Posted via web from Materka’s posterous

Posted via web from Materka’s posterous

Posted via web from Materka’s posterous

Posted via web from Wojtek Materka

Posted via web from Wojtek Materka

via Tom Fishburne inspired by @MeetingBoy.

One sector in which consumers actively collaborate with the producers is the entertainment industry. An interesting article by Reina Arakji and Karl Lang from the City University of New York analyzes the business case behind consumer collaboration in the video game space. The authors mention the classic example of Counter-Strike, a modification of an existing commercial title: Half-Life. Valve Software made 80% of Half-Life’s source code available to the public, therefore allowing its user base to modify it. Valve also encouraged and supported the community in its efforts to build such modifications, simultaneously creating a strong legal framework in which such ventures can create value. Counter-Strike is a “mod” of Half-Life, and in fact a completely different game all together. Its success lead to Valve buying the franchise in 1999 and financing the development of Counter Strike as a stand-alone title for many other platforms. This was probably the first commercially successful product that was born out of consumer collaboration in the digital space. The success of Counter-Strike (as well as other Half-Life mods like Day of Defeat, Team Fortress etc.) directly benefited the original product – these mods were the main contributors of the increase in revenue from the Half-Life title in the first three years of its sales.

It’s important to note that the video-game industry is well suited for such a collaboration to take place. As Arakji and Lang point out “the games [...] are digital information goods, which makes using IT-based toolkits to design new games quite natural. [...] (Secondly) most games can now be played online by multiple players, facilitating the formation of digital consumer networks. Finally, numerous consumers of video-games are technologically proficient and hence have the necessary ability to reinvent the way a game is played [...]“

So the question is: can the financial service industry benefit from such type of collaboration, and how? Looks like again I am tackling an issue bigger than a blog-post format allows, but let’s just play with this idea…

First of all, let’s note that today the provision of financial services relies mostly on connectivity and IT systems. The service is based mostly on information, in fact a very small part of what we do with banking requires a “physical emanation” (like payment cards, that can be replaced by a handset, after all). Hence, the first condition (being a digital information good) is satisfied. Secondly, most commercial banks deal with vast quantity of connected individuals. Multiple virtual banks have excelled in building online communities, so we can conclude that the second condition is met (existence of digital consumer network). Thirdly, we can safely assume that among these consumers there are people with enough skill and talent to take part in a collaborative effort.

So, there are good reasons to believe that financial services could potentially employ consumer collaboration. Perhaps the biggest challenge for commercial banking lies in the fact that it’s not a product but a service, and quite regulated one as well. In its current form it is not easily transmutable, or manipulated. Questions arise: can it be, and why should it be?

First of all: why? Frankly, I don’t really care about answering this question. My intuition tells me that yes, and I am too lazy to prove it by using any analytical tools at this stage. Perhaps someone can do it (or rebut it) in the comments. For now I will just base my assumption on the fact that there’s one important player on the market that is already doing it successfully…

… therefore also answering the second question: can it be done? Well, I invite all the bankers to have a look at what PayPal is doing with their X platform for developers. They are basically opening their existing API for people to code their own applications of payment solutions that PayPal so successfully has been offering in lieu of banking system’s inefficiencies. This time PayPal is taking advantage of more inefficiencies, and allowing the “crowds” to fill in the gaps.From solution for paying in pubs with your phone, buying quickly plane tickets, to stuff more complicated like B2B payment solutions (what a great market right from under banks’ noses). Pretty much building on the idea of iPhone application toolkit, or Google Android environment. So if PayPal can do it, I don’t see a reason why not a bank. Check out one of the youtube channels dedicated to this platform. And an earlier blogpost from online banking review on the subject here.

I see a potential scenario where an existing online bank with sturdy and well developed IT systems, creates open API to access a product factory. Firstly, mostly to help people build interfaces (like www.xero.com for SME segment, or www.mint.com for mass-market), and potentially down the line to create banking products. Banks can continue to focus on what often they do very well: risk management, and leave parts of development in the collaborative zone, while growing know-how in community and crowd-developer management.

I sketched a far-fetched scenario, I admit. Or did I? There are things that banks do already without so much fuss, just using the tools available right now. I have taken part in some client-bank collaborative efforts in design and implementation of classical products such as credit cards, overdrafts, co-branded products, online interfaces to name few. Using simple tools such as email distribution lists, bulletin boards etc. product developers can apply methods such as consumer-centric design to collaboratively work and engage with consumers. Security and confidentiality in such cases can be managed, but it’s not really the technical capacity that is the competitive advantage, but the ability to collaborate with the market  – and that becomes much harder to copy.

One example where consumer collaboration could help is mobile banking – space where banks haven’t yet been too successful. Have a look at mobank.co.uk – it’s not really a bank, in fact they don’t have a banking license, yet it offers interesting value in between the consumers and the banking system. I have seen the demo of this application before the release and know about its development enough to deduct that other apps like these can be pulled off by small and enthusiastic teams, thanks to availability of developer tools. Also, have a look at  Square – a solution for business owners to accept credit card payments through their iPhone. Wouldn’t it be interesting for a bank to have such applications designed within their zone of support and influence?

Vipassana is a very simple but powerful meditation technique originally discovered by Siddhartha Gautama 2500 years ago. It is based on objective observation of one’s bodily sensations, and developing equanimity towards them. As a result the mind is rewired to stop blindly reacting to random bodily sensations. This leads to purification of the mind and eventually to a full liberation from the senses (including the mind itself).

It may sound somewhat esoteric at first, but this method is based purely on objective observation and scientific-like approach. It’s stripped of any dogmas or beliefs. In fact students are encouraged to question and verify it through their own experience rather than blind faith.

The benefits of Vipassana have been already experienced by thousands of people around the world, as it recently started to spread more broadly. Thanks to Mr. S. N. Goenka, a quite successful businessman turned meditation teacher,  anyone can now learn this wonderful technique for free in the Dhamma.org meditation centers (they operate solely through donations and volunteering).

There are many examples of people changing their lives around through Vipassana. It’s also strongly gaining popularity in the business and corporate sector – firstly based on motivation to increase productivity, but also as a tool to improve executive lifestyle and a changing force in culture of organizations.

In my case, the experience went well beyond and above what a simple blog entry could contain. The most obvious observation was made by my fiancee: “You seem just so much lighter”. And that’s true, I lost 4kgs, but seriously: I am also more present and mindful, joyful and happily determined to achieve my goals (they have changed as well). More importantly, I have shed so many attachments and negative emotions, that sometimes I feel like a kid again

I am happy to share more through a personal correspondence by anyone who is considering doing it – please if you have questions about this don’t hesitate to contact me.

Meanwhile, Have a Wonderful and Peaceful Christmas. Be Happy…

I am also looking forward to sharing about this experience in 10 days. Wish me luck, again

As a rule, rebranding attracts a lot of attention because logo is a symbol of the company and all it stands for. That’s why it is so surprising that ANZ, in the days of social media and all direct ways available to us has not really used the net to manage this transition better (or maybe someone is just running late, or maybe I am not seeing things?)

In the result, they already have over 100 negative comments under just one news article about it, not mentioning the twitter chatter and mocking, as well as few not-too-enthusiastic blog posts. Surely it’s caused by more than just the aesthetics of the new design (although that’s what some seem to concentrate on). And it’s not really news (the new logo was already half-announced back in March). My theory is simple: people are having a rant about the logo anywhere and everywhere, because they don’t have the chance to rant about ANZ on other occasions. ANZ doesn’t manage its online channels with that in regard (well their @anzmoneymanager does a bit, and kudos to them!).

If you are an ANZ client and you hear that they are going to spend what you think is YOUR money on their facelift, you might be a little upset (very often clients seem to assume that banks are using their money, that’s why it’s so tricky to manage banking relationship). But you wouldn’t be unhappy about the rebranding as long as your basic service needs are met. And perhaps, if clients actually were given a chance to take part in writing the rebranding story, ANZ could have vented the online emotions before the announcement, not mentioning having some blogging clients in the online world help them lead the rebranding PR.

My point? Perhaps ANZ could have involved the customers more in its scheme, and I am not talking about what Kraft did with Vegemite, but something simpler (and smarter). After all, the new tag line for ANZ is “We live in your world” (which might give a hint as to what the new logo is really depicting: aliens, of course). It was pretty easy to foresee the negative reaction of the clients online, especially if they didn’t (and don’t) have a chance to express their opinion collectively on an ANZ website. And it’s perhaps safe to assume ANZ just treats this as the “usual online blah”. Result? Another missed opportunity to pick up a dialogue and in consequence more misunderstandings. Like for example that the logo itself costs 15mln (it doesn’t).

Guys at ANZ, where and when can I have a conversation about some more important stuff than your logo? You see, all this is NOT a reaction to the logo. It’s your clients’ reaction to the process of your communication and the symptom of a dysfunctional relationship. I guess if you live in our world, then I will soon find out. Yours, always optimistic, client. ANZ responds?

Have a great weekend