Ideas need to evolve

Everything in the modern world started as an idea. If it isn’t provided by nature, then at some point it was just an idea. The problem with ideas however, is that once we have a good one, we often forget that we need to build on them. Ideas are a continuum, not an event.

The game of basketball was invented in 1891 by James Naismith in the USA to provide a lower impact sport than Football. It isn’t too dissimilar from what we observe today. A quirky fact, is that in its first iteration fruit baskets where used to catch the ball. Seems like a pretty cool idea to get the first few games underway. But here’s what’s astounding. It wasn’t until 21 years after they started playing that they cut a hole in the baskets so the ball would drop to the floor. And yep, you guessed it, they used to use a ladder to get the balls out. For 21 long years!

There’s lots more of examples just like it: The can opener came 48 years after canned food. Wheels on suitcases weren’t common place until 50 years after the start of air travel. It makes you wonder how many crappy things could be fixed if we just took the original idea that little bit further.

Likewise some ideas become outdated – their time is up and we all move on. This is where we need to be careful. We need to make sure we don’t end up in an industry, or job which ‘as an idea’ is becoming outdated. When ideas become outdated, industries die and careers can too.

At some point we all need to find new ideas, and sometimes we even need to find new towns – especially if the one we are living in is based on an old, outdated industrial idea. Entire towns have been built around the ideas of yesteryear. This time however, we’ve all been given the dignity of choice – we can reinvent ourselves, and even our towns if we choose to. The digital world knows no geography. The biggest challenge with this idea though, is getting people to really believe it.

Maybe we need a big idea. Or just maybe, all we need is a small change, to just cut a hole in the basket and see where our ball lands.

– – –

You’re a true team #Sammatron person coz you read this far and I totally dig it. You know what I’d love? If you checked out the Latest Webisode of Future Sandwich on Digital Twins – our best yet. Heck why not leave a comment and subscribe on Youtube? Thanks.

Disruption and The Shampoo Strategy

Business success is built on what I like to call a Shampoo Strategy. We find a formula, a business model that works, and then we rinse and repeat. It’s the way all wealth is created in the modern economy. We discover a process, service or product which has perpetual demand and we continue to deliver this to the same people again and again and again. The only problem is when to change the formula?

Shampoo Strategies are the type of business outcome any profit centric capitalist should be aiming for. We turn something from an idea into a system which makes money with very few changes to inputs. It’s essentially when we’ve cracked it. Ironically, the Shampoo Strategy is exactly where disruption comes from.

We develop a system which becomes its own thing. It operates on a kind of auto pilot and is highly profitable. Costs continue to go down while margins go up, and we end up serving the system, and losing track of why it worked in the first place. The reason it worked is usually because the formula, the customer and the business model all overlapped in a way that suited the market. But as markets evolve, yesterday’s formula may become less effective, sometimes seemingly overnight. But when we look hard, the signs of deceptive disruption are always there long before that ‘overnight‘ moment.

So what should we do to understand if our formula is about to stop working? Well, it’s rarely one thing on its own, but the way a few things interact. I break them into 3 parts.

The Technology: Questions to ask here include: How the problem gets solved and how can tech change that, reduce costs, or change the method of delivery?

The Business Model: Are people still prepared to pay for what we deliver? Can they serve that need more economically elsewhere? Can we increase our margin or reduce our price with a new emerging technology?

Demand: Is demand for what we do solid, shifting or waning. How can we shift with it? Is the solution just shifting? e.g. digitization of news. Or is the market in perpetual decline? e.g. coal fired power plants.

Finally, how do these three things interact to create a new formula for tomorrow’s rinse and repeat?

The one thing to remember with the Shampoo Strategy is that they never work forever, but new formulas can always be invented. And new formulas only ever get invented by those paying attention to the market, more than they pay attention to what they make or sell.

The problem with corporate climbing

A weird fact about corporate career hierarchy climbing is this: the skills you need to get to the top are not the skills you need once you get there. Some leaders are true polymaths who can adapt to the different behaviour needed. But we’ve all experienced managers who make us wonder how the heck they ended up running the show.

So there are two parts to the problem: skills and politics.

The Skills Problem

Think about the work we do at lower levels in most organisations. It’s about managing process and executing with excellence. But as we climb the ladder, it becomes about managing strategy, people and finance. While they feed into each other, you need to prove your executional skills before you get a shot at the strategic tasks. But what happens when people excel at the more capstone strategic tasks but not the rudimentary executional elements? Here’s what happens – they never get a chance to show what they’re made of. It’s why many talented people who just don’t quite fit the corporate mould end up going it alone as freelancers or starting up their own firm. In this instance, Big Co misses out on great talent.

The Political Problem

Another way people climb the hierarchy is via the political process. The people good at managing up tend to advance further than those who don’t, regardless of companies claiming they promote purely on merit. Political performance in many companies outweighs all other factors. But the problem is that once they ascend to the stratosphere of leadership, they need to be very effective at managing down, motivating and empowering the troops to form a strong team. These are two very different sets of skills that are challenging for one person to master.

What’s this got to do with the future and what to do about it

Technological disruption is most often a top-down phenomenon. It’s the leaders of the organisation who choose the strategic direction and allocate capital for their future revenue streams. Getting to the top is a long journey. The winners tend to believe what got them there in the first place is what they need to continue doing.

Board members of established firms looking to survive disruptive change might need to rethink how they staff the C-Suite. Perhaps the dissidents who never made it past middle management or who left disgruntled are just what they need in times of rapid change.

– – –

Be sure to check out and subscribe to Future Sandwich Now-Soon-Later my weekly web series to keep you up to date on the latest tech news to give you sound bites of brilliance for the boardroom!

Never grow your vegetables in someone else’s garden

In an attention economy it is a compelling offer for a website to offer access to an audience of 2.4 billion people (Facebook) or promise that 90% of all internet searches start with you (Google). It would seem as though the only rational choice would be to do business on their platform.

It’s here that the most important business lesson my father taught me comes to mind:

Never grow your vegetables in someones else’s garden.

The advice is exactly as it sounds. Make sure your own and control where you build your assets and revenue streams. If you don’t there is always the risk that the landlord will change the rules without notice and pull up your roots.

In the digital platform economy most people and companies are growing their veggies in other peoples gardens. While it is very clear there’s an upside to this strategy; speed, simplicity, scale. But the downside is obvious and almost always comes to bear. Eventually the platform landlords increase the rent, or kick you out – but only after you’ve tended their garden, or renovated their house.

The weird thing about this, is that it keeps on happening and people and businesses keep on falling for same trick. Let’s go through a little bit of internet platform history to remind ourselves of the downside and even help us with our Future Proof Platform Strategy Development.

The Likes Deceit:

Marky Zuck said; “Yo, brands out there, generate ‘Likes‘ for your brand on our platform, and you’ll be able to have constant contact with the consumers and fans of your brand. Whenever you post an update, they’ll see it, and you’ll have a direct connection.” Then after brands spent many millions of dollars building a brand following on Facebook young Marky changed his mind. He said “Yeah, about that – well, I’ve changed my mind, and now to reach those same people you invested in my ‘Platform’ to connect with – you need to pay me again – to advertise to them. They are no longer going to see your updates in their news feed.”

Boom – just like that – he pulled up their roots.

The Google Page Rank:

Sergey & Larry said; ‘Yo, businesses out there, we are different to Yahoo and other searches engines (there used to be many). We’re all about helping people find exactly what they are after and sending them immediately to you – We are not a portal like Yahoo. Get on board. Then every website in the world optimised for Google. Then Google became so good at everything and so big, they changed their mind. Google is rapidly becoming a portal where they scrape their suppliers information and keep customers in the Google ecosystem – increasingly they don’t send people who search anywhere. They satisfy their needs right on the Google homepage. Just check out the first listing for my searches today for the Snow reports, Weather reports, The AFL ladder and even Flights.

Sorry about that Snow & Weather Channels…

Thanks for the stats AFL…

Introducing the Google travel agency…

Instagram influencers lose their ‘influence‘:

The latest change to remove the likes count on Instagram has hurt so called influences who get paid on this metric. While facebook have claimed that this shift is to improve users well being and remove the stress of expressing themselves, I can’t help but think they don’t want the leakage of advertising revenue going directly to their users instead of the mothership. I wouldn’t be surprised if they launch an Instagram Influencers dashboard with metrics in the back end to control the money flows in the Influencer economy.

So, it seems the only thing we learn from business history, is that few people learn from business history. Just this week Australian TV news channels joined up with the Facebook platform to get their news to a wider audience. This too won’t end well for those providing the content. Contrary to what many people believe, content is not king. Distribution is more powerful than content – always has been, always will be.

How to manage the Platform Predicament?

So, do I practice what I preach? Yes. The most important piece in the Steve Sammartino portfolio is my own webpage and this blog. I own and control it. Around 5000 people read it each week – not a huge amount, but it’s enough to serve my personal business model.

Of course I use other peoples channels; Linkedin, Youtube, Twitter and Instagram – but my primary goal in using them isn’t to grow a business inside it, but rather to grow some seedlings which I’ll transfer into my own garden.

My advice here is simple. Always spread your platform and digital risk. Ensure you take a portfolio approach and invest in your own channels that you control. Always remember that incentives shape commercial behaviour and we should ensure we remember this for our own purposes too.

– – –

Be sure to check out the Latest Ep. of Future Sandwich Now-Soon-Later – we talk about how in the future you won’t own anything – 4 mins of goodness & insight click here. I’d love if you made a comment on Youtube as well.

Cheers, Steve. 

The next phase of innovation

Innovation doesn’t have to include a microchip, be a consumer gadget, come from private industry, generate profits, or even be a physical thing. If we can agree on these truths and what innovation is, then we can usher in a long over due, different type of innovation.

So what is innovation? 

Here’s the Sammatron definition: The implementation of better solutions to meet existing market desires, new market requirements, and even unarticulated needs. This can be done through products, services, methods, processes, business models or governance. 

The two things that matter above for this post are; unarticulated market needs and Governance.

Both of which will be the most important facets of innovation in the coming decade. But before we explore the next phase of innovation, it’s worth reviewing the phase we are currently in.

Innovation which has shaped the past twenty years has been the domain of private industry. Technology firms now make up seven of the ten biggest companies in the world. Only one of which, was on the list in 1999 – that being Microsoft. Their financial dominance is a clear function of the consumer utility they have provided, no doubt. The digital era has provided inordinate consumer value through data mobility, entertainment on demand, social connection, digital connectivity, smart devices and ecommerce to name a few. But, they have become an invasive species.

Like all invasive species, they can only spread so far before they start to negatively impact the eco-system they, and others depend on to survive. These days their most important strategies are spreading their data tentacles further, buying nascent competitors, and lobbying government to avoid anti-trust action. It’s now time for a new phase of innovation. It’s time for structural and regulatory innovation from our friendly and representative Governments.

Now after you all finishing choking on your coffee while reading this, let’s not forget how we got to now. The reason big tech has been able to do everything it has, is simply because of what Governments did beforehand. We can thank the the Cold War and the Space Race for literally everything which exists in digital. The moon landing drove the creation of software, the integrated circuit and the microchip, it led to the development of CAT scans, it advanced wireless technology, solar panels, fireproof materials, satellites, GPS navigation, laptops, virtual and augmented reality, even the ‘gorilla glass’ on smart phones to name a few. The list is very long indeed. Big tech isn’t standing on the shoulders of giants, they are standing on the shoulders of tax payers. All the innovations creating our modern lives from a bygone era of Gov investment and innovation.

Unarticulated needs: While most people don’t know it yet, we need to reign in big tech with regulation so that others can compete fairly. The second unarticulated need is for major Government funded technology driven projects – NASA level projects – real moonshots. This scale is needed to unearth new technology which will be the realm of entrepreneurship 10-30 years from now. The reason it needs to come from the world’s Governments is to ensure that new innovations become open-source so that others can build open them – as per the Space Race. The new Australian Space Agency is a good start.

Governance: We need heavy regulation on technology exactly because big technology firms are starting to act like ‘quasi governments’ who control the major factors of production in the digital era. They are even trying to launch their own currencies. Recent responses from Google and Facebook here to the ACCC’s plan to curb their dominance are telling. They claim reigning them in will risk technology advancement. Their aim is to make us fearful we can’t advance society or innovate without them. The reverse is actually true – they couldn’t have existed without us!

So what types of regulatory shifts do we need from Governments? Well, here’s a few crazy ideas to get us started.

Deeper Privacy Protections: Outlaw facial recognition software, and facial storage by private firms without explicit permission.

Gov funded social networks: Social networks which are Gov funded, but open-source so we can build and iterate it and avoid surveillance capitalism.

Mid-life Education Funding: Any person who loses a job to automation ought be able to study free, funded by government for a ‘mid life’ student program. Who said school is something kids do? When public schools were invented life expectancy was around 60 years of age – now it’s approaching 100 – maybe mid-life schooling can replace a midlife crises!

Progressive Regulation: Like our taxation system regulation shouldn’t be put in place on tech firms as a one size fits all. The problem in doing that is that it suits big firms with the resources to respond to regulation and makes it hard for startups to do so. Therefore, regulations should be tougher and more stringent based on size, data and number os users on a service – like we do with income tax.

Algorithm Transparency: What is inside algorithms should be listed like ingredients are on cereal packets. So we know why we are seeing what we are seeing. There should also be an ability to ‘opt-out’ of every algorithm which determines what content a person sees on any web platform.

Terabyte Tax: We know data worth more than oil, so let’s tax it accordingly – we tax oil with an excise – let’s do the same with data.

For anyone who still thinks Government can’t do anything properly, think about it next time you drive on a safe road, drink a nice clean glass of water or fly safely 30,000 feet in the air.

Some of the most important innovations aren’t about efficiency and speed, but about being thoughtful, slow and purposeful.

– – –

You’ve read this far – please go checkout the latest episode of Future Sandwich Now-Soon-Later – and please make a comment too! I appreciate your support. Steve.

A Privacy Tipping Point?

This week I did media interviews from Sydney to New York to Washington to San Diego about the sudden popularity of FaceApp. I’m guessing you’ve already tried it. If not – you upload your photo to the app and choose a filter to either make you younger, older, a different gender or sprout some facial hair. Powered by AI, the app magically spits out a photo of you that can be plain frightening.

FaceApp improved its software this week and celebrities have been posting photos of their future elderly selves. 150 million downloads later, security experts have sounded the alarm about the consequences of uploading your data to an app based in Russia. But here’s the rub: its terms and conditions aren’t really any different to most social media platforms. Why is this concern over cybersecurity very much now in the zeitgeist when we hand over much more personal data to tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google every day? Yep, you got it, it’s because The Ruskis are involved. Personally, I’m more worried about Mr Zuckerberg and so is Wired magazine. In any case, it’s clear every big tech database has already been hacked by foreign entities, including the Russians.

While it is kinda weird it took a foreign social app to generate such a media storm, I’m thankful it has. We might just finally be starting to get woke to the compounding effect of copious amounts of personal information being vacuumed up. What is clear is that we always turn a blind eye to the downside of anything when the short-term benefits outweigh the long-term consequence – which is what Big Tech does so well. They know we can’t live without their services on a daily basis.  But when it comes to FaceApp…a few funny photos is all they provided and all of a sudden, we get worried about what we are giving away. Maybe they should also have promised to make the world a more open and connected place?

–   –   –

Be sure to check out and subscribe to Future Sandwich Now-Soon-Later short weekly web video series. You’ll totally dig it.

Cars will own themselves

You’ve probably heard about blockchain, but what we really need to understand is how blockchain can be used to fundamentally change what corporations are and how they can be run. Slight nerd warning for this entry – but I think you’re gonna dig it.

During the Age of Discovery, modern corporations were invented to remove personal risk from people taking financial risk. Ever since then, new forms of sovereignty have emerged. Of course, this confuses who owns what and who is actually responsible. There’s even a question mark over who owns your own face these days, as usage and collection of facial recognition data grows. What’s about to arrive is even weirder than that. Very soon, ‘things’, like cars, will be able to own themselves!

What makes this possible?

There are two innovations that make this possible. The first we all know about – self-driving cars. The tech is already here and it works – no explanation required. The second is the technologies most associated with cryptocurrencies: blockchain and Smart Contracts.

To understand where I am going with this, all you need to know is that we now have a technology which enables us to programme the behaviour of ‘things‘ like cars, to behave in certain ways, financially. So instead of people doing deals with other people and transacting – ‘things‘ will be able to do business with other ‘things‘.

We will be able to programme ‘things’ to interact with the world independently. For example, a self-drive car could be programmed to recharge or refuel with petrol when required, and then transact with another robot programmed to extract the requisite funds from the cars’ virtual wallet.

How will we do this?

In the near future we’ll have anInternet of Things’ kind of trading net. Let’s call it the ‘Tradenet‘. This Tradenet will be a bit like the internet as we know it, but instead of having virtual web addresses we visit online, it will have the actual physical location of real ‘things’ like cars registered to it. It will be an internet where we trade the usage of ‘things’. The Tradenet won’t be for all forms of commerce – only for ‘things’ that are commoditised so we know exactly what we will be getting. Every ‘thing’ on the Tradenet will be self-aware: what it is, where it is, how it’s used, who wants it, what its fees are, how it will advertise itself, and how to make contracts with other people and things, and essentially do contracts or ‘jobs’. ‘Things’ on the Tradenet will be self-employed. This will be a separate kind of internet that sits to the side of what we have now.

The Autonomous Economic Agent

A car on the Tradenet will become an autonomous economic agent. It will have an inbuilt set of instructions in its code which not only tells it what to do, but enables it to learn from its environment, constantly upgrading its knowledge and decision criteria.

So what might a Tradenet car do?

Firstly, it will be ‘born‘ into the market when someone buys it and puts it out to work. This could be a person, a corporation, a foundation, or even a charity. The car comes with a ‘mind of its own’. Even if two models of the same car are put on the market, after a time, like twins, they’ll evolve and behave differently, because of how they have learned to interact with the market.

The car will bid for work on the Tradenet, with the objective of, let’s say in this case, maximising profit. It will find the best routes to maximise profit, know where position iteself and the optimal times to get the most rides. When demand is low for people passengers, it will look for package deliveries or other forms of paid transport the Tradenet needs.

At night, it will go on the Tradenet and look for the cheapest car park to stop in overnight when demand is low. It then hits the road again early in the morning, hoping for long airport trips. It knows when it needs to be serviced and cleaned, as well as where and when it is least costly to perform these tasks.

During school holidays when the city becomes quiet, it drives itself up to the Gold Coast to do business with holiday makers. Around Christmas time when the the trucking industry has excess demand, it does trips between major cities hauling gifts for ecommerce purchases overnight. Zipping from Melbourne to Sydney overnight, the car then works in Sydney the next day… before making the overnight trip back to Melbourne the following day.

The car trades based on what it learns about the best routes with other Autonomous Economic Agent cars – for a fee!

Here’s the real kicker – when the car itself is too busy and market conditions are just right – it gives birth. It uses its excess profits to purchase a new baby car from the Tradenet. It buys the right car for the market, which may well be a different model to itself. When the new baby car arrives, the parent car downloads all that it knows to the child and puts it out to work. Of course, it teaches the child to learn from the mistakes the parent has made and hopes it does even better financially. The cars which learn the most will make the most money, as a quasi-autonomous corporate family. The more babies a car has, the more successful it is.

As the original car ages, it might even put itself into retirement. Or worse, its ‘kids’ collude to send it to the scrapyard as it is dragging down the car family’s profit. 🙁

Next Generation Corporations

Yes, our next iteration of the corporation is ‘things’ that act just like companies do, except there are no people involved in running them. People might have shares in Autonomous Economic Agents and as soon as self-drive cars are affordable and the regulations allow, this ownership model will follow.

The only question is, which entrepreneur will be first to the write the code to make it a reality?