Have I Reached The Party To Whom I Am Speaking?

There is no disputing that a company can save megabucks by outsourcing their tech support to Asia where wages and operating expenses are cheaper. What does bear looking at is the non-monetary, difficult to define “impression” that Americans are left with after they experience talking to one of the multiple offshore locations that are serving up consumer phone technical support today.

The typical American caller isn’t a candidate for the Geek Squad. They use technology terms incorrectly and refer to their devices (and their various pieces and parts) by slang or even profane euphemisms. By the time this typical caller attempts to reach tech support, they are frustrated and angry. I believe when they hear a foreign accent answer their call, that anger connects with something deeper in their gut that isn’t associated with their current technological problem.

According to the Washington Post, “The customer satisfaction score for overseas PC call centers was 23 percent lower than for U.S. call centers.” and consumers reported that the agent they were talking to either didn’t seem to understand them or they couldn’t understand the foreign accent. While I’m sure there are often miscommunication issues that arise (American English can be a quirky language) perhaps some of the “misunderstanding” that happens generates from a knee-jerk reaction that the middle-class consumer has as soon as they hear that foreign voice over the phone. It’s not bigotry or prejudice, it’s something more difficult to define that many of us might not even realize we are experiencing.

In today’s weakened economy, where the middle class is taking a particularly brutal and sustained hit to their overall net worth, talking to a foreign voice only slaps us in the face with one of the realities of the current recession: Americans have lost jobs and this foreign voice HAS a job working for an American company. Most of us couldn’t carry on an intelligent debate about why the economy is suffering but we know our 401Ks have dwindled in front of our eyes. We write letters to our congressman asking why we are bailing out banks and insurance companies who continue to hand out ludicrous bonuses to the bad guys that we are told are partially responsible for this mess in the first place. We feel helpless and out of control and we are angry. Deep in our American psyche, we are angry.

The majority of Americans personally know several and maybe many people who are currently unemployed. Regardless of the reasons why a tech support operation is located overseas, the average American can’t help but wonder if the “foreigner” they are talking to is a person who stole a job from their unemployed son, daughter, brother-in-law or neighbor.

In June 2009, MediaPost News reported that, “Domestic (tech support) reps were rated 84 out of 100, while offshore reps were rated just 62. And respondents say that call centers in the U.S. resolved their problems on the first call 68% of the time, versus 42% for offshore.

I believe that given equal circumstances, the vast majority of foreign technicians can resolve a tech support issue equally well as their American counterparts but as long as Americans are scared and angry about their future and the economy, they will think more with their gut and their gut tells them that they hate talking to an offshore call center. No matter how good a technician might be, they will never be able to be good enough and offshore call centers will continue to be an annoyance that we can't quite put our fingers on.

It’s a perception that tech companies might consider paying attention to as the viral negative fall-out might last long after the recession is over. Perception is a powerful thing with us angry Americans and it will be interesting to watch and see if those companies that offer American tech support come out the winner in the end.

Internet For World Peace

CNN has an article up concerning the nomination of the internet for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Because the internet is inanimate, I think the chances of it winning are extremely small. Also on that list of nominees are many of the great minds responsible for the creation of the internet, I find it more likely that one of them will get it instead if the internet is deemed worthy of such a prize.

That said, let's entertain the scenario where the internet does win. Why would the internet win? What would that mean?

Let's think about all the good things the internet is currently responsible for. Instant access to worldwide news, shopping for anything from any location, video chat, keeping in contact with friends, spreading ideas across the world, sending aid to countries/organizations/people located anywhere, job searching, online gaming, having music and videos from anywhere in front of you in seconds, the list could go on for a very long time.

Now what about the bad? Child pornography, software/entertainment piracy, easy identity theft, easy stalking, degradation of face-to-face social interaction, increased laziness, false information proliferation, easy access to material unsuitable for minors...this list too could go on for a long time.

The internet is neutral to everything. Summed up, it's purpose is to allow worldwide interaction for better or for worse. We're talking about a technology that has single handedly connected one out of every 4 people in the world, and that's only growing. Even if it can be used for bad just as easily as for good, surely that single accomplishment is worthy of the award.

What would that mean for us if a technology won an award historically, with no exceptions, given to human beings? Maybe nothing. Perhaps we accept that, at this point in humanity, technology is just as prevalent in securing world peace as any person can be.

Deadly Status Updates

The Associated Press recently posted an article about an Israeli raid being called off when a soldier involved in the raid leaked information. He named the time and location on his Facebook status, saying they were "cleaning up" the village.

Currently, Facebook has over 400 million active users. That means one out of every seventeen people on the planet regularly checks it. Now, this blog post isn't another story about why you should be on Facebook because it exposes your company to one out of every seventeen people in the world. Instead, it's about how public your personal information is, not just your company's.

We've all heard stories about employees who talk bad about their jobs or their bosses in their status updates on Facebook, only to be fired the next day because a friended co-worker rats them out, or the employee forgot they were friended by their boss. What users don't typically think about is that their social media content is open to far more than just other users. In the case of the Israeli soldier, it was enemy intelligence.

There are entire sites dedicated to posting embarrassing, unintelligent photos, statuses, and comments from various social media sites. These sites try to keep anonymity by blurring out last names from comments and statuses as well as blurring eyes from photos, but if there are sites willing to jeopardize even a little bit of that anonymity, there are certainly sites that would offer full disclosure. It doesn't stop with social media either, even embarassing text messages can be submitted and posted online with an area code attached to them.

My point is, if you have any information surfing the air waves or cables there is no guarantee whatsoever that only your "friends" will be able to find it. What's worse, once it's out there it's there for good, and who knows who will see it? With one out of seventeen people on the planet checking Facebook, it could be found anywhere.

Does this mean you should cut yourself off from social media? Absolutely not. It's a great tool to keep in touch, collaborate, and promote yourself. Just keep in mind that if you can promote yourself, you can just as easily condemn yourself. While we may not like that nothing online is truly private, it's the world we live in and to ignore it (while it may not be as fatal as leaking military intelligence to the enemy) could have terrible consequences. Be careful with what you put online.

Technological Travesties

Microsoft Windows has come a long way since its release in November of 1985. Under the leadership of William Henry Gates III, Microsoft grew at a phenomenal rate. By 1998 Windows was the default OS of all x86 PCs. From there, Microsoft continued on to become the Belphegor it is today. As of October 2009, Microsoft had consumed 91% of the market share.

It seems that, after being a market leader for so long, Windows has lost its impetus and tenacity. It almost feels like Microsoft has become complacent. For instance, after the release of Microsoft Office 07, Microsoft didn't update their software, even after major defects were identified. Microsoft instead, waited for a 3rd party programmer to fix the afore mentioned Office 07 issues with an unsupported patch. Microsoft did eventually release a similar patch, albeit conveniently after someone else had already solved the Office 07 problems.

Recently, I was assaulted; again made a victim by Microsoft's supine and lassitude nature. Microsoft has found itself the center of controversy before; but, this latest offense committed by Microsoft is inexcusable. This insult goes far beyond Microsoft's secret anti-Semitism, their pact with the devil, or even when they rewrote the Metric system. This has to do with a basic program that has been available on all Widows OS since the early 90s.

While I was enjoying a relaxing game of FreeCell, this happened to me:



Now glitches happen, I understand this. While it does bother me that glitches still occur in a program that's been around since 1978, the travesty Iím referring to struck once I clicked on the help button.



Apparently, Windows couldn't be bothered to actually make help software that recognized itself. But as you can see, Windows does offer a patch. (I am a little curious who wrote it for them) But if Windows wants to stay a market leader, this ready, fire, aim twaddle has got to go.

~ Kyle Jackson

4 Types of Online Meetings and, a Neologism, Defined!

1. The Web Conference… as defined by Wikipedia
A web conference is used to conduct live meetings, training, or presentations via the Internet. In a web conference, each participant sits at his or her own computer and is connected to other participants via the internet. This can be either a downloaded application on each of the attendees' computers or a web-based application where the attendees access the meeting by clicking on a link distributed by e-mail (meeting invitation) to enter the conference.

The companies listed below (as well as other less well-known) provide competing web conference platforms. They differentiate their offerings with special application-specific software integration features, network facilities and a variety of on-premise and, increasingly, new SaaS delivery models.
• ADOBE
Acrobat Connect
• CITRIX
GotoMeeting
• CISCO
WebEx
• IBM
Lotus Sametime
• MICROSOFT
LiveMeeting

NOTE: In the early years of the Internet, the terms "web conferencing" was often used to describe a group discussion in a message board and therefore not live. The term has evolved to refer specifically to live or "synchronous" meetings.

2. The Webinar… as defined by Wikipedia
A webinar is a neologism to describe a specific type of web conference. It is typically one-way from the speaker to the audience with limited audience interaction, such as in a webcast. A webinar can be collaborative and include polling and question & answer sessions to allow full participation between the audience and the presenter. In some cases, the presenter may speak over a standard telephone line, while pointing out information being presented onscreen, and the audience can respond over their own telephones, speaker phones allowing the greatest comfort and convenience. There are web conferencing technologies on the market that have incorporated the use of VoIP audio technology, to allow for a completely web-based communication.

NOTE: A neologism is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event.
Neologisms often become popular through meme tics, by way of mass media, the Internet, and word of mouth, including academic discourse in many fields renowned for their use of distinctive jargon, and often become accepted parts of the language. Other times, however, they disappear from common use just as readily as they appeared. Whether a neologism continues as part of the language depends on many factors, probably the most important of which is acceptance by the public. It is unusual, however, for a word to enter common use if it does not resemble another word or words in an identifiable way.

When a word or phrase is no longer "new", it is no longer a neologism. Neologisms may take decades to become "old", however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to cease being considered a neologism.


3. The Web Cast… as defined by Wikipedia
A webcast is a media file distributed over the Internet using streaming media technology to distribute a single content source to many simultaneous listeners/viewers. A webcast may either be distributed live or on demand. Essentially, webcasting is “broadcasting” over the Internet.

Webcasting is also used extensively in the commercial sector for investor relations presentations (such as Annual General Meetings), in E-learning (to transmit seminars), and for related communications activities. However, webcasting does not bear much, if any, relationship to web conferencing, which is designed for many-to-many interaction.

NOTE: The largest "webcasters" include existing radio and TV stations, who "simulcast" their output, as well as a multitude of Internet only "stations". The term webcasting usually refers to non-interactive linear streams or events. Rights and licensing bodies offer specific "webcasting licenses" to those wishing to carry out Internet broadcasting using copyrighted material.


4. Virtual Shows & Briefing Centers… as defined by Wikipedia
A Virtual Event is a gathering of people sharing a common virtual environment on the web, rather than meeting in a physical location. Virtual events are highly interactive, looking and feeling a lot like their physical counterparts. Popular uses of virtual events include:
• Virtual tradeshows,
• Virtual job fairs,
• Virtual conferences, and
• Virtual company-wide gatherings.

Virtual events are used to deliver presentations, trainings, departmental meetings and sessions led by stakeholders from company executives to product management and human resources.

Virtual events can offer a number of ways for participants to connect and communicate. They can include Webcasts with live presentations or pre-recorded videos where the presenters are available for questions and answers at the end of the session – a technique called Simulive. Virtual booths, forums and designated meeting places allow participants to connect with event staff or fellow attendees using online chat, video and voice. Or, participants can leverage their social network within the event to form interest groups or find like-minded individuals. They can also share the findings with their online communities, often creating a viral aspect for an event.

Each of the emerging software companies listed below provides competing virtual event platforms. They differentiate their offerings with application-specific features as well as registration and attendee analytics that enable users of their software to build deeper relationships as well as communicate messages in the mode most attractive to each participant.
• InExpo
• ON24
• Stream57
• UnisFair


Note: Virtual Events v. Virtual Worlds
One of the key differences between virtual worlds and virtual events is that a virtual world is available as a persistent environment, even after the live part of the event is over. Many organizers are moving from episodic events to a continuous virtual engagement of their customer and prospect communities. This permits attendees to return to parts of the event to see a complete session again, review content or gather additional information. Typically, virtual event organizers allow attendees to store the information gathered in a virtual briefcase, which can contain marketing collateral, as well as contact information of people they met, presentations they attended and content of conversations they held.

Virtual Reality

What's the difference between reality and virtual space? What's the difference between interacting with people face to face and avatar to avatar? Why are experiences in real life often considered more valid than experiences in a virtual environment?

I won't drop names, but there are people who passed away and played games like Second Life and World of Warcraft whose physical funerals were attended by very few people. This is understandable, because their interactions with the real world most likely stopped outside the workplace with an exception of keeping in contact with family. That said, those same people have had funerals held for them in their respective games that were attended by hundreds.

Clearly they had an impact on the lives of other players. It may not have been physical, but what about emotional? Does physical reality take precedence over mental reality? What is reality?

That's a very large, cumbersome topic. In a topic such as "What is reality," I feel use of 1999's The Matrix is necessary, in which Morpheus states, "If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." The truth is there's no way to know for certain that when I touch my keyboard it feels the same as if you were to touch it, there's no way to know our brains are interpreting those electrical signals the same way. We've come to an agreement that sandpaper is rough, but we can't know that we have the same sensation when we touch it. A good example of this is taste. Maybe the reason some people like tomatoes and others hate them isn't because they disagree about what sensation equals "tasting good," but because they don't taste the same thing.

I would argue the only things creating "reality" are the experiences we have. If the response to a virtual world is that it's not real because you can't touch and feel the chairs in the room, what about those who can't feel any sensation? Because they can't feel the chair, is it any less real for them? What about the blind, who can't see their objects to interact with them the same way the sighted can? Is it any less real for them? When you start to remove the individual senses, what you're left with are a set of experiences that define reality.

Put that in the setting of a virtual environment. Just because an attendee is experiencing something a different way doesn't make that experience any less real. There's still a mental experience occurring. In some ways, there's even a physical experience occurring as the users touch their keyboards. In another way, like the sandpaper example I used earlier, what if two avatars shaking hands is a physical experience because we agree that it is? Some would already argue that when they enter a game the avatar is not a representation of them, it is them. When those Second Life and World of Warcraft players died, did their avatars not die with them? They're no longer playable, not without account information. It's an extension of their being. I have a feeling that as the virtual experience becomes more commonplace, so will the acceptance of these virtual realities as truly real experiences.

(technorati claim token PVV4XSAFATEN )

26-year-old MLB Star Makes NFL Coach Look Like a Rookie.

I commute between Cincinnati and Minneapolis every 2-3 weeks for business. Being the avid sports fan that I am, I enjoy following the professional MLB and NFL franchises in each city. The Cincinnati Reds and the Minnesota Vikings are my favorites, but the Bengals and Twins get ample attention and discussion around the water cooler, too (as well as part of my annual sports entertainment “spend”).

That is why the recent article in “The Fan Issue” of ESPN – The Magazine caught my attention. The author – Ryan Hockensmith – sent out 479 letters to a variety of professional athletes and coaches in an effort to find the most fan-friendly star in sports. In his piece, Thanks for Writing… Hockensmith shares the highlights – and low-lights – of his efforts to make a connection with a sports star during summer of 2009.

Surprisingly, it is Joe Mauer, the 26-year-old MVP catcher of the Minnesota Twins – with some help from his Mom, Teresa – that earned the Joe Phan Inaugural Favorite Athlete of the year.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly to those of us who follow the Cincinnati Bengals, the author was not impressed with the response he received from Coach Marvin Lewis of the Bengals. Hockensmith’s letter to the Bengals Coach/GM/Franchise Demigod Marvin Lewis was retuned 12 days after it was sent out last June 17th with a letter directing him to the Bengals online pro shop where he could purchase Coach Lewis’ signature. Disappointing is the kindest word I can use for Coach Lewis’ response, arrogant is more accurate, but the most articulate is Hockensmith’s:

THE BIGGEST LOSER IN THE JOE PHAN PROJECT? THE BENGALS, WHO SUGGESTED I PAY FOR THEIR HEAD COACH'S AUTOGRAPH.

As a business person who sells every day and strictly adheres to “the customer always comes first” mantra, it boggles my mind that any organization – least of all a professional sports franchise that relies upon fans for its very existence – can respond in as unfriendly a manner as the Bengals and Coach Lewis.

Building a connection with your stakeholders – whether it is a fan base or a customer base – is critical to success in every aspect of business. In contrast, the other major professional sports franchise in Cincinnati - the Reds – is very good at this. The Reds conduct a REDS CARAVAN each January to re-connect with their fan base. It has become an annual “rite of winter” and is a fun way to excite the fan base and it generates goodwill for the team and lets the fans know the team cares about them.

It’s the little things that make the difference between winning and losing. Small steps build momentum. Coach Lewis and Joe Mauer both know this, but their interactions with fans reflect vastly different priorities, interpersonal skills and respect for those who pay their salaries.

Recommended Reading: The Little Red Book of Selling – 12.5 Principles of Sales Greatness.