Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Category: Uncategorized

A Case Study in Bad Customer Service

In my opinion, the quality of a company’s customer service is BY FAR the most important ingredient of the numerous factors that go into a company brand reputation. Unfortunately, there are too many companies–even of the large, successful variety–that just don’t get it.

I wrote previously about “The End of Customer Service” back in May, 2008. With people pinching pennies due to the great recession, it doesn’t appear that things have gotten any better.

The impetus to write further on this topic came from a recent, painful personal experience. The source of my pain was DIRECTV.

Troubling developments for a long-time customer

I have been a DirecTV customer for roughly 13 years. This is a long time for a relationship with any consumer products or services company. I initially fell in love with the programming offered by the company, especially they wide variety of sports. I still find their programming compelling. Initially, I also found the customer service and support to be first rate in the beginning. Unfortunately, over time the level of service has declined from first rate to astonishingly bad.

The level of customer service began slowly deteriorated about five years ago. I suspect that it did because the company was struggling to show a profit. It appears somewhere in that timeframe management of the company transitioned from a customer-orientation to focusing strictly on short-term profitability. This led to some short-sighted policies, which I believe could eventually lead to the death of this company.

A long series of customer service and equipment incidents over the last several years left me so frustrated that I decided I could no longer remain a customer, and became resigned to finding another TV service provider.

The final straw

My last customer service experience was what put me over the edge. I had payed $400 for an NFL programming package, only to find 2 games into the season that one of my two receivers was no longer capable of receiving this premium programming. It wasn’t really a technical issue, but a decision by DirecTV to no longer support this specific programming on that type of receiver. The receiver worked fine otherwise, and in fact had some key features not available on the more contemporary DirecTV models of comparable capability. I had paid good money for the receiver and had given the company a large premium programming fee for the NFL package that year (and many previous years), and I had not been told prior to renewing football subscription that year that the receiver would no longer receive this programming.

A few years back DirecTV had come under the control of Rupert Murdoch, which led to an equipment partnership with one of Murdoch’s affiliated companies. I have one of these as my primary receiver, and it contains some of the worst software I’ve ever seen in a consumer electronics device. Because of this, I would have preferred to continue to use my old receiver, which works great. But I wanted to be able to access my expensive NFL package on my second receiver, and I felt that I was at least entitled to one that could do this without losing other features important in my current receiver–at not cost, given the circumstances.

What ensued was a Keystone-Cop like series of customer service episodes punctuated by poorly trained service reps, extremely long phone-support hold times and multiple equipment shipments back and forth. I won’t bore you with every detail, but it started with an initial call which required 15-20 re-dials just to get through to the “hold” point, followed by a 1½ hours wait time. I’d like to say that was the worst part of the experience, but things actually went downhill from there.

At the end of this saga, I knew more about the internal customer service processes and procedures at DirecTV than most of the representatives I spoke with. It wasn’t hard; most of them seemed to be clueless. Some of them were good people trying hard to help me–others just didn’t caret. But many were inexperienced or poorly-trained, and nearly all of them were overwhelmed by the sheer complexity required to accomplish even the simplest task. Long story short, my simple request for a replacement receiver that would leave me happy paying DirecTV in excess of $100 every month was never fulfilled.

Even the CEO couldn’t make it right

It was at this point I’d had enough, and was resigned to the fact that I needed to change TV service providers. It wasn’t what I wanted–I felt I’d been pushed into a corner by the company’s arrogance and incompetence. But first I needed to blow off some steam, and so I wrote an email to the DirecTV CEO, detailing my painful experience. To his credit, he immediately and personally responded, apologizing and agreeing that what happened to me should not have happened. He asked if he could still make the situation right, and promised to have his personal representatives contact me to fix the situation. I was pleased by his reaction.

I was quickly contacted by a member of the DIRECTV Customer Advocate Team, a small top-secret group that you wouldn’t be aware of if you hadn’t interacted with the highest levels of company management. She was very nice and understanding, and told me that she was empowered to do just about anything that was required to make me a happy customer once again.

Apparently she was empowered to do anything except fill my very simple request.

She offered me a lot of things, many which were desirable. But I was a bit stuck on principle at this point; I wanted to be able to watch my expensive NFL package on a second receiver with comparable features, with no additional money out of my pocket.

She told me she could take care of this, but with one big condition: I’d be locked in to 24 additional months with DirecTV. Apparently, any new equipment sent to a customer automatically triggered this additional 24 month commitment, which no one had the power to override–no exceptions.

Complete idiocy–and very bad business

Here there is a customer who has stayed with a company for 13 years and loves their programming, but has been treated badly by customer service, and feels wronged. Making him happy is going to cost you probably $25 extra to send him a premium receiver instead of a basic one. He’d like to find an excuse to stay, but ready to leave due to frustration. The response is to try to lock him in for 24 months against his will?

I was wondering: are there any managers trained in Marketing at DirecTV? Is there anyone in upper management that has actually ever dealt with a customer? Or are they all accountants?

So for all the software developers and manufacturers out there, what are the takeaways from this customer service tale of the absurd?

Takeaway Lessons

Your product/service isn’t everything – I still love the DirecTV programming, but will be leaving because everything else surrounding it has turned bad.

Train your people – There is often a lot of turnover in the customer service department, and it’s easy to skimp on training for people that might not be there too long. If you don’t want to ruin your brand, Train & Retain! These folks ARE the company to the customers calling for help.

The customer is king – regardless of how desirable your offering is, the customer has alternatives. Treat him badly, and he will vote with his feet–its human nature.

Lock customers in with value, not contracts – that’s where you’ll find loyalty and long-term profitability. 24 month contracts will only create animosity with your customers–and represent a big opportunity for
an upstart, more customer-focused competitor.

Don’t be arrogant – Regardless of your market position, if a customer truly has been treated shabbily, swallow hard and do whatever it takes to make it right. Install a customer service culture of taking care of the customer, almost regardless of direct costs. The hidden costs of angry customers are very high from word of mouth and other bad publicity–especially in the Internet Age.

Don’t let your accountants set Marketing and Customer Service Policy – As described above, the easily traceable short-term costs savings which are the focus of the financial guys, will be overwhelmed by less obvious negative effects on future revenue, due to damage to your brand.

So that’s my sad story, and hopefully some valuable lessons for all of us as we formulate marketing and customer service policies. Do you have a customer service story of your own, negative or positive? Have a different view on the state of customer service today? Share with us in the comment section below.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

No Comments by admin on January 24, 2010
filed in Corporate Strategy, Operations, Uncategorized
tagged , , , , , , , ,

Will Microsoft’s BING Finally Bring Success in the Search Engine Market?

Microsoft’s new search service is called BING, and takes a contrarian approach to the simple Google Interface. The BING interface is kind of a cross between Google and the Yahoo Directory, with a bit of Expedia, MapQuest, Shopping.com, UTube and Flicker thrown in for good measure. Never accuse Microsoft of being modest in their ambitions–this site takes on directly just about every major category in the online world.

I’ve given BING a quick look. It’s polished and appears pretty comprehensive. The search results don’t seem to be that much different from previous Microsoft efforts, although the interface’s major categories may allow the finding of information more quickly than an elegantly simple one like Google’s–if you know upfront the category of information that you’re looking for.

HOW LIKELY IS SUCCESS?

Will they succeed? They have many times before in similar situations. They’ve been laughed at and written off in quite a number of markets over the years. MS has a bad corporate habit of releasing poor products in their first one, two, and even three incarnations. Any other company would give up after so many failures in a particular segment-but not Microsoft. Don’t forget that as a software company, Microsoft has always seemed to believe that it is their god-given right to sell every line of software code written in the world.

There are many examples of Microsoft rising from the dead in software market segments. In spreadsheets, Excel was at one point in time a speck on the wall compared to Lotus 123. WordPerfect had a commanding lead over MS Word in word processing back in the DOS days. And a large number of MS Network Operating System Server software offerings (beginning with LAN Manager) were considered a joke relative to Novell Netware, for the longest time back in the 90s.

In all of these situations, Microsoft had the last laugh, soundly beating their seemingly entrenched and unbeatable rivals in large market segments. As a result of this corporate history, they believe that can beat anyone and rarely give up. Occasionally, I have seen them back off, notably after several tries competing with Intuit in personal financial software. But if it’s considered a strategic, core segment by MS, they will throw a huge amount of resources at the segment, take large losses, and not give up until they’ve broken through.

I call them the Terminator of High Tech.

TERRIBLE TRACK RECORD IN ONLINE SERVICES

Of course, this isn’t a pure software market, its online services. The problem for Microsoft with Bing and the search engine market in general is that they’ve been floundering almost completely, for a long period of time, in online services. In fact, they’ve not had much success in their history online at all. This is especially noteworthy in contrast to their domination of the desktop software business, and the competitive advantage their desktop monopoly should provide them in online services. Yet they’ve done poorly in almost everything online, and are a distant third in search engine marketing–not even all that close to a fading Yahoo.

So as most pundits will confirm, Microsoft has been terrible in the online world. This does not bode well for the possible success of Bing. But as I alluded to earlier, there is another side to this equation.

MICROSOFT CONSIDERS ONLINE SERVICES IN GENERAL AND SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING SPECIFICALLY, TO BE ABSOLUTELY AT THE CORE OF THEIR FUTURE SUCCESS–AND EVEN THEIR SURVIVAL.

Yes, this hugely successful company has always been a bit paranoid–which may be a bit on the humorous side given their overall success. But it has worked well for them over the years. It has given the company a sense of urgency which is very hard to generate in corporations of their size and stature. So anyone with a sense of history would be foolish to rule them out.

HOW CAN MS OUTFLANK GOOGLE?

But how are they going to defeat their competitors, mostly notably Google, this time in the online world? In my quick evaluation, I didn’t see anything technically revolutionary, such as demonstrably more-relevant search results. Some people may prefer the Bing category-oriented interface better than Google’s, but it will be a matter of taste–I can’t see an overwhelming advantage here. In past cases MS may have overwhelmed a segment with marketing, or simply given away a product, to ensure defeat of a rival they feared could grow into a broad line Software competitor (Novell, Netscape, etc.). It’s unclear to me what strategy they will be able to take to defeat Google, which is a dominant, embedded brand with wild profitability in Search Engine Advertising. But I believe they fear the Google franchise and know they need to crack to code to online success if they are going to retain their position in the long run. So don’t expect any throwing in the towel any time soon.

Maybe Microsoft will hit upon some innovative strategy that will enable them to win the day in this crucial market. But the one thing I can think of right now, that may work in their favor, is deep pockets, longevity and sheer persistence. Google has also been unable to achieve success outside of their domination in their core Search Engine Marketing segment. This is very analogous to Microsoft’s struggles outside of desktop software. The Search Engine advertising segment will eventually mature, and there are already some early signs of slowing. Plus Google risks killing the goose that laid their golden egg by raising their “Auction” bid rates to levels that will make it hard for their customers to make money–don’t get me started on that. Advertisers may eventually take their advertising budgets elsewhere. So for MS in this crucial platform it may be a matter of hanging around, making incremental improvement to their Search Engine offerings, until Google shoots itself in the foot.

Doesn’t sound like much of a strategy, I know. But stranger things have happened. Let me know what you thing of Microsoft’s launch of Bing. Post a message or drop me an email.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

No Comments by admin on June 5, 2009
filed in Corporate Strategy, General Management, Online Marketing, Uncategorized
tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Strategic Acquisitions for Software and Technology Companies

Acquiring new products or whole companies is a popular activity for many growth and market-share oriented companies. Is it a good idea?

Well, as I often say–it depends. I get involved in company or product acquisitions quite often in my consulting practice. There is nothing inherently good or bad about acquisitions in the technology business. However, there is nothing inherently bad about opening a restaurant, either. Nonetheless, a very high percentage of restaurants (I’ve seen figures as high as 90%) fail within 5 years. The failure rate for acquisitions may not be quite as high as for restaurant startups, but technology acquisitions are also judged to be failures at shockingly high rates. Caution should rule when approaching either of these very popular activities. As I’m fond of saying about success or failure in any complex business activity–the devil’s in the details.

Common Motivations for Acquisition Activity

Let’s examine the common reasons that acquisitions are considered in the first place:

1) It’s exhilarating and “sexy” to buy another company
2) Growth for growth’s sake (often pushed by investors)
3) The belief that buying a competitor is the ultimate “victory”
4) A consolidating market (often commoditizing) where there is only room for a few large players
5) Diversification
6) A great strategic fit where 1+1 truly equals 3

As you might have guessed, reasons 1-3 above aren’t great justifications for such a risky activity. Number 4 can be a good justification, but often this is given as the rationale, when the actual market case doesn’t truly support it. Number 5 can be a good or bad rationale, depending upon whether the business case really calls for diversification–or if focus would make more sense. Number 6 is by far the best reason to acquire a company, particularly if you aren’t an industry giant, pitted in a death match with another titan of your marketplace.

So let’s say you’ve actually thought it through, and have used sound analysis and judgment in deciding to pursue an acquisition. Congratulations for passing the first test–but there are still myriad things that can trip you up, on the way to acquisition success:

Great Ways to Fail

First acquisition done “on your own”–I strongly urge all first time acquirers, whether of the product or company variety, to seek assistance. Acquiring a company and even a product is very complex, with a lot of places to trip up. Retaining an experienced hand that has seen and gone through the mistakes before, can prevent you from the most expensive education of your life.
Bad cultural fit–In the excitement of an acquisition or a merger, people have a tendency to not look past the surface. It’s much like dating an attractive potential mate, and proposing based upon infatuation, without establishing whether there is common ground in the way you live your lives. This is the business equivalent of marriage, folks. Compatibility in business philosophies and practices is crucial–and often overlooked, until after the fact, when everything is unraveling.
Poor organizational integration– Even with an excellent evaluation of potential partners, a great many mergers fail based on the execution of integrating the organizations. That’s because it is HARD. You are generally merging two organizations with disparate operating styles, as well as overlapping functions and people. Fear, uncertainty and doubt of the individuals involved can by ITSELF scuttle a potentially great fit. This area is often quoted as the reason most acquisitions fail.
Poor product integration–This is the reason a lot of acquisitions in software and high tech should be called off early in the process. It is often very difficult to rationalize how you are going to support two different code bases or technologies, aimed at the same market. The plan usually call for integrating them over time, but that often proves to be very difficult from a technical perspective. This is a real red flag when buying a direct competitor. Yet the price of the merger in high tech often assumes that the products can be integrated acceptably, without losing customers from either of the existing products. Unfortunately this is usually a very tall order
Paying too much–Price plays a big role in software and technology acquisitions. Due to high growth rates and the perceived need to move quickly in fast-growing, competitive technology markets, acquisitions are often priced in multiples of revenue. This is in contrast to the more conservative multiples of EBITDA in other less dynamic industries. Often the target isn’t even profitable yet, but still commands a high price-to-revenue multiple, due to the “hot” nature of the market space, and perceived value of the acquired technology. This high price puts a severe strain on downstream execution of the merger to be “perfect”, as discussed above.

So with all of the landmines out there in the acquisition arena, along with the high failure rate, is it simply nuts to consider acquisitions? Doesn’t it make sense to just stay away from them? NOT NECESSARILY.

Sound Approaches to Pursuing Mergers

Buying innovation–This often happens when companies reach a certain size; they simply lose their ability to innovate. Rather than innovate internally, they do so by acquiring small companies with market-changing technologies, which may not have the resources to fully exploit in the marketplace on their own. Even though multiples here tend to be high, risk is somewhat mitigated relative to internal Research and Development that might not “pan out”, and the size of the acquisition is often very modest, relative to the resources of the acquirer. This is an example of a true 1+1=3 strategic fit. This strategy has been used with great success by Cisco, Microsoft, and many other large companies with successful acquisition programs.
Buying companies or products that truly fill a hole in your offering–While some companies tend to overuse this as justification, acquisition of a reasonably priced company or product at just the right time, can mean the difference between continued growth or inevitable stagnation.
Buying undervalued assets–This is harder to do in high tech than in other industries; high tech companies have a habit of overvaluing their businesses and technologies. But an executive team with a key eye for a bargain can often pick up a diamond in the rough, for example a division that has suffered because it isn’t a good fit with the parent company’s core business
Truly appropriate diversification–Sometime you run out of steam in your current market, and the amount of cash flow generated by your current business dictates that an investment in another growth area may be prudent. The key here is to pick a market segment adjacent to the existing business, or at least a business that the management team can easily adjust too. However, management teams often are over-confident and deceive themselves, and end up investing in an area where they really don’t belong.

I could go on and talk more about acquisitions for a very long time. But instead of putting you all to sleep, let’s begin a dialogue on this topic. Inform us of your own Merger and Acquisition stories, best practices, and cautionary tales.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

No Comments by admin on April 30, 2007
filed in Business Development, Business Models, Corporate Strategy, Mergers & Acquisitions, Uncategorized
tagged , , , , , , ,

Free Conference Calls

Let’s talk once again about some great free sites, which help you run your business like a Fortune 500 company–on the thin budget of a startup.
 
Web 2.0 has risen to bring back a multitude of “free” web-based services, which were common before the “original” advertising-supported web companies nearly went extinct after the dot.com bubble burst in 2001. For early stage companies in particular, the return of this “no-fee” model can be a great thing. All you need is to do a bit of searching, and you can find many great services on the web to help you grow you business, efficiently and cost-effectively. I’ve found a couple of sites that will make you look like one of the giants of industry, to your partners and customers, in one important area.

Formal conference calls have historically been the domain of big companies, but no more. Here are two sites that allow you to set up the ubiquitous “dial-in” conference call, to simultaneously connect multiple parties in one call. Everyone gets a dial-in number and pass code for the conference. The two sites I’ve found are very similar in how they work. Both offer a robust, completely free to schedule such calls with a simple web-based interface—while offering an upgraded service, which is available for a small charge.

The two sites operate very similar business models. The major “upgrade” in both cases is a toll-free call in number, for a modest charge. There is also a premium charge for exceeding approximately 100 callers on the conference call (that’s a pretty big conference call for most people!), as well as for calls exceeding several hours, on one of the services. All told, very few restrictions, and a great, FREE, easy to use service—imo. Don’t take my word for it, try them yourself. The two sites are:

www.freeconference.com and www.totallyfreeconferencecalls.com

Let me, and all your fellow readers, know what you think!

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on June 15, 2006
filed in Operations, Startup/Early Stage, Uncategorized

A Special Appeal

To all the loyal readers of the Morettini on Management:

I rarely diverge from High Tech Management topics in this Blog. The following note is about a very important cause to me, and to society at large.

I am participating in the upcoming San Diego Walk for Autism fundraiser, a charity event near to my heart. The Walk for Autism Research is the signature fundraising event of Autism Speaks/NAAR, one of the prominent parent-founded charities which funds Autism Research. I am asking for your generosity and seeking donations as part of my participation in the Walk–all donations going to Autism Research. You can find more information on the event at the San Diego NAAR/Autism Speaks-Walk for Autism website.

The most important reason to contribute to Autism Research is the suffering of the children affected by this hideous disease, along with the difficulties it presents to their families. More than 50 years after it was first described, Autism remains a mystery, and is affecting young children at an increasingly alarming rate–1 -166 children born will be diagnosed with Autism–and now affects millions of people and their families. The scariest part is the huge increase in the numbers over the last decade or so—with no one knowing why. Autism affects all colors, creeds and nationalities. Even today, Autism remains one of the lowest funded of all the diseases that affect large numbers of people. Autism’s cause has not yet been characterized–and badly needs to be, to allow progress on treatments and ultimately, a cure.

The disease is not only a personal tragedy for many, but also a huge societal problem, one that is consuming large amounts of school and medical resources, to care for those affected. A recent conservative estimate of the societal cost of Autism was $35 Billion ANNUALLY, in the United States alone. Yet the US research budget for Autism is typically an order of magnitude lower than other diseases which affect like numbers of people.

There are two ways to contribute, if you are able to make a donation (all contributions are of course Tax Deductible). The easiest way is to donate online. This link takes you to my personal fundraising page on the Autism Speaks-Walk for Autism website. On this page you can painlessly make your donation using any major credit card. If you prefer, you can also make a donation by check. Please make the check out to “Autism Speaks”, and mail it to:

Autism Speaks
c/o PJM Consulting
10644 Amberglades Lane
San Diego, CA 92130 USA
858-792-1062

Your generosity toward this important cause is greatly appreciated.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

1 Comment by admin on May 13, 2006
filed in Uncategorized

Technology Acceleration

Technology is a GOOD THING. Well, most of the time it is.

I’m sure you’ve seen articles bemoaning the NEGATIVE role that technology advancement has played in our lives. I have recently joined the ranks of those doing the bemoaning.

Gadgets are Great

Don’t get me wrong—I’m a tech guy through and through. I’ve chosen to work in the technology industry for 20 years, and I love gadgets as much as the next guy. I’ve got TIVO, a laptop, a cell phone, Wi-Fi, all the standard Hi-Tech fare. I’m an email fanatic. With great anticipation I’m eyeing high end Home Theater equipment; just waiting for prices to drop a little more, and for standards to settle a bit. I love many of the things that technology does to enrich our personal lives, and I embrace the productivity improvements that it brings to doing business. And I believe that those who create new technologies and products ALMOST ALWAYS have good intentions, from a societal perspective.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

But I also believe that the law of unintended consequences is alive and thriving in the technology marketplace. In creating products and services that didn’t previously exist in our world, the good is sometimes offset (and occasionally overwhelmed) by effects on the negative side of the ledger.

Take automobiles, for example. Certainly cars are no longer an example of new technology. But at the turn of the century, they represented one of the greatest leaps forward in technology, and have had wide-ranging, positive societal effects. Autos provided a completely different level of personal mobility, with too many positive effects on our daily lives to list. For businesses, the enhanced business productivity was so enormous that it not only lowered costs, but also allowed totally new businesses to be conceived. Autos and the internal combustion engine that enabled them, are truly among the great inventions of all time.

However, do you think the inventors of the internal combustion engine and the automobile had the foresight to envision the amount of pollution this invention has ultimately created? Not to mention the greenhouse gas effect, which is causing significant warming to our global climate, with potentially devastating consequences?

Of course, they couldn’t. I think this should cause those of us in the technology biz to pause and reflect a bit.

Negatives with Positives

There are many more innovations that one could list as having major negatives associated with great leaps forward. Cell Phones are another such example. They have provided a leap forward in society, that while not quite as profound as automobiles, approaches the same level. They’ve provided great productivity gains for businesses, and have allowed us to stay connected in our personal lives, like never before. But haven’t they also contributed negatively to our ability to get away, relax, and enjoy some uninterrupted privacy? I feel this has been a big negative for society, and it’s one of those steps that probably can’t be undone.

I think even the most driven Type A’s among us believe that human beings need at least SOME time to recharge our batteries. Just to get away from it all and relax. Technological advancements have connected us to the extent that it’s very hard to do that. You used to be able to take a vacation or a day off, and honestly say you didn’t have a phone or an Internet connection available. If you say that now, people might begin to question your veracity. It’s possible to be connected nearly everywhere—as a result, it becomes less acceptable than ever be “disconnected”.

This leads to the biggest complaint I have about the unintended consequences of the technology revolution:

The general speeding up of our lives.

I’m exhausted–I’ll bet you are too
For context, most people would consider me a type A personality. So this isn’t the complaint of some mellow, laid-back surfer dude. I generally embrace a fast paced life, and particularly enjoy the ability to make progress in business in a rapid-fire matter. But honesty compels me to admit that, at times, the pace of modern life even overwhelms me.

I live out the most gnawing example of this “Acceleration” of our lives every day on the freeways of Southern California. I live in San Diego, which granted, is a big city. And big city traffic has, of course, never been much fun. But San Diego isn’t New York or Paris by any stretch of the imagination, when it comes to congestion, or the attitudes of the locals. So I don’t think I’m reaching for the extreme here.

Compared to even 10-15 years ago, life on the freeways has become hell. I am a pretty fast driver, but on the freeway, it’s never fast enough. No matter how fast you want to go, there is always someone coming fast upon you—tailgating and itching to get past you. And it isn’t enough to just get around you. The guys in the BMW 3 series have to accelerate and weave in and out of traffic, like it’s the 20th lap at LeMans.

Those guys have always existed on the highway, you say. And you’re right. But the lack of common sense and courtesy seems to have spread throughout the driver-sphere like a bad flu. These days, you try to move into a lane in front of a soccer mom, in a huge SUV, at your own peril. She may be toting two kids in the back, and of course is talking on her cell phone (those cell phones again!). But she’s also caught that LeMans mentality, and no way she’s going to intentionally concede that position to you—let alone the extra ten feet of highway to a “competitor”.

I find it especially ironic how the technology acceleration has made other pieces of useful technology obsolete. My favorite example is how the speedup on the freeways has eliminated the need for what was once an essential piece of safety technology for drivers: the “indicator”, or “turn signal”. It no longer serves a useful purpose on the road. Should you put your indicator on before changing lanes in front of that soccer mom? Ten years ago you certainly should have. But 2005 soccer mom puts the pedal to the medal, and cuts you off to prevent you from “moving up a spot” in the unofficial Freeway LeMans. These days, using this once essential technology now only “indicates” to everyone else that it’s time speed up, to prevent you from making that lane change! God forbid if you need to get to that lane to exit the highway; that next exit down the road better suffice if you don’t want to risk a crash. Soccer moms don’t glare at you menacingly while cutting you off like the guys in the BMW 3 series will, but the effect is just the same. It’s a jungle out there.

So what’s the takeaway to this rant?

Can downtime make a comeback?

Once again, I believe that the law of unintended consequences is hard at work. There is a big market being created that while not completely ignored, is underserved. That’s the market for enabling our lives to slow back down. Don’t misunderstand. I don’t mean “giving us more time in the day”. That time generated by productivity-enhancing devices, seems to just fill back up with more frenetic activity. I mean actually slowing us down, so we can re-charge, to sprint another day. This might be a difficult concept for companies to get their arms around, so that they can create new products and services to capitalize on it. But business formation and product creation around this theme would be really revolutionary, and potentially very rewarding.

So the next time you’re sitting on the side of the road with a flat tire—and a dead cell phone battery— write me a note. Assuming your wireless Internet connection is still up. I’d love to get your thoughts.

Phil More
ttini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

No Comments by admin on June 24, 2005
filed in Uncategorized

My First Post!

Hi,

I’m Phil Morettini. I am a Management Consultant to the High Tech industry, and I am starting this blog to offer my commentary on current events relevant to Management and Marketing in the High Tech biz. I plan on posting often, and would welcome your comments. Let me know what is on your mind, what you would like to see discussed, what you think of my commentary. Any and all opinions are welcome!

No Comments by admin on February 28, 2005
filed in Uncategorized