I have made no secret that I support the Fair Tax. It has some really wonderful components that I think would be an overall boon to the whole country. Unfortunately, it really doesn't have support from across the whole political spectrum like I would have expected it to. And, here is the thing. I was originally attracted to the fair tax for five main reasons.
The first reason is the prebate it gives everyone. It isn't a huge amount of money, but enough to make a difference for the poor. Now, for the richest of Americans, what they would get for the prebate wouldn't even be pocket change, but there are some of the poorest Americans who live on not much more than they would be getting in their prebate, therefor it would almost double their available finances. Anyway, that was the first thing I liked about it. It helped those in need, but it helped everyone the same amount without taking away their freedom.
The second reason is that it eliminates the regressive, ineffective, and punitive payroll taxes. Lets face it, payroll taxes suck. And the only people who get out of them are those who make too much. Replacing it with the consumption tax would make it much more fair for everyone and less punitive, especially for those who are self employed.
The third reason was the nature of a consumption tax means that I get to decide how much I get taxed. If you don't like getting taxed, reduce your spending. But, with it being an inclusive tax, you don't have this big add-on at the checkout stand, it is just there, but since it is a standard rate, you know exactly how much you are paying in taxes, but you don't have to file a tax return, and you don't have to worry about some IRS auditors making your life hell just because you added something wrong.
Fourth, simplicity. No tax cheating. You pay by buying stuff. It is the only tax you pay. It gets rid of all those layers of tax garbage that we currently deal with. The tax code is possibly as short as a single page.
Fifth, economic stimulus. Our products are too expensive overseas, so we don't sell as much, and other countries products are too inexpensive here for us to want to buy our own products. If the we sell our stuff overseas, the cost is high in part because of all the layers of taxes that are rolled into the costs. Theirs are cheaper, cause their taxes aren't as much. But with the fair tax, suddenly, they lose the benefit and we gain it. Sure, we still have a higher standard of living, but it eliminates a disadvantage that can be as high as 50% of the cost of goods. We sell ours for about 23% cheaper, and theirs cost about 30% more, and all of a sudden, our goods are much more competitive, if not cheaper for better quality goods.
So, in all of this, I have looked into the fair tax, and understand the economic advantages, and the only thing I couldn't understand is why there was such lopsided support. I decided to write a blog post about how liberals and progressives should be coming out in droves to support this thing. I first decided to do some research.
Fairtax.org has a calculator that you can use to determine what you would be facing under the fair tax. I have used this to figure how it would have affected me before I shut down my business and sold my house, and again after everything kind of imploded and I lost everything, and based on how much I expect to be making now that I am closer to getting back on my feet. Each time, things are quite a bit better for me under the fair tax.
For my research however, I decided I was not typical in terms of economic conditions, so I created Joe Doe. Single college age kid but not in college, working for $9/hour in a dead end job and not sure what he wants to do with his life, but he is having fun right now. Well, guess what? The fair tax was not as fair to Joe Doe. "Wait a minute," I thought, "That can't be right!" Well, I double checked the calculations, and guess what, if you are really close to the average, it isn't such a great idea for you. Not terribly worse, and in the long run, you would still probably benefit due to the other features, but I thought this thing was supposed to be progressive. Well, what if we give Joe a couple more years, a wife and 2 kids. Well, it got even worse for poor old Joe. That doesn't sound very fair to me. I mean, sure, I benefit greatly, even when things are really bad for me, but us independently minded entrepreneurs don't represent mainstream America very well. Joe is the definition of main stream America, well, the poorer side of it, anyway.
So, am I saying that I don't support the Fair Tax anymore? No. I just don't support it as enthusiastically as I did before. There are 2 or 3 main things wrong with the current configuration of the Fair Tax.
First, the prebates need to be bigger, a lot bigger. Like, try double. If you need to raise the overall rate to cover it, then do it, but first try the other two suggestions.
Second, education (and I work in the education industry) needs to be taxed the same as everything else. Education does not really help people become more productive. That idea is just industry marketing doing its job.
Third, all investments need to be taxed, but at a much lower rate, something like 3% to 5%. Not so much that it becomes a bad thing to invest, but enough so that it takes most of the vampires out of the system and causes the stock market and other investment systems to become much less volatile. Then you wouldn't have non-productives leaching on the rest of the economy. Those making long term investments would hardly even notice it. Day traders, on the other hand, would have to go find real jobs.
These changes would make for a much more "fair" tax, and be supportable by more of those who are not on the extreme right of the political spectrum.
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
August 31, 2010
August 20, 2010
Industry Acceptable Innovation
A while back, I was talking with a friend of mine that is almost always got his fingers in some form of disruptive innovation or other. Since then, I have thought a lot about some of the things he told me, and I think I have come up with a new (or at least, new to me) concept, relating to innovation and what could be successful or not. In any industry, there are major forces at work fighting innovation. I am not talking about incremental evolutionary changes, I am talking about the big, in your face, revolutionary innovations. There are many of these forces, some of them from somewhat surprising sources.
Lets say you were to invent a megawatt wind power generator that cost less than say, $5,000. That would be a very disruptive development. Why? Because it would require changes on the part of almost every other aspect of the energy industry. The current cost of approximately $1Million per 1 megawatt wind power generator unit tells you that things would change immensely. In this case, no longer would the investment for such generation unit be limited to major power players, investors, and idealistic billionaires. At that cost, they would be springing up all over the place, putting thousands and tens of thousands of people in the current energy industry out of work. Not that the industry would stand idly by. They would refuse to connect them to the power grid, and even then, they would require new wind generator users to pay for costly upgrades to the power grid. If that didn't work (and they probably wouldn't wait to see if it did), they would seek all sorts of legislation to make it both much more costly to own and run such a unit, and much more difficult to produce. It would be in their interest to make your supplies and manufacturing process much more costly and inefficient. They also would want a piece of the action as a way to hedge their bets, but with this much disruption, they would be more encouraged to buy up the technology rights and hide them (maybe use them, but only to the degree that it doesn't negatively affect their bottom line). What most innovators seem to forget, is that energy companies are not in the business of making energy, but in the business of making money.
One more example. Lets say I created a new ERP system that increased productivity by 10 times for those implemented it. Lets say I created it in such a way that it was 10 times easier to install. Now, lets say I price it very closely to the existing systems. Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Well, maybe. Most companies love increases in productivity. They especially like it in little bites. 10 to 40 percent productivity gains make a company just thrilled. But what would it mean to have 1000% productivity gains. Well, they are either producing 10 times the product or need 1/10th the workforce to produce it. The might decide to produce only twice as much with only 1/5th of the workforce, but the changes are extreme. People, and companies, do not like that much change. It hurts. It is uncomfortable. Not to mention, existing ERP providers wouldn't like my creation of such a new disruptive presence in their market. They would scramble to develop enhancements of their products to make them more competitive, but again, as we are talking about dollars being the main purpose and not product effectiveness, it would probably come to an attempted buy-out situation or extensive use of legislation, courts, and negative marketing.
Beyond the items listed in each example, I have heard that some companies or executives (but not most) get even dirtier, and do things like economic or social or even literal assassination to get the people involved to stop ruining their party. I have never been shown any incontrovertible evidence that this has happened, but I have heard at least one businessman say that he had taken out a contract on the life of someone they found particularly troublesome. Now, whether or not this is a common consequence of radically disruptive innovation isn't really the point. The point is that there is a limit to how radical an innovation can be in any given industry and any given point before it is too radical for acceptance by the industry and consumers. It therefore follows that there might be an optimal level of innovation for any industry at any specific point in time, and that the more that optimal level is exceeded, the more difficulty there will be in turning the innovation into successful products. Most industry sponsored innovation will usually be well within that acceptable innovation limit, and generally moves much slower than that.
Lets say you were to invent a megawatt wind power generator that cost less than say, $5,000. That would be a very disruptive development. Why? Because it would require changes on the part of almost every other aspect of the energy industry. The current cost of approximately $1Million per 1 megawatt wind power generator unit tells you that things would change immensely. In this case, no longer would the investment for such generation unit be limited to major power players, investors, and idealistic billionaires. At that cost, they would be springing up all over the place, putting thousands and tens of thousands of people in the current energy industry out of work. Not that the industry would stand idly by. They would refuse to connect them to the power grid, and even then, they would require new wind generator users to pay for costly upgrades to the power grid. If that didn't work (and they probably wouldn't wait to see if it did), they would seek all sorts of legislation to make it both much more costly to own and run such a unit, and much more difficult to produce. It would be in their interest to make your supplies and manufacturing process much more costly and inefficient. They also would want a piece of the action as a way to hedge their bets, but with this much disruption, they would be more encouraged to buy up the technology rights and hide them (maybe use them, but only to the degree that it doesn't negatively affect their bottom line). What most innovators seem to forget, is that energy companies are not in the business of making energy, but in the business of making money.
One more example. Lets say I created a new ERP system that increased productivity by 10 times for those implemented it. Lets say I created it in such a way that it was 10 times easier to install. Now, lets say I price it very closely to the existing systems. Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Well, maybe. Most companies love increases in productivity. They especially like it in little bites. 10 to 40 percent productivity gains make a company just thrilled. But what would it mean to have 1000% productivity gains. Well, they are either producing 10 times the product or need 1/10th the workforce to produce it. The might decide to produce only twice as much with only 1/5th of the workforce, but the changes are extreme. People, and companies, do not like that much change. It hurts. It is uncomfortable. Not to mention, existing ERP providers wouldn't like my creation of such a new disruptive presence in their market. They would scramble to develop enhancements of their products to make them more competitive, but again, as we are talking about dollars being the main purpose and not product effectiveness, it would probably come to an attempted buy-out situation or extensive use of legislation, courts, and negative marketing.
Beyond the items listed in each example, I have heard that some companies or executives (but not most) get even dirtier, and do things like economic or social or even literal assassination to get the people involved to stop ruining their party. I have never been shown any incontrovertible evidence that this has happened, but I have heard at least one businessman say that he had taken out a contract on the life of someone they found particularly troublesome. Now, whether or not this is a common consequence of radically disruptive innovation isn't really the point. The point is that there is a limit to how radical an innovation can be in any given industry and any given point before it is too radical for acceptance by the industry and consumers. It therefore follows that there might be an optimal level of innovation for any industry at any specific point in time, and that the more that optimal level is exceeded, the more difficulty there will be in turning the innovation into successful products. Most industry sponsored innovation will usually be well within that acceptable innovation limit, and generally moves much slower than that.
August 19, 2010
Better news service.
I just got a CNN Breaking News email. The subject of the breaking news really doesn't matter, but it brought to mind some ideas. Some years ago, during some political something or other, I signed up with CNN to get their Breaking News email updates. They come in this nice little string of text with just enough information to let you know what is going on. I have learned that a Breaking News email update usually means that they now have a great article on their site for me to read if I want to know more. Most of the time, if it interests me, I want to know more.
If you are not familiar with their Breaking News emails, you might guess that it would include a nice little link to the related article or maybe a stub or topic page that links to all the related articles if it is an ongoing story.
Nope. Nada.
They have an unsubscribe link. They have links from the ads that they stick in them. But nothing to get me to their site so they can do their job of getting me to read more of their content. Come on people, my kid could program that. The whole concept of hyperlinks in emails is almost as old as the web. This should have happened 15 years ago. Think of the change to readership and the bottom line in terms of ad revenue.
I should probably thank them, though. If I clicked off to CNN every time I got an interesting Breaking News update, I would probably spend a lot more time on their site, and consequently, less time actually trying to be productive. That brings me to another point. More than half of the Breaking News updates I get, I don't care about. For some, yeah, I am sure they are interested, but different people have different interests.
Let me pick my interests. Please. I don't care about sports, or entertainment, and there are only a few sub topics that interest me in travel, health, and living. Come to think of it, I really don't care about most of criminal proceedings under the justice section either. Constitutional law, business law, and patent law, yes, but the rest of the stuff, just let me opt out of it.
Make a general list of subject tags, arranged categorically, and let me pick whole sections, sub-sections, or even individual subject tags, and only send me the links on those. If you did, I can promise I will click the link much more often. Yeah, that link that doesn't exist yet. I figure, if you can tailor my content to me, you certainly can make it easier for me to get to.
If you are not familiar with their Breaking News emails, you might guess that it would include a nice little link to the related article or maybe a stub or topic page that links to all the related articles if it is an ongoing story.
Nope. Nada.
They have an unsubscribe link. They have links from the ads that they stick in them. But nothing to get me to their site so they can do their job of getting me to read more of their content. Come on people, my kid could program that. The whole concept of hyperlinks in emails is almost as old as the web. This should have happened 15 years ago. Think of the change to readership and the bottom line in terms of ad revenue.
I should probably thank them, though. If I clicked off to CNN every time I got an interesting Breaking News update, I would probably spend a lot more time on their site, and consequently, less time actually trying to be productive. That brings me to another point. More than half of the Breaking News updates I get, I don't care about. For some, yeah, I am sure they are interested, but different people have different interests.
Let me pick my interests. Please. I don't care about sports, or entertainment, and there are only a few sub topics that interest me in travel, health, and living. Come to think of it, I really don't care about most of criminal proceedings under the justice section either. Constitutional law, business law, and patent law, yes, but the rest of the stuff, just let me opt out of it.
Make a general list of subject tags, arranged categorically, and let me pick whole sections, sub-sections, or even individual subject tags, and only send me the links on those. If you did, I can promise I will click the link much more often. Yeah, that link that doesn't exist yet. I figure, if you can tailor my content to me, you certainly can make it easier for me to get to.
April 15, 2010
Smart Phone Dream Machine
Imagine that down the road, an older Steve Jobs walks on stage in his classic black turtleneck and says something like "Everybody loves the iPhone, and they love the iPad too. Many wish that the iPad would fit in your pocket, or the iPhone had a bigger screen. Wouldn't it be great if you could just do this?" He holds out an iPhone, pulls at two opposite corners, and ssssttttrrrrreeeeettttccchhh, its an iPad. The audience explodes with excitement and wonder.
I first thought of that scenario a couple of years ago, way before the iPad was even a rumor. I could see what the iPhone represented and could lead to, but I could also see it's limitations. I was interested, but reluctant to actually spend money on one. The iPod Touch seemed like a much better offering, but it's additional limitations were too much. I hate the abuse heaped on me by AT&T since they bought Cingular, so I wasn't about to subject myself to more. I had already suffered abuse by Verizon and swore in my wrath that I would never use Verizon. Period. So, that leaves me being abused by AT&T or underserved by T-Mobile, Sprint, or Virgin. Perhaps I could use one of Walmart's phones and make Slim a little richer. Anyway, so, I opted for the status quo and have just watched the Market since then.
I was very excited when I first heard about the Palm Pre and their Web OS. I have been cautiously optimistic about Google's Android. I was surprised, but skeptical when Windows Phone OS was announced. I was unmoved about most of the other news on the smart phone front, apart from being more and more impressed with the iPhone and more and more disgusted with the draconian policies and behavior from Apple and Mr. Jobs. They have so many things nearly perfected, but then go and make things awful by their ridiculous developer agreements, their totalitarian control of applications and content, and the unbelievably bad mobile service from their only provider.
There are a few things that could be done much better than the iPhone. Of course, you have to have a multi-touch screen, and lots of wonderful apps, and incredible base functionality, but that is only to equal out what Apple has already done. Then, you have to beat them. First on the list, you have to do better on enterprise functionality. I will have to see the enterprise friendly features in iPhone OS 4 before I really believe they have got them right. Apple has never got enterprise even close since they have focused so much on the consumer, and never the twain shall meet (maybe).
Next, address one of the next biggest complaints. Make it so you can open it up, change your own battery, and even swap sim cards and radio units. Imagine, you get tired of being abused by AT&T (yeah, I know, pretty far fetched) and so you decide to order or buy a T-Mobile radio modulator. It wouldn't matter that they use different protocols on different bandwidth spectrum, you just open the case, remove the old one, put in the new one, and activate your account. Yeah, maybe someday the American Telecoms will get a clue and start using open standards, but until then, swappable radio units are the way to go. Then you don't loose all your stuff. Better yet, make all the major components like wi-fi, gps, battery, and memory swappable and upgradable.
Next, and here is where Apple has really missed the boat. They needed some kind of central access location where all applications and a lot of content would be available and they also needed the ability to reach in and clean things up (used very judiciously of course), but they don't have to have draconian developer policies, and they don't have to act like they own their customers because the customers bought a device. The centralized site ('store' for lack of a better word) should only provide services to the app vendors. All apps should be submittable to the store to be verified as quality, but if 500 developers want to build a music playing, managing, or purchasing app, the store shouldn't care as long as they pass quality control requirements. Let the natural market decide what things are available. They should also require all service providers to provide on-bill selling of apps and content. They would of course set up a robust API to make sure it all works perfectly, and then the sellers would have simplified selling, if they wanted. If they thought they didn't need it, they should be allowed to go it alone. If they can get enough people wanting their apps, they shouldn't even need to have them verified through quality control. I know, this puts people at risk if they are stupid enough to download or buy bad apps, but it is time for a little personal responsibility, don't you think?
Now, to wrap things up, lets really make it better. I want some more features that no-one seems to offer. One, I want a bigger screen than the iPhone, but it still needs to fit in my pocket. Two, I want extensive external connectivity, even if it is through some kind of special dock. In fact, I want to be able to have the dock support an external monitor and display multiple apps in blowup mode, and even support full screen modes for those apps that can handle multiple screen sizes. Three, I want a dual slide out keyboard. I want it to be a full qwerty keyboard in landscape mode, and a numeric keypad in vertical mode. Then, and I alluded to this before, I want to maximize the hardware. When a new processor comes out, I want to open up the thing, and pop out my old processor, and pop my new one in. I want to do that with everything except the screen, the case, and the motherboard (which should be an integrated unit that could support your old peripherals until you upgrade them. Oh, and I want to run this thing without an cell contract when I want to.
I know that such a device doesn't exist, and probably won't, but if someone did it, the marketing opportunities would be incredible.
I first thought of that scenario a couple of years ago, way before the iPad was even a rumor. I could see what the iPhone represented and could lead to, but I could also see it's limitations. I was interested, but reluctant to actually spend money on one. The iPod Touch seemed like a much better offering, but it's additional limitations were too much. I hate the abuse heaped on me by AT&T since they bought Cingular, so I wasn't about to subject myself to more. I had already suffered abuse by Verizon and swore in my wrath that I would never use Verizon. Period. So, that leaves me being abused by AT&T or underserved by T-Mobile, Sprint, or Virgin. Perhaps I could use one of Walmart's phones and make Slim a little richer. Anyway, so, I opted for the status quo and have just watched the Market since then.
I was very excited when I first heard about the Palm Pre and their Web OS. I have been cautiously optimistic about Google's Android. I was surprised, but skeptical when Windows Phone OS was announced. I was unmoved about most of the other news on the smart phone front, apart from being more and more impressed with the iPhone and more and more disgusted with the draconian policies and behavior from Apple and Mr. Jobs. They have so many things nearly perfected, but then go and make things awful by their ridiculous developer agreements, their totalitarian control of applications and content, and the unbelievably bad mobile service from their only provider.
There are a few things that could be done much better than the iPhone. Of course, you have to have a multi-touch screen, and lots of wonderful apps, and incredible base functionality, but that is only to equal out what Apple has already done. Then, you have to beat them. First on the list, you have to do better on enterprise functionality. I will have to see the enterprise friendly features in iPhone OS 4 before I really believe they have got them right. Apple has never got enterprise even close since they have focused so much on the consumer, and never the twain shall meet (maybe).
Next, address one of the next biggest complaints. Make it so you can open it up, change your own battery, and even swap sim cards and radio units. Imagine, you get tired of being abused by AT&T (yeah, I know, pretty far fetched) and so you decide to order or buy a T-Mobile radio modulator. It wouldn't matter that they use different protocols on different bandwidth spectrum, you just open the case, remove the old one, put in the new one, and activate your account. Yeah, maybe someday the American Telecoms will get a clue and start using open standards, but until then, swappable radio units are the way to go. Then you don't loose all your stuff. Better yet, make all the major components like wi-fi, gps, battery, and memory swappable and upgradable.
Next, and here is where Apple has really missed the boat. They needed some kind of central access location where all applications and a lot of content would be available and they also needed the ability to reach in and clean things up (used very judiciously of course), but they don't have to have draconian developer policies, and they don't have to act like they own their customers because the customers bought a device. The centralized site ('store' for lack of a better word) should only provide services to the app vendors. All apps should be submittable to the store to be verified as quality, but if 500 developers want to build a music playing, managing, or purchasing app, the store shouldn't care as long as they pass quality control requirements. Let the natural market decide what things are available. They should also require all service providers to provide on-bill selling of apps and content. They would of course set up a robust API to make sure it all works perfectly, and then the sellers would have simplified selling, if they wanted. If they thought they didn't need it, they should be allowed to go it alone. If they can get enough people wanting their apps, they shouldn't even need to have them verified through quality control. I know, this puts people at risk if they are stupid enough to download or buy bad apps, but it is time for a little personal responsibility, don't you think?
Now, to wrap things up, lets really make it better. I want some more features that no-one seems to offer. One, I want a bigger screen than the iPhone, but it still needs to fit in my pocket. Two, I want extensive external connectivity, even if it is through some kind of special dock. In fact, I want to be able to have the dock support an external monitor and display multiple apps in blowup mode, and even support full screen modes for those apps that can handle multiple screen sizes. Three, I want a dual slide out keyboard. I want it to be a full qwerty keyboard in landscape mode, and a numeric keypad in vertical mode. Then, and I alluded to this before, I want to maximize the hardware. When a new processor comes out, I want to open up the thing, and pop out my old processor, and pop my new one in. I want to do that with everything except the screen, the case, and the motherboard (which should be an integrated unit that could support your old peripherals until you upgrade them. Oh, and I want to run this thing without an cell contract when I want to.
I know that such a device doesn't exist, and probably won't, but if someone did it, the marketing opportunities would be incredible.
April 13, 2010
The most awesome job search/hiring system.
Ok, from the title, this sounds like a review or some kind of plug. I wish it were. If the system I am describing really existed, I would be plugging it left and right, and so would everybody else out there, on both side of the hiring fence.
So, the other day, I was called by some company to tell me they wanted to know more about me. They said, that perhaps, they would want me to do some small oDesk jobs for them so they could evaluate my abilities. I am fine with this, so, after putting together a very quick and dirty project portfolio, I went through the process of qualifying on oDesk. Well, I have had people do stuff on oDesk before, but I didn't manage it, someone else did. I had started signing up a long time ago so I could see what kinds of jobs were listed there, and truly, they have created a global job marketplace, but mostly just for small non critical programming jobs. One thing they have that I really like is tons of tests that you can take for free to show what your abilities are. Unfortunately, their tests are kind of oversimplified and not really representative of the abilities they are supposed to represent. It would take more work to make their testing system really rock, and then it would be a lot more useful, but I don't know if it would be cost effective for them in their current system.
The other tool that I have really come to like is Linked In. It is awesome for networking, and has become an important thing to have up to date for people to work on. Unfortunately, it wasn't around when I had most of my jobs, and a lot of the people I have worked for or with either don't have a Linked In profile, or don't do anything with their profile. Linked In has great things like discussion groups, questions, group memberships, and a bunch of other tools, but they don't do anything to validate your claims apart from their referral information.
I found myself wishing that Linked In would acquire oDesk, and create that more robust skill verification test system, and even integrate it with those organizations like PMI and Microsoft and Oracle and Cisco, and so forth that do certifications so that you could see automatically what people have. Then, create a new set of tools that allow much of the HR function of a company to happen in a portal from the site. Then you could have the user/employee be able to partially determine what kinds of things were publicly available. Anyway, I can envision a hiring process to go like this.
Since almost everybody, or at least a majority of individuals would have a linked in profile, whether or not they actively maintained it, when you wanted to hire someone, the best candidates would be on Linked In. The profiles would be up to date because companies (many of them) would use it to help manage their HR, and the certifications would be up to date because the certification companies (most of them) would use it or interface with it.
The hiring manager would sign on to linked in, and, in their approved status as a hiring manager for their company, would create a job requirement, (assuming it is a new job, and not filling an old one, cause then they would just edit the old one), and then look for qualified applicants. Everybody would be available for searching, depending on status (Most people would have something like "Only serious opportunities" or "Make my dreams come true" but some would have "actively looking"). Yeah, I know, companies would want to keep tabs on employee's status, so employees could hide their statuses if they wanted to for specific companies, users, or even demographics.
Anyway, they would get a short list of who is available, be able to sort by skills, other qualifications, rankings, proximity, or just about anything else that is in the system. They then could offer inteviews to those they are interested in, and be at the final decision hiring stage in a few days. If they are just looking, they wouldn't have to create an actual job, just a "just looking profile" and find applicable individuals. That way, instead of just throwing your hiring out into the wind, you can really get the best available candidates, or if you are desperate enough, you can try to "make someone's dreams come true". For job candidates, you can see where you are showing up on applicable jobs, change statuses of where you are looking, set your relocation requirements, and even find new training and qualification options and opportunities.
If that were the case, you can find out pretty quick where you measure up, what your strengths are and what you need to improve. Oh, and the time you spend out of work might dramatically drop as well.
So, the other day, I was called by some company to tell me they wanted to know more about me. They said, that perhaps, they would want me to do some small oDesk jobs for them so they could evaluate my abilities. I am fine with this, so, after putting together a very quick and dirty project portfolio, I went through the process of qualifying on oDesk. Well, I have had people do stuff on oDesk before, but I didn't manage it, someone else did. I had started signing up a long time ago so I could see what kinds of jobs were listed there, and truly, they have created a global job marketplace, but mostly just for small non critical programming jobs. One thing they have that I really like is tons of tests that you can take for free to show what your abilities are. Unfortunately, their tests are kind of oversimplified and not really representative of the abilities they are supposed to represent. It would take more work to make their testing system really rock, and then it would be a lot more useful, but I don't know if it would be cost effective for them in their current system.
The other tool that I have really come to like is Linked In. It is awesome for networking, and has become an important thing to have up to date for people to work on. Unfortunately, it wasn't around when I had most of my jobs, and a lot of the people I have worked for or with either don't have a Linked In profile, or don't do anything with their profile. Linked In has great things like discussion groups, questions, group memberships, and a bunch of other tools, but they don't do anything to validate your claims apart from their referral information.
I found myself wishing that Linked In would acquire oDesk, and create that more robust skill verification test system, and even integrate it with those organizations like PMI and Microsoft and Oracle and Cisco, and so forth that do certifications so that you could see automatically what people have. Then, create a new set of tools that allow much of the HR function of a company to happen in a portal from the site. Then you could have the user/employee be able to partially determine what kinds of things were publicly available. Anyway, I can envision a hiring process to go like this.
Since almost everybody, or at least a majority of individuals would have a linked in profile, whether or not they actively maintained it, when you wanted to hire someone, the best candidates would be on Linked In. The profiles would be up to date because companies (many of them) would use it to help manage their HR, and the certifications would be up to date because the certification companies (most of them) would use it or interface with it.
The hiring manager would sign on to linked in, and, in their approved status as a hiring manager for their company, would create a job requirement, (assuming it is a new job, and not filling an old one, cause then they would just edit the old one), and then look for qualified applicants. Everybody would be available for searching, depending on status (Most people would have something like "Only serious opportunities" or "Make my dreams come true" but some would have "actively looking"). Yeah, I know, companies would want to keep tabs on employee's status, so employees could hide their statuses if they wanted to for specific companies, users, or even demographics.
Anyway, they would get a short list of who is available, be able to sort by skills, other qualifications, rankings, proximity, or just about anything else that is in the system. They then could offer inteviews to those they are interested in, and be at the final decision hiring stage in a few days. If they are just looking, they wouldn't have to create an actual job, just a "just looking profile" and find applicable individuals. That way, instead of just throwing your hiring out into the wind, you can really get the best available candidates, or if you are desperate enough, you can try to "make someone's dreams come true". For job candidates, you can see where you are showing up on applicable jobs, change statuses of where you are looking, set your relocation requirements, and even find new training and qualification options and opportunities.
If that were the case, you can find out pretty quick where you measure up, what your strengths are and what you need to improve. Oh, and the time you spend out of work might dramatically drop as well.
April 5, 2010
Public Spectrum WiMax Mesh
Ok, I have held onto this one for a while, but I have talked it around, and even got a wireless services guy at AT&T to listen to it. His objective was that it wouldn't fit the business model, even though it would work and be awesome. He also said that their investment into their current technology was far too high to want to try a different approach. His last objection, although, he wanted this off the record, was that AT&T would view this as a big potential loss of control and don't want people to have options cause they wouldn't make as much.
Well, this one is good enough that we don't need a big brother type company to implement it, but whoever did would make bank on it cause the mentality of all the other players would keep them out of the market for too long.
The idea is that we use WiMax or some similar wireless broadband technology, but configure it to use public spectrum and build low cost wireless repeater mesh units to provide internet connectivity to anyone wanting to participate. Now, it would be best if there was some kind of backbone access control system that made sure that every so often, one of these repeater units was plugged into a fiber line. Otherwise, likely there would be too many freeloaders wanting free access, but really, once figured out, one of these units should be able to be made for less than a couple hundred dollars, and the cost would really come down over time.
Naturally, the repeater density in metropolitan areas would greatly exceed that in suburbs and rural areas, and, there might be a slightly higher cost per user in rural areas, but I can picture that monthly internet access could easily be as low as 10 to 15 dollars for near unlimited access. (Oh, sure, I can also picture a bandwidth cap or a tiered system, but for most of us, like, 99% of us, we would be on the bottom tier, cause we just don't use that much.)
How about it people, should we do this? It would take some time and resources, but it would be a great solution. (I can picture all the neighborhoods and HOA's out there providing this as part of their services). Once it started becoming common, all the devices would start being made with the capability built in. Then, we really could get great access from everywhere, and the money grubbing, control freak big brother companies like AT&T could be gone, and we wouldn't miss them one bit. How great would that be?
Well, this one is good enough that we don't need a big brother type company to implement it, but whoever did would make bank on it cause the mentality of all the other players would keep them out of the market for too long.
The idea is that we use WiMax or some similar wireless broadband technology, but configure it to use public spectrum and build low cost wireless repeater mesh units to provide internet connectivity to anyone wanting to participate. Now, it would be best if there was some kind of backbone access control system that made sure that every so often, one of these repeater units was plugged into a fiber line. Otherwise, likely there would be too many freeloaders wanting free access, but really, once figured out, one of these units should be able to be made for less than a couple hundred dollars, and the cost would really come down over time.
Naturally, the repeater density in metropolitan areas would greatly exceed that in suburbs and rural areas, and, there might be a slightly higher cost per user in rural areas, but I can picture that monthly internet access could easily be as low as 10 to 15 dollars for near unlimited access. (Oh, sure, I can also picture a bandwidth cap or a tiered system, but for most of us, like, 99% of us, we would be on the bottom tier, cause we just don't use that much.)
How about it people, should we do this? It would take some time and resources, but it would be a great solution. (I can picture all the neighborhoods and HOA's out there providing this as part of their services). Once it started becoming common, all the devices would start being made with the capability built in. Then, we really could get great access from everywhere, and the money grubbing, control freak big brother companies like AT&T could be gone, and we wouldn't miss them one bit. How great would that be?
March 26, 2010
Local Economies
I read an article about Walmart today that kind of surprised me. I have been in the anit-Walmart camp for quite a few years, but I have not been so rabid that I don't shop there. I have a brother who won't shop there if it kills him. Anyway, Walmart is a big corporation focused on it's profits and whatever effects it has on the individual, it generally doesn't care about. It really isn't all that different any other major corporation. The difference is, when it puts its stores in small towns, it decimates their economies, and puts lots of people out of work. It gives people a dead end existence, and leaves no capacity for the local economy to support itself. The small towns then are completely dependent upon large employers, most often multinational corporations such as Walmart and it's most major suppliers.
Some might say, "So, what is that problem with that? It is just capitalism at work." Well, the problem is that it ties these small economies to the downs of the global economy. Due to the nature of multinational corporations, the end production workers and the towns they live in do not benefit from the ups of the global economy, but they are the first to feel the effects of the downs. In the past, if one local economy was badly affected by some economic or environmental event or condition, the effect was limited in its scope. A local economy that was well run and whose participants were wise and careful could almost always ride the ups and downs of larger economic cycles, with the exception of extreme events of nature.
Now, all of our economies are tied to each other to such an extent, that it is almost impossible to run a local economy well enough to be not hammered when the global economy turns bad. It doesn't matter how well the local businesses are run, and how good the decisions made by the local participants are, the bad decisions made by individuals and groups in other locations ultimately lead to the natural consequences of bad decisions and drag the whole economy down, including those of well run localities. Talk about killing incentive for making good business decisions. Take your quick profit now and run. It encourages us all to be unethical and immoral.
Enter Walmart. Well, I guess I should say, Re-enter Walmart. They have this program that is encouraging local production of certain types of produce. Not that produce and food is the core of a local economy, but it has always been a vital component. Now Walmart has learned they can get better goods going to the local economy for things. Not everything mind you, but as much as makes business sense. I realize this is a fragile step in the right direction, and could easily be undone, but encouraging nonetheless.
Ok, here is the thing and a piece of advice to Walmart. Take this approach further. Take a little time to develop the means for a small community to produce a much larger percentage of what they consume. I am not just talking food. This could mean textiles, toys, electronics, tools, personal products. Once you figure out the basic components for local production of each class of goods, don't just push your way into all the towns, co-venture. Take a page from the Leavitt Group of insurance companies. They have tons of insurance agencies, each one operated locally, with policies and support from the parent company, but with a significant, albeit minority, ownership stake by the local operators. Just think Walmart, you could be the primary owners of the majority of production companies in the whole world. The local economies would be much more resilient against outside economic conditions. And, to say the least, your profit would come out smelling like roses, year in and year out. Pretty hard to beat that.
Some might say, "So, what is that problem with that? It is just capitalism at work." Well, the problem is that it ties these small economies to the downs of the global economy. Due to the nature of multinational corporations, the end production workers and the towns they live in do not benefit from the ups of the global economy, but they are the first to feel the effects of the downs. In the past, if one local economy was badly affected by some economic or environmental event or condition, the effect was limited in its scope. A local economy that was well run and whose participants were wise and careful could almost always ride the ups and downs of larger economic cycles, with the exception of extreme events of nature.
Now, all of our economies are tied to each other to such an extent, that it is almost impossible to run a local economy well enough to be not hammered when the global economy turns bad. It doesn't matter how well the local businesses are run, and how good the decisions made by the local participants are, the bad decisions made by individuals and groups in other locations ultimately lead to the natural consequences of bad decisions and drag the whole economy down, including those of well run localities. Talk about killing incentive for making good business decisions. Take your quick profit now and run. It encourages us all to be unethical and immoral.
Enter Walmart. Well, I guess I should say, Re-enter Walmart. They have this program that is encouraging local production of certain types of produce. Not that produce and food is the core of a local economy, but it has always been a vital component. Now Walmart has learned they can get better goods going to the local economy for things. Not everything mind you, but as much as makes business sense. I realize this is a fragile step in the right direction, and could easily be undone, but encouraging nonetheless.
Ok, here is the thing and a piece of advice to Walmart. Take this approach further. Take a little time to develop the means for a small community to produce a much larger percentage of what they consume. I am not just talking food. This could mean textiles, toys, electronics, tools, personal products. Once you figure out the basic components for local production of each class of goods, don't just push your way into all the towns, co-venture. Take a page from the Leavitt Group of insurance companies. They have tons of insurance agencies, each one operated locally, with policies and support from the parent company, but with a significant, albeit minority, ownership stake by the local operators. Just think Walmart, you could be the primary owners of the majority of production companies in the whole world. The local economies would be much more resilient against outside economic conditions. And, to say the least, your profit would come out smelling like roses, year in and year out. Pretty hard to beat that.
March 17, 2010
Integrators
I predict that there will someday arise a whole class of integrator websites. What I mean by an integrator website is a site that addresses a specific market or class of websites, and pulls all the major ones out there into a single place, while making sure that the content providing sites are still benefited by actions done on the site.
An example of this would be a Job search integrator. It would integrate with all the big job search sites out there. It would also integrate with as many major employment providers and major corporations as it could. It would need to have some kind of supporting niche that it either provides or that it advertises for, like resume building, technical training, or certification providers (in order to provide revenue). It would have to be well designed so that the sites that contribute to it (or that it grabs data from) are not disadvantaged by it, and even are promoted by it. It would need tools so that one resume experience there would populate and extend to all the contributing companies, so monster.com and careerbuilder.com would both get updated at the same time.
Other types of sites for which this could happen are shopping sites (Amazon kind of has already started this), social networking sites, blogs, software code sites, product review sites, deal sites, etc. I think when these sites are fully functional, they will make life a little (or a lot) easier for those of us who just want to live life. I can see some sites refuse to use the integrators, but only those who want you to be their captive customer.
An example of this would be a Job search integrator. It would integrate with all the big job search sites out there. It would also integrate with as many major employment providers and major corporations as it could. It would need to have some kind of supporting niche that it either provides or that it advertises for, like resume building, technical training, or certification providers (in order to provide revenue). It would have to be well designed so that the sites that contribute to it (or that it grabs data from) are not disadvantaged by it, and even are promoted by it. It would need tools so that one resume experience there would populate and extend to all the contributing companies, so monster.com and careerbuilder.com would both get updated at the same time.
Other types of sites for which this could happen are shopping sites (Amazon kind of has already started this), social networking sites, blogs, software code sites, product review sites, deal sites, etc. I think when these sites are fully functional, they will make life a little (or a lot) easier for those of us who just want to live life. I can see some sites refuse to use the integrators, but only those who want you to be their captive customer.
Needed: Idea Marketplace
In case you haven't noticed it, Marketplaces are the latest Next Big Thing. I am not sure, but I think the latest trend started with the iPhone App Store, but has quickly picked up pace, inspiring the Android market place, and half a dozen or so other ripoff clones. Then a few people decided to take it a little further, and make other marketplace sites. One of the latest is the Google App Marketplace.
The concept is simple enough. Provide a single place where both sellers and buyers can get together to buy and sell software. Ok, sounds a lot like eBay, but for non-tangibles. One of the keys to making these marketplaces is specialization, which is why eBay isn't included as the the start of this latest thing. eBay was for old junk, but these marketplaces are where you go for specific things you can't get elsewhere, or, at least, stuff that isn't readily available elsewhere.
While it is true that you can get iPhone apps elsewhere, there are barriers to entry (you have to void your warranty by jailbreaking your phone). The upside is that the store and it's almost exclusive nature brings a large number of buyers together, and that just about anyone who can program can put together an app and get it on there. The down side is that you don't control all the terms. If you are willing to play by the rules of the marketplace operators, you can benefit considerably.
What I would like to see is a marketplace for ideas. Well, not exactly, cause there are lots of people with ideas that could flood the place with junk. Finding quality ideas amidst all that junk would make it in-effective. Another problem is, how do you sell your ideas without telling the buyer what your idea is before he pays for it.
If an Idea Marketplace were to work, it would have to entice and protect both buyer and seller. For it to entice buyers, the ideas would have to be more than vague notions. They would be more like complete business plans with complete product specification documents. We are talking about quite a bit of work required before the idea would be allowed on the site. There would be a submission process, with the marketplace ensuring completeness and viability (similar to what Ventureworthy tries to do). There would obviously need to be categories and search tools to make finding the right idea very easy. This would also protect the buyers, because they would be getting a well developed concept that would then be more easily developed.
The enticement to the seller is that the buyers are there. In order to protect the seller, the buyer would be able to limit access to specific information, and maybe there would be some kind of agreement not to steal ideas from the system (this last idea would be a tough sell for those in the market to buy ideas). Once the buyer was interested in an idea, they could schedule a pitch/introduction/demo much like VC's do now. The pitch would of course be the same kind of thing that those seeking venture capital already do, with perhaps, slightly more robust media content using the marketplace tools.
I have no idea how to go about initiating such an idea. It would almost need a bunch of VC's and Angel Investors to get together to promote it. The trick in operating it is in maintaining quality in terms of complete idea packages. They would need to have a lot of tutorial material to demonstrate how to make sure your idea is complete. The system would also need to have some kind of negotiation system built right in, that would allow complex investment/purchase agreements (with multiple investors getting different levels of ownership and control). If any of you want to start something like this, or if there is one that I don't know about, let me know. I would love to use it.
The concept is simple enough. Provide a single place where both sellers and buyers can get together to buy and sell software. Ok, sounds a lot like eBay, but for non-tangibles. One of the keys to making these marketplaces is specialization, which is why eBay isn't included as the the start of this latest thing. eBay was for old junk, but these marketplaces are where you go for specific things you can't get elsewhere, or, at least, stuff that isn't readily available elsewhere.
While it is true that you can get iPhone apps elsewhere, there are barriers to entry (you have to void your warranty by jailbreaking your phone). The upside is that the store and it's almost exclusive nature brings a large number of buyers together, and that just about anyone who can program can put together an app and get it on there. The down side is that you don't control all the terms. If you are willing to play by the rules of the marketplace operators, you can benefit considerably.
What I would like to see is a marketplace for ideas. Well, not exactly, cause there are lots of people with ideas that could flood the place with junk. Finding quality ideas amidst all that junk would make it in-effective. Another problem is, how do you sell your ideas without telling the buyer what your idea is before he pays for it.
If an Idea Marketplace were to work, it would have to entice and protect both buyer and seller. For it to entice buyers, the ideas would have to be more than vague notions. They would be more like complete business plans with complete product specification documents. We are talking about quite a bit of work required before the idea would be allowed on the site. There would be a submission process, with the marketplace ensuring completeness and viability (similar to what Ventureworthy tries to do). There would obviously need to be categories and search tools to make finding the right idea very easy. This would also protect the buyers, because they would be getting a well developed concept that would then be more easily developed.
The enticement to the seller is that the buyers are there. In order to protect the seller, the buyer would be able to limit access to specific information, and maybe there would be some kind of agreement not to steal ideas from the system (this last idea would be a tough sell for those in the market to buy ideas). Once the buyer was interested in an idea, they could schedule a pitch/introduction/demo much like VC's do now. The pitch would of course be the same kind of thing that those seeking venture capital already do, with perhaps, slightly more robust media content using the marketplace tools.
I have no idea how to go about initiating such an idea. It would almost need a bunch of VC's and Angel Investors to get together to promote it. The trick in operating it is in maintaining quality in terms of complete idea packages. They would need to have a lot of tutorial material to demonstrate how to make sure your idea is complete. The system would also need to have some kind of negotiation system built right in, that would allow complex investment/purchase agreements (with multiple investors getting different levels of ownership and control). If any of you want to start something like this, or if there is one that I don't know about, let me know. I would love to use it.
March 11, 2010
212 Catapult
Warning: Shameless Product Review
Ok, I really hadn't planned on doing product reviews, but this one really deserves it, because it is awesome. The product is called Catapult by 212 LLC. Disclamer: Two of the four partners were former business associates and clients of mine. Another was a former employee. I really can't be completely un-biased here, but this thing is still awesome.
Now let me underwhelm you. It is a media player. But, it is way more than a media player. It allows you to play all sorts of media, track who it gets sent to, who uses it, and in general get statistics on usage way beyond anything else out there that I have encountered. It also allows you to specify specific calls to action, and add supporting documents and links to related material. The bit-rate on whatever media you have added to it can also be adjusted.
All in all, it provides a very good media viewing experience, and can be tailored even to those with slower connections. The downside is that it doesn't help you make your videos or other media. You still have to have some talent with that. I will be testing it out in the next few weeks or months as I am seeking a new job. I look forward to being able to see the statistics of who is viewing my resume and so forth. Not only can I see that it is being viewed, but I can see exactly who is viewing it.
Very powerful. In the right hands, this could really do wonders. Of course, that is where that other required talent comes in. Once I get my Catapult resume promotion sequence set up, I will probably put a link on here so you can see it. Now, I just have to figure out what kind of media experience I want my users to have.
Ok, I really hadn't planned on doing product reviews, but this one really deserves it, because it is awesome. The product is called Catapult by 212 LLC. Disclamer: Two of the four partners were former business associates and clients of mine. Another was a former employee. I really can't be completely un-biased here, but this thing is still awesome.
Now let me underwhelm you. It is a media player. But, it is way more than a media player. It allows you to play all sorts of media, track who it gets sent to, who uses it, and in general get statistics on usage way beyond anything else out there that I have encountered. It also allows you to specify specific calls to action, and add supporting documents and links to related material. The bit-rate on whatever media you have added to it can also be adjusted.
All in all, it provides a very good media viewing experience, and can be tailored even to those with slower connections. The downside is that it doesn't help you make your videos or other media. You still have to have some talent with that. I will be testing it out in the next few weeks or months as I am seeking a new job. I look forward to being able to see the statistics of who is viewing my resume and so forth. Not only can I see that it is being viewed, but I can see exactly who is viewing it.
Very powerful. In the right hands, this could really do wonders. Of course, that is where that other required talent comes in. Once I get my Catapult resume promotion sequence set up, I will probably put a link on here so you can see it. Now, I just have to figure out what kind of media experience I want my users to have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)