Mar 20, 2012 | Change, Innovation, Strategy
On March 14, IPART, the NSW Utility regulator made public a decision that put a price of 6-8 cents for energy exported to the grid, compared to the current cost of 30-44 cents for any power consumed from the grid.
The argument is in two parts, if I can put a complex report into a few dot points:
- The distribution infrastructure, poles & wires make up over 50% of the costs of electricity, and
- The times of peak demand do not coincide with times of strong sunlight, and therefore the power imported to the grid is of less value.
It seems to me that vested interests have got hold of the argument.
If it was truly that we were seeking to reduce our reliance on coal fired power stations, the ones the pollies tell us are better in private hands so the capital requirements are not a drain on the public purse, would it not be sensible to do two simple things:
- Use tariffs to shift the time of peak usage, (This assumes that households are the drivers of peak demand, which seems questionable to me, industry is a much larger user of power than households) this simply means people put their dishwashers on before they go to bed, not as they finish the meal, and ditto for dryers.
- Encourage the “crowdsourcing” of power, which takes the pressure off the network systems. The march of technology seems to imply that in a very short time we will have cheap batteries that will be able to recharge during daylight, storing power for use later. Put simply, put the generation points next to the consumption points.
We mostly accept that crowdsourcing of all sorts of things is the most efficient way of getting them, from ideas, to finance to goods. So why don’t we do it with power?
Why do we insist on insulating a legacy system that we are moaning is from the last century from the winds of change, when the alternative is obvious, and policy decisions elsewhere seem to indicate that the contrary outcome is in our long term interests. This is not necessarily an argument for subsidy, that is an emotive word, but it is an argument for reducing the responsibility for power generation from the public sector to those using the power, taking advantage of C21 technology.
Mar 6, 2012 | Innovation, Leadership
It is pretty easy to avoid making that confronting customer call, stand up and articulate an idea at odds with the boss, conduct an experiment conventional wisdom says will fail. The price for not doing this stuff is pretty low, few will critisise, but there will be little pay-off as well.
It takes intellectual bravery to confront the natural reluctance to stand out from the herd, make yourself vulnerable, be different, but without that bravery, nothing changes, and little new value creation will happen. As George Bernard Shaw said, “all great things start as blasphemies”
Feb 19, 2012 | Communication, Innovation, Marketing, Social Media
Just a few months ago, QR codes seemed to me to be the answer to a marketers prayer, a simple way for products and services to connect with anyone with a mobile device, and an interest.
However, Aussies, often quick adapters of technology seemed not to be interested. At a recent wine symposium of a major wine region to which I was lucky enough to score an invitation to, I saw only one brand using QR codes, and yesterday in a major retail outlet, I scoured to the place to find, none. (great excuse eh, just looking for a QR code darling!). This lack of take-up by Australian wineries was a surprise to me, then Joan Muschamp posted on the Social media examiner site, and all became clear.
I thought wineries would rush to QR codes, perhaps the explanation in this article talking about the next big thing, leading to the early death of QR codes, Mobile Visual Search, that we humans are visual animals, and a big bar code does not do it for us, has something in it.
Soon we will be able to point our phone at a building, label, poster, product, whatever, and get immediate feedback on the object. Currently the technology is pretty early stage, Google have started marketing it as “Google Goggles” and Apple has their version as well.
Point is, the pace of innovation is still accelerating, and the opportunities are for the early adopters, the marketers who get on top of a consumer friendly technology early, and leverage it for the brand, by connecting to their content, and telling their stories.
Feb 16, 2012 | Change, Innovation, Social Media
The world is full of paradoxes.
Apple, the ultimate closed system is now again, the worlds most valuable company, but was started by two blokes, one of whom was, and remains an advocate of open systems, Steve Wozniak, and the other, Steve Jobs, a passionate and demanding driver of closed systems, with commercial windows. It will be enlightening to hear the analysis of market share and profitability as Googles open Android enabled devices pull away from Apple’s closed version in mobile devices
IBM almost went broke trying to hold everything inside its business model, then opened up, completely revised their business model, and emerged from its near death as a much stronger business. Wikipedia 1.0 was tried as a closed system, but succeeded only when Jimmy Wales relinquished enormous amounts of power to the crowd. Similarly, Linux was started on the bulletin boards of the early web, by a small group led by Linux Thorvaldsen who simply wanted to get away from the control, then exerted by that early, and still, proponent of closed systems, Microsoft.
So what are the lessons in all this?
- Simply that there is no one cookie cutter model that can be applied, that differing models suit different circumstances, and times.
- Nothing lasts forever, the next iteration will call into question all the assumptions of the previous model
- The model is evolving all the time, trying to lock it in is a bit like Canute’s efforts with the tide.
Feb 3, 2012 | Branding, Innovation, Marketing
So Kodak is broke, chapter 11 which protects a company from its creditors whilst it radically restructures in order to survive and pay back creditors.
It is only a few years ago Kodak was one of the most valuable brands in the world. In the mid 90’s it was in the top 5 of Interbrands list of the most valuable brands, in 2001, it was down to number 27, worth $11 Billion, 2007, number 82, worth $4 billion, the last time it troubled the scorers.
The common wisdom is that Kodak failed to keep up with digital photographic technology, but they invented the digital camera, they should have understood the implications, they just failed to make an impression on the market.
However, they did try, and try hard, so an alternative reason for failure should be considered. Maybe it is just that the Kodak brand was so strong, it said Film, it was film, that the leapto digital could not be made by the consumers.
Perhaps what they really needed was another brand?.
Would you buy a kitchen appliance if it was branded “Hoover” or an orange juice branded “Coca-Cola”? Probably not, simply because the brand is such a powerful expression of the one product. I think Kodak suffered from the same malady, and they failed to recognise it.
Some late news on Kodak post the Chapter11. I guess you could say they have gone back to their knitting.
P.S. march 2015, this post from those terrific storytellers at Digital Tonto bring us this analysis of Kodak’s burning platform of chemical photography.
PPSS. July 2016. This HBR post by Scott Anthony delivers another perspective on the ever interesting story of Kodak and Innovation.
Jan 29, 2012 | Innovation, Personal Rant, Uncategorized
In the December 2011 quarter, Apple made $13 billion in profits, an extraordinary figure, 3 billion more than the revenue of Google in the quarter. Apple is an innovation machine, making it so is the legacy of Steve Jobs.
However, there is usually a flip side to the stories of huge success, Jobs was not the nicest person around, brilliant, magnetic, but a real genuine article prick, according to his biographer, and the woes of Apple contract manufacturers in China are well known.
But, who has heard of the mineral Tantalum? Apple uses it, as does every other producer of our electronic gadgets.
Talison, a company headquartered in Perth used to mine tantalum in Australia, a mineral extracted from an ore called Coltan, short for Columbite-tantalite, but no longer due to competitive price pressure coming from African supplies. Pity we lost another market.
Coltan is now one of the minerals being mined in West Africa, using primitive tools, and kids paid slave wages, sold so we can have the latest gadget, and the nasties in charge can buy more guns and anti-personnel mines, and fill their Swiss bank accounts.
This blog is usually about marketing, management, and the stuff that hopefully scratches my readers brains to facilitate improvement. However, from time to time, we need to think about the ethical base of what we do.
This almost unknown story of Coltan ore, and its derivatives should be on our agenda.
