A subscriber’s life

A few years back, the idea of having all your music in your pocket was revolutionary. This was the game-changing thought behind the iPod, of course. But at the time, it was not a zero sum game. You’d also have everything on CD, and possibly vinyl. Maybe tape. For a few weeks in 1995, you might also have it on mini disc, DAT or god knows what.

The record labels loved the idea of selling you the same music over and over again, remastered, remixed, repackaged with a couple of dodgy extra tracks, and perhaps – as Morrissey had it – a tacky badge.

And for music fans back then there was more to the physical item than the means of playing the track. In this CNET piece, Eric Carson says you can rip his CD collection from his cold, dead hands. But even reading the article inspires a sort of mild sorrow for whoever has to share Mr Carson’s house.

Last week, I shipped the last of my – once extensive – CD collection to the highest (not very high) eBay bidder. Earlier in the week, I took the copious remainder of the collection of CDs and DVDs that just wouldn’t sell down to a charity shop on Walworth Road. It wasn’t a difficult decision, they’d been in my attic for a decade already. A friend from a nicer part of town tells me his charity shops won’t even take shiny discs any more. No one wants them.

I have to tell you, it didn’t make me feel sad. Not at all. It made feel liberated. Shedding physical possessions, reducing the amount you’d have to load into the transit van if you ever moved again, just feels good. A bit like acquiring them did in the first place, when building a collection was not a curse.

A few photos, some old letters, a phone, some junk in a box, clothes, furniture and a car. Now, everything else can be uploaded to One Drive. But in truth most doesn’t have to be, because it’s on YouTube, or iTunes or music match or some other service.

Our children will never know of the magic madness of jewel cases, gatefolds, CD cleaning spray, scratches, reeling the tape back into a C-90. And in some ways they’re a little poorer for it. But the freedom of not having to cart all this stuff around, that’s a decent swap.

Carson tells us that 51m Americans subscribe to a music streaming service. That’s 1 in 6.

In the same week, Microsoft announced the end of their ebook service. As the BBC points out, when the service closes, any books you bought there vanish. This is a bit like the argument against putting your money in the bank – much better to store it under your mattress – in case the banks go bust. Or in this case, have everything printed on paper and use it to line the walls of your house, in case one of the world’s largest companies bites the dust.

If Amazon goes under, I will loose 100s of books on Kindle. But I’ll just buy them again from someone else if I ever need them. The same with the music and the films. A subscriber’s life may feel more expensive, less secure but when you know every piece of content is a few clicks away, who cares who owns it?

Independence Day

Another great Brexit thing (making 2): this ad for Marmite came out on the day we were originally meant to be leaving the EU. Although of course in the end we just had another vote and then went back to wondering what might happen next.

I was stood on a tube heading through central London this morning reading about Brexit. As we trundled through the various stations, it struck me that this group of people could care less about leaving Europe, staying in Europe, or any of the debate going on a few miles away. The whole thing is a figment of the imagination of the over-privledged  political class. I don’t believe any of my fellow passengers would have thought about Brexit for more than a few minutes in their whole lives if the fake debate hadn’t be cooked up by a bunch of self-interested public school wankers.

The Torries were divided on it in their usual Eton vs Eton debating society way. So they picked a fight to see who would win the cup this year, and dragged everyone else in to it. The primary argument in the debate was that another political elite – the  European politicians – are a bunch of tossers setting silly rules about the shape of bananas and so on, Jean Claude Junker is a bit of a tipsy rude old man and the other one is snarky (although there’s nothing wrong with that). One group of out of touch politicians, criticising another bunch of out of touch politicians, for being out of touch.

So one group of tossers won the debate but it turned out to be less easy to do anything about it, and so they moved on to the next toff-scrap about who would get to hold the conch or whatever it is they do at Eton. To watch the glee with which Johnson and Mogg beamed when they heard the news of May’s demise, there could be no doubting what the real game for these overgrown schoolboys could be.

And yet, on my tube as we went through London, was people of every size, shape, dialect, and presumably bedroom habit. And a bit like Marmite, whether we like or loath the EU, most British people, I think, actually have a lot in common – at the heart of it a view that there is fundamental decency is what we stand for. A kind of pragmatic fairness (such a queuing, putting up with bad weather) is how we do things. And actually it doesn’t matter if people like yeasty spreads or not, or whether they hate or love Paris, Rome, Berlin, Brussels. When provoked, we may have become divided over whether we liked the politicians in Brussels. Now we are united by our lack of respect for politicians of all locations.

I’m not trying to whip up anger, but did anyone other than Gove and Johnson and Farage and Mogg get us into this? And now we see that what most of them really wanted was to be promoted to Prime minister to get us out of it. Surely that’s too much?

Let’s not let this silly public school game divide us. We’re bigger than that. Whatever happens, don’t forget Brexit politics today has become a lark for a group that could care less about the UK and it’s people. They lack the decency that we all share. It is they that should be forced to leave, and we should all be united in voting them out, whether we Brexit or not.


One of the very few good things to come from Brexit is this very interesting piece by David Mitchell on the essentially self-sustaining nature of organisations. Mitchell is a marvelous pedant and a great dis-respecter of institutions. He starts with the Eton motto Floreat Etona; Esto perpetua (Latin for “May Eton flourish and may it last forever”) and goes on to prove that the Tory party and in fact all party politics is a dysfunctional mess. Unfortunately a lesson many don’t need right now.

Isn’t it true though that, for all the branding efforts, launches and relaunches we so often see, the motto of many companies should really be “Let xyz corp flourish” or “We’d rather we still existed next week”. 

Google may have hired some clever johnnies to tell them they were all about “organizing the world’s information” (and, ahem, “do no evil”), but what they appear to mainly be about now is being about. Facebook started out as an attempt for one young man to meet some girls, then became about connecting humanity, and now appears to be about being so mindbogglingly ingratiating that regulators can’t bear to shut them down.

Of course, evolution has always been about survival. The fight for life in species is very visible, very easy to understand. But how and why do companies have this need to self-sustain? And why is that not enough? Why do we feel the need for more, for more meaning. We’re not just here to be here and to make sure that we don’t for any reason stop being here…. We’re here to put a computer on every desk in America. Although now of course we’ve done that, we ‘re here to… um… um. Anyone? Bueller?

That’s right Microsoft’s motto now is: “Be what’s next” (“Microsoft Flourish”)

Panasonic: “A better life, a better world” (and this eye watering explanation of why). They genuinely say this on their website:


Use of “A” in “A Better Life, A Better World”

The inclusion of two A’s in the slogan reminds us that we need to thoroughly consider individual customers. This means that in order to achieve our aim of a truly better life and world, we need to constantly evolve by changing with the times and with the needs of individual customers.

(Lose 2 points for the apostrophe in a plural on the first line).

Trump: “Make America Great Again” (America Flourish)

Reagan (1990): “Let’s make America great again” (America Flourish)

So I’ll update my strap line later from “Observations on strategy, trends and all that” to “Usable interfaces, long may it survive”.

In search of a purpose

I’m an early adopter for these sorts of things. I have mis-spent many hours tinkering and tweaking the early incarnations of this software and that hardware. I own stuff from this brand. And yet I’m still left dumbfounded when I see advertising like this:

What on earth were they thinking?

I’ve been on holiday a few times. I’m sure we all have. When is the last time you thought – whilst sat by a beach or a pool, or scaling the Empire State Building or shopping on 5th Avenue – “I wish I could switch those lights on at home”? From a product perspective this is a ‘problem’ that precisely no one has.

‘Ah’, I hear you thinking. Turning the lights on and off can deter intruders, as if before the Internet of Things, we were all constantly fretting about this need. Get a burglar alarm and some beware the dog stickers first. Perhaps a better lock.

A visit to the Apple store finds a vast array of such pointlessness. A cup that can tell you the heat of its contents. A device to tell you if you’re stood up straight. I’m not joking. No one has figured it out.

There is a minor frisson when a button on the phone turns on the telly and turns down the lights. But I don’t think technology has invented this luxury – they used to have that sort of thing in the Bond movies – just made it a bit cheaper and, frankly, crankier.

Of course I’ll keep fiddling with IoT because I like messing around with new stuff but we are still a long way off a mass market application.

Good health

I had a great time speaking at the Adaptive Lab event Enhancing Innovation in Health Care alongside Adaptive Lab’s Mark Priestly (who was presenting the research behind the event) and Ollie Smith from Guys and St Thomas Charity.

The theme of the presentation was “Mythical Problems”. The idea is the to sum up the absence of product/market fit which lies behind so many failed innovations.

The team at Adaptive has done a great job editing the video. Have a look!


Too much transparency

Hungary: sorry about our prime minister - billboard

This week, this month, we are living through incredibly interesting times. That such a large chunk of the world population has been forced to move is monumentous. Our reaction to it has been perhaps the biggest test of our values (that much overused word) for several generations.

Some have come out looking better than others. Perhaps an interesting twist in stereotypes and history, the Germans and their leader in particular have inspired by compassion today.

And I assume they will continue to do so. Of course, the situation is much more nuanced than just right or wrong, but it has exposed so many base instincts in so many, so many attitudes, so much of cultural dynamics, and of course so much that never changes – our underlying human instincts.

Transparency, in companies, governments and the press is so often given as a universal positive. But in today’s world do we always have to accept that. An MP who was on the right side of the public opinion (and the evil press, personified by the Daily Mail) could be a pariah today.

Is this really the most effective form of government, formenting as it does a preference for point scoring over genuinely solving problems? Here and in the States, we see these structures causing paralysis, not action amongst those charged with leading.

How about this. Every year, rather than four, we hold a vote in the UK (via Facebook, or something) on whether the government is doing a good job overall. And if they’re not, we hold an election. And then we make debates in Parliament subject to Chatham House rules.

I suspect this is more or less the situation we had before round the clock media and a million lobbies on our leaders.

Might it make a difference?

10 years

Over lunch at Dots, Antony and I were reminicising about how we first met. 

Back then, I was the MD of a small digital agency and Antony was something senior in PR. We both worked for the same holding company. We were asked to form a group, along with various others, to figure out what impact the Internet would have on the holding group.

Antony joked yesterday that we were in the group because we knew what a website was. This wasn’t far from the truth. The whole industry was really struggling to adapt to digital. 

But going on from the themes of the conference yesterday: difficulty of change, how we move towards the future and so on, here’s the interesting thought… If we could have told the group back then exactly what was about to happen: from social media to Uber, to hacktivism, to Egyptian revolutions, to how young people are interacting, would we even have been believed?  And would the companies involved managed to cease the opportunity?

Why’s this interesting (to me at least)? Because it underlines that thinking about what is going to happen is not always the problem. Often, it’s reacting to those ideas that is.