getFreshMinds.com | Ideas so fresh--they should be slapped!

The Age of Conversation 2 has arrived!

Today is a very exciting day... it's the launch date of the Age of Conversation 2!

The Age of Conversation 2 is a collaboration between 237 marketers from all over the world.  It's a really cool project not only because so many experts are sharing their wisdom, but also because its a book with a heart.  Every single cent of the proceeds goes to Variety, the international children's charity.

Last year, the first Age of Conversation book (which is excellent) raised over $15,000 for Variety.  This year, the goal is to raise even more.

(Buy your copy right away!)

I love the Age of Conversation project because it's a really unique way to raise money for a good cause.

I also love it because I'm one of the 237 authors! 

But, even if neither of those were the case, I love that the Age of Conversation 2  was written by so many amazing people: 

Adrian Ho, Aki Spicer, Connie Bensen, G.L. Hoffman, Paul Isakson, Tim Brunelle

Alex Henault, Amy Jussel, Andrew Odom, Andy Nulman, Andy Sernovitz, Andy Whitlock, Angela Maiers, Ann Handley, Anna Farmery, Armando Alves, Arun Rajagopal, Asi Sharabi, Becky Carroll, Becky McCray, Bernie Scheffler, Bill Gammell, Bob LeDrew, Brad Shorr, Brandon Murphy, Branislav Peric, Brent Dixon, Brett Macfarlane, Brian Reich, C.C. Chapman, Cam Beck, Casper Willer, Cathleen Rittereiser, Cathryn Hrudicka, Cedric Giorgi, Charles Sipe, Chris Kieff, Chris Cree, Chris Wilson, Christina Kerley (CK), C.B. Whittemore, Chris Brown, Connie Reece, Corentin Monot, Craig Wilson, Daniel Honigman, Dan Schawbel, Dan Sitter, Daria Radota Rasmussen, Darren Herman, Dave Davison, David Armano, David Berkowitz, David Koopmans, David Meerman Scott, David Petherick, David Reich, David Weinfeld, David Zinger, Deanna Gernert, Deborah Brown, Dennis Price, Derrick Kwa, Dino Demopoulos, Doug Haslam, Doug Meacham, Doug Mitchell, Douglas Hanna, Douglas Karr, Drew McLellan, Duane Brown, Dustin Jacobsen, Dylan Viner, Ed Brenegar, Ed Cotton, Efrain Mendicuti, Ellen Weber, Eric Peterson, Eric Nehrlich, Ernie Mosteller, Faris Yakob, Fernanda Romano, Francis Anderson, Gareth Kay, Gary Cohen, Gaurav Mishra, Gavin Heaton, Geert Desager, George Jenkins, Gianandrea Facchini, Gordon Whitehead, Greg Verdino, Gretel Going & Kathryn Fleming, Hillel Cooperman, Hugh Weber, J. Erik Potter, James Gordon-Macintosh, Jamey Shiels, Jasmin Tragas, Jason Oke, Jay Ehret, Jeanne Dininni, Jeff De Cagna, Jeff Gwynne & Todd Cabral, Jeff Noble, Jeff Wallace, Jennifer Warwick, Jenny Meade, Jeremy Fuksa, Jeremy Heilpern, Jeroen Verkroost, Jessica Hagy, Joanna Young, Joe Pulizzi, John Herrington, John Moore, John Rosen, John Todor, Jon Burg, Jon Swanson, Jonathan Trenn, Jordan Behan, Julie Fleischer, Justin Foster, Karl Turley, Kate Trgovac, Katie Chatfield, Katie Konrath, Kenny Lauer, Keri Willenborg, Kevin Jessop, Kristin Gorski, Lewis Green, Lois Kelly, Lori Magno, Louise Manning, Luc Debaisieux, Mario Vellandi, Mark Blair, Mark Earls, Mark Goren, Mark Hancock, Mark Lewis, Mark McGuinness, Matt Dickman, Matt J. McDonald, Matt Moore, Michael Karnjanaprakorn, Michelle Lamar, Mike Arauz, Mike McAllen, Mike Sansone, Mitch Joel, Neil Perkin, Nettie Hartsock, Nick Rice, Oleksandr Skorokhod, Ozgur Alaz, Paul Chaney, Paul Hebert, Paul McEnany, Paul Tedesco, Paul Williams, Pet Campbell, Pete Deutschman, Peter Corbett, Phil Gerbyshak, Phil Lewis, Phil Soden, Piet Wulleman, Rachel Steiner, Sreeraj Menon, Reginald Adkins, Richard Huntington, Rishi Desai, Robert Hruzek, Roberta Rosenberg, Robyn McMaster, Roger von Oech, Rohit Bhargava, Ron Shevlin, Ryan Barrett, Ryan Karpeles, Ryan Rasmussen, Sam Huleatt, Sandy Renshaw, Scott Goodson, Scott Monty, Scott Townsend, Scott White, Sean Howard, Sean Scott, Seni Thomas, Seth Gaffney, Shama Hyder, Sheila Scarborough, Sheryl Steadman, Simon Payn, Sonia Simone, Spike Jones, Stanley Johnson, Stephen Collins, Stephen Landau, Stephen Smith, Steve Bannister, Steve Hardy, Steve Portigal, Steve Roesler, Steven Verbruggen, Steve Woodruff, Sue Edworthy, Susan Bird, Susan Gunelius, Susan Heywood, Tammy Lenski, Terrell Meek, Thomas Clifford, Thomas Knoll, Tim Connor, Tim Jackson, Tim Mannveille, Tim Tyler, Timothy Johnson, Tinu Abayomi-Paul, Toby Bloomberg, Todd Andrlik, Troy Rutter, Troy Worman, Uwe Hook, Valeria Maltoni, Vandana Ahuja, Vanessa DiMauro, Veronique Rabuteau, Wayne Buckhanan, William Azaroff, Yves Van Landeghem

Three versions of the Age of Conversation 2 are available: hardback, paperback and e-book..

It goes on sale today at 8am at http://www.lulu.com/ageofconversation.

Go check it out, and please buy a copy!  It's guaranteed to be an amazing book, and it's for a great cause.

 

Why Ford deserves to fail.

There's a lot of talk about the Wall Street bail-outs.  $700+ billion dollars to rescue financial institutions from a crisis they created themselves. And that probably won't be the end of it.

But there's another bail-out that people aren't talking about much - but probably should. 

Not long ago, while flying home from Germany, I read a small article buried in USA Today about how American automakers are begging Congress for a bail-out of their own.  They want $25 billion in loans to upgrade their plants for production of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Recently, the House authorized this loan, and it will go into effect soon.  And automakers are already talking about wanting another $25 billion next year.

Ford's CEO has been saying it's not a "bailout", but a lot of analysts believe that things could be touch and go for US automakers without the $25 billion.  So, you can draw your own conclusion there.

When I read that article, and when I looked up more information about the bailout, I had a strong reaction.  "Let the US automakers go down," I thought.  "They certainly deserve it!"

(I know they're an essential industry in the US, but hear me out.)

US Automakers have been digging their own graves for years.

They have absolutely refused to innovate and come up with new ideas to stay competitive - all the while spending millions on lobbyists who whine to Congress that if automakers are forced to meet new standards, it will destroy them (and their workers.)

US automakers have been so successful at resisting change that their vehicles get barely better gas mileage than in the 1970s.  In fact, the average mpgs have been going down in the last few years!

Please don't even try to tell me that it's impossible for them to make significant improvements.  Other industries have made huge strides in the same amount of time.

The laptop I'm writing on right now (which hasn't been new for a while) has more computing power than the giant room-sized computer that sent Apollo 11 to the moon in 1969.  My phone is a lot smaller than the monstrosity my parents made me carry "just in case" in high school.  As for my music collection, I can now carry it in my pocket.

Maybe it's true that the internal combustion engine has reached its limit, but that is no excuse. 

If innovators had simply focused on breeding a faster horse, the car never would have been invented.  It's about figuring out a better way to accomplish the same purpose - not giving up and letting the world pass by.

Honestly, what has Ford done lately?  Everyone knows of their innovative assembly line--but that was nearly 100 years ago.

What have they done in the last 10 years that is remarkable?  What about the last 20?  Simply supersizing their vehicles does not count as innovation.  Anyone can make something bigger.  That doesn't take fresh thinking.

In fact, all I ever hear from Ford and the other US automakers is their whining about the market being tough.  And how buying American is the patriotic thing to do (for people who love our country.)

Who else isn't impressed?

The fact is, Ford has chosen not to be innovative. 

And by doing so, they've dug a big hole that they're now scrambling desperately to get out of.  And they expect us to help them - which we will mostly likely continue to do because their (well-deserved) failure would hurt a lot of people.  Apparently 1 in 10 workers in the US depend on the automakers.  (Can we say hostages?)

If Ford came out tomorrow with a strong call to innovation, saying,

We are going to use this loan to really do something remarkable.  We are going to exceed the new MPG standards by 2015, instead of 2020.  By 2020, we will have done even more. We're going to do this because we want to be a world-leader again.

Then I'd feel a lot better about the US government loaning them the money.

But we all know what is going to happen. 

Ford will beg for this hand-out and then proceed to make incremental improvements only after their competitors have paved the way and Ford is forced to do so by law. 

They'll continue insisting that new regulations will ruin them, and threatening to destroy the lives of their workers if they don't get more hand-outs. 

Then next year, they'll get another emergency "loan" and the cycle will repeat itself.

I really want to be more optimistic about Ford, and I'd love to feel confident that they (and the other US automakers) are going to lead automobile innovation into the future.

But unless they radically change from seeing themselves as victims to being proactive innovators... I don't think that's going to happen. 

It drives me crazy that we keep giving US Automakers a life-raft every time they dig themselves in over their heads.

Companies should be rewarded for being innovators, and should have to face the consequences if they choose not to create the future. They shouldn't entrench themselves in the past, while holding the lives of their workers as hostages.  It makes me furious that the US automakers do this.

In my opinion, there are so many more effective ways to use this money. 

• What if we spent $25 billion to retrain autoworkers and invest in education?  Then, when the Big 3 threaten to cut jobs, workers will be able to get better ones and help the US economy in the process.  (And the Big 3 would lose their hostages.)
  
• Or what if we offered a series of big prizes for innovators who come up with drastic improvements for automobile technology?  First challenge: $100 million for whoever can come up with a 100+ mpg car that can be mass produced.  Contests can do a ton for innovation.
  
• What if the US government created a Manhattan-style project with the money and recruited the top engineers in the field to create the automobiles of the future.  Ford, GM and Chrysler could send their top inventors over in return for use of the technology.

 

But instead, we're handing over an obscene amount of money over to an industry that has done nothing to deserve it, and who will only squander the funds.

Absolutely infuriating!

When doesn't it make sense to supersize your product?

Have you ever tried to bathe a cat?

When I was younger, it took three of us to wash my cat. 

She would grab at anything within reach, and resist every attempt to keep her in the stove.  Later, she would follow us around for hours because she thought we were mad at her.

The last time I bathed our current cat, she grabbed onto my sweater so tight that the only way I could get her off was to wiggle out of the sweater and surrender it to the sink.

No, washing a cat is not a pleasant experience! 

Which is why every time I see cat shampoos in stores, I wonder what grooming supply companies are thinking!

I've seen containers of cat shampoo up to 20 ounces in size!  At the least, they're the same size as the regular human shampoos.

It's not that there's anything wrong with the large shampoos... it's just that one bottle could last for half a decade in the hands of a regular cat owner who bathes their cat only a couple times a year.

And it's not good for the pet owner, who ends up storing a huge bottle of shampoo that is barely used.  Nor is it good for grooming supply companies, who saturate the market with such big bottles that they're reducing future demand for their product!

So, I'm asking, why not put the cat shampoo in travel-sized containers?

Travel sized containers would be good for owners.  Takes up less space in the cupboard, prevents feeling guilty about trying a new brand when the last one is still 3/4th full, and they feel like they're paying less for shampoo because less goes to waste.

And it would be good for the grooming supply companies.  Not only would they sell a larger volume of shampoo, they could charge higher prices for the smaller bottles.  Instead of selling a 16oz bottle for $8, they could sell a 1oz bottle for $1.50.  Plus, instead of a one-time sale every decade, the grooming companies would have much more constand demand for their product.

Any thoughts?

And just in case you need a refresher on bathing a cat, check out this video!

(Clean cat photo taken by theogeo.)

Why they just don't care...

4 out of 5 customers agree... calling a company's customer service line is a frustrating experience.

5 out of 5 companies agree... they don't care.

The last time I helped my parents sign-up for a cell phone plan, we were the lucky recipients of 3 defective (but brand-new) cell phones.  Even after following the activation directions to the letter multiple times, I couldn't get even get one to work.

So began a 3-day long adventure of customer "service".  After a significant amount of time trying to get through to a human, multiple long waits, 5 different people telling me 7 times the exact same directions to activate the phones--and numerous wishes for a punching bag--one customer service rep finally admitted to me that my new phones *may* have been shipped without any software.  As a result, they simply couldn't be activated!

Happily, they were able to send us new phones in just a couple days (that worked right off the bat).

But why did it take so long (and so many activation requests) to figure out the problem? 

Quite simply, because I was no longer a priority to them!

Let's face it, when we sign-up for a cell phone service, it ceases to be about us the moment they charge our credit cards.  We don't need to be wooed anymore and they don't need to convince us that they're a great company to use.

From that day forward, they can count on 24 months of constant paychecks and the luxury of knowing they can charge us fees for choosing to change to another provider too soon. Many customers even receive network-specific phones, and others will lose their telephone number if they change providers.

They have us right where they want us.

Now that we're stuck in a 2-year contract, the courtship is over.  And that's why calling customer service lines can feel like torture.  They have all the power in the relationship.

So if bills are wrong, or mysterious charges show up, or the service simply doesn't work in an area... it's not the company's problem.  It's up to the customer to get issues resolved because the company doesn't care if people get what they're paying for.  They make money when customers don't contest extra charges, or when customers pay even though the service doesn't work for them.

In response to (multiple) comments on her post about Sprint, Becky Carroll writes:

I have a sneaky suspicion that Sprint call center reps are doing when they are incented to do: get customers off the phone quickly. Until companies change their metrics to be more customer-focused, it will be very difficult to see true customer resolution of issues...

...The telecomm industry has a very high turnover rate, mostly due to the fact (I believe) that customers are “hold hostage” to their carrier or cable company. Many times, there are not a lot of choices, or customers are locked in with huge fees for leaving...

...Sprint did not value the customers it fired, for whatever reason.

Of course they don't.  Why should they bother making changes when the majority of their customers are shackled to their service agreement? Plus, poor customer service is an industry standard in the US cell phone business. (Even though Sprint is rated as the worst.)

In Sprint's view, they have no incentive to change to a more customer-focused system.  Until they really feel negative results from their behavior, they’ll probably just continue what they’re doing.

 

After all, "With over 53,000,000 subscribers, Sprint will feel no pain over losing 1,000 "demon" customers."

(By the way, the only way I reached a real live person when calling the helpline was by clicking through to the sales department and pretending to be confused!)

Does thinking of customer service as a negative blind companies to new opportunities? (Part 2)

It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this blog that many large companies hate giving customer service.  To avoid talking to their customers, companies outsource, automate, and even (if they're Sprint) send break-up letters to their most challenging customers.

But is customer service the horrible beast many companies make it out to be?  Or do opportunities lurk just past its frightening exterior?

Yesterday, in Does thinking of customer service as a negative blind companies to new opportunities (Part 1), I challenged the belief of companies like Sprint that customer service calls are negatives that should be avoided.

Here are a couple more "What If" questions that Sprint should be asking.

Question 3: What if Sprint benefited from customers calling the service line?

Many many companies spend a lot of money on market research, paying big bucks to find out what their customers want.  They do surveys, gather focus groups, and pay other companies to tell them what customers are saying.  It's not an easy thing for them to get quality input.

At the same time, customers calling the service lines are often faced with long, boring waits where they listen to elevator music and head the same advertisement over and over and over.

Hmmm.  Can something be done to improve both those situations?  What if customer who called the help line were invited to help the company with a little market research while they waited?

Customers could complete a survey, evaluate a radio advertisement for its effectiveness, or even share their ideas with a representative.

Although many customers would do it for free (just to avoid the horrible hold music), the company could offer incentives to increase participation.  Perhaps a 10% deduction on their next bill, or a coupon code to buy phone accessories on their website, or maybe even a shorter wait?

Market research would get access to a large number of subscribers, customers would not be so irritated at the long wait and the company would be able to write-off some customer-service expenses as a development initiative.

Question 4: What if Sprint only paid for customer service representatives when they were needed?

One major disadvantage for large companies like Sprint is the cost of running a large customer care center.  Unlike restaurants, customer care representatives cannot just be "phased out" when call volume drops.  Call center workers expect to work their full shifts.

Or could a customer care center be run more like a restuaruant? What if Sprint changed the traditional call center structure to give it more flexibility in staffing by (a) decentralizing it and (b) hiring more part time workers.

(A) VoIP technology allows people to answer phone calls where ever, whenever with the same line.  This could enable Sprint to set-up many smaller call centers around the world that would all be accessible by the same number (which might already be happening) OR it could allow call center representatives to work from home.

Which brings up (B) hiring more part-time workers.  The issue with having a large center is that workers expect to have full shifts when they come in to work.  If workers are allowed to work from home, or from smaller close-by centers, however, they might be willing to come in for shorter shifts during peak hours.

College students might be very interested in a job where they could come in for just a couple hours to make some extra money.  Another possibility is stay-at-home parents.  Airline Jet Blue currently homesources its entire reservation service to approximately 1000 housewives in Utah who work an average of 25 hours a week.

By moving to a system like that, Sprint wouldn't have to pay for a full staff of customer service agents during their slow periods, but would still be fully-staffed during their busiest times.

So, there are a couple more ideas about how Sprint could turn their customer service calls into a positive.  Sometimes, even the "worst obligations" can harbor opportunities.

But... if Sprint prefers the monster, they are perfectly welcome to continue down their deep dark path to see what waits for them at the end.

Note 1: I say Sprint because they just grabbed headlines by firing 1000 of their neediest customers... but it could be any company that hates customer service calls.

Note 2: Special thanks to Thiago and  Jean for the Godzilla photos!

Does thinking of customer service as a negative blind companies to new opportunities? (Part 1)

Customer service calls are never pleasant, but it seems that many companies hate them even more than customers do!

Not long ago, mobile phone giant Sprint made headlines when they "fired" 1000+ of their customers for "excessive complaining".  Those "demon customers" were allegedly guilty of calling Sprint's customer service line too many times per month--costing Sprint more money to staff the service lines than it was willing to pay.

What is interesting to me is that Sprint (and many, many other companies) view customer service as the bane of their existence.

To them, customer service is expensive, time consuming, and frustrating because only the unhappy people contact them.  It's something to be shuttled to the bottom of the priority list, automated as much as possible, and outsourced whenever possible.

It's not something they try to put a lot of brainpower into.

But, let's try something different by putting on our thinking caps, asking some questions and looking for opportunities in customer service.

Question 1: What if Sprint welcomed customer complaints?

Customers rarely call companies to thank the company for doing something right.  Usually, calls result from something going wrong.  (Rocket science, huh?)

Well, what if Sprint or another company combined their customer service line with their improvement squad?  Then, when customers called in with problems, those problems could be noted and fixed.  Priority could be given to the problems with the most call-ins.

Although this would probably overload the company right away, in the long-term it would have significant benefits.  Customers wouldn't have those problems anymore and customer service reps wouldn't have to deal with common issues on a time-consuming individual basis.  Most importantly, by fixing the recurring problems with their service, the company would have a much stronger position in the market.

Question 2: What if Sprint used those calls as an opportunity to blow their customers away?

Imagine calling a customer service line, fully expecting be shuttled from computer voice to unhelpful agent and to have to fight for every little thing, and then hearing...

"We're so glad that you brought this to our attention.  Could you please tell me a little more about the situation so that we can fix it for you? . . . I just want you to know that we're also making a note of this issue and submitting it to our improvement office."

Wow.  Wouldn't you feel great to find out that the company cared about you and legitimately wanted to fix the problem? Wouldn't that company really stand out in your mind?

The truth is, no one wants things to go wrong, and no one enjoys calling the help line.  When most people do finally call customer service, they're expecting a runaround at best, and wouldn't be surprised if they end up with a customer service horror story.

There's a reason that so many people love Apple.  Not because their products are the best in the world, but because they work hard to make sure that every customer has a positive experience.

This is beginning to sound interesting, isn't it?  Who really sits down to think about how customer service calls could be a positive both for the company and the customers?  (Hey, stop pointing at me!)

But since most companies seem to view customer service as a bad thing, it's a ripe area for new ideas.  The key is to start asking questions.

Here are a couple more of the ones I'm thinking about:

• What if calling customer service was fun?

• What if Sprint benefited from people calling the service line?

• What if Sprint didn't have to pay for customer service reps when they didn't need them?

Continue to Part 2 for more ideas about how those "What if" statements could work.

And please share your own! What more "What If" statements can you think of?
 

The Power of Positive Thinking in Innovation

When being creative, is it always better to listen to people who are older and wiser?

Today, a post on Phil Gerbyshak's Make it Great! blog started me thinking.  Phil writes about his experience growing up in small towns and how he had to fight to prevail over the misconceptions that people formed about his potential.

It's a great story, and every creative thinker should read it.

Why?  Because anyone who comes up with a radical new idea will most likely have to fight for it against hordes of unbelievers.

Consider some of the statements previous innovators have faced:

• "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." (Western Union internal memo, 1876.)

• "Who the h*** wants to hear actors talk?" (H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927)

• "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." (A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith founded FedEx not long afterwards.)

• "A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." (Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.)

• "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." (Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.)

• "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." (Drillers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist in his project to drill for oil in 1859.)

• "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." (Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre. [Higher School of War])

• "No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris." (Orville Wright.)

• "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." (Attributed to Thomas J. Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.)

Luckily, those wise statements weren't listened to by stubborn inventors. They thought they could... they knew they could... and they did!

Just goes to show how good ideas can completely redefine how people view the world.

Any other examples?

And thanks again to Phil for starting this train of thought! I'm glad he didn't listen to the bad advice he received!

Fighting back when a competitor has a better product.

What should a company do when its competitor comes up with an amazing product that everyone wants?

With all  the hype and excitement about the upcoming release of the iPhone, AT&T's competitors appear to be tearing their hair out.

Sprint just issued a list of anti-iPhone talking points (pdf), while Verizon Wireless apparently decided to take the high road with a confidential internal memo telling employees specific ways to trash the iPhone's capabilities.

At this point, there is absolutely nothing Verizon or Sprint can do to stop the iPhone's arrival.  On Friday, no matter what, the iPhone is hitting the stores and certain customers will jump to get their hands on it.

So, Verizon Wireless and other providers have only a few options...

1. Spend a lot of energy personally telling customers everything that is wrong about the iPhone and why it will make their life miserable.
   
   Of course, this could backfire by making Verizon and Sprint look like sore losers.  Plus, with all the hype the iPhone is getting, customers probably won't believe the negative points.  Each conversation will take up a lot of time, tying up service reps and dragging down customer service for other customers.
2. Make it incredibly difficult for existing customers to get out of their phone contracts.
   
   This will keep their customer numbers up in the short term, but make their existing customers hate them.  Once those subscriptions are up... goodbye!
3. Tell customers about all the great options available at their current provider and get customers to upgrade their accounts.
   
   A positive, proactive option that might retain customers.  Done wrong though, this could backfire by making customers feel manipulated (remember the AOL unsubscribe phone call?) and sucked into a more expensive phone plan that still doesn't give them what they really want.
4. Offer irresistable bonuses to customers to lure them back to Verizon/Sprint/etc.
   
   Tempting and proactive, but could be very expensive for the company to lure back customers, and could upset the current customers who aren't getting the same deal.
5. Cut their losses, congratulate AT&T, carefully take note of the successes and failures of the iPhone and then come out with anew phone next year that completely blows the iPhone out of the water!
   
   Verizon and Sprint already know that the iPhone isn't perfect.  Which means that they also know what can be improved.  Instead of pointing fingers at all the iPhone's faults, they should be figuring out how to take advantage of them by coming out with a better phone.

Verizon and Sprint are facing a big choice this summer as the iPhone enters the market and changes customer expectations.  But it's also a big opportunity for them.  As Seth Godin wisely wrote today on his blog:

The iPhone is a gift for every cell phone marketer in the world. Why? Because it creates a problem where there was none before. Now, a cell phone is not just a phone. Now, a phone is worth spending money on. So, since Apple created that 'problem' in my mind, how are you going to solve it?

He has it exactly right.  The iPhone has just completely redefined the cell phone market.

It showed that people want phones that are better, do more, look good and are easy to use.  It is also showing that people will happily pay a lot of money for a new, innovative phone that blows the others out of the water.

It's a great moment for innovation in phones.

So, now the question is, who can come up with the next phone that everyone has to have?

"Verizon is Evil" photo thanks to www.gizmodo.com

Can a new idea be too far ahead of its time?

In 1972, my grandfather invented the color copying machine.  Don't believe me? It's true.  Unfortunately, he doesn't get any credit for what is now a multi-million dollar industry.

There's a simple reason for this. 

When my grandpa and his co-workers designed the first color copier at 3M in the early 1970s, they were on the leading edge of printing technology. 

In fact, their invention was so innovative and forward-thinking that it was a complete and total failure in the marketplace.  No one wanted it.  No one.

It didn't take 3M long to ditch the color copy machine.

Then, four years later, Xerox came out with their color copy machine. (Ah, you know where this is going? Wrong.)  That failed horribly as well.

Why?  Because in the 1970s, most companies didn't even have color printers!  No one had anything of color to copy!

Luckily, Xerox was willing to let the underachieving color copier limp through years and years of lackluster sales until businesses actually became interested in it.  And when demand did pick up, Xerox was ready to take full advantage of it.

Today, the color copier is a common fixture in business, schools and government buildings.  People even have color copiers in their homes.  Although Xerox doesn't make all the color copiers on sale today, they still carry plenty of name recognition.

So why did 3M lose out? They were first to market, but they had created an invention without considering their potential customers. 

Yes, in the 1970s, it would be very cool and leading edge for businesses to be able to make copies of colored document in house.  Unfortunately,  when it came to writing out the purchase reports, the demand simply wasn't there.  Businesses could not justify spending thousands of dollars to buy a machine that they would use only a couple times a month.

This is a problem that is rampant today as well.  Technical companies and engineers work really hard to create ahead-of-their-time features without checking to see if anyone is ready to buy.

Tell me, do you know of any new and amazing products or product features that are technologically impressive, but don't fulfill an existing need? Fingerprint scanners on personal computers, anyone?