AIAIO: Our Blog

Coca-Cola is test marketing new aluminum bottles. I was handed one on Fifth Avenue today by a promo squad.

To Coke, this must be genius: better branding of their iconic bottle, with lower shipping and breakage costs versus glass, and a handsome visual appeal. The majority of the market is already drinking its soda from aluminum cans, anyway.

But to me, it’s the inverse of the ideal: I’m drinking soda with the usual tin-can aftertaste, in a lesser form factor. The aluminum bottle has neither the lightweight flexibility of plastic nor the squat sturdiness of a can.

Curious: am I in the minority on this? Certainly Coke could have a big success on its hands, since people are used to aluminum and the design is a novelty. But I don’t see the long-term advantage.

OK, so I fully understand the copyright implications behind the bald-faced ripoff that is Scrabulous, and owner Hasbro’s insistence that its violators cease and desist, which led to the Scrabulous Facebook app going offline. What I don’t understand is the way Hasbro is going about its business.

Why, if Scrabulous is so popular, has it been unable to forge an agreement with its creators that leverages the traffic?

Why did a lawsuit get Facebook to shut down the app, while the standalone Scrabulous site continues to chug along unabated?

Why, after many months of legal wrangling, did Hasbro choose yesterday to get tough with Facebook directly?

Why wouldn’t Hasbro get its own Facebook Scrabble app out of beta, and check its scalability, before the Scrabulous C&D overwhelmed the Scrabble beta, knocking half a million Scrabble players offline?

In other words, why is Hasbro alienating its users?

Scrabble has a fanatically devoted consumer base. People play competitively, casually, asynchronously–however they can play, they will. Alex used to play via text renderer before the graphic apps launched; I play EA’s stupid Scrabble iPhone app that doesn’t have a good competitive setting, even though I lose by 150 points every game. A friend of mine taps (tapped) into Scrabulous continually throughout the work day.

Point being, people love their Scrabble. They played Scrabulous simply because it was the best option on the market. With their platform knocked offline without a viable alternative, 500,000 devoted Scrabble fans are flat-out livid, and their devotion is being tested. The same people that love their game have pushed the official Facebook app to a 1.3/5 rating, and the discussion board is full of anger.

Hasbro could have been a hero: test its app’s scalability, make streamlined play, and invite Scrabble fans to play on the authentic platform when it was ready for broad release. Only then should they have shut down Scrabulous, forcing people to make a comfortable transition. Instead, their users have lost faith. It will be interesting to see how long their disillusionment lasts.

Update: Apparently the official Scrabble app was hacked yesterday. Which is appropriate. Also in this article: “Analysts say the blow-back from Scrabulous fans, although painful now, will probably be temporary.” Which is probably true, and somehow disappointing.

I wrote an article for iMedia Connection that was published today.

5 ways to avoid common email blunders is–well, the title sums it up nicely (thanks guys!). It’s a bit of practical advice for the many companies who may be running mailing lists without considering the big impact of little details.

I hope to publish regularly in iMedia Connection and elsewhere and will be sure to cross-link any posts from this blog.

Update, July 28: my article was picked up by shop.org the day it was published, and appeared this morning in their top-5 “most clicked” list. I’m pleased to see such widespread interest. Look for essays on similar topics on the Ai blog as well as elsewhere.

I keep staring and staring at the quote below, which is deep inside an article on New York City’s new calorie law. Chain restaurants now have to post caloric information on their menus, giving consumers new–and abrupt–information on what they’re eating.

A Starbucks barista revealed his customers’ habits thusly:

Some people actually tell us we should take off the labels, because it discourages them from ordering what they want. But I think honesty is the best policy.

Can I say that again? Some people actually tell us we should take off the labels, because it discourages them from ordering what they want.

Think of the logic that goes into such a request. People are more comfortable ordering unhealthy foods when they can deceive themselves into forgetting the drawbacks. I really want that piece of pie. I know it’s probably not good for me, but heck, I deserve it, so–d’oh!–what do they mean it’s got 900 calories? I can’t order it now! If only I didn’t know how bad it was for me, I’d have been fine!…

Does the average consumer think that pie is healthier when he doesn’t know the calorie count? Probably not. But at least he can pretend that it’s something less than it is. Posting calories not only bares the ugly truth, it removes the sheen from the guilty pleasure, turning it into pure guilt.

One more time: Some people actually tell us we should take off the labels, because it discourages them from ordering what they want.

One could argue that New York City has overstepped its bounds in forcing these posts, much as it insisted on banning trans fats in city kitchens last year. Yet this is a terrific example of the benefits of representative government: sometimes, what the typical person says is desired is not necessarily the right answer.

This theory holds true in many areas. Seat belts, for example. Raising taxes to pay for schools. Homeless shelters. The electoral college (not that it saved us the last few times around, but I digress). It especially holds true here: the city has found a way to subtly improve public awareness and, over the longer term, general health. And it has done so with a law that runs against personal preference.

This philosophy applies to user experience design as well. Here, too, the effect can be subtle. But consider the difference between giving the user what he wants and giving the experience that best suits his needs. The effect can be extraordinary.

Last post.

I am going to be moving on, leaving Ai in the capable hands of the excellent people who work here, and this blog in the hands of David and whoever else he can pull into it. Instead of blathering on about tech, I’d like to take this opportunity to talk for a minute about my heroes and influences.

There are a few pivotal figures that taught me a number of critical lessons. These people influenced me and have shaped my thinking about life, career, people and the universe in general. They are a disparate group, and at times seem to have little in common, but each one has brought a unique perspective and insight into their particular slice of life.

Lets start with the parents, of course. My Mom taught me about compassion for other humans, and taught me at an early age that “I can do anything I want in life” – proving that it’s possible to teach freedom.

My Dad taught me about ethics and principles, and how to work with groups of people. He also bought home a dumb terminal with a scroll of paper attached to it, with which he proceeded to call up the DEC-10 at his work, to let me play the dungeon game that ran on it there. I was immediately eaten by a Grue, and my life changed forever.

Claudio Adolpho Iedwab, South American martial arts champion, and the creator of the Gorindo School, taught me about true excellence and how its possible to push one’s self to new heights. He also taught how its possible to be scary good at something, and yet humble and friendly.

John Harris, band manager, concert promoter, deal maker, and founder of the Harris Institute, was the first person to teach me about business, leadership, and negotiation. Introducing himself as “someone who has never held a job”, Harris has built an enduring legacy around him, touching the lives of scores of professionals in the Canadian music industry.

James David Smith, hardware guy, self taught, self made, my former employer and later business partner. Runs a business that makes remote controlled lighting equipment used on Broadway. Also, ever see the scrolling signs on the Toys ‘R Us store in Times Square? Him. Ever see the scene in Phantom of the Opera where the stage seems to be on fire? Him. He is the kind of person that will casually teach himself trigonometry as he needs it. Jim taught me about entrepreneurship, and the incredible power of following through on a great idea, and making it happen.

And finally,

Alex Schmelkin and Josh Levine – founders of Alexander Interactive. From them I’ve learned about consultative sales, about maintaining a culture that is both fun and excellent, but most importantly about having the courage to recognize when it’s time to change the way they’re doing things, and then swiftly moving on implementing that change. This commitment to continuous improvement, (instead of clutching ideas the way so many people do), is one of the things that distinguishes them in their industry, and in the world of business in general.

I thank them for the opportunity to work with them, and with all of the other great people at Ai. I’ll miss you guys.

My wife bought an iPhone 3G on Friday morning. To do so, she had to have a friend sweet-talk her way into cutting a long line at our local AT&T store. My wife then took home a partially activated phone and, like everyone else, waited hours to get it to work.

Much has been written about the botched iPhone activation process surrounding the 3G/2.0 launch this weekend. But the entire experience of buying an iPhone is bordering on broken.

Apple generates extreme amounts of hype for its products, and the gotta-have-it nature of its launches creates untenable demand curves. This leads to a scarcity effect that, for Apple, has been hugely beneficial in its promotional efforts, and in its bottom line.

How should the user experience of first-day demand be viewed?

To hard-core fans, buying an iPhone is a singular thrill, complete with risk/reward and time/money trade-offs. Scoring an iPhone on Day One gives a person bragging rights, an invaluable perk atop the value of the phone itself.

The millions of iPhone buyers that don’t want this experience are stuck waiting until the hype dies down. But despite their disinterest in the crowds and lines, they probably don’t want to wait.

The iPhone appeals to Americans’ overwhelming desire to be first to experience something. Movies generate nearly half their box-office sales the first weekend; albums’ biggest sales come the week of their debuts. (Internet geeks know this feeling all too well.) This now applies to, of all things, a cellular phone, as I myself experienced last summer. (Full disclosure: despite my continued criticism of iPhone trends, I remain a satisfied iPhone owner who bought his phone on Day Two last summer.)

But scarcity and “firstness” can combine in ugly ways. To wit, my wife’s friend cutting a long line to get a coveted phone within hours of its release, a scenario which no doubt occurred elsewhere. This leads to even greater frustration for those waiting on line, and whose firstness is being usurped.

Layer onto this the technical problems Apple experienced. How does it feel to purchase a brand new, unusable phone? To be forced to open a sleek device and remove its SIM card just to make phone calls on an old phone? For some the first-day difficulty dissolves into the background as the satisfation of the iPhone UX takes hold, but for others the memory, and dissatisfaction, remains.

And don’t forget the basics. AT&T has not worked out a system for transferring SIM card data into an iPhone, so lengthy address books are obliterated, requiring immediate data entry. And the iTunes paradigm creates multiple payment paths: to AT&T for phone services and to Apple for everything else. Perhaps it has to be this way, but it’s an ungainly system for users who want to analyze their usage patterns and costs.

This is not to say that the iPhone isn’t a masterful device (it is) or that Apple could have done much differently (besides staggering the 2.0 software rollout, not really). It’s simply an observation of the sociological effects of consumer demand, and the potential drawbacks of immersing oneself in said demand.

Remember, when all is said and done, it’s just a phone.

One of the fun things about being a small company with a hang-loose mindset is basic office flexibility. Among other things, this has led to a good amount of commuting by bicycle.

In a city where millions are encouraged to ride bicycles, then aren’t given anywhere to put them, Ai welcomes cyclists right into the office, where the concrete floors and century-old radiators make for ideal short-term bike storage.

We have one hard-core daily biker and several other occasional riders, including this author. On any given morning, people seated near the service elevator open the door several times for a cyclist and his gear.

Bicycling to work is good for everyone: it’s healthy, non-polluting, and takes bodies out of the transit system. It also fosters a little community of riders in the office, some of whom meet and ride in together every now and again.

Life at Ai: healthy and fun! Like the office foosball table….

Imagination is a scary word in business. It raises images of finger painting and story time. It threatens business people with the onus of being creative – a place that may be out of their comfort zone. There is a constant search for repeatable formulas that can be brought to bear on business decisions; formulas that relieve business from the necessity of periodically re-examining the fundamental assumptions the form the foundation of their day-to-day activities.

Imagination, however, is the critical ingredient in business success. Imagination:

1. Allows one to see past the existing context, the ideas and assumptions, that form the foundation of the many day-to-day activities of business. This is creative destruction.
2. Allows for perception of the larger environment – the big picture. This shows the fundamental market and societal forces bearing down on the business.
3. Allows for a synthesis of a new context, one that is more in alignment with the larger environment than the old context.

Let’s look at each of these phases. For each phase, we’ll see the both advantages of success and the risks of failure at that phase:

Destruction of Context

In the destruction phase, imagination means the act of questioning “Does this make sense?”. It is a periodic re-examination of the fundamental ideas and assumptions, the context, that provides a foundation for the every day activities that occur within the business. It can be difficult to not get so mired down in the details of the day-to-day that this questioning process never occurs. Furthermore, it requires great courage to admit that the existing context no longer works. This phase can be unnerving, because at its beginning there is a working context, and at the end there is not.

When destruction of context is achieved, there is a realization that the current context requires re-thinking; that it is not really a fit for the larger environment any more, and that sooner or later, clinging to the existing context will bring serious negative consequences. Destroying the old context clears it out of the way, allowing for a space in which new ideas can take hold.

If the necessary destruction of context is not achieved, whether through lack of perception or courage, then the organization risks being stuck in its ways while the world passes it by.

Seeing the Big Picture

Once one starts to question one’s existing assumptions, it is time to look at the world and to try to determine what is going on. Again, this is a fundamental quality of imagination. Seeing the big picture can be accomplished by looking at a number of events over time and recognizing the underlying pattern, or it can be done through examining other industries and drawing parallels. In any case, a recognition of the larger environment means that an understanding of the fundamental forces bearing down on the business can be achieved.

When one is unable to see the big picture, then one doesn’t understand the reasons for the long term success or failure of their business. This lack of knowledge can lead one to believe that the status quo will last forever, or that the environment is completely random – neither of which are true.

Synthesis of a New Context

Finally, in light of the perception of the greater environment, the final phase of imagination is to create a new context – one that is more in alignment with the prevailing winds of the world. A working context is essential in order to be able to get anything done – we need assumptions in order to operate.

Frequently this synthesis requires a cognitive leap – a new way of seeing things, to take the place of the destroyed old context. This is imagination at its purest.

Even if one can achieve the first two phases of the cycle, if one can’t synthesize a new context, then there can be no plan to deal with the world. Ideas and assumptions form the foundation on which plans, goals and tasks are built.

Imagination is the bridge which takes people from one context to the next, so that they are able to deal with the fluid and changing world around them. Leadership draws from imagination: it is the act of bringing other people across that bridge with you. Together they form the long-term mechanism of survival in business.

AT&T has officially detailed its 3G iPhone pricing, and it’s actually a bit worse than I noted last month.

The cost of data has gone up $10/month, as previously discussed. What I forgot to include was the loss of free text messaging–current owners get 200 SMS messages included in their $20 data plan. Now those 200 texts cost an extra five bucks.

Redoing the comparison, what I had outlined as

Old: 399 + (24 x 20) = $879
versus
New: 199 + (24 x 30) = $919

is, for users interested in the same level of access, actually

New: 199 + (24 x (30 + 5)) = $1039

Sure, the price increase includes the upgrade to 3G service, which can rightly be considered a premium. But the pricing strategy feels almost bait-and-switch-esque in its execution. They’re trumpeting a $200 savings in the price of the phone, yet users are paying $160 more for usage.

Ironically, what is classified as a win for the mobile phone industry–Apple’s moving to a subsidy model to make its prices more attractive–ultimately leaves AT&T with a horrible jack-up-the-prices publicity nightmare on its hands.

See you when the third-gen comes out in ’09.

Update: AT&T is not raising data rates on original iPhones with new activations, suggesting that the 3G network is the justification of the price bump. Well, that and the fact that they already made their money on the profit split of the initial iPhone sale.