Fear is not the only way

True story. I walked into an Art Gallery on the Lower East Side in NYC in September and spent some time talking to the dealer about a piece that I took a liking to. It was a single piece and likely to gain in value. In that conversation, away from the crowd, he encouraged me to make an offer and ensure it covered delivery to Europe, giving me a “ball park” of what would be acceptable, creating INTIMACY. I was interested and asked for a single follow-up email. Let’s call this day “Day 0”.

What happened next, in his bid to persuade me, became very… interesting. Take a look.
Day 1 via email - Details of the piece I was interested in
Later on Day 1 via text - A message confirming within the email was a ‘private offer’ direct to me from the gallery owner
Day 3 via email - A time sensitive offer as the Gallery Owner was flying out of town, telling me an offer had just been received for the piece I was interested it, but they would be willing to entertain a counteroffer
Day 3 via text - A reminder of the email and that a counteroffer would be better before the Gallery Owner leaves as the Dealer can discuss it in person
Day 3 later via text - Reassurance that an offer is not offensive and “part of the job”
Day 3 later via text - A reminder what time the Gallery closes (I thanked him for the opportunity).
Day 6 via text - An invitation to an event at the Gallery that I could pass onto friends as I was not in NYC (I thanked him).
Day 7 via text - An update that there had been interest in the piece from Oslo that seemed serious
Day 11 via text - An offer from the Dealer on the piece if I was to multi-buy it with another piece
Day 13 via text - An update from the Dealer that he will be seeing his family for a few days, and he was not sure if the piece was still available, but he would check if I made a counter offer
Day 17 via text - An invitation to a new exhibition from the Gallery and an update the piece was still available but would be flown to a new show in New Orleans soon, and was I ready to make an offer?
Day 19 via text - A special price on the piece (25% off) if I was still interested with free shipping, with encouragement to ‘name my final price’
Day 20 via text - An apology for sending so many text messages, however the shippers need an update on the piece… am I still interested?
Day 24 via email - A reminder the piece would be shipped tomorrow, and that the Dealer could stop it going if I was still interested
Day 27 via text - The piece was now on its way to Louisiana, however the artist wanted to let me know if I was still interested something could be ‘worked out’
Day 34 via email - An offer on a different piece of art directly from the artist I might be interested in
Day 52 via email - An update that someone was interested in a different piece of art that I had seen (but expressed no interest in).

And then… silence. Blissful silence.
Over a month and a half I had received 17 messages, across 2 channels. During that time I had ‘engaged’ only twice to thank the dealer, and the tactic predominantly used was FEAR. Fear of missing out to someone else, Fear of the piece being shipped away from where I had seen it, Fear of paying for shipping, Fear driven by scarcity.

Questions.
Why did he focus so much on fear?
Why did he not read my disengagement and employ another tactic?
Why did he not adjust his frequency of communication?
Why did he not read my disengagement and stop messaging sooner?

There are other ways. It’s true that fear can be attractive, and heightens a sense of danger which removed creates fulfilment. Some fight (spend), many fly (disengage). But, where was the reassurance of value, explanation of opportunity/growth, storytelling of the piece’s history, understanding of/ access to the artist, social proof from other pieces of the artist, reward from exclusivity and confidence from quality.

We can learn from this. When I look at Black Friday, too many of us have become ‘Dealers’ using Fear and Incentivisation as our emotional means of persuasion. We never see the opportunity not created, because it works with some. But there are so many more routes open to us - fear is not the only way.
People are moved to action by how something makes them feel. Let’s make them feel safe instead.

All views my own.

Is Musk vTwitter a $44BN data governance failure?

Will they or won’t they? A love match has turned dysfunctional. Musk has discovered the body unclothed is not attractive. Jilted Twitter refuses to walk away from the altar, and is attempting to force the nuptials. Why?

Musk’s stated in April his top priority upon purchasing Twitter would be to “…eliminate spam and scam bots and the bot armies that are on Twitter. They’re making the product much worse…”. Hooray! Musk wants to:
1. Ensure that users are real people, authenticated (but not necessarily identified)
2. Improve the quality of the customer data
3. Increase the trust in the numbers, which in turn increases the confidence in decision making
4. Stop algorithms being manipulated by bad Bot accounts
All of which serve to
5. Improve the overall experience and engagement of Twitter users

So, Musk’s top priority is to improve the product by focusing on sustainable data, clear data governance and strong data management.

Twitter has estimated less than 5% of accounts to be bots, and not all bad. With 291M active users that works out to 15M - for context, that’s more accounts than the population of Qatar, who are part financing the deal. Twitter has stated this 5% cannot be verified externally - and it has said this well before Musk’s offer.
Musk is now trying to walk away from the deal due to the unverified 5% - a data governance failure.

I agree with Twitter that the number cannot be verified externally but it can be verified. I am also sure the answer will not be found in the 9k sampled records ordered by the Judge to be handed to Musk*. If the answer is to be found, then these 9k records must be engaged accounts, with an identifiable pattern of behaviour distinct from humans, however this is a low sample number that doesn’t inspire confidence. The answer will also not be found in access to the daily live stream of Tweets (aka the “fire hose”) which Twitter offered Musk.

The true answer will be found only in… live verification on current data with a benchmark acceptability of good bots. Not a Botomoter, but the introduction of a process across a statistically robust volume of engaged accounts to ascertain they are human owned. This is not just a ‘reCAPTCHA’ - this could be a combination of image, callback, multiple accounts check, an intelligent algorithm on the Tweets/accounts themselves. This should be the Judge’s order to Twitter. Or perhaps, Twitters order to themselves.

Musk knew about the Bot issue before the offer, and it’s not new in the industry (Instagram has an estimated 95M). Will any number be good enough for Musk? history has shown that what Musk wants, Musk gets. So, let this be a lesson instead on the importance of investing in data governance - you could have billions riding on it.

*Whether the judge can authorise 9k accounts to be passed to Musk without permission from the account holders themselves is another question

All views my own.

Sources:
1. The Verge: Elon Musk’s Twitter Plans are a Huge Can of Worms
2. The Guardian: Judge orders Twitter to turn over to Elon Musk data from 2021 users audit
3. NYTimes: What Are Spam Bots and Why They’re an Issue in Elon Musk’s Twitter Deal
4. Ars Technica: Botometer creator says Musk’s Twitter spam estimate “doesn’t mean anything”
5. The Information: Instagram’s Growing Bot Problem

Data matters in a post-Roe vs Wade world

There has been a decision, with far reaching effects. We are in now in a post-Roe world where the act of an abortion in many US states will be deemed a criminal act. Much is being said already about the impact of this decision on the economy and more worryingly the right to Privacy.

It’s time for us to get wise on why data matters, now, more than ever.

Data can be used to prove:
1. Evidence of a pregnancy (that is not there now)
2. Evidence of an abortion (intention or actualised)

Breaking it down further, pregnancy/an abortion is proved in data by one or more of the following ‘events’:
(i) One or more missed periods, (ii) Prolonged body temperature changes, (iii) A change in what you buy/ how you shop (let us not forget the infamous Target identification of a teen pregnancy before the woman herself knew), (iv) A visit to an abortion clinic/someone who can perform a termination, (v) Booking of an abortion via email/phone, (vi) Medical records, (vii) A direct sharing of the knowledge to friends and family.

Question: Who/ what could possess data that identifies these ‘events’?
Answer: All of the following; Period tracking apps, health tracking apps, wearables or connected devices (eg. digital thermometers or pregnancy tests), the places that you shop, your phone/ phone provider, location data, any GPS system you use, your email inbox - even the browser you use to do all your internet searches - and yes, that could include Alexa. Let’s assume your friends and family are trusted, and medical records are sealed.

So, what are your options to protect your data? Going ‘dark’ (offline) is one - but not realistic. Other ‘staying online’ options include using apps that process their data in Europe, who have no obligation to share data with the US authorities, using anonymous profiles where possible, keeping data on device, turning off location tracking, and using privacy-first browsers/messaging such as Ghostery, Signal and Infomaniak. Purchase-spread amongst different retailers, especially if you use a loyalty card. Delete your data and clear your caches regularly.

It is unlikely that your data could or would be shared with the authorities. But we’ve already seen some evidence of period tracking apps such as Flo sharing what they shouldn’t. Though Big Tech may now be more powerful than Government, Apple’s refusal to unlock an iPhone in the past for the FBI did not mean it couldn’t be done.

However, we must realise that the responsibility of a fallen Roe vs Wade rests also with the corporates who do one of the activities that fall into the ‘all of the following’ above.
Corporates: You can choose to not capture, track or store this sensitive data, do your analysis at an anonymised level and choose not to run pregnancy profiling algorithms. You can choose to route data via servers that serve the highest version of Privacy - which might be outside of the US. You can choose to make decisions that serve People, not Commerce and make clear the values you stand for.

Corporates: The best solution to not handing over data to an authority is not knowing it in the first place.

All views my own.
Thumbnail image by Getty Images

Sources:
1. Forbes: How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did
2. Mashable: Period apps in a post-Roe World
3. The New York Times: Apple’s New Challenge: Learning How the U.S. Cracked Its iPhone

Minister for Simplification

I am in Rome at the moment, and as is the way on a trip I always try and understand the people, culture and history to enrich my experience. My book of choice for this trip was The Italians by John Hooper (people are the product that reveals all) and in a Chapter discussing politics and bureaucracy the book yielded the small nugget that there existed once within the administration a ‘Minister for Simplification’ attached to the words ‘…all sorts of things are immensely complicated’. Italy may have created this role to help navigate the labyrinth of legislation, but HERE was an interesting idea.

A government is a visible organisation (sometimes a highly inefficient one). Whilst it is more accountable to the People, like any business it has departments (some silo’d), platforms and processes, an audience and reputation to manage, data to protect and goals to deliver. The concept of Profit may differ - success is break even and money made is ploughed back into the system, but there is strategy to achieve - and sometimes things get complicated.

There is a difference between ‘complication’ and ‘complexity’.

Organisational complexity is multiple ‘layers’. Where layers are people, processes, tech etc. So, it follows then that organisational complication is multiple layers that are misunderstood and create inefficiencies - where inefficiencies are ‘something that happens without purpose’ eg. Two people doing the same thing, costs that are unwarranted, timings delayed with no clear explanation. Complexity does not have to be complicated and simplification is what makes the difference.

What does Simplification look like? That answer is rooted in your organisation, its culture and the expertise and tolerance of management. For the concept of simplification to truly work it needs to work at all levels - from information sharing and decision making, to the operational floor. It could be:
1. Every idea / project distilled to a single one-pager
2. Cross-organisational task forces and meetings
3. The elimination of undue process and ‘validation boards’
4. Single, shared intelligence
5. Clear KPIs - no more than necessary - that everyone can understand, follow and knows how to action.
It must be nothing done once, is done again - anywhere in the organisation. That means, not having the same meeting with the same agenda more than once, no meetings to ‘check the box’, not creating the same campaign multiple times across geographies. It means trust and empowerment. It means everyone in a team needing to pull their weight.

Want to simplify? Start (alone or with your team) by making a list of every action done twice, what you misunderstand and what is felt unneccessary. This is the easy part. Next comes the prioritisation and transformation. Simplification may start as an exercise, however you don’t need a designated Simplification Minister to practise it.

All views my own.
Thumbnail image by Julia Hanke for Firearm Studio.

Get ready for the meta frontier

Since Mark Zuckerburg’s announcement last week, the ‘Meta’ has dominated the news. It’s impossible to escape from it, the word has now entered popular culture. The concept of merging physical and virtual spaces existed long before Facebook’s rebranding announcement on the 28 October - it’s been here at least since Neal Stephenson’s 1992 novel “Snow Crash” and has been called many things; Metaverse, Mirrorworld, Magicworld, Omniverse, Spatial Web. Whether these Worlds will deliver the experience promised and consumers are ready for it remains to be seen (let’s not forget that in the very beginning the internet was also ridiculed),

However, it is one thing to jump on the Metaverse train, and quite another thing to make the train run smoothly and passengers happy enough to return. The success of the Metaverses (plural as there is unlikely to be ‘one Metaverse to rule them all’) will be dependent on; (1) Consumer appetite, (2) Affordable technology, (3) Internet connectivity, (4) Usability, and (5) Benefits; value for all concerned - which could be tangible (money) or intangible (status).

To win in the Metaverse (or any other digital experience) will involve the creation and maintenance of consumer desirability... or ‘stickiness’. Stickiness will lead to repeat usage, and repeat usage means loyalty.

Gaming is leading the way, where stickiness is defined as: ‘an engaging, rewarding, addictive experience’, that should:
1. Keep you at the edge of your abilities; Your play must start with easy achievable goals that gradually become more complex
2. Provide immediate, real-time interaction and feedback; Points are instantly awarded and death happens quickly
3. Give you a clear sense of progress; Unlocked levels and costumes as you master the game

Brands will need to do more than ‘game’. To make the Metaverse valuable, they will need to create real-world commerce beyond the virtual connection, by:
1. Making it personal - build a unique journey for relevancy, complete with customisation for social status.
2. Harnessing network effects - the more users, the richer the experience. Create community and enable discussion, trading and collaboration.
3. Rewarding - Virtual currency is valuable, NFTs give ownership and this can be made to matter in the real world. Currency can buy tokens, but why not real exclusive products, the right to be the first, jump the queue or upgrade?
4. Identifying - The matching of avatars to their humans will be the key to unlocking a rich multi-world experience, and take data-driven opportunities to a new level.

Brands that choose to play, need to play well or risk customer disenchantment. An NFT arriving with a real purchase, that forces a download of the Brand App when scanned, is not an NFT at all (culprits: too many brands to name).

As for Facebook’s announcement, one thing did spring to mind when it was made. Have you seen the movie Wag The Dog? A failing President fakes a war to distract from and increase his falling approval ratings. I bet Mark Zuckerburg has seen it - and highly recommend.

All views my own.
Thumbnail image by Quinton McMillan.