NOVEMBER 7, 2008

I am big fan of internet snooping. It never ceases to amaze me, what I can learn about people through a simple Google search. I’ve tracked down wayward college classmates for our alumni website. I once planned a reunion for a summer journalism program I attended in 1986 and tracked down, online, almost 75% of the people who attended.  And that was all before Facebook and LinkedIn, two sites that have made internet snooping even richer.  It’s no surprise that it has been over two years since Merriam-Webster added the verb “to google” to the dictionary. Googling has become a way of life.

This week I came across an interesting angle on the Google culture.  Buried underneath all of the election news was this article in The Washington Post (and printed in various other papers) about litigation consultants using the internet to get information about potential jurors. For example, a trial consultant working for a client involved in a patent case learned via a potential juror’s website that she “had spent a lifetime marketing exclusive sequined gowns for beauty contestants, only to have them copied without compensation.” Clearly, she was a good jury candidate for a client bringing a patent suit, given her sympathy for intellectual property holders alleging infringement.

According to the article:

Now, with a wealth of information online - newspaper letters to the editor, petition signatures, club memberships, campaign contributions - retrievable with a couple of keystrokes, Internet surfing can produce a detailed picture of how an individual votes, spends money and sounds off on controversial issues.

For some reason, this development doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t fault the lawyers for using these tools to learn all they can about jurors - I wouldn’t expect them to shy away from a free resource that offers significant insight into the minds of the individuals in whose hands their clients’ fate rests. But I can’t shake a nagging feeling that this is not what the jury system was supposed to be built on. Jurors are basically supposed to be anonymous and seemingly impartial, and the Google effect basically makes that impossible.  Lawyers can now practically custom design their ideal jurors, based not just on demographic data and courtroom demeanor, but also on the jurors’ own thoughts, history, and actions.

Just another byproduct of the Information Age? A troubling intrusion into personal privacy? Or a fundamental flaw in our judicial system?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 5, 2008

I really like JetBlue. Not just because of the comfortable seats, in-flight DirectTV, or even because of the cool events the company sponsors (although I was lucky enough to have one hosted near me recently). I like them because of this:

Subject:  Our Apologies…

Earlier this afternoon, I had received a JetBlue promotional email - a fairly regular occurrence as part of my membership in the company’s frequent flier program, TruBlue. I thought the subject line was great and suited JetBlue’s typical, laid-back style. But, when I was opened it, I was disappointed to see who it was addressed to:

Subject: It’s been awhile… we miss you.

I initially wondered if the company was making some bizarre attempt to be cute & random by addressing to me as ”Soandso”. (Some marketing can be a little out there.) But, the “Mr.” confirmed that there was no way this email was meant for me. I’m not particularly sensitive, but this lack of personalization bothered me - and evidently it bothered a few other people as well. I immediately shared the email with my co-workers, looked up the email address of a friend who works with the company, and contemplated sending him an note about it. 

That is until I checked my email again and found the apology.

Maybe it’s because I’m still coming out the election day haze - a time when we all were bombarded with messages revealing alleged secrets and half-truths - but I find this prompt apology incredibly refreshing.  Received just about an hour and half after the Mr. Soandso message, email #2 was simple and refreshingly straightforward: We screwed up and we’re sorry for it.

I don’t always expect companies to be perfect, but sadly, I do expect that most companies would try to cover tracks and bury mistakes. That is why acts of honesty and transparency stand out. You’re having a hard time? Tell us. You messed up? Admit it.

Because in most cases, we’ll like you even more.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

About a year or so ago, I had my first opportunity to try Verizon’s FIOS service. A bundle package that included phone, internet, and TV, was priced comparably to Comcast, which was my provider at the time.

It took me about five seconds to realize what a good decision I had made. My internet connection speed just about tripled. My (standard definition) TV looked remarkably crisp and clear, and the DVR was more responsive and functional than the one I had traded in from the cable company. Phone service is phone service, but we had the added convenience of a single bill for all of our telecommunications, including our cell phones, which we also obtained service for from Verizon. To top it off, customer service seemed responsive, and when we had trouble, it never took long to fix it.

Then we moved. FIOS wasn’t available at the new place.  We had to go back to Comcast, and after a fiasco with their billing system that left us fighting with them over obstinately charging us for services we had long since canceled, we were none too happy about it.

Our install didn’t go well. It was done clumsily, with cable strewn across the living room. The DVR didn’t work. On top of it, we were charged an outrageous install fee, amounting to several hundred dollars.

I made a complaint about the quality of service we were getting from Comcast on a blog, and I was surprised to get a response from a Comcast executive named Frank Eliason.  He wrote:

On behalf of Comcast, I would like to apologize for the service that you received. When someone is moving, the last thing they need is to “fight” with the cable company. I will be reaching out to you to see if I can assist further and learn more about your experience.

Thank you for being a Comcast Customer!
Frank Eliason

I thought it was a scam at first, so I Googled him. I found him doing the same thing on a number of other blogs. Then, I got an e-mail from him. I responded, told him what was wrong, and within 24 hours he had people from our local Comcast office hopping to get things fixed. He issued a credit that took care of our billing, and gave me a personal number to reach him in case we had more problems (which we did). Every time, he was willing to help - quickly and cheerfully. He even called me from his home phone one night  and talked to me for the better part of an hour about reputation management, his reasons for helping customers complaining on blogs, and the willingness his company was beginning to demonstrate to right their customer service wrongs. He was a lone crusader, it seemed, out there fighting to improve his company’s image. And with me, at least, it was working.

You couldn’t find a better brand ambassador. Frank Eliason single handedly restored my willingness to work with a company that I had all but sworn I would never do business with again.  Over time, he’s begun to earn a reputation for working to restore trust with consumers who were simply fed up with the service (or lack thereof) they were receiving. Customers aren’t stupid - they know when a company like Comcast is the only provider in their area, and it’s insulting when representatives act like that means good service is optional. Having someone with the power to fix it reach out to you instantly changes your relationship with the company - you go from powerless to powerful, and that leaves a strong, positive impression.

Now my family and I face a new dilemma. Having found an opportunity to live closer to work, school, and all that we do, we’ve moved yet again (hopefully the last one for a while). This time, Comcast isn’t an option, but FIOS (and another cable provider) are both available. The decision to choose FIOS was easy. They offer better product, better service, and better price than the competition.

But there’s a catch: The customer service end seems to have gone downhill.  Our original order somehow never got processed, and our new order will take 10 days to fulfill. That’s 10 days without essential communications in a family that does a lot of business over the internet and telephone. My wife, who works from home, has had to drag the kids to the local McDonald’s parking lot every morning since we moved in just to pick up a free WiFi signal so she can check her e-mail. When I’m at home, I can’t access my work e-mail, the blogs I contribute to, or my grad school course materials. (And for heaven’s sake, we missed the season premiere of House.)

And yet, this time, I’m willing to put up with it, instead of going to the competitor. FIOS may not be the only provider I have available, but they’re the only provider who can give me what I really want in terms of product. I’m getting the feeling that they know it, and that means good service is optional. It’s not a position that I, as a customer, like to be in.

Although I never thought I’d say it, perhaps Verizon should borrow a page from Comcast’s playbook. That, or make an offer to Frank Eliason.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 26, 2008

With technology, it seems you can be everywhere you want to be.  Can’t make it to a class?  Take one online.  Can’t drive down to check out a new neighborhood?  Take a Street View tour.  There’s no excuse anymore not to “attend” church when it’s streaming online!  Can’t go to a funeral in Idaho, watch it online.  Yep, that’s right… online funerals.  The Associated Press reports that Downard Funeral Home is now posting funerals online for those who can not attend.  According to the report:  

“‘There’s no charge to the families,’ Lance Peck, funeral home owner, told the Idaho State Journal. ‘It’s just part of the service.’  He said the services remain online for 90 days, and that an e-mail is sent to family members who can assign a password so only those the family wants to view the ceremony have access.” 

Not only does technology allow us to be everywhere we want to be, but places we weren’t previously allowed.  The Sunday Times reports on a new high tech restaurant with touch screen table tops that allows you to scroll through the menu, order, get the bill, play games, and peak at what is going on in the kitchen.  Now you can know what’s really cooking in the kitchen!  Want to see how your art collection was made? This cool site allows you to watch live glass blowing in Tacoma.   

Companies are thinking of new ways to get customers involved and consumers are expecting more and more access.  It seems there will be nothing off limits to consumers in the future.  If something is going on, we want to see it.  I just have one question.  Will anyone actually be at my funeral?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 14, 2008

If you have 4 minutes and 29 seconds to spare, I strongly suggest you spend it watching this video, posted last week on one of my favorite blogs, HorsePigCow.

In case you need a little more convincing, this quote from Threadless Founder/CEO Jake Nickell explains why learning more about this unique, Chicago-based company is worth your time:

I think in order to love a company, which is kind of like a weird thing, the first thing is you have to be able to trust the company. And I think since we keep our business so transparent – everybody knows exactly what we do and what our intentions are… if our intentions aren’t true to what we’re saying then our community is no longer interested and they can destroy us.

If Threadless isn’t the perfect example of shared ownership of a brand, I don’t know what is. It’s a fascinating case study because the company believes in complete transparency and community participation — and actually puts the concepts into practice. The result is customers who feel personally invested in the company’s success and have a deep sense of brand loyalty. In fact, Threadless is so centered on community that its customers actually define who it is:

…when you get to know the members of the community, you just learn so much more about your own business that you wouldn’t even think of without talking to them.  

Watch the video… Threadless is a rare breed.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 24, 2008

The term “Web 2.0″ has been used many times to describe the current iteration of online communications.  Here are a few definitions of Web 2.0 that I found online:

• Web 2.0 is all the websites out there that get their value from the actions of users. (Information Week)
• Web 2.0 is the popular term for advanced Internet technology and applications including blogs, wikis, RSS and social bookmarking. . . . One of the most significant differences between Web 2.0 and the traditional World Wide Web (retroactively referred to as Web 1.0) is greater collaboration among Internet users and other users, content providers, and enterprises. (WhatIs.com)

• Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. Web 2.0 basically refers to the transition from static HTML Web pages to a more dynamic Web that is more organized and is based on serving Web applications to users. (Webopedia).

These definitions tend to fall into two camps: those that focus on the changing technology of the web - static vs dynamic; and those that focus on the effect of that change - one-way communication vs. collaboration and dialogue.

Regardless of the definition, Web 2.0 has significantly impacted how organizations and people talk to each other.  One byproduct has been the erosion of the traditional power structure between buyers and sellers, companies and consumers.  Message boards, blog review sites, customer feedback and ratings systems - these very public avenues for consumers to express their thoughts and opinions weren’t around ten years ago.  They have become go-to sources of information and authority about everything from cars, electronics and movies to political candidates.

I’ve always seen this Web 2.0 thing as a leveler - one that puts buyers and sellers in equivalent positions with each other.  However, I recently learned of a policy change at eBay that suggests that ground is shifting again - this time in favor of consumers. 

Historically, eBay sellers and buyers have each been able to leave feedback, with the seller and buyer in each transaction rating things like the speed of shipping/payment, the quality of the goods shipped, the level of communication between the parties, etc.  Recently, however, after learning that buyers were afraid of retaliation by low-rated sellers, eBay decided to stop allowing sellers to leave negative feedback about buyers. 

This means that sellers who have negative experiences with buyers - ones who don’t pay, for example - have no recourse against those buyers, at least not a public one.  Buyers, meanwhile, have no restrictions on the type of feedback they can leave for sellers. This seems unfair to me, and certainly not in the spirit of Web 2.0.  This policy puts us back in the world of one-way communication, not that of information-sharing dialogue.

 The Fivecentnickel blog agrees:

While I can understand their reasoning, this change creates an uneven playing field, where sellers with excellent reputations can be held hostage by buyers with unreasonable expectations. Let’s say that something gets lost or delayed in the mail. In the past, the buyer was more likely to follow up with the seller and try to work things out, as they didn’t want to jump straight to negative feedback and receive the same thing in return. But now buyers are free to fly off the handle without trying to get things resolved.

Here’s a Washington Post column on the topic as well. According to the column, many sellers have launched boycotts of eBay in response to this new policy. 

I’m curious - are there other signs out there of shifts in balance that disadvantage sellers or companies? Is this part of a larger trend, or is it an isolated example?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 4, 2008

Thanks to the prevalence of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, privacy remains a popular topic for discussion. 

It’s not unusual to scroll through my friends’ online profiles and see wild pictures from events like bachelorette parties in Vegas.  By posting these pictures, my friends - who see these sites as an informal way to escape from their busy workdays or stressful lives - are creating profiles that they wouldn’t be comfortable sharing with co-workers or employers.  And, as more employers are turning to these sites to filter out potential employees, some people are regretting their self-created online reputations.  

Michael Fertik, CEO of Reputation Defender, a company that tracks down and filters out embarrassing online-information, says: 

“Complete transparency is great for the Internet, but not when it comes to your personal life.” 

Young people who virtually grew up online should be expert in segregating public and private information.  However, instead, my generation is perhaps the most relaxed about posting personal information online; we are accustomed to it, and some see it as completely acceptable. 

Facebook and MySpace are constantly updating and re-working privacy policies to help protect users, but control ultimately lies in the hands of the individual. In my experience, the best advice is to be careful about what you put online and leave the embarrassing pictures offline.  The last thing you want is for something damaging about you to end up on a potential employer’s desk. 

When in doubt, just leave it out.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 16, 2007

One thing that we as consumers are beginning to appreciate is the concept of transparency.  We like to feel as if we can find out as much as possible about the products or services we chose to have in our lives, and we love when companies go out of their way to make this possible.

A great example of this is a Springwise post I found about "full provenance sweaters" from the Netherlands.  A company called Flocks by designer Christien Meindertsma gives out specific details to customers about the animal who provided wool for the products purchased.  Each item is tagged with an animal ID number as well as a certificate and picture.  You can even find out about the weight, breed, and birthplace of the sheep that made your sweater possible. 

Our priorities are changing and we are willing to pay a little bit more if we feel more in control of what we buy.  Technology is making it easier for us to feel connected and for us to understand the details that make products unique.  It will be interesting to see if this trend continues to maintain similar levels of popularity in the years to come.  While price seems to play the largest role in overall product selection, transparency often is a little detail that can make a big difference.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 24, 2007

Our colleague Sandy Moore writes about her experience with a service that’s basically local, word-of-mouth (via the Internet), and all about crowdsourcing.  The key to Angie’s List is the trust Sandy has in other consumers like herself   –Nellie Lide

I’m pretty good at juggling – a fulltime job, two kids, husband with long hours, new puppy (who is sick and needs antibiotics twice a day which no one can get him to swallow but me), plus the weekly soccer practice-ballet lesson-Girl Scout meeting-playdate scheduling and overall “stuff” coordination required as a 21st century working parent.  I do the meal planning – my husband does the grocery shopping.  I do the babysitter scheduling and payment – he is the IT person.  I mow and garden – he goes to Home Depot.  We both try to get the car into the shop every once in awhile.

What baffles us is basic home maintenance.  Oh, I can change an air filter or two, lower the temperature on the hot water tank, or even stop the toilet from running, but electrical projects overwhelm me, as do any tasks that require sanding, sealing, or standing on tall ladders.  Luckily, there is a terrific website called Angie’s List that ranks service companies based on geographic region.  Say you live in Silver Spring, Maryland and you have termites.  Just type in “Pest Control / Exterminating” and your address and 10 bug-elimination companies pop up, complete with contact information, grades from A to F and local reviews.

I think of Angie’s List as an online Consumer Reports customized to my neighborhood.  In the past six months, I’ve hired an electrician, roofer, handyman, exterminator, fence-builder and pet-walking service.  I’ve taken my car to a recommended mechanic and my dog to a recommended vet.  I always mention that I found them through Angie’s List; some respond positively, some are surprised to find out they are listed and some do not know what Angie’s List is.

Here is what it is – a privately held for-profit company founded by an Indianapolis entrepreneur named Angela Hicks.  She started her first chapter in Columbus, Ohio, in 1995.  According to the website, more than 20,000 people use the service, members submit 5,000 reports a month, and overall there are more than half a million members in 124 cities.  You can join for $6.95 a month or $53 dollars a year, plus a $10 sign-up fee.  It has only been available in Washington since January of 2006.  A Washington Post July 2006 article described it as:

“…a very large community bulletin board where neighbors exchange references and anecdotes about carpenters, roofers, landscapers and appliance stores.” Companies do not pay to be on the list but can run ads in a hard-copy magazine sent by snail mail. 

Over the years, I have used the non-profit Washington Consumers’ Checkbook which rates local services, but there are differences.  The hard copy comes out twice a year and while the website is available all the time, it is only updated every six months.  Services fall into six categories:  Cars & trucks, Your Home, Health Care (including doctors and hospitals, not available on Angie’s List), Getting Things Fixed, Personal Services and Other (banks, hardware stores, etc.)  Overall, Checkbook has fewer categories of services but significantly more reports on each.  The auto body section alone contains 150 different outlets with ten ratings each.  It is also cheaper at $34 for a two-year subscription.

Angie’s List has saved me more than once.  The week before Thanksgiving, my washer and dryer died.  I bought a new set but apparently the power required was greater than my circuit box was willing to provide.  I had two weeks of laundry piled up, a traveling husband and a houseful of guests arriving in days.  I found a local electrician who replaced my system the next day, wrapping up at 8:00 pm.  He was great but a bit expensive, which I reported in my online evaluation.  Obviously Internet savvy, he gave me a hard time at the next electrical emergency:  “I can’t believe you said I was expensive!”  Reviews clearly are not anonymous.

If you have a problem, there is a dispute resolution service.  That has not happened to me yet but is a reassuring thought.  You can also give a membership as a gift.  My mother-in-law asked me to look up local contractors so often that I bought her a membership for Christmas.  How else can you track down someone who will rebuild your brick fireplace?

My membership lasts another six months.  I don’t know if I’ll renew –
It depends on what services I’ll need at that time.  I thought I’d rely on it for home maintenance, but with categories like insurance agencies, mulch and topsoil and piano tuning, the categories – and the home/life improvement projects – are endless.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 24, 2007

Dale Peskin of ifocus describes of "a generation of wired witnesses." 

Watching events unfold, the shift in the power of media was perceptible. Traditional broadcasters and publishers competently covered the tragic events in Blacksburg. But the story belongs to Virginia Tech students. They were at once reporters, witnesses and subjects of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. It was like watching a new kind of reality show where the stars used their devices, their social networks, and their wits to survive and to cope.

Virginia Tech’s students shined even as it they were portrayed as victims. One articulate student-witness set the record straight while being interviewed by a testy CNN reporter. “Don’t you get it?” he asked the reporter. “Its our story, not yours.”

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]