Playing with fire

It's old news now, but I have been thinking about why Vodafone has been running its high risk campaign about it's 3G network that has led to Telecom launching its Commerce Commission action.

If you've missed it, here's the background...

Vodafone's Christmas campaign is all about coverage this year with a tag line of 'NZ's largest and fastest 3G network*' with the asterisk linking to a disclaimer that this is 3G based on W-CDMA coverage.

Technically this is all true - Vodafone have the only W-CDMA network in NZ.

Of course this would be fine if Telecom NZ didn't have 3G network (it does) nor if it's coverage was greater (it is) nor if the speed comparisons were unequivocal (they are equivocal as Vodafone does not have its top speed rolled out everywhere)

Which is why Telecom has taken its commerce commission action.  

One of the sideshows of this has been the pissing contest taking place on Geekzone, which is the wrong place for a PR guy to get cute about what Telecom has said about its current (larger) 3G network which it is about to replace with a newer, faster  3G network. Suggesting that there is a like with like comparison on  a network that hasn't been built and ignoring the current network as it is due to be replaced is just madness. Especially since the current network is still being offered to customers.

I've been in a position where I have provided expert evidence at the Advertising Standards Complaints Authority and the Environment Court. These are not places for bluff and bluster. The Commerce Commission is probably worse. A few well chosen questions and your evidence will be treated with contempt. Placing your corporate view on public sites like Geekzone is great when you are talking about your own company, but taking your competitor's statements and using them for your own justification is really unwise with this type of action looming. I hope for Paul's sake it doesn't get used against him as it would undo all the good work he has done to date being Vodafone's online presence - but I digress, that's not the point I am trying to make.

Here are my points

1. Vodafone *must* have known this action was coming - as I have said 3 things matter to customers on mobile. Coverage, Handsets and Price. Telecom will not give up its local coverage advantage easily as it is pretty much all it has to offer right now. The action was inevitable.

2. Vodafone can't possibly think it will win this - all Telecom has to do is prove to the commerce commission that 

a. EVDO is 3G; and

b. The majority of customers could be misled by this as they don't know what WCDMA is (especially non Vodafone customers who are clearly the target for this campaign). The only people who know are on Geekzone - that's a few thousand- the rest has no idea whether a 1.25 MHz channel or 5MHz channel matter in this debate.

They would have to seriously under-rate the technical evidence coming from Telecom to take this on. It's a pretty simple case and there are still experienced people at Telecom to take this on.

3. The outcomes for Vodafone aren't pretty

a. The maximum fine is $200 k - they would stand to get whacked with all of this

b. The greater cost is the campaign cost - in the best possible outcome, they would have to modify the campaign (maybe to fastest only, or if they were smart, emphasising global 3G coverage. Worst case they would have to pull the lot - that's millions.

c. Which leads to Brand costs - getting nailed on this would put Vodafone squarely into the camp of other large corporates who are just trying to use confusion to gain marketing advantage. Remember that?

d. Worst of all for Vodafone, Telecom would get some confidence, which it badly needs.

4. At best this was only going to be a short term campaign - Telecom's launch of its WCDMA network will give it a coverage advantage based on exactly this proposition. Until Vodafone launches its 900MHz WCDMA at which point it will all be the same.

5. Vodafone have a handset portfolio which is so large compared to Telecom's currently it is embarrassing. Vodafone have 49 on the books and have a bunch of parallel importers as well. Telecom list 22 - but it doesn't take a lot to realise that these are seriously outmoded. If they were playing football, Telecom would be completely within its rights to ask a few players to swap teams at half time just to make a game of it. 

So it seems to be high risk for limited reward. For Vodafone to success against the commerce commission, Telecom would have to end up crying on the stand that they never really had 3G, the ITU got its standards wrong, and it had mis-measured coverage and all it had to offer in mobile for now is legal action. Even then the Commerce Commission might take some pity on them.

So that leaves me with these questions.

Why run a campaign on coverage that is so tenuous and so clearly short-lived?

 Are Vodafone that keen to have a marketing advantage on coverage that they would take this sort of risk?

Why not play to your strengths which are handsets and global 3G? This would just ram Telecom as these will continue to be core advantages for sometime after Telecom launches its new network.

Who is giving these guys advice? This took me less than an hour to come up with - and the Geekzoners have been on the money as well. Maybe they are not taking any advice?

Have engineers taken over the marketing team at Vodafone? I thought the industry pretty much agreed years ago after the Qualcomm patent wars that it didn't matter if it was W-CDMA, CDMA2000 or 4G - customers just don't care so long as they are getting the service where they want it.

I think this is similar to the iPhone situation earlier this year - Vodafone are so looking to land a king hit on Telecom that they have lost sight of how to do this without misleading customers. Sticking with their core advantages may not be sexy but it would leave them with a very strong position and no risk.

The only other strategy they could possibly have is force Telecom to launch early with an underbaked network which will take them years to recover from. Given Telecom delayed launch until mid 2009 that isn't going to happen.

My call - Commerce Commission will rule against Vodafone - Vodafone will have to pay the fine and pull the campaign. I'll put a bottle of good quality scotch on that for any takers.

This leaves the door open for Telecom to innovate - ideally on data rates - with their new network. I think Vodafone will find that with all the changes at Telecom at the head of Mobile they are probably safe on that front for a while.

You know your blog has made it when...

You get comment spam ?

Or what about a comment that seems somehow relevant but is basically a poorly disguised link to an ipod battery site?

This comment at least said I have a nice blog...

Save yourself the trouble and don't bother with their site - pic below is all you need.

Feel free to advise on how to stop this type of rubbish...

O for Oarsome

Got a heads up on this book a couple of weeks back from this guy.

I worked with Kevin at Telecom and was stunned at his story then - rowing across the Atlantic after living the corporate lifestyle. This book was actually stolen from his car (on his laptop) while at Telecom so I guess he wrote it all again. He left Telecom and went to the South Pole unaided and now does public speaking gigs - also impressive considering the speech impediment. Sometimes when he was sitting in the office in Auckland blocking out the world with blu-tack in his ears you could see how someone could be focussed enough to make it happen.

 I love this 150 word summary of the book

“I have a traumatic pizza ordering experience and stop being immortal. I quit my job, leave my girlfriend, sell my house and go live with Mum. I watch a lot of daytime TV. The ‘How's Life' show decides that I row the Atlantic. I team up with the original Naked Rower, we struggle to raise money and start building the boat, I start training insanely and nearly lose the plot. Find another rower, lose another rower, get another rower. Start the race (badly). Row into storm. Take the lead. Row. Lose the lead. Row. Row harder. Nothing happens. Row until we hallucinate. We start to close in! Seats break. Rudder breaks. Another storm. Neck and neck as we sprint to the finish. Capsize and thrown out of the boat. Get back in. Get to Barbados first! Yay! Get protested a gainst. Boo! Win at the protest hearing. Still living with Mum.”

There are quite a few extracts from the book on the site - the section about how he decides to row the TransAtlantic race as a result of his concerned Mum's question to How's Life is too funny. 

Make a great gift for someone going through a mid-life crisis.

Telecom, Kevin Roberts and Brand

I noticed with interest the appointment of Kevin Roberts to the Board of Telecom. Looks like I am not the only one as well.

I have had some limited contact with Kevin during my time at Telecom - the most interesting being a 2 day workshop where we tried to discover the key purpose of Telecom. Fascinating and inspirational. I've also worked with a lot of Saatchi's people, most recently Saatchi X who are (in my opinion) world-class Retail designers - they get the whole notion of designing Retail for customers. This is to the extent where they went around a bunch on NZ stores and just watched what customers did before leaping into any design work. Much better than what you would expect from a normal ad agency. So I have a lot of respect for the work that Saatchi can do to communicate a brand.

A few things I noted from yesterday

1. Governance - Kevin says that he is privileged to contribute to the governance of Telecom. I was very pleased to see this. Kevin has spent a lot of time through Saatchi and Saatchi advising Telecom directly on Brand Communications. Saatchi's has been Telecom's key agency as long as I was there (15 years). This Board role has to be separate from that - good to see he gets that. I do wonder how Telecom can get the full benefit of his brand expertise as both a director and its number 1 supplier , surely this starts to become a conflict of interest? Will be interesting to see how it is managed.

2. Comments about the lack of marketing and brand expertise on the Telecom Board. Wayne Boyd himself says that Kevin will bring Brand and Marketing expertise, as well as customer satisfaction skills. There is already significant brand and marketing expertise on the Telecom board with Rod McGeogh (anyone who can lead a successful bid for the Sydney Olympics knows how to execute a marketing strategy) and Ron Spithill (global marketing manager Alcatel). This may signal even more of a marketing focus for Telecom. However, given Kevin (through Saatchi and Saatchi) is already providing Telecom's brand execution, how much more can he offer than this? And is this really the problem?

3. The Telecom brand - the Radio NZ interview with Wayne Boyd yesterday included some commentary along the lines of 'if Telecom got its Brand and Marketing right then shareholder benefits will follow'. This is not a Wayne Boyd quote but a reporter's quote. This is mostly right but not completely.

In my opinion, Brand is the promise that you make explicitly and implicitly to your customers. Everything they see, touch, hear and feel when they interact with you defines the Brand. It's not that complex a concept (although it is difficult to tell a good story in a short period of time and keep your business in sync with it) and Telecom has been really good at making these promises and communicating them through its marketing and PR efforts supported by Saatchi. It invests a lot into this, wins global awards and therefore this is not where it falls over. 

Where it needs the most effort is in the delivery of the promise. In my mind this is where Telecom really needs to look in terms of its leadership. Telecom needs to make promises that it keeps - its recent brand damage has been caused by saying one thing and doing another. This is the long hard road to rebuilding brand equity.  Where is that leadership coming from?

I have been thinking about brand, marketing and customers for a while now and have a small series of posts that I think will help explain this further. Kevin talks about the whole notion of Lovemarks superceding brands - my view is that is a bit glib. Love is damned easy to talk about but really hard to build. 30 second ads and stories don't cut it in my mind - but more for a later post.

There - I've made a promise, time to deliver on it.

Disclaimer: I hold Telecom shares and have spent a lot of time trying to build a view and product set in Telecom that says if you do right by customers, then you'll get great results. I really want to see Telecom become a loved brand in NZ again.

Vodafone offers 'cheaper' iPhone data plans

After significantly reducing the trust of its customers, Vodafone has offered new data plans for the iPhone in NZ.

The Good

- Customers who bought iPhones under old plans can change 

- Vodafone appears to have listened to customers when shaping these plans

The Bad

- It's a small incremental change at the margin - monthly fee reductions with corresponding voice minutes and txt quota reductions.

- Customers remain disappointed from the early promise and there is no apology for that disappointment. Possible that Vodafone think they have got away with this. Especially since plan changes can incur a penalty.

- There is no high end plan that offers good value. In fact no high-end plan at all above 1GB.

My thoughts

- My pick is that Apple have forced this change - this is only incremental and comments on stuff and Geekzone seem to represent the tone.

- Vodafone NZ is in the dogbox with Apple - supply is being drip-fed to them (confirmed from two separate sources)

- It is going to require a lot more changes along these lines to regain customer trust for Vodafone. Expect to see more incremental changes.

- An opportunity still exists for Telecom to shake up the mobile data market and take some seriously high ground.

Why Vodafone introduced the NZ iPhone plans

There is a very clear reason why Vodafone introduced the initial contract plans for the iPhone - reducing ARPU for postpaid customers.

This article suggests postpaid ARPU fell around 10% in the quarter. Ugly. Driven by the current economic situation as opposed to the competitive situation, in my opinion.

That being the case, iPhone presented an opportunity for Vodafone to increase ARPU through higher rate plans with a lower initial hurdle. All very sensible but as we know the marketing execution did not have the intended result.

I had a look at the Vodafone site today to check my facts on the iPhone plans - being offline for a couple of weeks I missed that the high end plan that caused all the angst seems to have been removed and it is much clearer that you can use other existing Vodafone plans. I was going to say that Vodafone had introduced these plans purely for raising ARPU but it appears that they listened (to some extent) to their customers post-launch and at least tightened up the information. 

Related I heard a rumour (unsubstantiated) that they are in the dog-box with Apple as a result of the negative publicity around the iPhone release. Probably opens up another window for Telecom as I assume being in the Apple dog-box means that iPhone stock allocation from Steve Jobs is not forthcoming...

At least he doesn't expect much

If you subscribe to Seth Godin's marketing philosophy, marketing is about telling stories with customers. Ideally it is about creating stories with customers. Its a philosophy that is really powerful and emotive - and links to but is not driven by analytics. I was involved in a conversation with a marketing professional today who really wants to engage with his customers more. He is really keen and wants to make a difference and he knows a lot.

1. He knows who he wants to tell his story too
2. He knows, to a broad extent, what his story is - but I am not sure if he believes it. He knows he has to tell this story but that's not the same as believing the story
3. He knows where he wants to shift his customer's perception to and where his customers perception was - in an analytical and emotional sense
4. He knows when he wants to tell his story
5. He knows how he wants his story told

The things I don't get are this
- he wants someone else to tell his story for him to his customers
- he doesn't have time to share his stories with his customers himself-
- he is happy to invest in a heap of market research to tell him months after the fact what his customers think and feel about his story, rather than hearing it from him direct
- he wants to tell his story the same way his competitor tells his story rather than telling his story in a more personal and powerful way


When I asked him how successful he expected to be in shifting customer perception he saide doesn't really expect his customer to change his mind much in the next year - at least he has realistic expectations.

How do I help him understand the power of sharing directly with his customers?

Using technology for social change

I posted recently on my experience with face to face fundraisers and have been casting around for ways in which organisations such as Red Cross could be more engaging and effective.

I found this post on ReadWriteWeb today which started pointing towards some possible solutions which include a Facebook application for causes which uses the FB community to donate. It is still totally un-engaging. I checked the FB application out, some basic stuff is being missed - not even a link to the app from the American Red Cross site. Having said that it may be a reason to join Facebook finally. The other examples are all about using technology as a basic communication method - whereas the power of this medium is its ability to engage supporters to the cause of their choice

There really is a space here where these cash strapped organisations could go more open source and start collaborating on these initiatives.

There are a lot of threads to tie together where some people with some Interactive Marketing experience could really make a difference in quick time.

What level of engagement would it take for you to support an organisation online?

Fighting to be the feedback tool of your choice

I've recently been using Uservoice to collect feedback from visitors to this blog on what you would like to hear about.

I've been seriously impressed by the marketing efforts made by Uservoice and their competition as a result of my use of Uservoice.

Interesting to note the story to date...

1. Gripnostril sent me a link to a site talking about corporates talking with their customers.
2. There was a link in there to Uservoice.
3. I set up a site, added a feedback tab to this blog and blogged about it

The subsequent activities have been interesting

4. I found thatan expat Kiwi called Marcus Nelson who works at uservoice was following me on Twitter - he pinged me a question making sure that everything was ok with my experience.
5. Independently, I received an email from the CMO of a competitor company to Uservoice, called SuggestionBox asking what I thought the differences were and offering me a 2 month free trial of their product.

I haven't tried SuggestionBox yet, but have added their Twitter feed so I can keep an eye out on it.

A couple of insights

1. It feels great to have a couple of companies contact me directly wanting to either make sure that everything was going great and actively (and personally) wanting my feedback.

2. It reinforces what I have been thinking about web marketing - there are no silver bullets - you have to get in there and just start talking with your customers.

3. It's a street fight out there for customers when you are starting out and these guys know it.

And I was just going to start to update where I was at in the list of feedback from readers and I notice that all the votes were re-set to zero. We'll see how Uservoice cope with that, otherwise that SuggestionBox trial is looking like a good idea.

Power of reputation

It was interesting to read Rod's post today about the first year of being listed with Xero, in particular the hard work that it takes to build compelling word of mouth. It helps with his pedigree that he had a good reputation to start with. Nevertheless it still required 'phone dogging'.

It got me thinking about a conversation I have been having with a mate of mine who is convinced that you can monetise reputation. I've been thinking about when that might be useful and have started coming up with some ideas about when.

While I have been thinking about it, Michele has been starting a conversation on it. His jist is that there is enough action happening in the digital identity space that you must be able to find away to port your existing online reputation to help you with other transactions. The trademe idea is a winner. Take a look and start contributing.

Tell me what you want

As a proponent of customer-centred design I am always interested in ways for customers / audiences to get closer to the developer of the product, service or content.





Gripnostril pointed me to this today which talks about how some large corporates are finding ways to more directly engage with their customers. Dell and Starbucks are held up as the examples of how this is done well.





What I really liked about this was that it linked to a nice site called uservoice. It's a site where users can add and vote on suggestions. Naturally they use it themselves - instant engagement.





I want to know what you want to hear about in this blog. I've added a feedback tab on the left hand side of the template - suggest away!




Any suggestions for lightweight tools other than paint for adding red ovals to jpgs gratefully received.



TIP: if you are using blogger the script doesn't quite work - replace the '=' sign in the the 'color' reference with a ':' and it should be all good.

Old Dogs and New Tricks

I was really stoked to see this post from Ben this morning.

The post is primarily about Victoria Crone who has been driving Telecom's marketing push for SaaS in the Business Marketing team.

Vic has been around Telecom for a long time - probably about as long as I have - but that doesn't mean she doesn't listen to customers nor does it mean she can't embrace a new way of communicating. And that was her - no ghost-writing there. She is also present on Plaxo and LinkedIn and pretty easy to find on email or phone in Telecom

This follows on from a very informal session with Paul Reynolds last week where he popped up on the floor in Auckland and talked about his very straight forward view about what we need to do to make our customers happy. In a sentence - work out what they want and deliver it, don't be a slave to self imposed heirarchy and siloes. Pretty simple and very effective.

Goes to show that you can't take Telecom for granted in its behaviour - things are changing and people like Vic are getting amongst it.

Welcome to the blogosphere Vic - hopefully you'll be up for posting a blog of your own. I've got some experience if you need a hand to set it up.

Rugby 2.0

I've been spending some time with the team at Telecom who are hooked into Yahoo!. A few of them have come back from a trip recently where they went to Web2.0 and also spent some time with Yahoo! discussing strategy.

Their overall summary was that Y! have got a very solid strategy around Web 2.0 to the point where they are coming up with tools that will make Y! services better but also will work well with other Web 2.0 services. A case in point is the feed on this blog from Plaxo Pulse, a 'social network' tool I am using. It is a feed from Plaxo in Blogger using a third party widget. That widget relies on using pipes from Y! to work. Doesn't drive any traffic as such to Y! (well not yet) but I now know how to use it and can use it with other Y! services. They are embracing OpenID. They open applications like Flickr up to work with other apps. This all ties to Y! understanding that their purpose is all about advertising. They don't have to be number 1 in all the verticals as long as they embrace the fact that they operate within a broader ecosystem, and they use the elements within that to drive a strong position in their focal point - advertising. Sure they are not perfect - however they are better positioned than most.

They get they are part of bigger picture that inevitably they won’t control
They know what their key assets are (traffic).
They know what their revenue model is (advertising)
They open up to drive more traffic.

It’s pretty simple.

I'm on a plane writing this and have just read a number of articles from the Herald about the state of rugby in NZ. They are individual opinions that state amongst other things

- Convening players for AB camp early doesn't make sense as they are our number 1 asset and need rest so we can keep on winning
- Springboks are having to choose between Euro contracts and playing for their country - this is generally portrayed as the players are greedy so let’s stick it to them (rapacious is the word used to describe them)
- The sabbatical idea for Dan Carter is silly and we should just open the gates to picking players wherever they are playing and be commercially smart to make $
- NZRU have failed and are too arrogant to admit it.

So putting the Kiwi knocking machine to one side (I mean, who is arrogant - the NZRU or the reporter for saying they are?), I was thinking about a remodelling of NZ Rugby based on web 2.0 principles. Let’s call it NZ Rugby 2.0

It would start with a few principles

1. Rugby is a global, and professional game that provides unprecedented choice for players, administrators and audiences.
2. There are local, regional and global competitions where Rugby is available for audiences
3. It is open - there is no one authority that controls it apart from setting basic standards (i.e. IRB is about setting rules for playing the game and maybe the global competition - the rest is devolved)
4. NZ Rugby cannot survive on its own – it has to contribute to and operate within the global ecosystem.

Under this NZ Rugby would need to be very clear about what its purpose is. At the moment it is trying to be too many things

1. The global leader in playing rugby
2. Sustaining the amateur game
3. Controlling player movement
4. A successful business.

Under NZ Rugby 2.0, I would propose that it has a single purpose

- Become the number 1 brand in rugby entertainment with audiences, broadcasters and players.


It would also recognise that the two key assets it has are

1. The All Blacks Brand
2. The systems that produce professional players and coaches.
3. The AB’s coach

In a radical view I would say that the actual players are not key assets - sure they are assets but in general they have limited life and are subject to high maintenance costs. The system that produces them is definitely the key asset.


The revenue model is simple

1. Broadcast and internet rights – AB matches and other professional games
2. Merchandising – AB merchandising needs to get to the same scale as professional football. New kits every year.
3. Gate sales – these will have to go up – this is the ultimate supply / demand constraint (only so many seats in a stadium). Can be justified if the A team is on the park.
4. Transfer fees – if Northern Hemisphere clubs are going to continue to pay huge $ for players then take a slice.


The key implications on the existing organisation are

1. This organisation cannot be the same organisation that manages the amateur game. It would have to support it (with funding and players) but the purposes are just two different to manage.
2. Forget about trying to control player drain – instead embrace it and use these players as a way to influence the broader ecosystem. In particular re-jigging the global competition structures. Retain the right to call on players to play for the All Blacks to develop that brand. Global player movement builds that brand. Don’t just limit that to the Dan Carters of the game. That is anti-competitive and short sighted (imagine – DC gets injured while on ‘sabbatical’ and now Nick Evans can’t be called up – doh!).
3. Coach becomes really important – he is the guy that pulls a team together from a bunch of guys spread around the world and substantiates the AB’s brand.
4. Communicate like hell with stakeholders – ask them what they really want and rapidly adapt to suit.
5. Governance needs to change – the NZRU model of the provincial unions deciding the make-up of the Board is totally out of date.
6. NZ Rugby is an exporter to a global market – big shift in perspective.

If you think this is without evidence have a look at Argentina. Most of their players are playing the Northern Hemisphere. They were 3rd in the last world Cup beating France to get there.

If the best players were on the park I might start turning up or tuning in to watch again.

Really Effective Viral Campaign

I drown in email everyday - I use it as a source for information and to tell me what to do - and I hoard it.

Clearly I need Merlin Mann's Inbox Zero or Bit Literacy - bought on amazon a few weeks ago but not read yet.

Along comes a tool today via a great viral campaign that might help- Xobni.

Xobni purports to help arrange your inbox through instant search, context creation and display of contact information.

I say 'purports' because I can't download the beta yet. I have signed up through reading this on Lance Wiggs blog. With a bit of luck Lance has moved up the beta priority list as a result of my clicking on his badge.

If you click on the badge below I'll move up the list.

I am interested in how well this viral works - it creates instant scarcity of the download even though it probably isn't really that scarce. Its a bit like gmail invites but Xobni get to control the load and who they release their product too. Gotta love a bunch of guys who are that confident....

The viral potential is great - Xobni gets to see whose blogs are the most effective for delivering traffic and people like me hang out on the off chance someone will click the badge.

Oh - and I love the fact that one of the examples on their video is a guy called Gabor - I thought only I had relatives with those sort of names!

*You* are the brand

Picked this up of Seth Godin's blog the other day where he talks about the posture of a communicator.

What's helpful is to realize that you have a choice when you communicate.
You can design your products to be easy to use. You can write so your audience
hears you. You can present in a place and in a way that guarantees that the
people you want to listen will hear you. Most of all, you get to choose who will
understand (and who won't).

And I've tied it to another quote that I really like

“A customer-aware company gets bonus points for its intentions and rhetoric, but
negative points for doing little or nothing to build processes and structures
that allow the organization to deliver consistently and transparently for the
customer.

A customer-centric company matches intention and attention. It
does the hard work of threading enterprise-wide customer experience initiatives
across the silos and specialized functions, through the processes, and down to
and through the technologies and human factors in order to deliver for the
customer and the organization.” (Kevin Hoffberg)

Whether you know it or not, you have a brand promise that you make your customers. And everything you do during your day will impact on how your customers perceive you delivering to that promise. Even more, things you don't do will all impact customer perception.You need to know what your brand promise is and how what you do impacts on that.

Just today I have

- designed some identity frameworks

- completed a weekly report

- reviewed my planning structure

- had team meeting

- completed my expenses

- had a conversation about how we could collaborate better

- had 4 conversations about how we can improve delivering a new business

-overheard 3 people discuss how they feel we are heading for a bad result and don't know what to do about it

-debated whether we are a process centric or customer centric organisation (they are the same !)

-met my family for coffee

- Written this entry

Based on delivering the brand promise, I've hit about 40 - 50% of things that are important to deliver on the brand promise and 50 - 60% of things that are necessary (but not important). I think it should be more like 80/20.

What's your day been like?

Mobile Commerce replacing bank branches in Australia?

I read this article from stuff this morning. The implication in the lead-in was stunning...

"Australians are fast deserting bank branches and soon won't even need a computer to transact, now that the country's major banks are rolling out mobile phone banking services."

It's stunning because it's wrong. You'd think that you'd soon be able to walk down the main streets of Sydney and not see any bank branches and that we'll all be using our mobiles to transact.

A visit to Australia recently demonstrated that banks are re-opening branches in suburban areas, and are extending opening hours for existing branches into the weekend and after 'normal' working hours. The same trend has been occurring in NZ.

Leads to to 2 questions - one on this topic and one broader.

1. Why are branches important for banks ?

Branches are important for banks as they provide a direct and personal link to their customer. When it comes to high complexity and high value transactions, customers will want to understand the impacts - they won't get this on their mobile, they'll get this by talking to a knowledgable bank employee. Sure banks will continually look for more efficient and more convenient ways to manage high volume, low complexity transactions. That becomes part of the portfolio of choices they offer to customers. It makes sense for banks to offer a multitude of ways - not just one way - to serve their customers. ANZ's Brian Hartzer makes this point in the article. That is the real headline.

2. Why does a belief exist that a new type of technology will totally supercede any existing means?

Maybe it generates headlines - I'd love to know from anyone who has been in the journalist or social marketing fields why it is necessary to be so black and white about this type of thing. Experience says that these changes are slow in coming and you never really know where they land - it is very rare to have one mode totally replaced by another. In this particular case there is no further detail in any of the article that Australians are fast deserting branches - yet the journalist or editor in question seems to think that it's important to know in this article. It isn't and it just seems naive.

Finally, it is good to see that something which has been around for around 5 years in New Zealand is seen to be a big thing about to happen in Australia . A great example of using NZ as a test market before moving to larger markets - best of luck to the M-Com team as they break into a larger population base. They've done a lot of hard work here building a business model and ecosystem - maybe payoff for the hard work is just around the corner....

Corporate Blog Guidelines

I like this sensible advice from Lance Wiggs.

Keeps it simple, and has two basic themes

1. Blogging is a conversation - it's happening whether you are there or not. If you want to be part of that conversation then make an effort and be part of it!

2. If you're going to be part of it, be genuine. And you don't have to give your company secrets away to participate.

I know its common sense but sometimes that is a rare commodity in corporate land.

I've been interested in Paul Brislen's presence in various forums, in particular geekzone. I am sure that it makes those forums richer for the fact that Paul is out there with Vodafone's view on a regular basis. I do note that Paul doesn't have his own blog - any idea why that is?