While there is some good in making machines more like humans, why do we try to make humans more like machines?
I was at the post office recently to mail a package. When I reached the counter the clerk started to rattle through a list of options, with prices, most of which were not relevant to me. We've all experienced this from a machine, as in a list of menu options or a phone system IVR (interactive voice response) that must be listened to before you can actually go do the thing you already know you want to do. But since I was dealing with a human, and not a machine, I tried to skip ahead and go right to what I wanted.
But I couldn't. The post office, or maybe just this branch, or this one clerk, couldn't do that. She had to read all my options to me. Even more frustrating, when I explained that I knew exactly how I wanted to mail the package, she told me that since I had interrupted her she now had to start all over.
This was a process gone wrong. The creation of a machine-like human. She eventually got my conformation through exasperation and I waited through (and ignored) the whole list a second time. Then I heard a total price which was much higher than I expected. I dared to repeat what the way I wanted to mail the package and found that by ignoring the list and not declining an option for insurance I had accepted it.
She repriced it. Gave me a receipt. Told me to have a nice day.
And I left (slightly depressed) wondering how this was possible.
You'd think that the post office, of all places, has no where to go but up in their efficiency. You'd think that the post office would want to improve customer service as much as the next organization. You'd think that the post office would take heart from its history, back when it really was an amazing institution -- I mean, it wasn't that long ago when delivering packages accurately and in a timely fashion to addresses hundreds or thousands of miles away was truly magic.
But instead I was told to have a nice day.
Don't put your people in a position where they have to be machine-like humans. Where you do use processes, give them processes with escape hatches so they can bring the benefits of being human to their work.
Guest Post: Why you should talk to strangers
(This post was written by Sandeep Sankarankutty)
Ever since we were young, we were told never talk to strangers. As children, this makes sense, it's for your safety. But as adults why do we still follow this practice? It seems as if there is a lingering fear carried on from childhood, if you talk to a stranger something bad will happen.
We are social beings, so it only makes sense that we are hardwired to form a social network. If you think about it, successful people don't reach the top by sitting in a room by themselves. They are passionate and will talk to anyone who is willing to listen. Social networks are key to success and expanding your network increases your chances.
In the world of startups the word serendipity is used quite often. I believe serendipity occurs when one steps out of their comfort zone and begins to learn from experience, meet people, share your thoughts, share what you have learned.
Here's a tool to let you take that first step to conquering your fears of talking to people. Check out Chatfe
Chatfe lets you have anonymous meaningful conversations, via phone, based on your topic of interest. It is certainly a great tool to help you get over your conversational nervousness.
Chatfe was also recently mentioned in the New York Times.
-- Thanks, Sandeep!
Ever since we were young, we were told never talk to strangers. As children, this makes sense, it's for your safety. But as adults why do we still follow this practice? It seems as if there is a lingering fear carried on from childhood, if you talk to a stranger something bad will happen.
We are social beings, so it only makes sense that we are hardwired to form a social network. If you think about it, successful people don't reach the top by sitting in a room by themselves. They are passionate and will talk to anyone who is willing to listen. Social networks are key to success and expanding your network increases your chances.
In the world of startups the word serendipity is used quite often. I believe serendipity occurs when one steps out of their comfort zone and begins to learn from experience, meet people, share your thoughts, share what you have learned.
Here's a tool to let you take that first step to conquering your fears of talking to people. Check out Chatfe
Chatfe lets you have anonymous meaningful conversations, via phone, based on your topic of interest. It is certainly a great tool to help you get over your conversational nervousness.
Chatfe was also recently mentioned in the New York Times.
-- Thanks, Sandeep!
What startups and subway musicians can learn from each other
How do you serve your audience and how do they repay you?
I was thinking about this yesterday while watching a mariachi band move between subway cars. As a musician myself I've always thought that musicians who play in subway cars should play more than one local stop before moving on, for style if nothing else. Otherwise, people treat them like the 30-second online music teasers and avoid paying royalties to the artists. Is there an economic reason to move on so quickly? Do you actually lose money if you play longer in the same car? Is it mostly a numbers game, with giving more correlated to the number people who hear you than it is to the quality of the music? Or do they only know one song?
But no matter how it works best, I figure that maybe the guy with the hat always wants to be moving. He sees each new car as a new group of people to sell to. If he only collects a few coins, he can always look to the next car and no one can blame him for lack of effort.
Most startups have to experiment for a while with business models and even the design behind their payment scenarios. That's what the musicians remind me.
As an example, here are four types of subway musicians and their approaches to earning money in the subway. The first two examples are real and the last two are opportunities. These could just as easily be applied to startups.
I was thinking about this yesterday while watching a mariachi band move between subway cars. As a musician myself I've always thought that musicians who play in subway cars should play more than one local stop before moving on, for style if nothing else. Otherwise, people treat them like the 30-second online music teasers and avoid paying royalties to the artists. Is there an economic reason to move on so quickly? Do you actually lose money if you play longer in the same car? Is it mostly a numbers game, with giving more correlated to the number people who hear you than it is to the quality of the music? Or do they only know one song?
But no matter how it works best, I figure that maybe the guy with the hat always wants to be moving. He sees each new car as a new group of people to sell to. If he only collects a few coins, he can always look to the next car and no one can blame him for lack of effort.
Most startups have to experiment for a while with business models and even the design behind their payment scenarios. That's what the musicians remind me.
As an example, here are four types of subway musicians and their approaches to earning money in the subway. The first two examples are real and the last two are opportunities. These could just as easily be applied to startups.
- Saxophonist comes into a subway car and intentionally plays badly, saying he will stop when people pay him (this happened in the late 80s). He both solves and creates the audience's pain point (great startup phrase). I think he does ok.As always, there's an exception to this and time and place comes into it. The most I ever saw a subway musician make in 1 stop was in 2004 right before the election. A guy came on, played some guitar and ended up doing a spoken rant against President Bush. It looked like he collected around $20 in dollar bills that were thrust at him like he was a political stripper.
- Mariachi trios that change cars at every stop and play for about 30 seconds before moving to the next car. The only pain point they solve is helping people get rid of spare change in their pockets. Then they have to divide their earnings by three.
- An Opportunity: Performances that last for several subway stops and engage the riders. They don't solve pain points, but they could gain more revenue by simply appealing to the riders' value received. And it will at least be more fun for everyone involved.
- Another Opportunity: Musician plays on the subway for a year or so, makes some cash, but then sells the stories...
Dear Paul Graham, This is From My 2nd Daily Hike
To get to my office, I have a round trip two-hour commute on the NYC subway each day (come see me on the F train). That means I'm free from the net during that time. It's like taking a hike in the connection wilderness. And I love it.
Could one of New York City's advantages be the un-networked subway? Those regular gaps when we have freedom from emails, status updates, the little unimportant interruptions that dot our days. But that's going to end when the subway gets WiFi.
Isn't there a safety advantage to wiring the subway? OK, sure. But I don't think any advantage like that is even close to the cost of doing it, both in economic and social terms. Soon enough there will be tweets on how bad the car smells and where the HPOA are (I swear I didn't know that term before I saw this.
Will subway service improve as a result? The MTA has what is best described as an "attitude problem" when it comes to making improvements. Passengers with communication technology have an opportunity to help improve the subway, or at least join chats and give feedback while riding. Some of these activities could pressure the MTA to make improvements, though probably more so subway lines that have more than average numbers of smartphone users. And if people sit in cafes all day for free WiFi, what will they do in subway cars?
Until then, I usually read on the subway. I read books made of paper, ink and glue. I've been known to write there as well. On paper with a pen. Those are both activities I don't do much anymore above ground. But for clarity, a subway ride can be worth a day of connectivity.
[About the title, there's a reference there to this Paul Graham essay:
The Acceleration of Addictiveness.
Could one of New York City's advantages be the un-networked subway? Those regular gaps when we have freedom from emails, status updates, the little unimportant interruptions that dot our days. But that's going to end when the subway gets WiFi.
Isn't there a safety advantage to wiring the subway? OK, sure. But I don't think any advantage like that is even close to the cost of doing it, both in economic and social terms. Soon enough there will be tweets on how bad the car smells and where the HPOA are (I swear I didn't know that term before I saw this.
Will subway service improve as a result? The MTA has what is best described as an "attitude problem" when it comes to making improvements. Passengers with communication technology have an opportunity to help improve the subway, or at least join chats and give feedback while riding. Some of these activities could pressure the MTA to make improvements, though probably more so subway lines that have more than average numbers of smartphone users. And if people sit in cafes all day for free WiFi, what will they do in subway cars?
Until then, I usually read on the subway. I read books made of paper, ink and glue. I've been known to write there as well. On paper with a pen. Those are both activities I don't do much anymore above ground. But for clarity, a subway ride can be worth a day of connectivity.
[About the title, there's a reference there to this Paul Graham essay:
The Acceleration of Addictiveness.
Scamming the Scammers, or Creative Problem Solving
When an education customer asked us for a solution to voice connect schools in the US with schools abroad where there was poor infrastructure we knew we had to test quality. The international schools included those in Kosovo, Qatar and Nigeria so we set out to make some test calls via our system using different international wholesale telecom providers. The problem was, we didn't know anyone in Nigeria to do a test with and we needed the test done the same day. I tried calling Nigerian hotel phone numbers to test voice quality before I realized the program would be run on cell phones and remembered that the country's mobile network was of much better quality than the old fixed line phone network. How could I find a Nigerian cell phone number to call... right now?
To the spam folder!
A search on "234," which is Nigeria's country code, produced scammer emails talking about financial offers I couldn't refuse. For the modest price of $20K, I could get a $1M return, or something like that. So I made the first call -- good quality. After unsuccessfully negotiating down the $20K, I then asked if I could call back to let me check a secondary wholesale telecom provider. That call was good too. I called a second scammer as well, also with acceptable voice quality. I didn't get anywhere in negotiations there either, but I had shown that we had access to good quality voice in Nigeria.
There's usually a creative solution when you're in a bind. Being in a startup makes you find it.
And later, when our customer decided to remove Nigeria from their school list it didn't bother me at all.
To the spam folder!
A search on "234," which is Nigeria's country code, produced scammer emails talking about financial offers I couldn't refuse. For the modest price of $20K, I could get a $1M return, or something like that. So I made the first call -- good quality. After unsuccessfully negotiating down the $20K, I then asked if I could call back to let me check a secondary wholesale telecom provider. That call was good too. I called a second scammer as well, also with acceptable voice quality. I didn't get anywhere in negotiations there either, but I had shown that we had access to good quality voice in Nigeria.
There's usually a creative solution when you're in a bind. Being in a startup makes you find it.
And later, when our customer decided to remove Nigeria from their school list it didn't bother me at all.
Cargo Cult Marketing
In a speech at CalTech, Richard Feynman (Nobel Laureate in Physics and all-round wildman) talked about "Cargo Cult Science." He was comparing pseudo-science in some industries to "cargo cults" that emerged in the South Pacific after WWII where isolated islanders would reenact the motions of flight controllers, hoping that would get cargo-laden planes to land again.
As the islanders found out, a reenactment isn't the same thing as having a real understanding of the technology required to get the planes to land, plus of course, having the need to mobilize large numbers of people and equipment in the Pacific Theater.
That takes us to cargo cult marketing, or the reenactment of what activities seem to have worked for other companies, without regard for the current situation and business realities. So, in the 1990s many companies thought they could be Amazon by building a website and selling their products online. Today, companies think they just need to focus on design to be like Apple.
It goes deeper. Wish I could give an easy answer, but there isn't one. Knowing what worked for other companies isn't enough; you also need to understand the specifics of your own time and situation. You can learn what's going on by talking to a lot of people in and outside your industry as well as customers. And like Feyman said, don't be afraid of going in a different direction if that's what the world seems to be telling you.
As the islanders found out, a reenactment isn't the same thing as having a real understanding of the technology required to get the planes to land, plus of course, having the need to mobilize large numbers of people and equipment in the Pacific Theater.
That takes us to cargo cult marketing, or the reenactment of what activities seem to have worked for other companies, without regard for the current situation and business realities. So, in the 1990s many companies thought they could be Amazon by building a website and selling their products online. Today, companies think they just need to focus on design to be like Apple.
It goes deeper. Wish I could give an easy answer, but there isn't one. Knowing what worked for other companies isn't enough; you also need to understand the specifics of your own time and situation. You can learn what's going on by talking to a lot of people in and outside your industry as well as customers. And like Feyman said, don't be afraid of going in a different direction if that's what the world seems to be telling you.
Selling Shovels in the New (Startup) Gold Rush
Back during the 1849 California Gold Rush, few prospectors struck it rich. Most of the people who made money back then were those who "sold shovels" or provided other services to the same miners who traveled far to live hard lives panning for gold.
Is it any different today?
In the Gold Rush that is the startup scene, I've met two classes of shovel sellers over the months I've worked on Chatfe.
Some Good or Unavoidable Shovels
- Pay for office space, naturally. If you have an office.
- Pay for incorporating, when you do it. Unavoidable regulation but pretty cheap.
- Pay someone outside your startup to produce something not worth doing in-house. For example, to outsource a logo or UI design. Depending on what you're doing, going rate anywhere from $100s to many $1000s. Just have to make sure that results are on target.
- Pay for off-the-shelf commodity operations, such as mailing list management systems.
Bad or Completely Avoidable Shovels - Here are a few of the more interesting bad ones I've encountered
- Pay to get followers on Twitter. The concept is you can instantly get thousands of followers if you pay for them. Not sure how it works. But late last year when I saw a new startup suddenly have 10,000 followers I wondered how that happened. They still have 10,000 today. And no one ever @ messages them. I don't get the point. This was what I like to call a "Bonfire sale of the vanity metrics."
- Pay for @ messages. Somebody tried to sell me access to people with large numbers of Twitter followers who I guess then tweet out their support. I guess that's what it was supposed to be. Never looked into it. Going rate was $5,000 for 10 power tweeters. The world would be better off if you gave that money to charity.
- Pay for introductions. The concept was they would introduce me to people for money. I asked if they really meant a commission in the event of a sale, but they weren't even interested in that; they just wanted to monetize their address book. I thought this was so weird that I actually cold-called and set up meetings myself. So I channeled that one into something positive for me.
- Pay for money. I've never gone out to raise money but I've had people request to raise money for me for a fee. When I politely tell them that I'm not fundraising it breaks their hearts.
- Pay for informal advice. Seems to be used mostly by those whose experience is exclusively from the '90s bubble. Funny thing is, I usually have to fend off advice-givers. This is obviously not the same as having a true advisor or board member who receives equity.
- Pay to pitch. Going rates I've heard seem to be between $150 - $500. I just think that's wrong, like asking a band to pay to play.
- Pay to present. Slight twist on the above. I was invited to pitch (which I don't really do) at a conference (for free) but then told there was a fee to present. I'll spare you the theater of the absurd conversation that followed. Again, that's just wrong. Hey, come one, I hope to be paid to speak publicly, not the other way around (the best I've done recently is be compensated for a plane ticket when I spoke at an event earlier this year, so there).
The whole experience has been fascinating to me. Hats off to you sellers of shovels. And to those of you looking for gold, keep your heads down.
Is it any different today?
In the Gold Rush that is the startup scene, I've met two classes of shovel sellers over the months I've worked on Chatfe.
Some Good or Unavoidable Shovels
- Pay for office space, naturally. If you have an office.
- Pay for incorporating, when you do it. Unavoidable regulation but pretty cheap.
- Pay someone outside your startup to produce something not worth doing in-house. For example, to outsource a logo or UI design. Depending on what you're doing, going rate anywhere from $100s to many $1000s. Just have to make sure that results are on target.
- Pay for off-the-shelf commodity operations, such as mailing list management systems.
Bad or Completely Avoidable Shovels - Here are a few of the more interesting bad ones I've encountered
- Pay to get followers on Twitter. The concept is you can instantly get thousands of followers if you pay for them. Not sure how it works. But late last year when I saw a new startup suddenly have 10,000 followers I wondered how that happened. They still have 10,000 today. And no one ever @ messages them. I don't get the point. This was what I like to call a "Bonfire sale of the vanity metrics."
- Pay for @ messages. Somebody tried to sell me access to people with large numbers of Twitter followers who I guess then tweet out their support. I guess that's what it was supposed to be. Never looked into it. Going rate was $5,000 for 10 power tweeters. The world would be better off if you gave that money to charity.
- Pay for introductions. The concept was they would introduce me to people for money. I asked if they really meant a commission in the event of a sale, but they weren't even interested in that; they just wanted to monetize their address book. I thought this was so weird that I actually cold-called and set up meetings myself. So I channeled that one into something positive for me.
- Pay for money. I've never gone out to raise money but I've had people request to raise money for me for a fee. When I politely tell them that I'm not fundraising it breaks their hearts.
- Pay for informal advice. Seems to be used mostly by those whose experience is exclusively from the '90s bubble. Funny thing is, I usually have to fend off advice-givers. This is obviously not the same as having a true advisor or board member who receives equity.
- Pay to pitch. Going rates I've heard seem to be between $150 - $500. I just think that's wrong, like asking a band to pay to play.
- Pay to present. Slight twist on the above. I was invited to pitch (which I don't really do) at a conference (for free) but then told there was a fee to present. I'll spare you the theater of the absurd conversation that followed. Again, that's just wrong. Hey, come one, I hope to be paid to speak publicly, not the other way around (the best I've done recently is be compensated for a plane ticket when I spoke at an event earlier this year, so there).
The whole experience has been fascinating to me. Hats off to you sellers of shovels. And to those of you looking for gold, keep your heads down.
Always Choose C?
I used to email Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, about my first job, my own PHB and other cartoonish goings on. Scott, if you're reading this, I didn't stop writing because I forgot; it's just that I eventually got a job that didn't remind me of Dilbert.
But I'm still always reminded of something Scott Adams wrote in The Dilbert Principle. Here's the quote:
Always choose C was the rule I remember when we took multiple choice tests. Yes, while we have the best intentions to choose A and B, damn it, C is just... it's just so easy.
Why does C win? And what if we really want to give A and B a fighting chance? A big part of it is what Marshall McLuhan said. Yes, the medium you choose influences how you communicate and how you think, whether pen and paper, phone, keyboard and screen, email, twitter, or chatroulette. Good book on all this is The Shallows, by Nicholas Carr. And this is all related to what we're working on at Chatfe.
But I'm still always reminded of something Scott Adams wrote in The Dilbert Principle. Here's the quote:
If you could connect your computer to a vast network of information, how would you use this service?
A. Gather valuable scientific information.
B. Improve my education.
C. Demonstrate my complete lack of personality by spending countless hours typing inane and often obscene sentence fragments that can be viewed by people just like me in “real time”.
Always choose C was the rule I remember when we took multiple choice tests. Yes, while we have the best intentions to choose A and B, damn it, C is just... it's just so easy.
Why does C win? And what if we really want to give A and B a fighting chance? A big part of it is what Marshall McLuhan said. Yes, the medium you choose influences how you communicate and how you think, whether pen and paper, phone, keyboard and screen, email, twitter, or chatroulette. Good book on all this is The Shallows, by Nicholas Carr. And this is all related to what we're working on at Chatfe.
Startups and Meeting People
With the Startup - Rockband comparison nicely described, here's a reason that gets too little notice in benefits of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is an excuse to talk to someone. I remember hearing Jeff Pulver remark that much social networking activity comes from loneliness. While entrepreneurship is not at all the same as social networking, one of the great things about it is the ability to meet new people and form a team. Or at least exchange ideas.
Now, this alone isn't enough of a reason to start a company, but it is overlooked. As I look back over this year, a lot of the people I know now I hadn't met before embarking on Chatfe -- and I never would have met them had I stayed in a corporate role. When I have time I'll write about some of them here.
Now, this alone isn't enough of a reason to start a company, but it is overlooked. As I look back over this year, a lot of the people I know now I hadn't met before embarking on Chatfe -- and I never would have met them had I stayed in a corporate role. When I have time I'll write about some of them here.
Financial Models, Clams and Four Years without Pulpo Gallego
Fortune-telling Pulpo Paul did what few (if any) others did, eight 100% accurate World Cup predictions, which if we simply assume that the octopus chose at random, leads to an expected 1/256 chance of getting them all correct.
I'm glad Pulpo Paul made it straight through with perfect accuracy, and not just because of Spain's win. I'm glad because if he made a mistake, everyone would've said "hey, it's just an octopus, what did you expect?" And there would've been commentary from Nassim Nicholas Taleb on fund manager accuracy, the file drawer problem and comparisons to financial modeling. And all justified. That's what made Pulpo Paul's picks so great. He (and his owner) put it all on the line in each game. No excuses. No complex models. Just pick a clam out of a box with a flag on it.
The other thing about the choices were the audience knew their accuracy just a day or two afterward. No waiting for months or years as in the case of business modeling.
And hey, sometimes that's the way it is with decisions startups make, too. Sometimes why something worked or didn't work might as well be explained as a clam in a box. It doesn't mean you don't act; it doesn't mean you don't try to get an edge or learn. But sometimes it just happens. Being lucky is ok with me. And to remind myself, no pulpo gallego until the 2014 World Cup.
But some advice to Pulpo Paul's owner: Never let him predict anything ever again. Not even a coin toss.
I'm glad Pulpo Paul made it straight through with perfect accuracy, and not just because of Spain's win. I'm glad because if he made a mistake, everyone would've said "hey, it's just an octopus, what did you expect?" And there would've been commentary from Nassim Nicholas Taleb on fund manager accuracy, the file drawer problem and comparisons to financial modeling. And all justified. That's what made Pulpo Paul's picks so great. He (and his owner) put it all on the line in each game. No excuses. No complex models. Just pick a clam out of a box with a flag on it.
The other thing about the choices were the audience knew their accuracy just a day or two afterward. No waiting for months or years as in the case of business modeling.
And hey, sometimes that's the way it is with decisions startups make, too. Sometimes why something worked or didn't work might as well be explained as a clam in a box. It doesn't mean you don't act; it doesn't mean you don't try to get an edge or learn. But sometimes it just happens. Being lucky is ok with me. And to remind myself, no pulpo gallego until the 2014 World Cup.
But some advice to Pulpo Paul's owner: Never let him predict anything ever again. Not even a coin toss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
