Socially, we’ve met up with friends, gone out without the baby and been spoilt for choice for take away and nights out. The Bee’s made a friend and been invited to a baby group, so it’s been great to be back.

Professionally, I couldn’t be happier. Being at the London Business School entrepreneurship conference last week was definitely a highlight. Meeting potential investors, potential partners and potential clients for the business I’m working on launching was great. Being able to set up meetings all week and get stuff done was awesome. Also not being forced to squeeze a months worth of meetings into two days is such a relief.

I’ve been reading Drive by Daniel Pink, and I totally feel driven right now. Pink talks bout the three pillars of motivation being Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. I wouldn’t say that I was totally deprived of these three over my last three-five years, but I was awfully close. It’s nice to have motivation back.

Finally, I’m back to blogging as well, it’s my intention to blog better and more often then ever before. Wish me luck.

I’ve been hearing lot’s of people talk about how companies can be good or evil. A lot of this goes back to Google’s whole “Don’t be evil” line that was the unofficial motto around the company a while back. Part of it is due to Umair Haque’s manifesto’s and blog posts. Don’t get me wrong, I respect a lot of what Umair writes and I like a lot of what Google does, but I just don’t think it’s that black and white.

Companies are made up of people, and people are at the heart of the organisation’s direction and choices around strategy, marketing, procurement, M&A and everything else. Calling companies good and evil misses out on the spectrum between these extremes.

Google for example has made lot’s of “Good” decisions, for the good of costumers, for the good of partners, for the good of the developer community, but they’ve also made a lot of bad decisions, Buzz integration with Gmail without opt-in, what they did to Dodgeball and whole lot of other stuff could be classified as “Evil” by some people.

Apple, Twitter, Microsoft, Sony almost any media, technology company I can think of has done some things that I would consider good and some things that I wouldn’t. So classifying an entire company as good or evil just leaves me feeling a bit uneasy.

Here’s my suggestion, let’s ditch the whole good and evil and start talking about the character of an organisation. Let’s make it a spectrum and a scale. Are they transparent, sustainable, honest and consistent in their policies and actions? Do they value the community, employees, costumers, partners and the developers who may power their community? Are they closed or open – is that consistent across products and services?

This is separate to the quality and performance of the company’s goods or services. Nestle would probably score really lowly on the character scale but damn if I could resist their KitKats. Apple may also score lowly but I’ll still probably buy an iPad and add this to our suite of Apple products in the house. But at least I know it’s not a company with character, just a company with good products.

A company that is transparent and clear in it’s financial management and strategy, that has a sustainable policy and tries to operate in a energy efficient manner, which shows obvious care and concern for all their stakeholders and that works in an open manner with open protocols across it’s product suite would be the holy grail of character and would score a 10. Not sure if any company meets this but that should be the aim.
A company that isn’t transparent, doesn’t value stakeholders, is not green in any way shape or form, doesn’t prescribe to open protocols or integration with other services would score really poorly.

This is separate to the quality and performance of the company’s goods or services. Nestle would probably score really lowly on the character scale but damn if I could resist their KitKats. Apple may also score lowly but I’ll still probably buy an iPad and add this to our suite of Apple products in the house. But at least I know it’s not a company with character, just a company with good products. This is what separates discussing awesomeness versus character. Awesomeness can mean great execution, great products, but that doesn’t mean a company is “good”, what talking about character does is it gives us a clear scale and overview of a companies principles.

I originally wanted to call this blog post “Calling Bullsh*t on Good and Evil in Business” but heck who am I to suggest it’s bullsh*t maybe there is a place for it. I just don’t think it gives us as a community enough tools to discuss the principles of an organisation. So let’s try and stop all the good and evil clear cut analysis of decisions and talk about companies with colour, I think this would be more beneficial to the conversations and analysis that is happening about companies today. Just how much character does your company have?

When you set the theme for your year as “learning to do”, you’re in for a long year. It was definitely a long year, but it was a good one. I managed to got a lot done; professionally and personally. I dreamed, planned, pitched, worked hard and I’m not looking to slow that done one bit. The Bee and I welcomed the beautiful Mira into our lives (though the Bee and Mira had a lot more to do on that one, I like to think I played a strong supporting role). Not bad at all for a years work.

Last year, the bee and I joked, was a year of purgatory. Well the year is over and our stay in purgatory is nearly over. Next year’s the resurgence (you have to say it three times, RESURGENCE, RESURGENCE, RESERGENCE), so watch out.

My personal theme is “making things happen” and I can’t wait to make stuff happen and I can’t wait to share it all with everyone on this blog.

Side note: Kind of cool that I was listening to the song “Good Life” as I wrote this post. Totally captures how I’m feeling right now.

Earlier this week I came across this post from Andrew Michael Baron, talking about how Twitter “could lose the game by design” and then today I came across this delightful rant on Metlabdesign about Zappos’ design being great for 1999 (love the idea that their redesign is taking them to 2003).

Ranting about poorly designed big effective sites is not new, Craigslist, Ebay even Amazon aren’t the most visually appealing or best “designed” sites and people have been ranting about them for ages. Only to see them get bigger and bigger and make more and more money. Google uses a lot of data in it’s decision making around design and even then some people would say that Google’s design isn’t great – and Douglas Bowman a great, well respected designer actually left Google to join Twitter!

Here’s the thing, the average user wouldn’t know good design if it bit them on the ass. People make decisions about sites in an instant and in my opinion as long as sites meet the minimum design standard people will use them. The clincher, I think is not in design but in the product being sold, in the service given to the costumer and in the difference between competitors.

You shouldn’t look at a site like Zappos as a stand alone without looking at the other shoe-selling sites on line. Here’s a question, what’s the second best shoe selling site online? I have no idea. So as long as Zappos continues to have a wide range of shoes and great service will they really be killed? Me thinks not. Unless someone comes along and offers the same service, the same simplicity in ordering, returning and customer care as well as the same extensive catalogue of product and then has better design, that’s when Zappos should really worry about it’s design, till then it should pay attention to design but just not as much as some people are saying they should.

Same goes for Twitter, it’s simple, light, open and still growing at an incredible clip. Sure the site could be better for new users but will poor design really cost them the game? Not when Facebook is even more messy, WTF is a poke, I kid, I know what a poke is, imjustsayin the average new comer to these social networks learns quickly and as long as design is too big a hurdle they’re willing to look past it and give it a go. Facebook, Myspace, bebo are all fairly messy themselves so why should twitter being a bit messy hurt them so much?

Again, I want to reiterate, I think design is very important, simplicity and design is probably a good indicator of long term success in a lot of products, I just don’t think poor design, especially online, is as big of a factor as some of these other posts are making it out to be. I know this will strike a nerve with some of the people who read these posts but I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this.

But this brought to my mind an interesting dilemma that I’m sure entrepreneurs’ face all the time, when the numbers say one thing and your gut says something else how do you make the decision of which way to go?

Examples could be development platforms, target markets, suppliers, distribution channels, and many other decisions that entrepreneurs have to make. Decisions aren’t a zero-sum game, but there are definitely times when choosing smaller/less effective paths can have a negative effect on a company’s growth.

This is why you need strong investors with strong technical and business savvy. It’s almost like a gut check of strategy. Unfortunately, the company doesn’t have strong investors, yet, and so they’re relying solely on the entrepreneurs gut. Sure there are entrepreneurs whose guts out perform the market, especially when the relationship between numbers versus gut is pretty close, but this is too few and far between.

If you’re going guts over numbers make sure you know why and be prepared to pay for the consequences.

I believe it’s not always that important. Case in point, Clancy mentioned Digable Planets on twitter. A click onto Spotify and I’m listening to the Rebirth of Slick (cool like dat). Now I might have the CD somewhere. I might have the mp3 on my PC at home. Maybe. Can’t remember downloading it or buying it, but I might have it. But, I don’t care. With something like Spotify I open it up and I’m listening to the tracks.

The point is whether or not you own its the experience (specifically convenience and access in this case) is what matters. Can I listen to it wherever I am, can I listen in my car, on the train, even underground (which the Spotify mobile app seems to do quite well), yes I can. So I’ll subscribe because owning is not that important to me. The experience is.

You don’t own television programmes but Hulu, TiVO, Sky+ whatever allows you to store and experience it. You don’t own the movies on “Netflix Watch Instantly” but you can stream it and watch instantly. Media content is supported by ads (contextual or otherwise), so you don’t have to buy it or own it, you just want to experience it.

Books are closely moving into this as well. Although libraries have been following this model for a while, you can take the book, read it and give it back. I like owning books, I own a lot, but I also love picking up a book from my school library. I don’t need to own every book I read. Who knows maybe if the Kindle really is a great experience (when it’s available where I live I’ll give it a shot) I might change my behaviour with books as well.

I look at this as a ownership v experience relationship. Where some goods I need to own to really experience and some goods I don’t need to own to experience. I’ve drawn it out in the following 2×2 matrix where you have high and low ownership needs related to high and low experienced needs.

2 x 2 matrix, ownership versus experience

Examples of ownership experience relationship

The point is that knowing where a good or service falls on this 2×2 will help you identify how to market, price, and sell the good or service. Knowing when ownership is important or when experience is important and when they’re both important will help you focus and succeed. Also being aware of where you fall might help you figure out where to invest, whether in costs / margins, partnerships, the product experience or something else to make users value your product more.

A little bit about me, for those who don’t know me or haven’t come across my blog before, I’ve been living/working in Switzerland for the last year, before that I spent about 8 years in the UK, working in London. I’m Canadian by birth, but haven’t lived there for almost 10 years. I’ve worked for big brands, small brands, the public sector, start ups, and now I’ve been working for Yahoo! for the last few years.

Ok, so here’s my theory on choosing a place to live where you’ll be happy. I believe there are five major categories to picking a place for work/life. In no particular order these include; professional, social/cultural, personal, financial and functional. All of these have different levels and at different times in your life may take differing heights of importance.

“Professional” is the job you’re in and the ability to find jobs that you’ll love. I came to Switzerland because I enjoyed the job I was in and wanted to stay in it. I went to London because the Brits were more willing to hire a web developer with a Kinesiology degree then the Canadians were.

“Social” is the people and the activities that you can participate in. You might enjoy the British Pub culture, or the outdoors life, swimming, hiking, skiing or snowboarding etc, or you might enjoy a place with culture, many museums (easy to access) or the opera or other social/cultural events or happenings. This criterion can also include the places nearby, being able to travel, explore and have adventure at your doorstep.

“Personal” is about your personal status and life, if you’re young and single, being in a place where you might meet someone is pretty important, when you’re older with children being in a place near your family might be more important.

“Financial” is about how much you can earn and how far your money will go. You could live in a place where you’re earning a lot, or you could be in a place where it doesn’t matter if you earn a lot because living there is not very expensive.

“Functional” it might be important for you to be able to drive everywhere, or to not have to drive anywhere. It might important for you to find a takeaway Chinese meal or a pizza. Or it might not.

Knowing how important the different criteria are to you and how well a place meets the criteria that are most important to you is a good way to figuring out whether or not you’ll be happy working and living in a place. Switzerland wasn’t our choice, but it met some of our criteria and we’re glad we took the chance. So as important as it is to set criteria and know how a place measures up, being open to new experiences and allowing your self to give new places a shot is pretty important too.

Zappos was acquired by Amazon a couple of days ago. I love Amazon. Use them all the time, great reselling network, great online execution and a really innovative company. I’ve never used Zappos (haven’t lived in the US or Canada for a while). But I’ve heard nothing but great things about them, they’ve revolutionised an industry. And they did it with phenomenal costumer service.

Some people believe that Zappos was forced into the deal by their VC, I don’t buy that for the same reasons Bijan didn’t. Some people think this will slow Zappos growth down by creating an integration nightmare, or that Zappos will be more concerned with revenue rather than customer service. Here’s what this argument misses; Amazon isn’t like other big companies and Zappos isn’t like other acquisitions. Want proof check out Tony Hsieh’s letter to his staff and Jeff Bezos video below explaining the logic behind the deal:

I’ve come to believe that innovation in big companies is really difficult, but then someone like Amazon comes around and makes it look easy. AMZN kill in cloud competing, they launch new products like the Kindle and out do hardware manufacturers like Sony (maybe not in Sales yet, but in technology reviews for the product at least), they get rid of DRM and launch an MP3 service. Regardless of whether they’re the best positioned to do something or take on an industry, they take risks and they’re not afraid of failure. I love the idea that Bezos puts out in his video, “Everyday is day 1″, Amazon truly embodies this, at least from an outsiders perspective.

This is why I believe Amazon will treat Zappos different from other big companies that have bought smaller companies. I’m hoping Amazon invests in the growth of Zappos, learns from Zappos and helps the smaller brand learn how to be efficient without losing their costumer centricity. It truly could be a win-win acquisition, and set a new standard for doing things well, just like Amazon has been doing all along.

I’m hoping they don’t.

I came across a list of billionaires on wikipedia, and noticed a lot of them are still going and are well over 70. Rupert Murdoch and Warren Buffet are both running things. Carl Icahn and Silvio Berlusconi are both raising hell and aren’t really showing any signs of stopping. John McCain was running for President of the United States at 72, if he had won and served two terms that would have taken him up to 80! I’m sure there are health and science studies which back up the connection between working till later in life and a higher quality of life later on, I’m just to lazy to go looking for them.

Closer to home the Bee’s mom is over 60 and has started a yoga class as well as working considerably and my mom, while she qualifies for early retirement, is fine to keep working. She has her holidays, goes travelling then, working keeps her mind going and active.

Sure there may be health reasons which stop you from being able to work, but there’s nothing stopping people from making a career switch later in life, doing something less strenuous either physically or mentally. But you may want to pick a bigger challenge later in life, Bill Gates has switched from software to eliminating poverty as he approaches his late 50s.

The days of working for the same company for 20-30-40 years are over. People switch companies and in a lot of instances people change careers quite a bit over there professional lives. It seems rather arbitrary to have an age where your career has to stop. I’ll change what I’m doing, maybe, but stop me when I’m dead.

Note to self, book a calendar event for 35 years from now to see if I feel the same way.

UPDATE – just to clarify, the bee’s mom began teaching a yoga class. As she wrote as a facebook comment on this post “just to clarify, my mum has started teaching a yoga class, not just taking it if you are giving her credit, give her all of it! xoxo
good post – i would like to be like my mother when i get to retirement age – she did a BSc at age 50, and then at 60 decided to become a yoga teacher. retirement for her just means a career change. its great that she stays relevant and she remains a fantastic role model!”

1 – I had a copy of Flip sitting on my bookshelf, and it has a chapter on Good, Fast, Cheap pick three. I must have read the chapter overview when I picked it up a month ago, reading it now and will add some more thoughts later.

2 – Having to do things better, faster and cheaper is not a bad thing. For consumers it’s a great thing. For producers it’s a challenging thing. What it means is that you have to be excellent to excel, because if you’re not consumers will see through you and you’ll drop. Example, I was going to see Bruno at some point until I heard (mostly on twitter) that it was a let down, will now wait for the DVD and maybe rent it, or watch a stream at some point. I saw Hangover in the cinema because a lot of people said it was good, in real time on twitter.

3 – It was pointed out that the examples I used in the last post were, excuse the language, shit. So here are some better examples:
Facebook v Myspace. Facebook started a year later (2004 v 2003), had less employees and I believe spent less money then Myspace (until earlier this year).

Huffington Post v a lot of newspapers – Adriana has a smaller team then most if not all newspapers, has been profitable and has covered a lot of news really well. While older, slower, more expensive newspapers are losing money and trying to figure out how to take their product online in a cost effective manner.

Firefox (Chrome, Safari, etc) versus Internet Explorer

Wikipedia v Encyclopedias

Spotify v Napster, Last FM

Think there are much more and better examples of this as well, I’ll probably add to this list through the comments later.

While it’s true that there may be other factors (acquisitions, product distribution, open v closed development etc) that may have contributed to why some products are better, more effective or more profitable than their rivals, I believe they all are better, faster and cheaper than the competition as well.