Citizen Al

Target, in a desperate bid to beat back online rival Amazon.com, is asking vendors to create "exclusive" products that can't be undercut online. They feel customers are coming into stores to check out merchandise to only purchase at difficult-to-match prices online.

But, appealing to vendors is the proverbial lipstick on the proverbial pig. It's focusing on the wrong problem. It's a twist on the same contest. A content they can't win, a contest on who has the lowest price.

Target and other bricks-and-mortar retailers are being upended. Their discount business model (which they used to good effect on department stores and small, local retailers) doesn't have the same advantage in a world where someone else offers the lowest price. They can NEVER win that battle again. Now what?

They need to offer compelling value. Value that is no longer generated by big boxes, cheap real estate, agressive vendor negotiating, operational and distribution efficiencies.

If Amazon is about low-price and online convenience, what is Target about? Why shop and buy at Target? That is an existential question that low-cost retailers (Wal-Mart among them) have no answer. They are a one-trick pony whose trick was stolen.

In San Francisco, they are going to try a new format -- two stores with a smaller footprint and a tweaked product mix in an urban setting. They have been rolling out more defendable grocery sections. They can try more substantial rewards programs. They can try subscriptions. They need to evolve the reason people shop at Target. If they do, then they'll have a chance. Otherwise, the fate of Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Circuit City, et al awaits them as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204624204577177242516227440.htm...

It's a beautiful idea. Designed and delightful products sold on the web and through a beautiful native iPhone/iPad app. I so much want to love this store. And while good ideas are good, delivering is much, much better.

I ordered Christmas gifts on Nov. 19, wanting to avoid the crunch and rush of Holiday shopping. I won't get them in time for Christmas. To Fab's credit, they responded to my emails. They credited $25 to my account (of which I'm sure I'll need to spend even more to actually use). They promptly replied to my plea on Twitter. They did all the right things to take the conversation "offline." The folks answering these emails and replying to Tweets are doing their jobs. So much of the customer service is right. But, the baseline requirement is, unfortunately, to deliver. And this is where a promising company may fail.

Amazon.com is boring. It's user experience is bland and cluttered (though very, very efficient.) It's not cool. It's not particularly delightful. But they deliver. They deliver time and time again.

The criteria for Christmas shopping is pretty simple.

• Offer a desirable product (or service)
• Offer it at a great price
• Deliver

Fab has the first two down. The last one, unfortunately, is the most critical. Christmas pretty much happens every year. Most retailers, in fact, look forward to it. It is the joyous season of sales and revenue. If a customer orders a product in November, just assume they want it before Christmas. Assume that your shipping partners will be taxed to their limits. There aren't enough trucks and drivers to satisfy the demand. Given all that, why would you ship a product so late that there is a one-day window to deliver on time? (Remember, product ordered in mid-November.) Why not a 1-week window? How about 3-days? How about even 2-days? It's not like anything unexpected happened. Christmas is not new.

I'm sorry you're sorry. Really, I'm sorry. It's clear there are people who care about delight. But, dammit, just f-ing deliver.

Hollywood and cable LOVE each other. "Over the top" Internet TV? Over their dead bodies.

Why in the world would content owner want to cut out their distributor partners and go direct to consumers? Like in any mature, beautiful relationship, they can't imagine life without the other. The entertainment business (Hollywood, sports leagues) and the distribution business (cable and satellite) are tied together more tightly now than ever. Affiliate fees that distributors pay to content owners are what makes the entire business go. Distributors do all the nasty business of marketing, distributing and billing. Content owners simply sidle up to the revenue table paid for by pay TV subscribers and feast. For distributors and content owners, life is GOOD. Right now. Thank you very much. Sure, there are a few internecine battles over the price for content, but each side knows they desperately need each other.

You'd think that "over the top" Internet-delivered entertainment bits would be a good deal for content owners. But, they have no incentive (money) to walk away and every incentive (money) to stay. Content owners enjoy guaranteed, long-term per-sub revenue stream now. As long as pay TV subscribers are willing to pay the ever increasing rates, the industry will be just fine. The key is "as long as." If there is any hint that subscribers are abandoning service, then, yeah, they'll be at each other's throats. But even the deepest recession in 70 years did little to dampen consumer's willingness to pay. Think about it, consumer pay more now. They pay more than ever. And they'd want to walk away from that?

Over the top? Uh, no thank you.

http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/affiliate-fees-make-the-world-go-round/

The shock, denial, and distancing from the Carrier IQ embarrassment has been pretty predictable. But dig a bit and the scandal, itself, shouldn't be surprising at all.

Look at the incentives of all the players involved in delivering Android handsets, and it's pretty clear everyone is trying to "get theirs" and no one feels the need to take responsibility for the final customer experience.

Google is giving away the OS in hopes of protecting their search monopoly. They're not responsible for the product. It's the handset manufacturers and carriers.

Handset manufacturers are trying to deliver smartphones as cheaply as possible and to spec (think crapware) to their demanding carrier customers. They're not responsible for the product.

Carriers are trying to protect their valuable contract-based business model. They've trying to upsell data plans to subscribers for over a decade and think they've finally hit on something. They don't know much about the hardware or software at all. They can't be responsible for what their contractors or OS manufacturers are doing.

Software developers are trying to fill in whatever needs are profitable. They can't be responsible for the final product.

The partners have bandied about the term "openness" as if it were a principled stand in the interest of customers. But, in reality, it is just "branding" of a distributed manufacturing model.

There is a benefit to be gained from a distributed manufacturing model -- high tech products offered at extraordinarily low costs. But "openness" is not all unicorns and rainbows. Distributed manufacturing means no one is responsible. Everyone wants the minimum amount of exposure to responsibility. Everyone wants to maximize their benefit. Naturally.

Android is an important and vital software platform. It's a credit to Google and their partners that it exists at all. But, can we all stop with ideological claims of "openness" as a unequivocal "good?" Distributed manufacturing just a business model. No more. No less.

http://mobile.theverge.com/2011/12/3/2608995/carrier-iq-denies-responsiblity-...

Just reading the review of this book makes one nauseous. The old-line media companies are the "heroes" of society. The digital companies are "parasites." Sigh. Again? Really?

This is not to say media companies don't create value. Nor do have all tech companies been lilly white in terms of copyright. But, to lionize one and demonize the other is so stupid. It's also whiny and entitled. Please.

For so long, media companies owned their customers. They owned the stories, characters, pictures, words, notes and music. And they charged accordingly. $15 for a Britney Spears CD. $25 for that Harold and Kumar DVD. Take it or leave it. Really. Like baggage fees for entertainment.

But when their customers decided that other goods and forms were more compelling, they scream they've been robbed. Give me a break!

Please, shrink behind your pay walls. Launch a thousand digital rights locker schemes. "Battle" your customers with more vehemence. But, don't adapt and offer value in a evolving world. People will pay. People will pay for experience AND content worth paying for. They will also adopt and pay for new forms that old-line companies can't even imagine and are being invented everyday. But each ham-handed attempt to bring the hegemonic glory days will simple speed your path to irrelevance.

Your old business model is not a birthright. It is simply old. Adapt or be swept away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/free-ride-how-digital-parasite...

Baseball offenses are designed to score runs. To succeed, there are two basic things to maximize: not making outs (a team only gets 27 for most games) and advancing as many bases as possible. Put another way, teams need to maximize getting on base, hitting for power and stealing bases.

The very best teams will score about 30% of their opportunities. The secret is creating more opportunities. Get on base, advance multiple bases, score runs. Simple.

The 2011 Giants enjoyed a disproportionate amount of luck in the early season. Walk-off wins and one-run wins and all. They are probably performing closer to their capabilities now. And those capabilities are defined by an poor ability to get on base, deficient power and underwhelming base running. They just aren't good. They aren't even average. Actually, they are historically bad. So, for a team with an offense this bad, it would take a historically good pitching staff to just be a .500 team. But the pitching staff is so good, it is actually making up for the offense. The Giants, amazingly, are a winning team!

So, yeah, as a Giants fan, it sucks to have your team exposed. Anything compared to 2010's magical run is a disappointment. But, hearteningly, the pitching will still be good next season. They get Posey and, hopefully, Freddy back. Schierholtz has developed into a competent major league hitter and can handle AT&T Park's cavernous right field. Panda rebounded and has proven he has major-league switch-hitting power. Hopefully Belt and Huff can elevate their game and handle LF and 1B. Belt did looked overmatched his rookie season, so, hopefully, he can break through. Huff has had too many good major league seasons to write off. The Giants don't need an exceptional offense. With their pitching, they just need an average offense. To get there, they will need to add a shortstop (Renteria, Tejada and Cabrera haven't done much to fill this position) and a center fielder. Crawford? All glove, but not ready with the bat. Gary Brown? He just finished A ball. He's gonna need a season or two of development to even know if he's a major leaguer. It looks a trade or free agent signing will be necessary.
But, Giant fans, take heart. The team is just a couple of players away from being post-season force. 2011? They're simply not good enough. It's over. But, 2012? Go Giants!

Disappointment only comes from expectation. And for three improbable months, the defending world champs defied the odds and won when they really shouldn't have. Late inning, extra inning and walk-off heroics defined the first half. Despite losing their best player, despite the paucity of power, they found a way to win. They raised our hopes of another improbable run. Swagger oozed out of every pore, intimidating those less confident. They rode on the backs of historically great starting and relief pitching.

They won.
We cheered.
That ride is over.

The Giants have been exposed as a fatally flawed team. Yes, the loss of Buster and Freddy were major setbacks. But Huff, Ross, Burrell, Tejada, Torres, Belt failed to do their part. The team struggled to add offense with Beltran, Keppinger and Cabrera, but none have made an impact. The once solid defense slipped. The power vanished. The swagger evaporated. And here we are. Losing to the worst teams in baseball. With a whimper.

Bring on the rookies. Cut the unnecessary veterans. Thank you Zito, Rowand, Fontenot, Ross. You will always be a part of our memories and best of luck in your future endeavors. Let's play Belt, Crawford, Burriss, Brown. Let's see what the kids got. Let's see if Keppinger can handle short and third. Let's see if Torres can regain his form at the plate. Let's see if Schierholtz is an everyday major leaguer.

Renewal only comes from failure. Let's embrace the end and see what's ahead. It's been a beautiful ride. But 2011? That ride is over.

The Economist, as usual, offers a frank and thoughtful assessment of the reactions to the London riots. They argue the most effective response is not severe punishment nor expanded government support alone. They don't excuse nor ignore the criminality, nor do they turn a blind eye to poverty from which these rooters sprang.

England has been forced to confront their problems publicly and in a humiliating fashion. Perhaps we, Americans, can learn a lesson and address them before they spill out into the open here at home.

http://www.economist.com/node/21526361?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/thekneesjerk