On Target in the Air with Cell Phones!

Fly the Friendly Skies but get off the phone before you check in!

In a previous post, we expressed a tongue-in-cheek concern about the Transportation Safety Administration, and promise more int he future. But here's the current "problem" I think the TSA has to deal with. Continental is the first U.S. Airline testing a system that allows people to get their boarding pass sent directly to their cell phones. The electronic boarding pass can be used instead of a paper boarding pass to get through airport security and to board planes, according to Paper Is Out, Cellphones Are In, in the New York Times!

Excellent! I love the disruption that the mobile web is causing . . . but I still have a few concerns.

1) What is the backup plan for those who don't have a cell phone?

Surely there are still a few poeple who don't and won't have cell phones. If this takes off, what will be the extra cost for them to use the old-school way? And what happens if I am on an important business call as I am getting on the plane? "Hang on Fred, I have to check in . . ."

2) How hard will it be to get the information re-sent to my mobile phone?

I know that I may be the only one this has ever happened to, but what exactly do I do if after I get the boarding pass my phone craps out? Say I'm not able to get it fixed in time, so I don't even have access to the number where the message was sent. Are we back to showing some form of ID and hoping there are still enouogh kiosks to get a printed ticket, or maybe I could borrow one of my fellow passengers' phones just until I check in . . .

3) How hard is it to spoof this?

Continental is the only airline offering the service at this point, and their boarding pass is an image of an encrypted bar code displayed on the phone’s screen, which can be scanned by gate agents and security personnel. It's reported to be a two-dimensional encrypted bar code, which is much tougher to copy than the one-dimensional bar code used by many airlines for boarding passes printed online, so T.S.A. is expected to embrace the technology. The two-dimensional version looks more like the snow on a television screen that has lost its signal.

I appreciate that the U.S. isn't the first to use this technology . . . Air Canada has been using electronic it since last September, and Japan Airlines, Scandinavian Airlines and Spanair are using it or something similar, as well.

But they aren't the countries with the big target painted around each of their major airports either, are they?

This sounds a whole lot like more of an administrative cost-cutting measure for the airlines (both in terms of supplies and employees) than it does a convenience for travelers.

What do you think?

Can Candid Camera make a comeback?

As you may have seen from my post on the Retro-Education blog, I have recently figured out how to take a slideshow and turn it into a video. There's probably an easier way to do it, but I have it down to a science (if you want a how to, I'll get to working on that soon :-)

But the bigger question is WHY did I see the need for this anyway . . .

With Google's YouTube Video running so Hi def lately (almost 52 million visitors per year as of October 2007), the numbers are surely stacking up, and they are making good Cents (sic) . . .

. . . and with companies like GoYoDeo launching their cutting-edge interactive site personalization tools (my term) that allows anyone to publish their personal video content ON TOP of their blogs, social networks and websites (for a demo, check this out -- for an imagination stimulator, go here) . . .



. . . and LinkedIn, MTV, and Beet.tv doing video interviews to supplement their Internet presence . . .

. . . and now animoto is making it so simple to create flash-bang videos with lots of buzz (if you haven't seen their stuff yet, run over there now!) . . . it appears that this whole video thing may be catching on . . . ya think?!?!?

I'm not talking about the paranoia-laden concerns that could be caused by the press (the BBC to be exact) where a teacher was secretly filming lessons she taught, I'm talking about the use of video for a majority of our non-in-person (or video conference) communication. I'm talking about the only person I know who has never owned a computer (a friend since grade school) will be able to communicate the great ideas he has to more than just those who answer the phone when he calls (he does do mobile text-messaging, maybe I should set him up a Twitter account :-). I'm talking about the use of video for more than just passing around shots of the latest Go-Daddy Super Bowl blunder.

Part of me is concerned that we'll be dumbing down the future generations, but it's possible that we'll be giving them another avenue for self-expression (I know, they've been doing this stuff for a while). And for those who simply can't (or won't) learn how to type . . . welcome to the Internet . . . come on in, the water's fine!

So can we expect a return of the peeping-Toms of Candid Camera? Though the show (on it's return trip) hasn't been around for three years, does that mean this kind of activity hasn't permeated our culture? I'm thinking it has, and I'm thinking we haven't seen the end result yet. When portable video cameras can stream better than mobile-phone quality videos through the metropolitan wi-fi, I think it will be time for all of us to wear wigs and shades . . . until then, let's have some fun!

What do you think?

Police 2.0 - To Protect and to Twitter!

Not sure how I missed this, but here's an update from a previous post.

InThe death of social networking as we know it . . . Social Network Commerce, I suggested this scenario:

Your local police department recently installed a social network precinct, and you already added them as a "preferred location." This virtual precinct takes reports around the clock, using either text or voice input. Follow up consists of a text confirmation or a phone call, and you can check the status of your report at any time.

In our recent book, The Emergence of the Relationship Economy, I suggested:

We should consider adding our local police officer or precinct to our contacts or friends list. These individuals and organizations exist already in our community network, and possibly our social network of friends. Imagine community policing enhanced by a display of trusted connections, personal photos, or random thoughts.
* * *
If law enforcement took advantage of existing technology, we envision the process of a phone call to the police station being replaced by a posting on the virtual wall of the police station’s Web site.

Well, what do you know . . . some police departments have already upgraded to The Relationship Economy!

A search of Facebook shows 3 page results for Police Department, but there are many profiles set up with these identities.

A search of MySpace returns about 54,900 for police department, with many of the links for this department or that "jobs," and many individual officer profiles and videos - check out the Fairfield, CA police!

But as Doc Searls says, these sites are like AOL 2.0 (actually he says that about Facebook, I don't think he has ever seriously addressed MySpace). There's not much room for the relationship economy in government is there?

And now, here in the unexposed, unwalled social web of Twitter, there are . . . Real Police!

So how's this work . . . let me think. (I'm kind of new at this Twitter thing, so please correct me if I miss something).

I am a citizen in my town. I follow the Police and they follow me. They can instantly send out notifications, and I can directly message them, even from my mobile phone, right?

That's it, right? A new line on the officers' business cards, telephone hold messages, and of course on the back of the police cars . . . To Protect and to Twitter!

At least in Franklin, MA and Austin, TX . . .

What do you think?

Everything I ever knew about Twitter (as of 4PM this afternoon)

If interested in Twitter discoveries and more, check out the Retrofitting the Education Space Blog post -Yesterday's technology today.

Avoiding the Rebellion, and anything that sounds like a Rebellion

It seems that the majority of folks in the technology enhanced world are missing something that will be critical moving forward. Lest we forget, there are now and always will be naysayers and laggards, and it is our responsibility to provide guidance and direction for them so they can remain behind the power curve if that is truly their desire.

It may be difficult for many to understand these folks, but they are the reason that the buggy whip was still being produced long after the automobile hit critical mass. They are the reason that typewriter ribbon (even correctable ribbon) can still be found in online office supply stores (and perhaps a few local stores), and why computer manufacturers still sell dialup modems (though most are faster than 2800 baud).

Is it really that difficult to understand? It may take a bit of imagination, but when headlines like How Google and eBay Act Like Nations are found on an ABC News website, is it really that difficult to think that some could actually think that this whole e-commerce "revolution" died back in '99? Surely when the writer says "eBay took the extraordinary step of going to war against its own customers/partners/employees" they were speaking metaphorically . . .

And if the war coverage of ABC wasn't enough, a dose of reality (and close reality at that) shows us that the next generation of the Castro-controlled are (get this) using technology to break the rules, in Cyber-Rebels in Cuba Defy State's Limits. Do they really have it that bad on this island nation? I mean, come on -- state-owned cafe (only) charge a third of the average Cuban's monthly salary--about $5--to use a computer for an hour. That's no worse than you would pay at a franchised coffee shop or high-end hotel in the U.S. if you needed Internet access and had forgotten your laptop at home, right?

And then these poor folks have to deal with some obvious marketing hype when they read the claim that a Pew Internet and American Life Project Study found that Cell Phones are Now the Most Vital Device . . . cell phones? Who needs a cell phone? If you have a home phone, your auto is in good shape, and you don't work in Emergency Management, there's really no use for cell phones, right? Who were they talking to when they found that the cell phone is the technological tool its users would have most difficulty giving up, followed by the Internet and television, anyway?

To buy into any of this is simply rebellious, and most law-abiding citizens simply shouldn't have any part of it, right? Who would want to turn over government-like power to a corporation, anyway? The Department of Justice would stop that, like they did with Microsoft a few years back. Right? And who would believe that a bunch of kids could actually do anything to upset one of the few remaining concentrations of Communism by using technology that their government prohibits. The police and military could keep that from happening like they have before! And finally, what's this nonsense about cell phones being indispensable? Most people don't need them, and they are spoiling their kids by getting them for them. It's crazy to think that they will catch on any time soon . . .

What do you think?

Do we really need to know how to have a conversation?

We all know that one of the key foundations for relationship building is the ability to have a conversation. We all assume that we know how to have a conversation, since many of us have been talking since long before we got out of diapers.

But do we really know what we are doing?

In the book Language Development: From Two to Three (1991), Lois Bloom summarized the research regarding basic conversational strategies. Likening conversation to a game of catch, she explained that each conversationalist participates by throwing balls into the air. The rules are that only one ball can be in the air at a time. Throwing a ball into the air is seen as a contribution to the conversation.

So what happens when both people in a conversation are willing participants? One throws the ball, the other throws the same ball back, and the conversation is ongoing until one or both get tired of “playing catch.” Another option is that one player throws the ball into the air and the other watches it hit the ground. The second player then picks up a new ball and throws it back. The first player (or a third) takes yet another ball and throws it into the air. This is not a conversation. The challenge is to get the game of catch going between two, three, or more people in order to engage. Knowing "the rules of the game" facilitates a smooth conversation. As with the game of catch, as we practice conversations, we usually get better at having them. Conversations often result in the transference of knowledge and enrich the lives of those involved, but in order to have conversations we have to actually engage someone else.

Has that changed with the recent advances of technology?

Years ago, people all over were asking whether the next generation would be able to engage in a conversation. They were spending all their time on instant messaging (and less time on the telephone - go figure), and there were some doubts that any of them were developing the social skills to actually communicate.

And then we realized that technology wasn't replacing interaction, it was supplementing it. The instant messages and now the social networking sites were being used like the telephone used to be. They were used to arrange meetings and follow up after them! They were enhancing the conversations, not replacing them. Wouldn't it be great if that worked in the business world?

The reality is that, for many, this is exactly what happens. People who arrange to meet face-to-face, whether in small groups or large, will plan the meeting in their choice of online communications forum. Many will also follow up the meeting with ongoing dialog, often including people who weren't even there. Ultimately, technology (once again), appears to have provided us with yet another way to communicate.

And technology based conversations are happening all around us. If you have access to Facebook, check out “The Conversation on Comcast” (covered in much depth by Mark Kerrigan) and the foundation for this conversation at The ConversationOn.Com. For some rather deep analysis of conversations in marketing, check out Doc Searls' post Can marketing be conversational? Jay Deragon has observed that the social web is the new marketplace of influence fueled by conversations and relationships formed at the intersection of people and technology, and refers to these activities as conversational rivers.

And we can manage our conversations with all kinds of tools. RIM Blackberries started the move to allow us to skip the return to the computer if we needed to check email. Mobile phone text messaging allows us to get messages on the fly (even while we are having a voice conversation), and all the feeds from a variety of providers including Twitter, and social networking sites like LinkedIn and Facebook, let us know what all of our contacts (some of whom are friends) are doing, with minute-by-minute coverage.

I just wonder if we have mastered the art of conversation . . . are we able to play catch, or are we juggling?

What do you think?

Unifying our Communications -- can we really speak with one voice?

About a decade ago, in the dark ages of Web 1.0, I happened across a technology that I absolutely knew was going to catch on. It was a simple idea, really, and promised to make things so much simpler for all of us.

Perhaps you heard of it -- Unified Communications?

If you need a refresher, go here.

I first got turned on to it with an adverstisement as I recall, probably on a pre-Microsoft Hotmail message or something. As I write this, I am having some difficulty remembering the name of the first company I signed on with for this great experience. I do remember that I could get voicemail, fax, and email all in one convenient location (on the web), and I could access it with my mobile phone. The thing I liked most about it was the storage space, as I had many points of presence where I accessed the web, floppies were still likely to roast in my car or break in my satchel, and USB thumb drives had not yet been invented.

I was really hooked on this phenomenon, and actually still have an account with a company called J2 (which is good, 'cause I hate using a separate phone line for the technology -2.0 practice of faxing. But I have progressed with the technology developments, and now wear my unified communciations on my hip. I have an ATT/HTC 8525 phone/pocket pc device that provides one central location to read emails (including those from J2 with a fax), send text (and email messages) from, keep up with my daily schedule, manage my tasks, keep record of my mileage and other business expenses, and still be able to share pictures, PowerPoint slideshows, and full-lenth Video movies. Oh, and I get all my phone calls there, too.

Speaking with One Voice

But today the question is whether we can unify our communications and speak with one voice. It appears that in order to get what we want from the behemoths of corporate America, we have to show that our "numbers" are big enough to require them to pay attention to. I like the attempts that many have made in their customer service endeavors, but are they listening to us because they have nothing better to do, or because the really care?

Let's put this into perspective.

If I have 5 customers that each want something different from me that requires my time, which one am I most likely to respond to? I'm thinking the first choice goes to the customer who wants what takes the least amount of mental and physical effort. This customer may also be one who has listened to my suggestions in the past. He or she is likely to be low maintenance when it comes to my time, and I (as many people do) truly appreciate low-maintenance. If by using this model one of the repeatedly needy doesn't get as much of my time, is that a problem? Perhaps, but what's a businessperson to do? At some point, you gotta let them live with their decisions, right?

Many business thought leaders will suggest that we drop the customers who can be considered hand-holding, high-maintenance. They note that the Pareto Principle tells us, quite accurately, that in anything a few (roughly 20 percent) are vital and many (roughly 80 percent) are relatively trivial. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world.

Is that good business?

How do we expect mega-companies to respond? We expect them to satisfy all of their customers! We look at the invoice every month and determine how big a chunk of our income we are dishing out to them and think that they should be falling all over themselves to earn every penny we send them. That's not how small businesses work, but by golly, that's how they should operate!

But it won't work that way. The only way for us to get them to satisfy our needs is for us to take our time to first figure out what our needs are. We can probably start with a Top Ten for each company and then whittle down the list to the Top Two. We should then get together with other customers and compare notes and find our collective Top Two. Then and only then should we approach the mega-company and ask for their attention. This way, we won't be stuck with a problem fixer, we can get the attention of a problem solver.

Don't think that kind of proactivity is needed? Where else have we tried to individually change a collective issue? Where else have we limited our conversations before deciding how we as a group should act? Where else have we failed to get the attention of the real decision makers, and ended up with those who could barely answer our questions, much less fix our problems?

Have you looked at the political scene lately?

We have treated the business world like we've been treating the political world for far too long. How's that working for us? The current election season has drawn out potential voters and open public conversations (no, not the debates) more than any time in recent history. If we can figure it out for politics, can't we figure it out for business?

Here's a spoof of the 2008 debates that I hope you enjoy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMpajqPV_bk

What do you think?