be made secure for commerce is also essential.

But when consumers are not convinced, law suits like this one happen:  McPhadden Samac Tuovi, a Canadian law firm, is suing for $1 billion on behalf of Natasha Maksimovic, one of Sony’s online network customers. “Maksimovic, 21, is scandalized by Sony’s problem handling: ‘It appears to me that Sony focuses more on protecting its games than its PlayStation users.’ she said.”

Share

A recent look at cybersecurity by the folks at Information Week makes a point heard in other industries also being remade by ubiquitous Internet connectivity: the collaborative behavior required to meet the challenge flies in the face of Capitalism’s proprietary and competitive DNA.

Here is how Information Week put it: “While the benefits of public-private partnerships are clear, the challenges are pervasive: a lack of trust between parties; laws and regulations that discourage full disclosure of information; the vested interests of security vendors; fear of bad publicity and customer backlash; and silos and turf wars within government agencies.”

Even in industries where all are agreed collaboration is the key to success, competitive history and a century of legal precedent is hard to overcome.  There is nothing new to this.  The market has historically been viewed as a zero-sum game, where the advance of one company comes at the expense of another.  It is clear this will have to change.  It is equally clear it will not be easy.

Take a look at the emerging Accountable Care Organizations, a key element in health care reform.  As described by National Public Radio, “An ACO is a network of doctors and hospitals that shares responsibility for providing care to patients. In the new law, an ACO would agree to manage all of the health care needs of a minimum of 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries for at least three years.”  A key element of the success of an ACO is driven by technology and the implementation of electronic health records that normalize patient information everywhere, exactly when it is needed and helping save lives.

Such collaboration may be understood by all as the key to lower costs and better outcomes, but the Department of Justice frowns upon such market coordination.  In fact, the regulations designed to allow it to happen run over 400 pages long.

Right now, collaboration must walk a narrow line, but industries already on that path will lead the way for the rest.  We all have new things to learn.

Share

It is no surprise that Senators John Kerry and John McCain have been applauded for introducing  the “Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011.’’ The persistent drumbeat of stories chronicling breaches. lost laptops, phishing schemes and behavioral targeting has pushed data collection practices and abuse to near the top of the public agenda.

Yet, while it is true, as the bill cites, that “many collectors of personally identifiable information have yet to provide baseline fair information practice protections for individuals,” it is wrong to suggest that all data collection is suspect.  In fact, consumers benefit daily from the data collected by the companies they keep.  As the discussion about privacy proceeds, it would be good to keep not just the worst but the best practices in mind.

Consider the value revealed at the check-out line at your local supermarket.  In exchange for letting the company keep track of your purchases through programs like Safeway’s Club Card, shoppers get coupons for products and categories linked to what they buy.

If you use a credit care, you rest easier know that the data collected combined with powerful anti-fraud software will help guard against loss should that card be lost or stolen.  It is reassuring to the point that even when we use the card ourselves in new ways or new places, programs like the one deployed by American Express will pause to confirm our identity.

And who will deny the value of the recommendation engines used by companies like Netflix and Amazon?   It is reassuring when we log on to these services to find that they have been thinking about us based on what they know about us.

In each case, the link between personal data and consumer value is clear.  In each case, the use of the collected data is limited to the purpose for which it was collected.  And in each case, there is consumer access, control or, at least, visibility.  These companies and others like them represent the best practices when it comes to data collection.  In their experiences are lessons that can be learned outside and beyond the black-and-white, opt-in-or-opt-out nature of legislation in general and the Kerry/McCain bill in particular.

In fact, there is one industry that could benefit from greater use of the personal data it collects: the mobile phone business.

Consider the breadth of choices facing consumers when it comes time to select a mobile phone and data plan.  It ought to be a matter of customer service for AT&T and others to let customers know if there is a better plan based on their use.  It does not happen.

As the debate over the Kerry/McCain bill ramps up to a hearings and a vote, the way in which companies use data about us in support of us ought to get full attention.  It is an area where self-governance represents an opportunity to produce real consumer value.  It may well be the companion carrot to the stick of laws and regulation.

Share

Share

Within a single month, privacy has moved to the top of the “to-do” list for government, business and consumers. In fact, the confluence of activity is the best indication in the last ten years that the will exists to establish regulatory and self-governance programs that complement consumer protection. Privacy is a growth market.

As companies have come to see their consumers demand for better data use and protection, the investment in privacy policies and procedures has become a more visible element of product marketing. The urgency to make privacy a part of every corporate culture that can then be marketing to a skeptical public was evident at the latest summit of the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Privacy is now a profession, not just a promise.

As government has come to see its role in consumer protection, there are new legislative initiatives that recognize the need to partner with business on privacy, not just dictate terms. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has offered such a next generation proposal. It is a consumer bill of rights, but one that strikes a balance among the important goals of protection, innovation and e-commerce.

As consumers and our surrogates awaken each day to news of another massive data breach, like the most recent at email marketing firm, Epsilon, we are uneasy about the potential loss — whether money, identity or movement on the Internet. We want our finances protected. We want our identity protected. But we don’t want the cure to curtail our ability to take advantage of the access to the information, insight and amusement offered by the Internet.

The result will be new rules. That much is certain. Less clear is who will emerge as a leader. Will someone inside government map the new territory? Will someone from business innovate new solutions? Or will a consumer group or individual set the tone?

These questions highlight  the opportunity for leadership and the benefits that will accrue.  Here is one more: Who would you place in nomination?

Share