Four Balls or One Strike?

In baseball, four balls is a walk.  Today in New York, all it took was one strike, and lots of us were taking long walks – to work, from work, to dinner.  Even though I’m a CEO and “management” and part of the establishment, I don’t have a systematic bias against organized labor or strikes.   Sometimes, they’re entirely warranted.  (Perhaps it helps that my mother-in-law is a senior exec at a major union – hi, Carmen.)  Also, to be fair, I am not up close and personal on the issue of the transit strike here, so maybe I’m missing something.

Those caveats aside, I have a limited amount of sympathy for the TWU and the strikers in today’s walk-out that crippled the city.  Jeff Jarvis lays out a lot of the issues pretty well here, but here’s my take.

– The aging population of the world will ultimately force the customary retirement age up from its current level of 65 years to 70 and beyond in our lifetime.  The union is insisting it stay permanently at 55 for their members and wouldn’t consent to raising it even to 62.  Completely out of touch with reality.

– The MTA is suggesting that new transit employees pay 6% of their salary for 10 years towards their pension; the union is saying that it won’t create two classes of employees (old and new) and that it’s only appropriate for members to pay 2% of their salary for 10 years towards their pension.  Hello – does anyone here know what 401Ks are like in the private sector?  They’re based exclusively on employee contributions.  Again, the union seems completely out of touch with reality.

– The MTA is now offering a  12% raise over three years to the union; the union is holding firm at a 30% raise over three years.  30%!  Do you run your business that way?  Oy.

– The rationale that “the transit system has a big surplus this year, therefore we are entitled to a big piece of it” is just nonsense.  Ask for a bigger than usual holiday bonus if you want.  But don’t pretend that this year’s surplus is a permanent grab bag.

– There’s a reason it’s against the law for MTA employees to go on strike.  When employees of a company go on strike, they hurt the company and its shareholders, and it’s management’s job to scramble and serve customers wherever possible.  When MTA employees strike, the main people who get hurt are the customers, since the “company” is a public authority with no earnings, shareholders, etc. and since the customers don’t have alternatives.

Worse, it’s not just subway and bus riders who get hurt by losing wages or having to schlep around in the freezing cold weather on foot, it’s unrelated businesses that get hurt because they can’t staff up and because their customers stay away.  The collateral damage is too high, and public employees know it’s against the law to go on strike when they sign up for their jobs in the first place.  Presumably they’re getting things like the amazing level of job security that seems to come with public sector jobs in exchange for giving up the right to strike.

We are reasonably lucky at Return Path that we’re in an industry where it’s possible for so many of our employees to telecommute.  We had about 50% attendance in the office today, in the odd pattern of Manhattanites and suburbanites, but not those people who live in between the two in the outer boroughs of the city.  Most people who didn’t come in worked valiantly from home, but our accounting department, all of whose members live in the outer boroughs and none of whom have remote access into our accounting system for control reasons, had a bitch of a time getting anything done remotely.

So tomorrow — and other days if this nonsense continues — we will probably be sending out a car service to pick up our accounting department as a carpool and bring them to and from work at our own expense so we can conduct business.

I wonder if union boss Roger Toussaint would like to pick up the tab for that with his new fancy 30% (or even 12%) raise.

Tech on the Brain

I heard a good one today — a really good one.  A friend of a friend (who of course shall remain nameless) was at a stoplight the other day in front of a big Victoria’s Secret store with a big sign out front advertising their newest product — Wireless Bras.  Anyway, this friend sat there for a full traffic light cycle trying to figure out why the heck you’d need a bra that’s wi-fi enabled, and how you’d hook it up to a computer monitor or laptop to take advantage of the feature.

Fortunately, it did eventually dawn on this person that this was an ad that referred to the absence of physical support wires, not EVDO or 80211.g standards or a home LAN.  I’m sure there’s some awful off-color joke here involving either the word Bluetooth or the term backwards-compatible, but I’ll leave that to your imagination.

I think Facebook is starting to get out of control from a usability perspective.  This doesn’t mean it’s not a great platform and that it doesn’t have utility.  But if the platform continues on its current path, the core system runs the risk of going sideways like its various predecessors:  GeoCities, MySpace, etc.  Maybe I’ll go in there to look for something or someone, but it won’t be a place I scroll through as part of a daily or semi-daily routine.

I wrote about this a year ago now, and while the site has some better tools to assign friends to groups, it doesn’t do any better job than it did a year ago about segregating information flow, either by group or by some kind of intelligence.

I don’t know why my home page, news feed, RSS feed, and iPhone app can’t easily show me posts from people I care about, but if it can’t do that soon enough, I will almost entirely stop using it.  Can’t Facebook measure the strength of my connections?  Can’t it at least put my wife’s posts at the top?  My usage is already way down, and the trend is clear.

And I won’t really comment on Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s inane remark last week that “email is dead because young people don’t use it” other than to paraphrase two things I read on a discussion list I’m on:  “Just checked, and you still need an email address to sign-up for a Facebook account,” and “Most teens don’t buy stocks so Wall Street has no future.”  More entertaining analogies from Loren McDonald of Silverpop are listed here.

For Whom the Bell Tolls, Part II

Two years ago, when we got Vonage at home, I blogged raves about the service, which I continue to believe today (although I do hear mixed reviews of it from time to time, depending on the user-in-question’s internet connection).  And I blogged about Skype when I started using that last year.  The theme of both posts was a big “uh oh” to phone companies everywhere.

So let me add another note on this theme.  I spent some time yesterday at the offices of Skype, now a client of ours.  From the minute I walked in the door, something seemed odd about the office.  I couldn’t put my finger on it, there just seemed to be something missing.  Then it occurred to me — no phones.  Literally, I couldn’t see a single one.  The receptionist did have one for incoming calls and routing, and she said she thought there were one or two other ones in the entire office.  Everyone is happily on Skype.  Skype In, Skype Out, video Skype, plain old Skype.  It was a beautiful thing — not to mention extremely cost-effective.

Now I can’t wait for the team at Skype to figure out how make a true Skype mobile phone to marry VOIP with high-speed wireless.  Then I can be released from exorbitant cell phone charges.

To Ma Bell…and all of your offspring who specialize in overcharging customers and then providing them with horrendous customer service…you’re really on the path to being marginalized.  And good riddance, I say.

Always On is Too Much On

Among other things last week travelling abroad for work, I learned another good CEO lesson — sometimes it’s ok, even good, to be a bit out of touch. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m Always On at the office, while travelling in the US, and usually at home and on weekends as well.  And as I’ve said before in various postings (here, here, here, and definitely here), it’s great to completely unplug at least once a year for a peaceful vacation with friends & family.

But last week was a nice lesson in the middle ground.  I had an international cell phone that people at work didn’t seem to want to call, so they could in an emergency, but no one did for routine things.  I was 5-8 hours off on time zones, so people didn’t think to reach out.  I did email once or twice a day when time permitted, so I stayed in good touch, but I wasn’t grinding out email responses on my Treo every time I took a deep breath.

And the company was fine.  As far as I could tell, sales were even up, so maybe I should semi-disappear more often!

Email Marketing Blog

One of my readers just emailed me:

You’ve done a good job talking about first-time CEO experience but not explaining step by step what makes a good email vendor and why returnpath is, thus, the company we should use.  Subtly, over the years, I should have come to know exactly why I’d want to use returnpath…

As I wrote back to him, I’ve deliberately kept my blog away from being a promotional vehicle for Return Path, although I do periodically write about the company in one way or another.  My plan is generally to keep it like that.

In any event, the reader’s note reminded me that I may have a bunch of other readers who don’t realize that Return Path has its own blog, which is a great resource for email marketers large and small alike.  You can get to it on our home page, or the feed URL is here.  We also have a couple email-only options for feed distribution on our site.

A Study In Contrast

We just visited India for a great two weeks of vacation (with one quick business meeting thrown in for good measure).  The most striking part of the country was its seamless transition between  old and new.  Bumpy dirt roads and new, gleaming highways give way to each other at random intervals.  Streets in many cities and most smaller towns are filled with trucks fighting for space with cows, oxen, camels, elephants, dogs, and donkeys.  Ads for cell phones and new Internet cafes are mixed in with storefronts prominently advertising land line phones, since almost no one in outlying areas can afford or has electricity to power an in-home phone.

Anyway, if you’re up for a quick travelog on our personal web site, you’re welcome to have a break and visit India with us.

In Search of Automated Relevance

A bunch of us had a free form meeting last week that started out as an Email Summit focused on protocols and ended up, as Brad put it, with us rolling around in the mud of a much broader and amorphous Messaging Summit.  The participants (and some of their posts on the subject) in addition to me were Fred Wilson (pre, post), Brad Feld,  Phil Hollows, Tom Evslin (pre, post), and Jeff Pulver (pre, post).  And the discussion to some extent was inspired by and commented on Saul Hansell’s article in the New York Times about “Inbox 2.0” and how Yahoo, Google, and others are trying to make email a more relevant application in today’s world; and Chad Lorenz’s article in Slate called “The Death of Email” (this must be the 923rd article with that headline in the last 36 months) which talks about how email is transitioning to a key part of the online communications mix instead of the epicenter of online communications.

Ok, phew, that’s all the background. 

With everyone else’s commentary on this subject already logged, most of which I agree with, I’ll add a different $0.02.  The buzzword of the day in email marketing is “relevance.”  So why can’t anyone figure out how to make an email client, or any messaging platform for that matter, that starts with that as the premise, even for 1:1 communications?  I think about messaging relevance from two perspectives:  the content, and the channel.

Content.  In terms of the content of a message, I think of relevance as the combination of Relationship and Context.  The relationship is all about my connection to you.  Are you a friend, a friend of a friend, or someone I don’t know that’s trying to burrow your way onto my agenda for the day?  Are you a business that I know and trust, are you a carefully screened and targeted offer coming from an affiliate of a business I trust, or are you a spammer? 

But as important as the relationship is to the relevance of your message to me, the context is equally important.  Let’s take Brad as an example.  I know him in two distinct contexts:  as one of my venture investors, and as an occasional running partner.  A message from Brad (a trusted relationship) means very different things to me depending on its context.  One might be much more relevant than the other at any moment in my life.

Channel.  The channel through which I send or receive a message has an increasing amount to do with relevance as well.  As with content, I think of channel relevance as the combination of two things –  device, and technology.  For me, the device is limited to three things, two with heavy overlap.  The first is a fixed phone line – work or home (I still think cell service in this country leaves a lot to be desired).  The second is a mobile device, which could mean voice but could also mean data.  The third is a computer, whether desktop or laptop.  In terms of technology, the list is growing by the day.  Voice call, email, IM, Skype, text message, social network messaging, and on and on.

So what  do I mean about channel relevance?  Sometimes, I want to send a message by email from my smartphone.  Sometimes I want to send a text message.  Sometimes I want to make a phone call or just leave a voicemail.  Sometimes I even want to blog or Twitter.  I have yet to desire to send a message in Facebook, but I do sometimes via LinkedIn, so I’m sure I’ll get there.  Same goes for the receiving side.  Sometimes I want to read an email on my handheld.  Sometimes a text message does the job, etc.  Which channel and device I am interested in depends to some extent on the content of the message, per above, but sometimes it depends on what I’m doing and where I am.

So what?  Starting to feel complex?  It should be.  It is.  We all adjusted nicely when we added email to our lives 10 years ago.  It added some communication overhead, but it took the place of some long form paper letters and some phone calls as well.  Now that we seem to be adding new messaging channels every couple weeks, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to get the relevance right.  Overlaying Content (Relationship and Context) with Channel (Device and Technology) creates a matrix that’s very difficult to navigate.

How do we get to a better place?  Technology has to step in and save the day here.  One of the big conclusions from our meeting was that no users care about or even know about the protocol – they just care about the client they interact with.  Where’s the ultra flexible client that allows me to combine all these different channels, on different devices?  Not a one-size-fits-all unified messaging service, but something that I can direct as I see fit?  There are glimmers of hope out there – Gmail integrating IM and email…Simulscribe letting me read my voicemail as an email…Twitter allowing me to input via email, SMS, or web…even good old eFax emailing me a fax – but these just deal with two or three cells in an n-dimensional matrix.

As our CTO Andy Sautins says, software can do anything if it’s designed thoughtfully and if you have enough talent and time to write and test it.  So I believe this “messaging client panacea” could exist if someone put his or her mind to it.  One of the big questions I have about this software is whether or not relevance can be automated, to borrow a phrase from Stephanie Miller, our head of consulting.  Sure, there is a ton of data to mine – but is there ever enough?  Can a piece of software figure out on its own that I want to get a message from Brad about “running” (whatever channel it comes in on) as a text message on my smartphone if we’re talking about running together the next day, but otherwise as an RSS feed in the same folder as the posts from his running blog, but a voicemail from Brad about “running the company” (again, regardless of how he sends it) as an email automatically sorted to the top of my inbox?  Or do I have to undertake an unmanageable amount of preference setting to get the software to behave the way I want it to behave?  And oh by the way, should Brad have any say over how I receive the message, or do I have all the control?  And does the latter question depend on whether Brad is a person or a company?

What does this mean for marketers?  That’s the $64,000 question.  I’m not sure if truly Automated Relevance is even an option today, but marketers can do their best to optimize all four components of my relevance equation:  content via relationship and context, and channel via device and technology.  A cocktail of permission, deep behavioral analysis, segmentation, smart targeting, and a simple but robust preference center probably gets you close enough.  Better software that works across channels with built-in analytics – and a properly sized and whip smart marketing team – should get you the rest of the way there.  But technology and practices are both a ways off from truly automated relevance today.

I hope this hasn’t been too much rolling around in the mud for you.  All thoughts and comments (into my fancy new commenting system, Intense Debate) are welcome!

Honestly, Why Bother?

We have a small competitor who has, on and off over the years (they just re-did it) blocked access to their corporate web site from one of our offices.  Like we can’t see it from our other offices or from home or from wireless air cards sitting in our offices.  Honestly, why would you bother going to that trouble just to irk a competitor?  I guess I’m glad that’s how they’re spending their available cycles.

Sometimes You Just Need a 2×4 Between the Eyes

Freshman year in college, fall semester, my friend Peggy and I were in a small seminar class together on Dante. We thought we were pretty smart before the class started. And that we were great writers. Lots of As in high school. Then we wrote our first paper. Professor Bob Hollander gave me a C-. I think Peggy got a D. We were devastated. And pissed. Sure, the ensuing cocktail took the edge off (this was college, after all), but we both scheduled time with the professor during his office hours to figure out where our carefully honed academic trains had gone off the tracks.

Essentially what he said to each of us was this (you have to picture the 60-something professor in a turtleneck smoking a pipe with gravely voice for full effect): “Matthew, your writing wasn’t the worst I’ve ever seen. But I feel like you can do better, and sometimes you just need a 2×4 between the eyes.” End of meeting. Thank you, sir, may I please have another?

I couldn’t have been more irritated. But I will tell you one thing. I worked four times as hard on my next paper, got an A-, and elevated my game permanently. Not just for this one class, but for all of them. Bob was right. His 2×4 between my eyes worked.

Sometimes when we deliver performance feedback in business, this approach makes sense. There are times when someone is really doing poorly and needs harsh (fair, but honest) feedback. There are also times when someone is doing so-so but generally just not living up to his or her promise and should be doing better. And in those cases, you have to just make a judgment call about whether to give feedback on the margin or go for the full 2×4 to drive the point home and get someone to really elevate his or her game for good.

Parenting and Corporate Leadership

Let me be clear up front:  I do not think of my colleagues at Return Path as children, and I do not think of Casey, Wilson, and Elyse as employees.  That said, after a couple weeks of good quality family time in January, I was struck by the realization that being a CEO for a long time before having kids has made me a better parent…and I think being a new parent the last three years has made me a better CEO. 

Here's why.  The two roles have a heavy overlap in required core interpersonal competencies.  And doing both of them well means you're practicing those competencies twice as many hours in a week than just doing one – and in different settings.  It's like cross training.  In no order, the cross-over competencies I can think of are…

Decisiveness.  Be wishy washy at work, and the team can get stuck in a holding pattern.  Be wishy washy with kids, they run their agenda, not yours.

Listening.  As my friend Anita says, you have two ears and one mouth for a reason.  Listening to your team at work, and also listening for what's not being said, is the best way to understand what's going on in your organization.  Kids need to be heard as well.  The best way to teach good verbal communication skills is to ask questions and then listen actively and attentively to the responses.

Focus.  Basically, no one benefits from multitasking, even if it feels like a more efficient way of working.  Anyone you're spending time with, whether professionally or at home, deserves your full attention. The reality is that the human brain is full of entropy anyway, so even a focused conversation, meeting, or play time, is somehow compromised.  Actually doing other activities at the same time destroys the human connection.

Patience.  For the most part, steering people to draw their own conclusions about things at work is key.  Even if it takes longer than just telling them what to do, it produces better results.  With kids, patience takes on a whole new meaning, but giving them space to work through issues and scenarios on their own, while hard, clearly fosters independence.

Alignment.  If you and your senior staff disagree about something, cross-communication confuses the team.  If you and your spouse aren't on the same page about something, watch those kids play the two of you off each other.  A united front at the top is key!

I'm sure there are others…but these are the main things that jump to mind.  And of course one can be great in one area without being in the other area at all, or without being great in it.  Are you a parent and a business leader?  What do you think?