service

Please Euthanize This Big Boy Already – How Lack of Innovation Killed Another Giant

Not only did the shift towards digital communication cause a continuing decline in revenues, the lack of innovation caused the U.S. Postal Service to fall far behind able competitors like FedEx, UPS, etc. (lowering prices is not innovation; and delivering 3 days a week is not innovation either.) We are at a point now where if the USPS disappeared, consumers will shift their remaining habits towards digital and existing delivery competitors will (gladly) absorb the incremental business (because they already work the routes anyway, and can even lower prices due to extra volume).

Source: http://bit.ly/9RHDtQ (BusinessWeek)

March 4 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Postal Service, facing a $238 billion budget deficit by 2020, should consider cutting delivery to as few as three days a week as the agency attempts to pare costs, a consulting firm said.

Those cuts are among changes McKinsey & Co. presented in a report this week at a postal conference in Washington. Options also included expanding business lines and restructuring retiree health benefits.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 5th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

the American phone subsidy model is a RAZR way of thinking in an iPhone world

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/editorial-the-american-phone-subsidy-model-is-a-razr-way-of-thi/

The concept is simple enough — pay more, get more. So it has gone (historically, anyway) with phone subsidies in this part of the world, a system that has served us admirably for well over a decade. It made sense, and although it was never spelled out at the customer service counter quite as clearly as any of us would’ve liked, it was fairly straightforward to understand: you bought a phone on a multi-dimensional sliding scale of attractiveness, functionality, and novelty. By and large, there was a pricing scale that matched up with it one-to-one. You understood that if you wanted a color external display, a megapixel camera, or MP3 playback, you’d pay a few more dollars, and you also understood that you could knock a couple hundred dollars off of that number by signing up to a two-year contract. In exchange for a guaranteed revenue stream, your carrier’s willing to throw you a few bucks off a handset — a square deal, all things considered. So why’s the FCC in a tizzy, and how can we make it better?

Continue reading Editorial: the American phone subsidy model is a RAZR way of thinking in an iPhone world

Editorial: the American phone subsidy model is a RAZR way of thinking in an iPhone world originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

"We Are Not Prepared"

Source: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-02/washington-war-games-simulate-crippling-cyber-attack-us

Washington insiders recently sweated out a real-time war game where a cyberattack crippled cell phone service, Internet and even electrical grids across the U.S. The unscripted, dynamic simulation allowed former White House officials and the Bipartisan Policy Center to study the problems that might arise during a real cyberattack emergency, according to Aviation Week’s Ares Defense Blog.

The Policy Center’s vice-president reports “”The general consensus of the panel today was that we are not prepared to deal with these kinds of attacks.”

The nightmarish scenario that unfolded represented a worst-case example. As former secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff noted, many cyberattacks can be stopped if individual cell phone or Internet users simply follow the best practices and use the right tools. Similarly, another participant pointed out that private Internet companies would not sit idly by as a virus ran amok.

A collapse of power across the U.S. also only took place when the simulation brought in factors such as high demand during the summer, a hurricane that had damaged power supply lines, and coordinated bombings that accompanied the cyberattack and subsequent failure of the Internet.

Still, the war game highlighted crucial issues about the government’s own reliance upon communications that might go down during a real-life scenario. One of the biggest problems was how the President ought to respond to a situation that caused damage like warfare but lacked an immediately identifiable foreign adversary. Smaller-scale cyberattacks have already complicated real-world diplomacy, such as the alleged Chinese cyberattacks on Google and other U.S. companies.

Ares Defense Blog questioned a curious missing element from the simulation, in that there was no mention of what happened to phone or Internet service in the rest of the world. Surely a nation that decided to launch cyberattacks against the U.S. would take safeguards to protect its own crucial communication services, which would possibly help U.S. officials narrow down the list of suspects.

Another question seemed more mundane but equally important — how would the government activate the National Guard with cell phone service down?

The Pentagon’s DARPA science lab recently pushed for a “Cyber Genome Program” that could trace digital fingerprints to cyberattack culprits. But identifying whether a cyber attack came from individual civilians, shadowy hacker associations or government cyber-warriors has proven tricky in the meantime.

[via Ares Defense Blog]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 19th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

Aardvark Publishes A Research Paper Offering Unprecedented Insights Into Social Search

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/IMDRrISRf-8/

In 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin published a paper[PDF] titled Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Search Engine, in which they outlined the core technology behind Google and the theory behind PageRank. Now, twelve years after that paper was published, the team behind social search engine Aardvark has drafted its own research paper that looks at the social side of search. Dubbed Anatomy of a Large-Scale Social Search Engine, the paper has just been accepted to WWW2010, the same conference where the classic Google paper was published.

Aardvark will be posting the paper in its entirety on its official blog at 9 AM PST, and they gave us the chance to take a sneak peek at it. It’s an interesting read to say the least, outlining some of the fundamental principles that could turn Aardvark and other social search engines into powerful complements to Google and its ilk. The paper likens Aardvark to a ‘Village’ search model, where answers come from the people in your social network; Google is part of ‘Library’ search, where the answers lie in already-written texts. The paper is well worth reading in its entirety (and most of it is pretty accessible), but here are some key points:

  • On traditional search engines like Google, the ‘long-tail’ of information can be acquired with the use of very thorough crawlers. With Aardvark, a breadth of knowledge is totally reliant on how many knowledgeable users are on the service. This leads Aardvark to conclude that “the strategy for increasing the knowledge base of Aardvark crucially involves creating a good experience for users so that they remain active and are inclined to invite their friends”. This will likely be one of Aardvark’s greatest challenges.
  • Beyond asking you about the topics you’re most familiar with, Aardvark will actually look at your past blog posts, existing online profiles, and tweets to identify what topics you know about.
  • If you seem to know about a topic and your friends do too, the system assumes you’re more knowledgeable than if you were the only one in a group of friends to know about that topic.
  • Aardvark concludes that while the amount of trust users place in information on engines like Google is related to a source website’s authority, the amount they trust a source on Aardvark is based on intimacy, and how they’re connected to the person giving them information
  • Some parts of the search process are actually easier for Aardvark’s technology than they are for traditional search engines. On Google, when you type in a query, the engine has to pair you up with exact websites that hold the answer to your query. On Aardvark, it only has to pair you with a person who knows about the topic — it doesn’t have to worry about actually finding the answer, and can be more flexible with how the query is worded.
  • As of October 2009, Aardvark had 90,361 users, of whom 55.9% had created content (asked or answered a question). The site’s average query volume was 3,167.2 questions per day, with the median active user asking 3.1 questions per month. Interestingly, mobile users are more active than desktop users. The Aardvark team attributes this to users wanting quick, short answers on their phones without having to dig for anything. They also think people are more used to using more natural language patterns on their phones.
  • The average query length was 18.6 words (median of 13) versus 2.2-2.9 words on a standard search engine.  Some of this difference comes from the more natural language people use (with words like “a”, “the”, and “if”).  It’s also because people tend to add more context to their queries, with the knowledge that it will be read by a human and will likely lead to a better answer.
  • 98.1% of questions asked on Aardvark were unique, compared with between 57 and 63% on traditional search engines.
  • 87.7% of questions submitted were answered, and nearly 60% of them were answered within 10 minutes.  The median answering time was 6 minutes and 37 seconds, with the average question receiving two answers.  70.4% of answers were deemed to be ‘good’, with 14.1% as ‘OK’ and 15.5% were rated as bad.
  • 86.7% of Aardvark users had been asked by Aardvark to answer a question, of whom 70% actually looked at the question and 38% could answer.  50% of all members had answered a question (including 75% of all users who had ever actually interacted with the site), though 20% of users accounted for 85% of answers.
Information provided by CrunchBase


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

How Major Labels Cook the Books with Digital Downloads [Digital Downloads]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/jl5xTTh-ZxM/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-digital-downloads

Tim Quirk was the singer of punk-pop outfit Too Much Joy, signed by Warner Bros. in 1990. Now he’s an executive at an online music service, giving him insight on digital sales data and just how labels fudge their numbers.

I got something in the mail last week I’d been wanting for years: a Too Much Joy royalty statement from Warner Brothers that finally included our digital earnings. Though our catalog has been out of print physically since the late-1990s, the three albums we released on Giant/WB have been available digitally for about five years. Yet the royalty statements I received every six months kept insisting we had zero income, and our unrecouped balance ($395,277.18!)* stubbornly remained the same.

Now, I don’t ever expect that unrecouped balance to turn into a positive number, but since the band had been seeing thousands of dollars in digital royalties each year from IODA for the four indie albums we control ourselves, I figured five years’ worth of digital income from our far more popular major label albums would at least make a small dent in the figure. Our IODA royalties during that time had totaled about $12,000 – not a princely sum, but enough to suggest that the total haul over the same period from our major label material should be at least that much, if not two to five times more. Even with the band receiving only a percentage of the major label take, getting our unrecouped balance below $375,000 seemed reasonable, and knocking it closer to -$350,000 wasn’t out of the question.

So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of… $62.47.

What the fuck?

I mean, w! e all kn ow that major labels are supposed to be venal masters of hiding money from artists, but they’re also supposed to be good at it, right? This figure wasn’t insulting because it was so small, it was insulting because it was so stupid.

Why It Was So Stupid

Here’s the thing: I work at Rhapsody. I know what we pay Warner Bros. for every stream and download, and I can look up exactly how many plays and downloads we’ve paid them for each TMJ tune that Warner controls. Moreover, Warner Bros. knows this, as my gig at Rhapsody is the only reason I was able to get them to add my digital royalties to my statement in the first place. For years I’d been pestering the label, but I hadn’t gotten anywhere till I was on a panel with a reasonably big wig in Warner Music Group’s business affairs team about a year ago

The panel took place at a legal conference, and focused on digital music and the crisis facing the record industry**. As you do at these things, the other panelists and I gathered for breakfast a couple hours before our session began, to discuss what topics we should address. Peter Jenner, who manages Billy Bragg and has been a needed gadfly for many years at events like these, wanted to discuss the little-understood fact that digital music services frequently pay labels advances in the tens of millions of dollars for access to their catalogs, and it’s unclear how (or if) that money is ever shared with artists.

I agreed that was a big issue, but said I had more immediate and mundane concerns, such as the fact that Warner wouldn’t even report my band’s iTunes sales to me.

The business affairs guy (who I am calling “the business affairs guy” rather than naming because he did me a favor by finally getting the digital royalties added to my statement, and I am grateful for that and don’t want this to sound like I’m attacking him personally, even though it’s abo! ut to se em like I am) said that it was complicated connecting Warner’s digital royalty payments to their existing accounting mechanisms, and that since my band was unrecouped they had “to take care of R.E.M. and the Red Hot Chili Peppers first.”

That kind of pissed me off. On the one hand, yeah, my band’s unrecouped and is unlikely ever to reach the point where Warner actually has to cut us a royalty check. On the other hand, though, they are contractually obligated to report what revenue they receive in our name, and, having helped build a database that tracks how much Rhapsody owes whom for what music gets played, I’m well aware of what is and isn’t complicated about doing so. It’s not something you have to build over and over again for each artist. It’s something you build once. It takes a while, and it can be expensive, and sometimes you make honest mistakes, but it’s not rocket science. Hell, it’s not even algebra! It’s just simple math.

I knew that each online service was reporting every download, and every play, for every track, to thousands of labels (more labels, I’m guessing, than Warner has artists to report to). And I also knew that IODA was able to tell me exactly how much money my band earned the previous month from Amazon ($11.05), Verizon (74 cents), Nokia (11 cents), MySpace (4 sad cents) and many more. I didn’t understand why Warner wasn’t reporting similar information back to my band – and if they weren’t doing it for Too Much Joy, I assumed they weren’t doing it for other artists.

To his credit, the business affairs guy told me he understood my point, and promised he’d pursue the matter internally on my behalf – which he did. It just took 13 months to get the results, which were (predictably, perhaps) ridiculous.

The sad thing is I don’t even think Warner is deliberately trying to screw TMJ and the hundreds of other also-rans and almost-weres they’ve signed over the years. The reality is more boring, but also more depressing. Like I said, they don’t actually ow! e us any money. But that’s what’s so weird about this, to me: they have the ability to tell the truth, and doing so won’t cost them anything.

They just can’t be bothered. They don’t care, because they don’t have to.

“$10,000 Is Nothing”

An interlude, here. Back in 1992, when TMJ was still a going concern and even the label thought maybe we’d join the hallowed company of recouped bands one day, Warner made a $10,000 accounting error on our statement (in their favor, naturally). When I caught this mistake, and brought it to the attention of someone with the power to correct it, he wasn’t just befuddled by my anger – he laughed at it. “$10,000 is nothing!” he chuckled.

If you’re like most people – especially people in unrecouped bands – “nothing” is not a word you ever use in conjunction with a figure like “$10,000,” but he seemed oblivious to that. “It’s a rounding error. It happens all the time. Why are you so worked up?”

These days I work for a reasonably large corporation myself, and, sadly, I understand exactly what the guy meant. When your revenues (and your expenses) are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, $10,000 mistakes are common, if undesirable.

I still think he was a jackass, though, and that sentence continues to haunt me. Because $10,000 might have been nothing to him, but it was clearly something to me. And his inability to take it seriously – to put himself in my place, just for the length of our phone call – suggested that people who care about $10,000 mistakes, and the principles of things, like, say, honoring contracts even when you don’t have to, are the real idiots.

As you may have divined by this point, I am conflicted about whether I am actually being a petty jerk by pursuing this, or whether labels just thrive on making fools like me feel like petty jerks. People in the record industry are very good at making bands believe they deserve the hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of dollars labels advance th! e musici ans when they’re first signed, and even better at convincing those same musicians it’s the bands’ fault when those advances aren’t recouped (the last thing $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man yelled at me before he hung up was, “Too Much Joy never earned us shit!”*** as though that fact somehow negated their obligation to account honestly).

I don’t want to live in $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man’s world. But I do. We all do. We have no choice.

The Boring Reality

Back to my ridiculous Warner Bros. statement. As I flipped through its ten pages (seriously, it took ten pages to detail the $62.47 of income), I realized that Warner wasn’t being evil, just careless and unconcerned – an impression I confirmed a few days later when I spoke to a guy in their Royalties and Licensing department I am going to call Danny.****

I asked Danny why there were no royalties at all listed from iTunes, and he said, “Huh. There are no domestic downloads on here at all. Only streams. And it has international downloads, but no international streams. I have no idea why.” I asked Danny why the statement only seemed to list tracks from two of the three albums Warner had released – an entire album was missing. He said they could only report back what the digital services had provided to them, and the services must not have reported any activity for those other songs. When I suggested that seemed unlikely – that having every track from two albums listed by over a dozen different services, but zero tracks from a third album listed by any seemed more like an error on Warner’s side, he said he’d look into it. As I asked more questions (Why do we get paid 50% of the income from all the tracks on one album, but only 35.7143% of the income from all the tracks on another? Why did 29 plays of a track on the late, lamented MusicMatch earn a total of 63 cents when 1,016 plays of the exact same track on MySpace earned only 23 cents?) he eventually got to the heart of the matter: “We don’t normally do this for unrecouped bands,” he ! said. “B ut, I was told you’d asked.”

It’s possible I’m projecting my own insecurities onto calm, patient Danny, but I’m pretty sure the subtext of that comment was the same thing I’d heard from $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man: all these figures were pointless, and I was kind of being a jerk by wasting their time asking about them. After all, they have the Red Hot Chili Peppers to deal with, and the label actually owes those guys money.

Danny may even be right. But there’s another possibility – one I don’t necessarily subscribe to, but one that could be avoided entirely by humoring pests like me. There’s a theory that labels and publishers deliberately avoid creating the transparent accounting systems today’s technology enables. Because accurately accounting to my silly little band would mean accurately accounting to the less silly bands that are recouped, and paying them more money as a result.

If that’s true (and I emphasize the if, because it’s equally possible that people everywhere, including major label accounting departments, are just dumb and lazy)*****, then there’s more than my pride and principles on the line when I ask Danny in Royalties and Licensing to answer my many questions. I don’t feel a burning need to make the Red Hot Chili Peppers any more money, but I wouldn’t mind doing my small part to get us all out of the sad world $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man inhabits.

So I will keep asking, even though I sometimes feel like a petty jerk for doing so.


* A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every albu! m sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I’m simply explaining why I’m not embarrassed that I “owe” Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn’t make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn’t lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase “just don’t earn enough” for the word “lose.”

** The whole conference took place at a semi-swank hotel on the island of St. Thomas, which is a funny place to gather to talk about how to save the music business, but that would be a whole different diatribe.

*** This same dynamic works in reverse – I interviewed the Butthole Surfers for Raygun magazine back in the 1990s, and Gibby Haynes described the odd feeling of visiting Capitol records’ offices and hearing, “a bunch of people go, ‘Hey, man, be cool to these guys, they’re a recouped band.’ I heard that a bunch of times.”

**** Again, I am avoiding using his real name because he returned my call promptly, and patiently answered my many questions, which is behavior I want to encourage, so I have no desire to lambaste him publicly.

***** Of course, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive – it is also possible that labels are ! evil and avaricious AND dumb and lazy, at the same time.

Reprinted with permission from Too Much Joy.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Net Promoter Score (NPS) – A Metrics “Sacred Cow” That Should be Slaughtered?

My main issues with the Net Promoter Score (NPS) is that it doesn’t tell me anything new, is based on flawed math, the number cannot stand alone, and is not actionable (does not tell marketers what to go do).

Read More about Net Promoter Score Challenges

Thanks for all the retweets!

ZebraBites@adamferrier Another one for the NPS collection; http://www.clickz.com/3635696 (via @jhenning and @acfou)

acfouIt’s an “it is what it is” metric (which isn’t actionable) – #netpromoterscore #netpromoter #NPS - http://bit.ly/6EYyc

spiralsThought provoking Net Promoter article http://www.clickz.com/3635696 -Good idea to use search as an indicator of customer satisfaction

VirtualMRRT @berniemalinoff: RT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3

seangibRT @glenngabe: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/84Jh2P via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w …

glenngabeWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/84Jh2P via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w/Dr. Fou. :)

MetriclyWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score - http://bit.ly/8U3VVD

christinet6dOh snap… RT @lizapost What’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘http://bit.ly/6EYyc

lizapostWhat’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score’http://bit.ly/6EYyc

berniemalinoffRT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 || healthy debate pros/cons of #NPS

contactjrFrom @acfou: What’s wrong with the Net Promoter Score? http://bit.ly/17ahJC

Noakesi@holycow RT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot#measure

acfouNet Promoter Score (NPS) like brand sentiment scores are oversimplified averages that are not actionable - http://bit.ly/6EYyc

ju2ltdRT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure

jonnylongdenRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail – why use this?

Adtraction_RAJ_What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/17ahJC (mmm)

KarmaMediaLabs#NetPromoterScore not all it’s cracked up to be? Decide for yourself: http://bit.ly/17ahJC

EricheadRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail – why use this?

PeteHealyNet Promoter Score = useless; replace w/ search volume. Augustine Fou @acfou http://www.clickz.com/3635696 Your thoughts? #in

helena_chariRT @mrnews: #NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ http://bit.ly/1DqmgD (via @DavidPenn

makingcjcAn it is what it is” metric…debate on the Net Promoter score. http://www.clickz.com/3635696

DannyGavinRT @EstherSteinfeld Interesting read: “What’s Wrong with the Net Promoter Score?” @acfou says, “So many things.”http://bit.ly/1ojkfk

ZaliciousRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696

hellosmalldogArticle about NPS is interesting – thanks to @mjayliebs for CCing us! We’re reading it now. (via @acfou, @wimrampen)http://tr.im/Fgv3

bigmacherRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696

DavashRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) (http://bit.ly/2h5jot ) #measure [A grad of stats 101 could see all of this]

BobbleHeadGuruRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) (http://bit.ly/2h5jot ) #measure [A grad of stats 101 could see all of this]

EstherSteinfeldInteresting read: “What’s Wrong with the Net Promoter Score?” @acfou says, “So many things.” http://bit.ly/1ojkfk

kevinertellThis is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696

rj_bergGreat article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail

mjayliebsRT @wimrampen: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 (cc @hellosmalldog)

jestodcWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696

jonathanmendez“NPS is what I call an “it is what it is” metric — it tells you the obvious” http://bit.ly/6EYyc

mrnews#NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ http://bit.ly/1DqmgD (via @DavidPenn1@jhenning)

DavidPenn1RT @jhenning RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 Maybe we need to take it less literally?

wimrampenRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3

NicoPeruzziPhDRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 – the emperor has no clothes…

JHenningRT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 Builds on my criticisms with some of his own.

acfouNet Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” (is based on bad math, is not actionable) – what say you? http://bit.ly/6EYyc

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 20th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Your Data’s Probably Gone Forever [Outages]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/BtPKBvdhhc8/t+mobile-sidekick-outrage-your-datas-probably-gone-forever

T-Mobile Sidekick users have been holding out hope that their data might be recovered after T-Mo issued an optimistic message of hope. But the carrier just updated users and admitted the truth: Your shit’s gone. Sorry, guys.

It’s been more than two weeks without data for Sidekick users, and T-Mobile finally bit the bullet and announced that it probably isn’t coming back. The quote:

Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger’s latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device – such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos – that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. That said, our teams continue to work around-the-clock in hopes of discovering some way to recover this information. However, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely low.

This is pretty crappy of T-Mobile and Danger, and while it’s probably unfair to make this connection, doesn’t give us any new confidence in Project Pink, developed by the remnants of Danger after Microsoft acquired it. (After all, Microsoft bought Danger specifically because of their software services. And now, it just goes kablooey?) Renowned Sidekick user and a-hole Perez Hilton, while normally hysteric about just about everything, has the right tone here:

To add insult to injury, the ONLY thing T-Mobile is offering their customers, whom they obviously don’t value or respect, is one month of free data service.

That’s shit!

One month of free data service (which is not the same thing as one month of free phone use) for SEVEN DAYS of heartache and no access to contacts????

That’s fucked!!!!

Really, that’s kind of putting it lightly. [T-Mobile via Boy Genius Report]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 10th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Top Posts – Week Ending August 7, 2009.

  • The JKWeddingDance video was real; the viral effect was MANUFACTURED – Post 1 of 2
  • Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
  • How to manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits – Post 2 of 2
  • The Perfect Babe – Megan Fox (pics)
  • crispin porter bogusky’s beta site
  • What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
  • social media benchmarks
  • Twitter Marketing; Twitter Advertising; Twitter Customer Service
  • Enthusiast digital cameras – super high-speed, high dynamic range, foveon direct capture
  • Brand Gravity attracts new customers and keeps current ones in orbit
  • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Monday, August 10th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

    #whentwitterwasdown – Twitter crippled by massive #ddos (distributed denial of service) attack

    As many of you may have noticed, Twitter was down for many hours starting Thursday morning August 6 and remained intermittent even when it was brought back up. The theory is that this was caused by a massive DDOS attack on their servers including the services that other web applications depended on — that means that outside services (twitter applications) were also taken down.

    For an explanation of denial-of-service attack or distributed-denial-of-service, this is the wikipedia entry. It basically is an attacker using a large number of “zombie” computers to “hit” the victim’s site at the same time, thus overloading it, and causing it to not be able to respond to legitimate traffic.

    ddos-diagram

    Full Coverage of the Social Media DDoS (Source: Mashable)


    Is Cyber Warfare to Blame for Twitter Meltdown?

    Denial of Service Attacks Being Investigated by Google, Twitter, Facebook

    Facebook Problems Also the Result of DDoS Attack

    Twitter Outage Explained: What’s a Distributed Denial of Service Attack (DDoS)?

    Twitter Down Due to Denial of Service Attack (DDoS)

    Facebook Down. Twitter Down. Social Media Meltdown.

    Twitter Down: Twitter Doesn’t Know Why

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Friday, August 7th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments