I was inspired by this radio story that was on NPR the other day that was all about Superpowers. Not U.S. and U.S.S.R. Superpowers, but superhero superpowers. This American Life is always broken up into acts, and act 1 was focused on whether you would want the power of flight or invisibility. The story delved into what psychological insights might be found by reading into the decisions and comments of the people interviewed, but what I really want to know is what every money obsessed MBA like us wants to know: Which one could you monetize best and how?
At an informal discussion over pizza late at night, several of the "staff writers" talked about this very topic. The best our slightly buzzed brains could come up with for invisibility was espionage, whether corporate or for some national security agency. Of course, your body, once it is dissected to determine what allows you to be invisible, would be worth quite a bit but you won't be able to spend the money on a new Aston Martin and that mansion you have had your eye on since you'll be dead and in several pieces of varying size.
For flight, we came up with delivery (like quick delivery of sensitive items) or, for those who still have a small shriveled black organ that looks like a heart, emergency rescue. Now there probably isn't a ton of money in emergency rescue, but I suppose we didn't want to feel like total jerks.
Now that I'm looking at these "solutions" in the cold hard light of day, and after the buzz has worn off, I have to admit I'm really not that impressed. Seriously, we came up with a James Bond wannabee who will likely spend more time in women's dressing rooms at Victoria's Secret and a glorified UPS delivery guy? Where is the big money? Where is the glory? Apparently not with either of our solutions. I wonder if an invisible marketer or flying consultant would get paid more than non-powered versions?
Can you do better? Probably, since the bar is pretty low. Would you please put me out of my misery and tell me what my poor overeducated MBA automaton brain overlooked? As with all brainstorms, we will accept any idea, even if it's only partially formulated, and will withhold criticism until you have left the room.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Quit your bitchin? AT&T's service isn't really that bad?
CNN has an interesting article (link at the bottom) today defending AT&T's network. It makes the same compelling point I have been making for some time: If the network is that bad, shouldn't people be leaving? "Churn" (the industry term for customers leaving the service) is very low at AT&T, pretty much a match for Verizon' supposedly better service and much better than Sprint or T-Mobile. So why all the noise? The article points out that dissatisfied customers tend to be in NYC and SF, both media and tech capitals in the US. So they are just more vocal, and have the soapbox to go with it, about their dissatisfaction.
A few counter and supporting points:
1. One reason churn may not be very high is contracts. AT&T boasts that a large number of subscribers are on contracts and Family Plans, both of which increase switching costs.
2. Another reason churn may be low: iPhone. AT&T is still the only guy that has it.
3. San Francisco is notoriously hard to install new cell towers in, but why isn't that fact affecting coverage for Verizon, T-Mo and Sprint? Is it because they don't have iPhone or other smartphones? AT&T does have the largest number of smartphone users, as a percentage of their total base, among the Big 4.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Does the iPhone on Verizon even matter anymore, or does Android = iPhone to consumers?
An interesting article on MSNBC today (see link below) makes an interesting case that it doesn't really matter when/if the iPhone ever makes it to Verizon, or, presumably, any other carrier. The basic argument is that Android has taken off and will continue it's climb, while iPhone will begin to stall and then repeat Apple's historical performance in personal computers, meaning a closed and controlled system will hurt adoption compared to an open one like Windows.
My first thought was that the author was relying too heavily on the assumption that an Android phone is equal to an iPhone in consumers' minds, and I think he may, but he also has some pretty compelling studies and arguments to back up his position. Anecdotally I have read that quite a few Android users still hold up the iPhone as the yardstick to compare their phone to, but that doesn't really answer whether consumers see them as substitutes.
It's an interesting read, check it out:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)