I'm Looking At You Looking At Me Looking At You

Almax, the Italian maker of mannequins has a new high-tech version that does more than stand around and look pretty.

The EyeSee Mannequin has a camera built into its eye that watches you while you shop. 

According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek (6 December 2012), the EyeSee Mannequin sells for about $5,130 and it conducts consumer profiling--using technology to identify criminals--it determines your age, gender, and race and tracks your shopping patterns. 

Newer versions of EyeSee will likely have a sensor for hearing you as well, so it can "eavesdrop on what shoppers say about the mannequin's attire."

Next to these mannequins, you have to consider who are the real dummies, when everything you do and say can be monitored. 

Next time, you're peering at that mannequin, be careful, it may be peering right back at you--and when it says something be ready to jump. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

I'm Looking At You Looking At Me Looking At You

Supercookies Are Super Invasive

You're alone sitting at the computer surfing the web, you're looking up health, financial, entertainment, shopping, and other personal things.

You feel comfortable doing your thing...you have your privacy and can be yourself without someone looking over your shoulder.

But is the sense of safety real or an illusion?

For the most part, when we are online, we are not safe or in private.

Like at work, where you get the warning that you are being monitored, when you are browsing the Internet, your actions are being tracked site by site (but this is done without warning)--by cookies--or data packets exchanged between web servers and user's browsers.

On the plus side cookies are used for identification, authentication, preferences, and maintaining shopping cart contents; but on the negative side, they are installed on users computers to track your activities online.

The Wall Street Journal (18 August 2011) reports that now there are Supercookies! and "history stealing."

- Supercookies are not cookies with that can fly or lift locatives, but rather they are more difficult to locate and get rid off your computer, so they track your activities, but are hidden in different places such as in the web browsers cache.

- "History stealing" is done when you visit certain websites, and they use software to mine you web browser history to determine where you've visited and then use that to for example, target advertising at you. Imagine though what other profiling can be compiled by categorizing and analyzing your browsing history in aggregate.

Currently, the online ad industry has established self-imposed guidelines to supposedly protect privacy, but they seem wholly inadequate such as "collecting health and financial data about individuals is permissible as long as the data don't contain financial-account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions or medical records." But knowing people's household finances, credit histories, and personal medical histories is okay--by whose standard?

According to the WSJ, web tracking is not only alive and well, but flourishing with "80% of online display ads are based on tracking data."

Why should anyone have the ability to track our personal web surfing?

We don't need ads targeted at us--we are not targets! We are very capable of searching online for what we what we are interested in and when we are interested in it--thank you!

Session cookies that expire at the end of ones web browsing for session management is one thing; but persistent cookies that collect and mine your personal data--that's should be a definite no-no.

Like with the advertisements that come unwanted in the traditional mailbox and get routinely and speedily placed in the garbage, online advertisements that are based on intrusive website tracking is not only a nuisance, but a violation of our privacy--and should be trashed as a concept and a practice.

Supercookies Are Super Invasive

Apple Store "Heaven"

The Apple Store is always packed with people--it's like they are just camped out there, permanently.

According to the Wall Street Journal (15 June 2011), the Apple stores are an unbelievable success story:

1) The 326 stores sold about $11.7 billion worth of merchandise in 2010, and have an estimated 26.9% profit margin--compared with about 1% margin for Best Buy before taxes.

2) They led with sales per square foot of over $4,406--higher than Tiffany at $3,070,, Coach at $1,776, and Best Buy at $880

3) More people now visit Apple's stores in a single quarter than the 60 million who visited Disney's 4 biggest theme parks last year.

And people are not just "window shopping," but people are actively engaged trying out, testing, experimenting with the latest Apple products sitting out on the display desks.

Of course, there are also lots of sales people in their bright red Apple shirts ready to help, answer questions, and even sell you something.

Apple's stated "sales" philosophy--"not to sell, but rather to help customer solve problems."

Thus, employees receive no sales commissions and have no sales quotas--that's definitely pretty novel! (The exception is that "employees must sell services packages with devices"--I've always been a little leery of those, thinking why do I need the service package if the product is supposedly such high quality to begin with?)

Apple focuses their team on customer service, and their 20007 training manual uses the APPLE acronym as follows:

A--"Approach customers with a personalized warm welcome"

P--"Probe politely to understand all the customer needs"

P--"Present a solution for the customer to take home today"

L--"Listen for and resolve any issues or concerns"

E--"End with a fond farewell and an invitation to return"

I sort of like it--no where does it say to sell, up-sell, cross-sell the customer, but rather it's much more about services and solutions.

At checkout, the salespeople can ring you up from where ever you happen to be in the store on iPod touches with credit card readers.

And trouble shooting Apple products is done at the "Genius Bar"--something like the Geek Squad on steroids. This is where things start to get a little weird, since Apple only pays their geniuses something like $30 an hour, so but for the love of Apple, what are they doing there?

Overall though, I think the whole store experience is pretty ingenious: from "the clutter free look using natural materials like wood, glass, stone, and stainless steel" to the large image color displays of the products dotting the walls, the stores are inviting, hip, and you know when you walk out with a product, it'll be plug and play, immediately functional, and extremely sleek to match.

J.C. Penny made a brilliant move announcing the hiring of Ron Johnson as their new CEO, effective November--Ron is the brains behind the Apple store design. If Ron can Apple-fy the Penny stores, wow wow wow, but that this is not a sure thing, since Apple products are cool and sort of sell themselves anyway--they just needed the right ambience.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Apple Store "Heaven"

Social Networking the Pepsi Way

On April 27, 2011, Pepsi announced the launch of it's state-of-the-art "Social Vending Machine."

It's a touch screen, networked machine that aside from enabling the purchase of soft drinks and the provision of nutrition information online, it also enables users to "gift" a drink to a friend by entering the recipient's name, mobile number, and a personalized text message (and even has an option to personalize it with a short recorded video).

The recipient of the Pepsi gift simply enters the redeem code at a pepsi social vending machine to get their soda. They can also return a thank you gift to the sender or "pay it forward" and give a gift to someone else.

In addition, the machine makes use of advanced telemetry to remotely measure and report on inventory, manage delivery scheduling, and update content on the machines. This machine is alive with changeable content and interactive communication between users.

As the Chief Innovation Officer of PepsiCo Foodservice states: "Social vending extends our consumers' social networks beyond the confines of their own devices and transforms a static, transaction-oriented experience into something fun and exciting they'll want to return to, again and again."

Additionally, Mashable reports that in phase 2, Pepsi is planning to integrate their Social Vending concept with other social media such as Facebook, extending the reach of product placement and gifting even further through cyberspace and social networking.

While many companies continue to struggle to figure out how to integrate social networking into a companies operations and make it profitable, PepsiCo has a simple formula for how it engages it's customers, promotes sales, and makes it all seem completely natural to the whole transaction--like it belonged there all along.

Great job PepsiCo!

Social Networking the Pepsi Way

Pain Points, More Potent Than Wish Lists

Organizations are all interested in what sells—what’s hot and what’s not!

Of course, as advertisers learned long ago, “sex sells.”

What else? Fear sells. All the basic emotions seem to sell—everything from affection and anger to wonder and worry.

When people experience an emotional drive, their internal (biochemical) and external (environmental) states elicit a psychophysiological response that drives mood and motivation.

The result is that when effectively selling to people’s emotions, we address or meet their explicit or implicit “pain points.”

Fast Company (November 2010) has an interesting article called “The Felt Need” that differentiates wants from genuine needs.

A want is one thing, but a genuine need or “pain point” is something entirely different. Getting something we want may be satisfying a nice to have on our wish list, but getting rid of a pain point is something that we literally crave to fulfill from physiological and/or psychological motivations.

A good analogy to satisfying people’s wants versus needs is that it’s better to be selling aspirins than vitamins, because “vitamins are nice; they’re healthy [and people want to live healthier]. But aspirin cures your pain…it’s a must-have.”

Similarly, the article tells us that just building a better mousetrap, doesn’t mean that customers will be beating down your door to do business, but rather as organizations we need to figure out not just how to build a better mousetrap, but rather how to get rid of that pesky mouse. The nuance is important!

In technology, there is a tendency to treat almost every new technology as a want and almost every new want as a need. The result is vast sums spent on IT purchases that are unopened or unused that perhaps looked good on paper (as a proposal), but never truly met the organizational threshold as a must-have with a commensurate commitment by it to succeed.

There are a number of implications for IT leaders:

1) As service providers, I think we need to differentiate with our internal customers what their genuine pain points are that must get prioritized from what their technology wish list items that can be addressed in the future, strategy alignment and resources permitting.

2) From a customer standpoint, I’d like to see our technology vendors trying to sell less new mousetraps and focusing more on what we really need in our organizations. The worst vendor calls/presentations are the ones that just try to tell you what they have to sell, rather than finding out what you need and how they can answer that call in a genuine way.

In looking at the emotion, the key to long-term sales success is not to take advantage of the customer in need, but rather to be their partner in meeting those needs and making the pain go away.

Pain Points, More Potent Than Wish Lists

“Glocalization” and Enterprise Architecture

Glocal is a combination of the words global and local. It is a best practice in business where organizations conducts business operations globally, but tailor their offerings to meet local tastes and needs.

Essentially doing business glocally means that you are architecting your business to perform operations both effectively and efficiently—i.e. your business is doing the right thing by growing without geopolitical constraints and you’re doing it the right way, by being sensitive to the customers’ specific needs wherever they are located.

The Wall Street Journal, 1 May 2008, reports that “Kraft became the No. 1 biscuit maker in China by tailoring the Oreo to local tastes.”

“The Oreo has long been the top-selling cookie in the U.S. Market. But Kraft Foods, Inc. had to reinvent the Oreo to make it sell well in the world’s most populous nation.”

“Unlike its iconic American counterpart, the Oreo sold in China is frequently long, thin, four-layered and coated in chocolate. But both kinds of cookies have one thing in common: They are now best sellers.”

40% of Kraft’s revenue is internationally-based, so their strategy to go glocal is critical to improving their market share and profitability.

To increase growth at Kraft, the CEO “has been putting more power in the hands of Kraft’s various business units around the globe, telling employees that decisions about Kraft products shouldn’t all be made by the people at the Northfield, Ill. headquarters.”

Similarly, to market the Chinese Oreo’s, one of innovative things Kraft did was to have Chinese university students ride around on bicycles outfitted with wheel covers resembling Oreos and handing out cookies.

The CEO stated this was “a stroke of genius that only could have come from local managers. The more opportunity our local managers have to deal with local conditions will be a source of competitive advantage for us.”

Glocalization, the customization to local markets, is far removed from the original Ford Model T (the most influential car of the twentieth century according to Wikipedia) set in 1908 that was based on standardization and assembly-line production, rather than individually hand-crafted.

From an enterprise architecture perspective, going glocal and customizing (or tailoring) business products and services to local tastes is also quite the opposite of what most enterprise architects try to do, which is to standardize their products and services to increase interoperability, simplify the infrastructure and operations, and achieve cost-efficiencies.

So what is more important, standardization or customization?

I suppose it depends on your perspective. If you’re in operations, then standardization is the dominant factor in order to streamline business processes and achieve cost-efficiencies. However, if you’re in sales and marketing, then customization is key to market penetration and customer satisfaction.

This leads me to the role of the enterprise architect, which is to balance the conflicting needs of the organization and simultaneously drive standardization in business processes and technologies, but customization to local requirements for sales and marketing. So EA serves Oreos to everyone!

“Glocalization” and Enterprise Architecture