For example, the chart below indexes searches for Rotman vis-a-vis searches for MBAs in Ontario over the last 12 months. Viewing sub-trends versus their relative mega-trends can provide an insight into the market share captue of a particular brand.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Using Google Trends
Google Trends is a fantastic tool that can provide real insight into the "Buzz" surrounding a topic. Search volumes for multiple terms can be compared not just in order to contrast them (as we saw in our trends for Obama and Clinton) but in order to evaluate a relative order of magnitude.
For example, the chart below indexes searches for Rotman vis-a-vis searches for MBAs in Ontario over the last 12 months. Viewing sub-trends versus their relative mega-trends can provide an insight into the market share captue of a particular brand.
For example, the chart below indexes searches for Rotman vis-a-vis searches for MBAs in Ontario over the last 12 months. Viewing sub-trends versus their relative mega-trends can provide an insight into the market share captue of a particular brand.
Disruptive Technologies
During our class today, I was thinking aobut the slow reactions that incumbents display when faced with a disruptive technology. Interestingly, this dynamic has been playing out in dramatic fashion in the media and television industry recently.
For media, the internet (coupled with increasing bandwith and download speeds) and the Digital Video Recorder (or TiVo for the Americans) have disrupted the traditional broadcast media businesses. Interestingly, this has been evident for several years (as anyone with an attuned 'disruptive technology radar' would know) and yet, rather than adapt to the threat of Peer-to-Peer file sharing and Digital Video Recorders, the industry has tried to halt the spread of these technologies through litigation and disincentives.
Interestingly, the major media companies in the US have been quick to try to co-opt the new technology by "broadcasting" their content on the internet. This is an example of an incumbent approaching the disruptive technology from their original paradigm. They broadcast big, bandwidth-eating files that are completely impractical for viewing on a mobile device or an iPod.
Also, the entire support system for the media industry has failed to adapt to the disruptive technologies (likely under the influence of their cash-cow customers the big media companies). The Nielsen Ratings Group, who provide the viewership ratings for advertisers, continuously discount those viewers who watch a TV show on their DVR at a time other than the original broadcast airtime. This has led to the cancellation of some shows that were incredibly popular with users of the disruptive technology (who ironically comprise much of the advertisers' coveted 18-34 demographic) and to major embarassment for the media companies.
It is fascinating to live in the middle of the emergence of a major disruptive technology. Tracking the length of time it takes for upstarts like YouTube to overtake their lumbering rivals.
For media, the internet (coupled with increasing bandwith and download speeds) and the Digital Video Recorder (or TiVo for the Americans) have disrupted the traditional broadcast media businesses. Interestingly, this has been evident for several years (as anyone with an attuned 'disruptive technology radar' would know) and yet, rather than adapt to the threat of Peer-to-Peer file sharing and Digital Video Recorders, the industry has tried to halt the spread of these technologies through litigation and disincentives.
Interestingly, the major media companies in the US have been quick to try to co-opt the new technology by "broadcasting" their content on the internet. This is an example of an incumbent approaching the disruptive technology from their original paradigm. They broadcast big, bandwidth-eating files that are completely impractical for viewing on a mobile device or an iPod.
Also, the entire support system for the media industry has failed to adapt to the disruptive technologies (likely under the influence of their cash-cow customers the big media companies). The Nielsen Ratings Group, who provide the viewership ratings for advertisers, continuously discount those viewers who watch a TV show on their DVR at a time other than the original broadcast airtime. This has led to the cancellation of some shows that were incredibly popular with users of the disruptive technology (who ironically comprise much of the advertisers' coveted 18-34 demographic) and to major embarassment for the media companies.
It is fascinating to live in the middle of the emergence of a major disruptive technology. Tracking the length of time it takes for upstarts like YouTube to overtake their lumbering rivals.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Collaborative Work...(sort of)
Today we tried to facilitate a group project using only Google Docs instead of direct, verbal communication. Interestingly the activity of of using Google Docs as a collaborative forum was even more instructive than even the activity that we were working on (evaluating user-based development and its risks).
One of the challenges that we immediately faced was one of immediacy. Faced with a blank page and no established framework. The team tried to use the google doc to coordinate our activities. The lack of immediate feedback led to disjointed conversations.
Additionally, we quickly figured out that comments were anonymous if not signed. This led to another challenge as authorship of each comment could not be clearly attributed.
In the end, we actually lost productive time because we had to wait as one team member created a framework in which we could all work.
Collaborative tools (like Google Docs), depend highly upon structure and a well-defined set of conventions in order to be effective business tools.
One of the challenges that we immediately faced was one of immediacy. Faced with a blank page and no established framework. The team tried to use the google doc to coordinate our activities. The lack of immediate feedback led to disjointed conversations.
Additionally, we quickly figured out that comments were anonymous if not signed. This led to another challenge as authorship of each comment could not be clearly attributed.
In the end, we actually lost productive time because we had to wait as one team member created a framework in which we could all work.
Collaborative tools (like Google Docs), depend highly upon structure and a well-defined set of conventions in order to be effective business tools.
Are Hackers Innovators?
Today in our class, we looked at the Hiphone: a clone of Apple's iphone. http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=hiphone&category0=
The brand-conscious segments of the class dismissed it quickly as an abomination: nothing more than a cheap knock-off of the original. However, on closer examination, the Hiphone is no mere copy. It boasts dual SIM cards for multi-line use, a more flexible OS than Apple's and, most importantly, unfettered access to the network of oyur choice. Interestingly, Apple has recently announced that they will be adopting many of the features pioneered by the Hiphone and other "i-clones".
If one defines innovation as the creation of a positive, new feature for a product or process, then Hackers and forgers do contribute to the evolution of a product like the iphone.
I would suggest, however, that the ability of hackers to innovate through creation is limited because, by definition, hackers begin with an existing product or service. If I were in charge of a company for whom R&D was a significant cost component, I would bring the lrgest part of my R&D capacity to bear on creation rather than innovation and would let the collective intelligence of the lead user community create the "innovative" iterations of my existing products.
The brand-conscious segments of the class dismissed it quickly as an abomination: nothing more than a cheap knock-off of the original. However, on closer examination, the Hiphone is no mere copy. It boasts dual SIM cards for multi-line use, a more flexible OS than Apple's and, most importantly, unfettered access to the network of oyur choice. Interestingly, Apple has recently announced that they will be adopting many of the features pioneered by the Hiphone and other "i-clones".
If one defines innovation as the creation of a positive, new feature for a product or process, then Hackers and forgers do contribute to the evolution of a product like the iphone.
I would suggest, however, that the ability of hackers to innovate through creation is limited because, by definition, hackers begin with an existing product or service. If I were in charge of a company for whom R&D was a significant cost component, I would bring the lrgest part of my R&D capacity to bear on creation rather than innovation and would let the collective intelligence of the lead user community create the "innovative" iterations of my existing products.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Google Tools - Sketchup
Google is offering, for free, a number of tools that were previously unavailable to people outside of specialized fields. One example that I think is really neat is http://sketchup.google.com/ this tool allows lay-persons to easily create 3-D models.
Even more exciting is that you can integrate your model into Google Earth. This is the power of the Google model, integration of a massive suite of tools into a single chain.
Here is my first Sketchup Model (converted to 2D):
Even more exciting is that you can integrate your model into Google Earth. This is the power of the Google model, integration of a massive suite of tools into a single chain.
Here is my first Sketchup Model (converted to 2D):
Hong Kong Shopping - Electronics
Here are the two locations for computer goods (including the Asus Eee) that Prof. Wagner kindly shared with us:
Mong Kok Golden Center
- Go to Mong Kok Station (no giggling, please) via the MTR
- Take exit E2, Nelson Street
- Turn Left from the station exit, pass a Body Shop: Digital Cameras and MP4 players are on your left hand side, the Mong Kok Golden Center (for computers) is on the opposite side of Nelson St. about 100M from the station exit. There are 3 floors of computer products.
Golder Computing Center
- Go to Sham Shui Po Station via the MTR
- Take exit D, walk up the stairs and cross the street the Golden Computing Center is right there on the 2nd floor
Mong Kok Golden Center
- Go to Mong Kok Station (no giggling, please) via the MTR
- Take exit E2, Nelson Street
- Turn Left from the station exit, pass a Body Shop: Digital Cameras and MP4 players are on your left hand side, the Mong Kok Golden Center (for computers) is on the opposite side of Nelson St. about 100M from the station exit. There are 3 floors of computer products.
Golder Computing Center
- Go to Sham Shui Po Station via the MTR
- Take exit D, walk up the stairs and cross the street the Golden Computing Center is right there on the 2nd floor
Community?
How do on-line communities compare to real communities?
Real communities are grounded and influenced by real actions or by the potential for real actions. People act in the common good because there is the potential for a positive outcome or the fear of a negative outcome.
Do internet communities compel their members to act in the collective good? I would suggest that they do only when they can satisfy the same conditions as a real community and when they can create an environment where potential for reward or fear of reprisal are real.
On-line communities that allow users to contribute anonymously are frequently disrupted by "community members" who simply choose not to act in the common interest because there is no potential for real reward and no credible threat of punishment.
Successful on-line communities create a link to the real world through account creation, membership fees, etc.
No matter how much we strive for virtual communities, those that can not create a strong link to the real world are doomed to fall prey to the unscrupulous, destructive instincts of some members of the community.
Real communities are grounded and influenced by real actions or by the potential for real actions. People act in the common good because there is the potential for a positive outcome or the fear of a negative outcome.
Do internet communities compel their members to act in the collective good? I would suggest that they do only when they can satisfy the same conditions as a real community and when they can create an environment where potential for reward or fear of reprisal are real.
On-line communities that allow users to contribute anonymously are frequently disrupted by "community members" who simply choose not to act in the common interest because there is no potential for real reward and no credible threat of punishment.
Successful on-line communities create a link to the real world through account creation, membership fees, etc.
No matter how much we strive for virtual communities, those that can not create a strong link to the real world are doomed to fall prey to the unscrupulous, destructive instincts of some members of the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)