Why Facebook, Twitter, Netflix and Others Have Personalisation Wrong.

Today, it is hard to escape digital technology’s great promise of personalisation and customisation. Every company under the sun is touting tailored customer experiences. One based on learning about individual habits, preferences and interests; driven by our past behaviours, choices and actions.

Every advertiser and marketer swears the new ‘holy grail’ of connecting more intimately with customers, and they are racing to build algorithms and artificial intelligence that gets better, as it learns, at predicting future decisions based on past behaviours. They learn about our interests, hobbies and consumption habits in a bid to sell us more of what we ‘want’.

Amazon recommends products based on our purchase and browsing history. Netflix suggest movies based on our viewing history. Delta sends us special deals based on our travel history. The Wall Street Journal recommends news articles based on our reading history. Facebook shows us posts in our news feed based on our ‘likes’, and even the screensaver image on my PC asks me to like the pictures I want to see more of – well, you get the picture.

However, I believe every one of these companies has got it wrong. There exists a fundamental flaw in the way they are approaching personalisation, one that does not truly deliver on the greatest promise of the internet and digital technology.

The internet, beyond connecting the world, allowing us to share, engage, collaborate – is about discovery. The ability to discover new peoples, cultures, places and even points of view. It has the ability to open our minds, widen our worldview and expand our horizons through discovery; so why show us more of what we already know, like, see and do?

It is great that technology has allowed companies to peek into our daily lives (for those who opt-in), and digital tools in turn allows them to deliver experiences and messages uniquely tailored to us. But here is what I want them to do with this power – use it to deliver on the greater promise – one that opens each of us up to new ideas, enables us to experience new things, and even challenges conventional beliefs and viewpoints. Let’s use it to experiment with broadening our worldview; rather than limiting it based on what we already see and do.

Only by doing this can we begin to unlock the potential of the human mind and deliver what I believe to be the holy grail of technology.

Today, Facebook’s feed algorithm works to show us more of what we already like. The same holds true for Twitter or CNN’s article suggestions and the principles behind every other personalisation algorithms – they are designed to show us more of what find most agreeable.

As a result there is little debate and no authentic discussion because we are in essence talking to ourselves. More importantly we learn nothing new, if we don’t have the opportunity to experience views, ideas and thoughts that are very different from our own.

Currently, technology is only perpetuating our natural human instincts to find and then quickly form safe, secure and comfortable tribes and online havens. Yet, societies only make progress through discord, based on debating conflicting ideas and diametrically opposed views, before the majority can find common ground and reach consensus to move forward on the most contentious issues.

My challenge to every company is to start applying a different set of principles their algorithms and in doing so redefine the idea of ‘personalisation’ along the following lines:

40% what I already like
+ 40% things that are new and different (stretch my worldview)
+ 20% that I will dislike/disagree with (challenge my thinking)

Now imagine what your Facebook and Twitter feed, Netflix recommendations, Open Table picks and Fox News or CNN article suggestions will begin to look like. I guarantee they will be richer, more rewarding and in time will also help us bring back civil dialogue and respectful debate on both the most divisive political and social issues; not to mention that our minds and society will be richer for it.

Why We Should All Love Female Bosses

In a career spanning more than two decades and three continents, I have reported to bosses of various nationalities, personality types and a solid mix of both sexes. My bosses have also run the gamut in ability and lack thereof. I have had smart, helpful and wise bosses as well as mean, incompetent, lazy and insecure ones. However, I can say without hesitation that given a choice I will always work for a female boss, despite the fact that I have had a few mean and incompetent female bosses.

Sure, I love the fairer sex but it has nothing to do with male-female attraction and chemistry and everything to do with management skill and competence. In my experience, women have time and again demonstrated vastly superior decision-making, judgement and people skills to those of their male counterparts; and it has little to do with aptitude, business intelligence or experience.

When I started working it was rare to find senior female executives within the management ranks, apart from in the advertising industry. My generation also grew up in a society where men served as the career role models and breadwinners, while mothers were predominantly homemakers. Even mothers who worked did not have ‘power’ jobs and it was very rare for them to harbour serious career ambitions.

Even though advertising had a larger percentage of women, there was still a stigma attached to reporting to a woman, something that was routinely discussed in hushed tones during male bonding and late night drinking sessions. Women were simply not taken as seriously as the men. While I never viewed women as inferior or lacking in ability, I had never experienced having a direct female boss either, so had no idea what to expect when I did for the first time in my second year. Despite the realities of a male-dominated world, I can say that I had no personal bias and approached my female boss on the same merits that I had every male boss. Perhaps this helped me where most of my peers struggled, but the point I want to make is not about having an open mind but about hard scientific evidence for the reasons women make better bosses and leaders.

I could wax eloquent about why I think female bosses are better than their male counterparts, but rather than have you take my word for it I want to reference the vast research now available to support my personal experiences.

A 2012 research study titled ‘Women vs. Men in Leadership’ featured in the Harvard Business Review found that “at every level, more women were rated by their peers, their bosses, their direct reports, and their other associates as better overall leaders than their male counterparts.” The study, based on 30 years of research, measured competencies used to define management traits required for ‘overall leadership and effectiveness’.

It further found that “…two of the traits where women outscored men to the highest degree — taking initiative and driving for results — have long been thought of as particularly male strengths.” (Source: Are Women Better Leaders than Men?).

Even in one of the last remaining bastions of male domination and chauvinism, the world of technology start-ups, a recent study by Illuminate Ventures finds that hi-tech companies run by women are more “capital-efficient than the norm” and companies “that are the most inclusive of women in top management achieve 35% higher ROE.” (Source: Illuminate Ventures).

Another analysis done by Dow Jones VentureSource of more than 20,000 VC backed companies in America between 1997 and 2011 found that the successful start-ups had more women in senior positions. “They had more than twice as many women in top jobs like C-level managers, vice presidents, and board members than their unsuccessful counterparts did.” (Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek).

As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe this success is due to the fact that women are smarter than men, or that they possess some innate management skill that men lack; competence and experience in management vary with people but are possessed by both women and men. In my estimation the single most important reason women excel and make more effective leaders boils down to one fundamental difference between the two sexes: ego.

Here is how I can most simply explain it; the majority of my male bosses (and most men) are unable to take ego out of any equation. The male ego always gets in the way of better judgement and making a better decision. For the vast majority of men, anybody questioning a decision they have made is seen as a direct challenge to their authority. God forbid that a man has to admit that he was wrong; this is considered a cardinal sin and perceived by men as a sign of weakness. Even the notion of listening to other people’s ideas or changing their view based on input from their team can be construed as an inability to lead.

In fact, I would say that most men would rather be seen to be sticking to their guns than doing the right thing, especially if it means admitting they were wrong. The male ego is conditioned to be more concerned about projecting a powerful image and less about achieving the right outcome. This to me is the reason women excel and will continue to thrive.

The majority of women are able to put their egos aside when they need to and as a result also show genuine empathy toward co-workers, subordinates and direct reports. They are willing to admit when they are wrong and ask for help – all in the interest of achieving a better outcome. Women are not shy about seeking guidance from their teams or asking the advice of superiors when they believe it will help them make a better decision and lead to a better result.

This is not about not being tough. All the women I worked with could be tough as nails when necessary. It is about not needing to constantly project power the way men feel they must. In short, a man will do the wrong thing knowingly rather than admit he is wrong.

Interestingly, a new study in the field of psychology supports my theory and personal experiences about women in the workplace; “…in times of stress male subjects become more egocentric and less able to properly respond to social situations. Women react in exactly the opposite fashion, becoming more “prosocial,” and able to relate to others in times of stress.” (Source: PBS Newshour).

Many experts have opined that in order to break the corporate glass ceiling, women need to become more like men. I completely disagree.

I believe women need to continue being true to themselves and show men a better way to lead, one that empirical evidence shows can lead to healthier, happier and more productive work environments and employees, AND better business results.

p.s. my apologies to the male species for blowing the lid on the 200,000 years male created, perpetuated and dominated world!

Starbucks Race Together and the Starting Line

I was lucky enough to see Howard Schultz talk about Starbucks’ Race Together initiative at a small gathering not too long ago. While I was already a supporter of the company’s brave foray into the issue of race, I became an even bigger fan after witnessing Mr. Schultz’s passion and personal commitment to a cause he clearly views as important, and genuinely holds close to his heart.

While I laud the effort, I also think it is important to point out that there has been a problem with the execution and the manner it was launched into the mainstream. Execution always matters, but in an effort of this magnitude, sensitivity and complexity, it will be the difference between success and failure. For one thing, it is absolutely imperative that this effort not come across as a glib and disingenuous marketing campaign. Nor can it afford to be ‘perceived’ as an altruistic effort designed to generate sales and foot traffic for Starbucks. I know it is not, but I may be the in the minority.

For starters, there are very few companies and brands in the world that could even attempt to raise an issue so loaded and so sensitive, leave alone try to convince the world that it is coming from a selfless place. The Starbucks brand has built a strong reputation for authenticity both with the respect with which they treat their partners (employees) and the amazing benefits they offer. They also have a history of actively supporting the communities they do businesses in. They were one of the early companies to join RED to help fight AIDS. During the recent recession they partnered with Opportunity Finance Network to help put people back to work. Diversity and inclusion have always been more than a motto and mere words on a vision statement to this company. Recently, they launched a major initiative to help US veterans. They sponsored a star-studded concert this past Veterans Day, and Howard Schultz has even co-authored a book “For Love of Country” that shines a light on these brave men and women by sharing their personal stories. Starbucks has also pledged to hire at least 10,000 veterans and military spouses by 2018. This is a company whose social outreach has always gone above and beyond writing cheques. They have never been afraid of rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty on issues they believe are important to society.

However, unlike all their past efforts, there is one stark and crucial difference that they need to recognise with Race Together before they can create a blueprint for how to execute it. Free undergraduate college degrees (recently announced for all employees), helping fight AIDS, supporting Veterans and every other social initiative Starbucks has undertaken are very easy for people to get behind in ways that instantly make them feel warm and fuzzy, be it through personally getting involved or by simply buying a cup of coffee. Race Together is different.

The topic of race pushes people well outside their comfort zone. There is no warm and fuzzy here – only guilt, grimace, shame, embarrassment and gross discomfort. Whether you have witnessed a racist act and did nothing to stop it, or have been humiliated because of the colour of your skin and felt like you did something wrong – most everyone has had a personal experience with race. Yet, this is not a subject that families discuss at the dinner table or even with close friends. It is something we bear witness to and experience, most often in silence.

For this reason, I am confident that none of the traditional tactics will work here. In fact, the message will fail to resonate as long as it is delivered in a top-down manner. What I mean is that USA Today inserts make this feel like a marketing campaign. Writing it on cups (while well intentioned) made it feel forced and gimmicky. You cannot force people to talk about sexual abuse publicly; and most people feel the same way about racism. One final point on this; I believe that as long as Mr. Schultz and/or his board and senior executives are seen to be the public “voices” and faces of this campaign, they will struggle to lend it the authenticity it requires. I have no doubt that Mr. Schultz is genuine about his desire to start this conversation and for all the right reasons, but he is still a wealthy and successful white man and this fact matters in this conversation (even though it should not).

My suggestion to Mr. Schultz is to turn his current executional strategy on its head – stop trying to deliver it top-down. By this I mean think about Race Together less like every other traditional corporate PR and communications effort, and imagine it like needing to build a grassroots movement – one that can only be built bottom-up.

For me the video Mr. Schultz showed us of an impromptu town hall meeting (he held at Starbucks headquarters last December) did more to provoke thought and evoke a sentiment about this topic than anything else Starbucks has done thus far. And it was not Starbucks’ voice that caused this emotional stirring, but the voices of the everyday people sharing their very personal stories.

By sharing starkly different experiences about simple, mundane, everyday acts that most of us go through without batting an eyelid – it brought to life very vividly the different Americas we still live in today and experience differently based purely on our skin colour.

Hearing a black mother say that one of her greatest daily fears is making sure her child does not wear brightly coloured clothes to school has a power that no advertising or PR agency can ever deliver in a campaign. It is raw. It is authentic. It is where Mr. Schultz should begin building his brave and much needed conversation about race in America, all while ensuring that Starbucks Corporation and his voice are always in the background, creating the safe zones, providing the platforms and championing everyday voices until one-day they light the spark that will get everyone speaking out, across America.

Stop Using ‘Category Experience’ as a Criteria to Hire an Agency

If I had a penny for every time a client Request for Proposal (RFP) document asked if the agency has relevant category experience, I would be rich and retired today…

Not sure if this is something clients are taught in some secret “client” school but it has become a global epidemic and I for one am completely unable to understand why. For those not from the wicked world of advertising and marketing – when a prospective client is looking to hire a new ad agency they send out an RFP and it always asks if the agency has relevant category experience (they are most often eliminated if they do not). For example, Mercedes-Benz would look for an agency with automotive experience and Benadryl for one with pharmaceutical/healthcare category experience.

I have never understood why it is so important for an automaker to only find someone who has sold a car before. Or why they believe that an agency that has sold cars is the only one capable of selling another car. One would think that clients would seek out agencies that have the greatest salespeople. People who have done great work across many different categories; rather than limiting themselves to car salesman. If I were a client I would never limit myself when selecting a new agency partner. There is good reason why it is so hard for consumers to tell automotive, financial services and pharmaceutical advertisements apart. The best way to illustrate my point is by using a golfing analogy.

All professional golfers play on many different courses around the world. With every new course they need to navigate a totally different layout, wind conditions, sand quality and even climate and vegetation make a dramatic difference in everything from distance control to putting green speeds. Most good golfers are able to negotiate these aspects and sufficiently play a competitive round but great golfers have the ability to raise their game. They can take their past experiences and combine it with innate skills and talent, adapt their game, and excel in new and varying conditions. As a result, after spending a very short time learning the intricacies of the new course, they are able to master it and win.

Great agency practitioners are the same way. They have the necessary skills to adapt to the needs of any category and client because the fundamentals of great advertising never change – a great strategy, a powerful customer insight and creative work built on an idea. This is what differentiates iconic brands from regular brands and courageous clients from clients.

I have also found that agencies and agency folk with strong cross-category experiences bring not only a fresh set of eyes to a challenge but also richer perspectives that ultimately lead to better solutions for their clients. Over my career I have sold ice-cream, complex CRM solutions, baby products and even launched a television channel. It is our wealth of cross-category experiences that ensures we are well-versed enough to develop a corporate M&A strategy one day and help market a dandruff shampoo the next.
So the next time you are selecting a new agency, look for diversity of experience versus specific category experience – you might just end up being delighted by the ground breaking and category re-defining work your agency delivers.

How Facebook Can Fix Internet.org

When I first heard about this initiative, called internet.org, I was thrilled and thought it extremely charitable of Facebook to give free mobile internet access to the poorest people in the world. People for whom the decision often boils down to choosing between adding a data plan and putting food on the table. It just felt like the right way to give back; for a large, super wealthy corporation that has profited from a free internet. The logic seemed altruistic; access to knowledge empowers more people. The mission almost poetic; provide free access to “two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access.”

The one thing that struck me as curious is that Facebook was always included in the basket of so called “basic services” they were providing free access to; this basket included education, government, NGO, job listing, and e-commerce portals. But I was willing to accept this self-serving move for the greater good they were arguably doing.

However, as a result of neutrality debate in India, large web companies have now publicly dropped out of internet.org initiative due to a severe consumer backlash and based on how it might actually skew the level internet playing field. All this based on the curtain being lifted on a startlingly important fact, that was previously not made clear – the “basic services” internet (i.e. which websites to include in each country) is going to be determined by Facebook.

I will not waste ink talking about how this new information about the initiative clearly violates the core principles of net neutrality; while arguably trying to turn poor customers into Facebook addicts. SavetheInternet coalition has written an article here about why we should be concerned about the seemingly arbitrary and anti-competitive nature of the decisions on which services to include; e.g. in India the world’s largest search service, Google, has not been included but Microsoft’s Bing has.

With his pet project under attack, Mark Zuckerberg also penned an Op-ed in Livemint defending internet.org. While I agree with his basic argument that giving the poorest people access to “some” internet services is better than no access at all – I also believe that Facebook must let people decide which sites and services they want access to. So I want to offer Mr. Zuckerberg some suggestions on how he can fix this initiative to genuinely deliver on his mission of empowering the poor.

The way it could work is under the same basic principles they have outlines (large internet companies would still pay telecoms for the data costs, and Facebook could pay for smaller sites that cannot afford to):

  1. Customers would choose from a list of the top 10 sites (based on traffic rank, in each country) for each category of basic service e.g. ‘SEARCH” would include Google, Yahoo, Bing, Ask, etc. and so on and so forth for ‘JOBS’, ‘TRAVEL’, and every other category offered
  1. If necessary, for cost reasons, the total basket of basic sites could be limited to the same number allowed now; I have seen between 12-15 sites depending on the country
  1. Consumers would be able to change the list of sites at the beginning of each month AND go beyond the initial top 10 based on personal experiences, level of satisfaction with a service, word-of-mouth from friends and family, or due to their own discovery on the internet

By doing this Facebook would achieve their noble goal but also ensure that EVERY person has access to a free, fair and service-competitive internet – the way God and Tim Berners-Lee intended it.

Has LinkedIn Lost Its Relevance?

For now there is no question that LinkedIn remains the go to platform for business and working professionals. It is often said that you will no longer be able to find employment without a LinkedIn profile; a whole industry of so called LinkedIn profile builders has also mushroomed around it. People who charge serious money to help navigate the platform’s features; everything from creating a profile to claiming to help you get higher search rankings and better visibility with prospective employers.

In the early days, I found LinkedIn an extremely valuable tool for professional networking. It was the best way to connect with friends from school and college, on a professional level, and with people connected to your industry. It was a tool for networking and making valuable and relevant new connections through the small degrees of professional separation we all had but never knew how to tap into. And it was the greatest way to showcase your background and professional experience, without geographic limitations, or the far more cumbersome and time-consuming alternative of physically mailing or dropping off a CV to each and every prospective employer.

Today, it is a vastly different network. For one, everybody and their uncle has a profile. Tons of random people are now able to click a button and ask to connect with you for no rhyme of professional reason; from banana farmers in Bolivia to bakers in India. I cannot count the number of times, when I ask someone why they want to connect, they tell me they accidentally hit the button or had no real reason other than finding my profile interesting. A large number of people seem to feel that by just connecting with as many people as possible, it will help them boost their career prospects and/or search rankings. I for one cannot fathom this logic because it does more damage to their prospects, if they serially invite friends of friends and random strangers to connect for no legitimate business reason.

When LinkedIn first introduced the InMail as part of their premium offering I was excited and willing to pay monthly fee to be able to reach out to people I wanted to do business with and vice-versa. It offered a professional method that did not entail having to go find common connection to get a soft introduction, or simply email someone cold. However, this feature has also turned into spam marketing of sorts. While I do still get a number of legitimate emails, I get many more from telemarketing and lead generation companies looking to sell me databases; they now just as unsolicited as those pesky tele-marketing calls we get at home.

LinkedIn is now trying to become a publishing platform; taking a page out of Amex OPEN’s book. Unlike OPEN theirs was originally a closed platform. In order to publish content you had to be classified an ‘Influencer’; and unless you were the likes of Richard Branson you were not be granted this rarefied title. I guess they realised pretty quickly that being successful did not mean that people were good writers, or able to offer meaningful content on a routine basis; at least not enough to keep it fresh and interesting for the rest of us non-influencer minions. LinkedIn has since learned this lesson and opened content posting to everyone with a profile and an internet connection. Sadly, this step in the right direction has also been rather catastrophic.

While I laud the decision to be democratic, the problem is that not everyone who has something to say has something of value to say. So while I am not suggesting that they close the doors and once again allow only super successful people or great writers to post; I do believe they urgently need to find some method to curate the vast volume of mediocre and useless content that now invades our streams every hour. The point of this curation is not to play judge and jury but to find some smart crowd sourced way to weed out the utterly useless content that only bubbles up and gets eyeballs because of sensational and provocative headlines with the content rarely ever delivering on the argument suggested.

I have found the vast majority of ‘popular’ and ‘recommended’ posts lack substance. They simply offer a provocative headline, based on recent high-profile events in the news, to bait the reader and then at best offer an extremely tenuous (and most often nonsensical) connection to the subject matter they are sensationalizing in their headline.

Recent examples of such posts are one that used the iCloud celebrity photo leak to try and link Jennifer Lawrence’s decision to bare her breasts in Vanity Fair to faulty PR and marketing decisions. Another was about sexual harassment in a CVS store that tried to make a link to sexual harassment at the workplace (which is a serious issue that this article made feel less serious). The same author just recently posted an article about the Uber PR fiasco and then halfway through started talking about the issue of rape with no relevance to her argument.

I have nothing against provocative or controversial points-of-view but the problem is that none of these articles come close to delivering on their headline’s premise; they are merely sensational for the sake of sensation. Sadly, these have overwhelmingly become the posts that seem to garner the most attention and get recommended in the Pulse stream.

If LinkedIn wants to be regarded as a destination for business-related, thought-provoking content, then this is doing nothing to further their cause and in fact damaging their credibility. It has seriously reduced my opinion of both the articles and the quality of the posters. It seems that publishing on LinkedIn is designed purely to drive eyeballs and offer no other real business insight or value; a BuzzFeed for business.

I am not suggesting that this is the end of LinkedIn by any means but that its value proposition for people like myself will erode over time if this level of ‘clutter’ and ‘noise continues to grow without substance. Even forum posts and discussions have started to suffer the same malady with people consistently asking deep and penetrating questions like “Would you rather be a good person or a good CEO” and “How do you define power in one or Two words?” As a result, I have started to drop my membership to many of these professional forums and groups on the site.

It is also not just me they should fear losing but the fact that they are about to face some serious competition for the first time; with Facebook announcing the launch of a “at work” professional network and WeWork (shared workspace for startups and freelancers) also planning to launch a networking site that would allow their physical entrepreneurial tenants, all over the world, to connect online. I suspect LinkedIn is about to get a run for my eyeballs!

HBO Go or No Go?

HBO’s announcement about launching a streaming only version of their popular service has been received with great joy and serious apprehension depending on which side of the fence you sit. For many years now consumers, specifically people who have cut the cable cord (cord cutters) have been clamoring for services like HBO and ESPN to go rogue. Cord cutters have said that they are willing to pay a monthly fee for these premium services if they were stand-alone and not part of a cable bundle; one that includes hundreds of channels nobody wants to watch. So for cord cutters and consumers like me, who currently live in both worlds, this is a big win and giant step in the right direction towards a la carte programming.

However, on the other side of the fence sit the cable and broadband companies who have balked at HBO’s move because it will disrupt their lucrative and outdated business models and threaten the uncomfortable status quo. Incidentally, the business model the cable companies are trying to protect is akin to going to a restaurant and being told that in order to eat your favourite desert you will have to order, and pay for, all the deserts on the menu – I doubt you would be eating there again! Comcast’s CEO recently publicly rebuked the HBO announcement; “Mr. Burke warned that, whatever HBO’s intentions, ‘it’s going to be a challenge for them to not cannibalize what is already a really, really good business’.” (Source: Wall Street Journal). It is worth noting that if Comcast’s proposed merger with Time Warner Cable gets approved by regulators, they would control 70% of the broadband market; and interestingly HBO will need to rely on broadband providers like them for the high speeds and massive bandwidths they will need for this gamble to succeed.

The reality is that when most established and entrenched companies make proclamations about changing their business model or radically disrupting the status quo, it is often a knee-jerk reaction to competitive pressures and therefore rarely ever thought through. Take for example CBS’s announcement, on the heels of HBO’s, about launching their own streaming service for $5.99 per month. CBS like other broadcast networks is free-to-air. This means that unlike cable channels all you need is to buy is an over-the-air-antenna and plug it into your TV and you can watch all the networks, as well as numerous local channels and public broadcasting stations like PBS; all in HD and all for free (Source: Lifehacker).

CBS also makes a lot of money by negotiating hefty “re-transmission” fees from cable providers, which form part of our monthly monster cable bills. So the first question is why would the cable companies continue to pay these hefty fees when CBS is making the same content available through other means? Additionally, from a customer standpoint, live sports like NFL games are not included in the streaming service. Let’s face it, CBS hardly has a reputation for stellar and premium content that people are willing to pay extra for; not sure many people are doing high fives about the fact that “Two Broke Girls” will be available to watch via streaming. Also, if I want to watch the first six seasons of the Good Wife, I can do this for free as an Amazon Prime member, or see them on HuluPlus under my current subscription (where I can watch many other shows), or simply download 2 seasons at a time from iTunes for roughly $65-$70; which is still cheaper than paying for one year of CBS’s ‘All Access’ streaming service  — you do the math.

HBO on the other hand is not like a CBS (other than the misfortune of having Time Warner as it’s parent company). It has always been an entrepreneurial company with innovation as part of its core DNA. It single-handedly changed the television industry; lifting the quality of content and thus saving us all from a TV-hell filled with nothing but the Kardashians. However, the quality of content that forged HBO’s brand reputation also forced the rest of the industry to raise its game, and many have followed-suit by creating their own original and award winning programming. AMC has had huge ratings and critical success with “Mad Men”, “Breaking Bad” and “Walking Dead,” while Showtime has given us “Dexter”, “Nurse Jackie” and “Weeds”. Even Netflix has gotten into the content game with “House of Card” and is now stepping fearlessly into the feature film business with a recent four movie deal with Adam Sandler (Read my take here: “Netflix, Data, Drunkard’s and Adam Sandler”).

So unlike CBS, I believe HBO is doing this for the right reasons and more likely to think it through and get it right, now that they have woken up to and accepted the new consumer realities. This I suspect also led to their decision to go ahead and piss on their powerful cable partners whom they did not care to inform ahead of making their announcement.

HBO knows that they can no longer distinguish themselves on quality of content alone. As a result they would be competing (with the likes of Netflix) with one hand tied behind their back as long they are relegated to being stuck as part of the traditional cable bundle.

Second, they have read and accepted the tea leaves on the changing pattern of television consumption. Online video has been growing for some years but the acceleration has been marked in the last year. An Adobe study shows that for the first time online video viewing habits are going mainstream and no longer relegated to tech savvy early adopters and cord cutters; “Researchers tracked 165 online video views and 1.53 billion logins over a year, and they found that total TV viewing over the internet grew by 388 percent in mid-2014 compared to the same time a year earlier — a near-quintupling.” (Source: Wired Magazine). This means that even people who have regular cable subscriptions are choosing to watch more of their TV and movies online via internet connected devices.

Most importantly, HBO is clearly paying attention to their customers changing viewing habits that have decimated the old Nielsen TV rating system. People no longer want to watch shows based on a Fixed Point Chart (industry jargon for the TV schedule published by a channel). Instead, they prefer to watch it a few days later or simply binge watch an entire show or season during a weekend or long haul flight.

While I do not have a crystal ball and cannot predict the success of HBO’s standalone service, I do know a couple of things. It is certain that they, like Netflix, will face tremendous opposition and hurdles from movie studios, cable operators and broadband providers; all interested in preserving their lucrative status quo. However, HBO will also have the wind in their sales based on the fact that customers are demanding a breakdown of the straight-jacketed cable model and getting more used to consuming content in an a la carte, anytime, anywhere, pay as you watch model.

My money is always on companies that try to deliver on their customers’ needs and focus on making life easier for them, rather than try to force customers down a path driven by the company’s myopic goals and bottom-line greed.