Why SIB's won't work

I was reading Kyle McKay's article on Goldman Sachs new SIB programme and while I agree with the majority of his points, I think that the fundamental point is missed here...

Myth 3 for McKay is that "The government pays only for success" - McKay is concerned that it will be difficult to decide whether a programme is a success due to the contractual difficulties in defining success and that the government will therefore end up paying for projects that have not "succeeded".

This misses the point that the project developers will be incentivised to produce projects that are at least perceived to have "succeeded". This in itself would not appear to be a problem until you consider that a project that has succeeded in its fundamental aims, versus one that succeeds as per a written contract are two very different things.

As soon as a project is designed specifically with the aim of improving a measurable outcome, rather than with the fundamental outcome in mind, it runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Focus shifts away from the aims of the project and onto improving the KPIs. The key word there is "Indicator". A positive shift in a KPI does not reveal a project that is working, in the same way that a negative (or zero) shift would tarnish a project as failing.

SIBs could result in the government paying for programmes that are not effective. That's a true statement. It could also result in far more projects being run that are not effective at all. That is the issue here.

Taking a new direction

In what is becoming a fairly regular(?) occurrence for me, I'm going to make a bit of a change to the focus of this blog. It's been almost two years since I last posted on here, but a lot has changed. I'm back from India and planning the next phase in my life.

The work I did with VSO (see my other blog for more details) had a profound impact on my life and left me wanting to do more than just moon-light in the development sector. Unfortunately, on my return there was a mortgage to pay and it was far too easy to just go back to my old job...

Times have changed, however. I've been back for over 18 months now and while I don't quite have the itchy feet to grab the passport yet, I'm definitely looking at my options. So first step - I've applied to do a Masters in International Development. It's a part-time, distance learning course, which should provide me with a bit of flexibility at least.

Step two - starting this blog. I'm going to try and start commenting on the blogs I'm reading and just giving my general thoughts on what they're saying - join the conversation! We'll see how it goes - it might be that I can't do this as regularly as I'd like, but I'm going to make a conscious effort!

So there you go - new direction in life, new direction for the blog. It's a nice symmetry, right? :-)

F-Commerce - Facebook Shopping

FreshNetworks have an interesting Infographic on the rise of Facebook commerce. Unsurprisingly, people are finding that personal recommendations lead to higher purchase rates and that the numbers for purchases made via Facebook are on an upwards trend.

A few years ago I had an idea about how to take advantage of these behaviours, which I still haven't seen anyone attempt in quite the same way - rewarding recommendations, but doing so in a way that encourages targeted recommendations...

At the moment, through things like affiliated links, etc. I can post links to Amazon and other sites on my blog and as such I am "recommending" products. On other sites, such as TripAdvisor, I can leave general recommendations for places and products I've been to and used. People who trust me can use these links and if they do, I earn money (this has never actually happened to me btw - I'm talking theory here!).

There are other services out there that encourage the sharing of links to products and work like a kind of pyramid scheme. The more people you share with, the more likelihood you have of someone buying and you get a cut of that from the vendor. The problem is that this encourages spammy behaviour, which decreases the value of these recommendations and makes it more likely that people will click-thru, destroying the usefulness of the system.

In my mind, the reward to the user making the recommendation needs to be tied to the percentage of people who buy, not the number. So if you send a link to the new Matt Nathanson album to 10 people and one person buys, you get significantly less reward than if you only send to one person and they buy. It forces the recommender to really consider who will actually like/want a product. This makes the recommendations far more valuable to the vendor as well as the person receiving the recommendation. Everyone wins!

Until someone cracks this recommendation problem, we're probably not going to see the full value of social networks in e-commerce. Which is why I like the way Google is moving with Circles. They are trying to encourage more sharing, while also making it more relevant to the people receiving the links. If that really takes off (and I personally think it will) then it will naturally expand into e-commerce.

So that's going to be G-Commerce then....? ;-)

Will opening in the US help Spotify become Prime Time?

So, after what feels like years of arguing, fighting and "almost" launches, it looks like Spotify is finally about to launch in the US. So will this be the moment when Spotify crashes into the public consciousness, or will it, after so much hype, die a sad and slow death?

First off, I love Spotify. I think it's an absolutely amazing service. Yes, there are frustrations over some music not being available (Arcade Fire!), but in general, if you want it, it's on there. It's stunningly quick. The offline functionality makes it perfect for me out here in India - I can swap my music around as and when I have Internet connectivity. It's legal. And the mobile app (when I'm back in the UK) means that I can't see me replacing my Creative Zen (which has sadly kicked the bucket).

So I'm a fanboy. There are, of course, some things it could improve on. The social aspect still needs work. The obvious one here is a tie-in with Facebook. That's what I'm hoping for. I think that is what will push the service into the mainstream proper.

Obviously the US market is important, but I don't imagine that the US launch is going to be a launch-pad for further success in Europe. I have friends in the US, but just because they use a service doesn't mean I use it. For most people in the UK and Europe, the US launch isn't going to change anything. One or two more friends will start using the system. So far, so meh....

Which means that the service as it is at the moment isn't enough for some people. They need that additional incentive to use it. It needs to be tied to Facebook.

Let me clarify on this. The last thing I want is the integration the way it is at the moment. I don't want my Facebook stream bombarded with single tracks shared from Spotify. That would be noise for noise's sake. What I want is to have a "music" section of Facebook, which people can link their Spotify account to. I want to be able to see what people are listening to right now. What's popular amongst my friends. Who is recommending what. Group playlists. All in one place.

So, yes, it's great news for Spotify that they're finally launching in the US. For one thing, it gives them the ability to finally focus on something else and everyone can stop wondering when this will finally happen! I'm just hoping that the next "something else" they focus on is integrating with Facebook....

Google+ isn't going to kill Facebook

Yep, I'm calling it. Google+ is not a Facebook killer. You can all stop your arguments and forget about reading any other posts on it. The thing is - I don't think that's what Google is aiming for here. Twitter on the other hand, could definitely be in trouble. Let me explain....

I've only had access to G+ for a couple of days, but from what I've seen of how others are using it (and my initial instincts), the way it's being used is far more akin to Twitter than Facebook.

For me, Facebook is where I find follow the actual lives of people I know. Very few people share links on Facebook among my friends (granted, that's a sample of ~200 people, but still), most of the stuff is along the lines of "here's a loads of pics of my holiday", "I'm hungover", etc. Twitter on the other hand, is where I go to see what other people are reading and sharing. The number of personal comments is far lower.

G+ seems to fit much closer to this link sharing idea. What's more, the ability to focus who you are sharing with means that in theory the items appearing in my stream should be much more applicable to me. Just as an example using the sort of stories I share:
1. Tech news
2. Sport
3. Social Enterprise / Volunteering / Charity Sector

Those are three very, very different areas. At the moment, if you follow me on Twitter, you get everything. If you're only interested in one of those areas, you might get fed up with having to sort through the noise and find the applicable tweets. You unfollow me. With G+ that doesn't happen. I know who is interested in football, who is interested in tech, etc. So they go in those circles and voila! Now I can share more stories, because I don't think I'll annoy people who aren't interested in those things, plus the click-through rate should be higher for each link shared as it is more targeted. As Google tracks who is clicking on what, they build a social graph that is surely more valuable than knowing that X likes to look at Y's photos!

I think Google is happy for Facebook to become the social network for drunk party photos and inane updates about what people's rabbits did just now. They want to control the network for sharing stories and links....and that's why I don't think G+ will kill Facebook, however much people want to put the two in a head-to-head.

Why Richard Hillgrove is an idiot

Richard Hillgrove may have the most idiotic opinion on the Twitter and Ryan Giggs story I've read yet. It is one of the worst thought-out and moronic articles I've read in a long time.

First, let me be clear about a number of things:

1. I'm a Man Utd fan, so bashing Ryan Giggs is not something I'm going to get excited about
2. I like the Guardian, in general, I think they've been one of the best adopters of Social Media in the newspaper sector
3. I have absolutely no interest in celebrity gossip, who shags who etc.

Ok, so what's my issue with Hillgrove's article? Well he obviously has no idea about Twitter or the law. Apart from that he's on perfectly solid ground!

He argues that Twitter is operating outside of the law by allowing users to talk about issues that newspapers are not. Pardon my French, but this is bull crap. It is complete loose-stool-water. Arse-gravy of the very worst kind. (Hat-tip to Stephen Fry)

Let us take the issue of whether Twitter is even subject to UK laws. It is based in America. Yes it has just (and I do mean, just, as in the last day or so) hired a UK member of staff, but the company operates out of the US.The US is a country that takes freedom of speech seriously. They even have a law that protects their companies, specifically websites, from being subject to laws in other countries that suppress freedom of speech.

And for those of you unaware, that's what a super-injunction is. A suppression of freedom of speech. Yes it “only” applies to the mainstream media, but why that's deemed to be ok, I'm really not sure.

Ok, so jurisdiction is one issue. The second is that Twitter is not responsible for what people communicate on it. Saying that they are is like saying that mobile phone networks are responsible for what people say in their phone calls. It is nonsense.

Next Hillgrove tries to offset the idea of Freedom of Speech with Privacy. I'm sorry, but the two are not polar opposites and trying to claim that they are is simple scaremongering. This is not an invasion of Ryan Giggs privacy. He is trying to suppress people's voices because he doesn't like what they are saying. Twitter (and whoever first published his name) have not invaded his privacy. His “privacy” was broken by Imogen Thomas, not Twitter. Twitter was just the mechanism for broadcasting this information.

I actually laughed out loud at Hillgrove's next statement - “unless we want an anarchistic society, Facebook and Twitter must be reeled in”. Is he serious? I'm beginning to wonder if this is a comedy piece. Or maybe just trolling for angry comments. Yes, unless we suspend Free Speech, we'll descend into anarchy. It's obvious. Ahem.

Then he wants all comments on Twitter to be time-delayed to allow for “checking”? By whom? Honestly? Maybe we should all employ censors to walk around with us and “check” what we intend to say before we say it? And who gets to decide what can and can't be broadcast? Honestly, this article just gets more and more farcical by the minute.

At this point I'd given up. When I re-read the piece this morning I saw the final paragraph. “We have to get some sort of international arbitration set-up”. Yep, Richard Hillgrove can chair it. Colonel Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il can be the other members of the first council as they are pioneers in this kind of suppression. We can definitely make use of their expertise (although whether they have a view on Ryan Giggs' extra-marital activities remains to be seen).

Assessing personal qualities in reviews - a good thing?

In my former life I worked for IBM (I'm supposed to go back eventually, so I probably shouldn't use the past tense here....). We have the sort of labour-intensive, rigorous review system beloved by giant corporations. I thought I had seen everything I was ever likely to see in terms of review criteria.

Then I got to India. My organisation is a small NGO. They showed me their previous attempt at a performance evaluation system. I checked my diary, when was April 1st again? Some of the categories I didn't even really understand, let alone comprehend how a score of 1-10 could be applied to them ("transparency" anyone? How about "money mis-management"? - You only steal from the cookie jar - 3; you're using company funds to drain your moat - 10). Others were down-right bizarre - "Reads newspapers"!!!

Even better, there were none that actually applied to someone having done a good job. They were all personal qualities. Timeliness, good manners, respectfulness. Turn up to work, be a good person, don't offend anyone, get a good review!

Cynicism aside, I was intrigued. I spoke to my organisation's founders. They expressed the view that their employees were not "professionals" and so they felt it was unfair to assess them against those kind of attributes. They felt the attributes they used instead were ones where people could succeed and that this was more important.

It's an interesting idea - fit the evaluation to the skills of your employees. Of course, it completely misses the point of performance evaluation - to help the employee to develop. That has to be the number one priority. To help identify the things they are doing well and build on those, whilst identifying areas for improvements and discussing strategies for progressing them.

We've ended up compromising on the final evaluation. There is a lot more focus on development needs and actually assessing performance (I don't subscribe to the idea that NGOs can't be performance-focussed), while we have retained some of the personal attribute assessments. I personally hope to show them that these items should simply become part of a person's overall review, not specifically detailed as areas for assessment, but we'll see how it goes.

I think it's an interesting idea though - how much should personal qualities be included in reviews. Can you possibly leave them out? Is this just an attempt to quantify what those personal qualities are? Interested to know peoples thoughts - get involved....