Uber and the Troubling Ethics of Silicon Valley

Image credit Forbes

Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber (Image credit: Forbes)

That Uber is a brilliant innovation and has brought about much needed disruption into the taxi and transportation industry is not in question. But how their CEO runs the company, the culture he has created and the business practices he promotes are an issue that investors, customers and the press have turned a blind eye to for far too long.

For years, it has been an open secret in Silicon Valley that Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber, is a completely unethical man who also lacks integrity and leadership skills. That he runs Uber like a misogynistic frat house is a well-documented fact. Kalanick has boasted to GQ magazine about how Uber helped increase his sex appeal; he deflects with a wisecrack about women on demand: Yeah, we call that Boob-er.

Now, I am a whole hearted capitalist pig and an ardent advocate of being competitive and winning by all means but not at any cost. It should be done through innovation, improving your products and services to beat your competitors fair and square; but we should never condone winning by cheating or using unethical and underhand tactics like Uber has also done to try and derail their competitors.

Uber employees ordered and cancelled more than 5,000 rides from rival Lyft since last October. This was done in an effort to reduce availability of Lyft cars, and thus push their users towards Uber. There have been reports of abuse of rider location information through a technology called God View, which allows Uber to track the movements of every single vehicle and the passenger. Former employees have confirmed that God View was easily accessible to staff across the company.

In 2011, venture capitalist Peter Sims penned a blog post about being tracked and sent text messages from someone he barely knew; all this was done without his knowledge or consent. When Sims expressed his outrage, he was told by an Uber employee “to calm down, and that it was all a ‘cool’ event and as if I should be honoured to have been one of the chosen. Turns out his movements were being projected on a large screen at an Uber event and nobody at the company thought this was wrong.

However, while all this information has been in the public domain for many years, it has done nothing to slow down the company’s growth or attract investors. Investments have continued to pour in from the biggest names in venture capital to investment banks and even governments all over the world. Everyone seems happy to turn a blind eye to the company culture and willing to dismiss unethical practices, blatant violations of privacy and misuse of personal information; as long as it helps Uber’s commoditized offering stay ahead of its competitors. Even the tech press has remained silent or looked the other way as the company became the darling of Silicon Valley and a unicorn, a start-up valued at more than one billion dollars. Uber’s current valuation stands at around $66 billion.

For me the last straw came when Uber personally threatened a female journalist who had been writing about the consistent pattern of misogynist behaviour at the company and their unfair and possibly illegal business tactics. Her revelations followed a dinner party where a senior executive at Uber was caught on the record, boasting to his guests that the company should consider hiring a team of opposition researchers to dig up dirt on its critics in the media — and specifically to spread details of the personal life of a female journalist who has criticized the company.

Ironically, the first time Uber faced any backlash from customers was for something Travis Kalanick did, which I actually applauded – being part of Trump’s advisory council. I believe the best way to safeguard democracy is by having diverse and opposing viewpoints around the President, but that is a conversation for another blog. What is ironic and tragic is that, irrespective of people’s polarising views about President Trump, prior to this point nobody seems to have had any moral, ethical or principled objections to all the things that have been openly transpiring at Uber for years.

Nobody cared about the sexist and misogynist culture Kalanick has routinely boasted about. Nobody cared about the silencing of a female journalist and others in the media. Nobody cared about violating every code of competitive ethics or unfairly hurting the income of drivers. Nobody cared about Uber’s repeated violations of privacy, and abuse of personal information to stalk and intimidate people the company did not like.

It seems that now, only when it is no longer conscionable to look the other way that people are finally expressing some shock and outrage. This follows a perfect storm of events, from seeing a video of Kalanick berating an Uber driver, to a NY Times story about Uber using a tool, called Greyball, to identify, track and evade law enforcement officials, and a compelling blog post by a former female engineer. She writes about her harrowing experiences of constantly being berated and sexually harassed by senior managers, and Uber HR and senior management’s reluctance to take action despite her repeated complaints.

It seems perfectly clear that everyone was aware, and has been complicit in encouraging this culture by doing nothing to object to it; despite the repeated and many lines crossed. The bottom line is that they were all protecting their investment and hoping that these things could be ‘handled or contained’ until an IPO happened and they were free and clear, having made hay on their initial investment.

In response to the video’s release, Uber’s CEO has said he needs leadership help, and Uber has hired former attorney general, Eric Holder, to investigate the claims of sexual harassment by the former female engineer. As of last week, only one investor publicly penned an open letter, saying that the company needs to change its ‘toxic’ culture.

The problem is that all this is too little, too late. The fact that nobody felt the need to act before, despite being aware of all these issues indicates that what is happening now is nothing more than a PR exercise to do damage control on a prized unicorn investment; now that they have absolutely no choice due to the growing negative PR.

If Travis Kalanick, or his investors, had genuinely felt the need for him to grow up, it would have happened after he called his company boob-er. If investors had truly wanted to clean up the company’s act, surely the last straw would have been Uber threatening a female journalist.

At this stage, promising to fight to change Uber’s culture and all other talk that results in no real consequences for the CEO and others in management with whom the buck stops, are totally meaningless. It is akin to letting a murderer go scot-free because he apologises and promises never to murder anyone else in cold blood.

I will only be convinced that Uber’s investors are serious when they ask Travis Kalanick to resign or they fire him. In my book, this is the only way to send a strong and clear message that this type of behaviour will no longer be tolerated by Silicon Valley.

Business success devoid of integrity and ethics is a failure for all of society.

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.

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.

Netflix, Data, Drunkard’s and Adam Sandler

There has been much discussion about Netflix’ recent announcement signing Adam Sandler for an exclusive four movie deal to be premiered on Netflix. It has also generated talk of the beginning of the end of the traditional Hollywood studio model as well as praise for Netflix use of data to make a content investment decision; albeit, this particular decision has left many people scratching their heads.

Let’s start with the fact that it has been a while since Mr. Sandler made a commercially successful or comedically substantive film; while Grown Ups fared better, he did not carry that movie. If you ask people to name their favourite Adam Sandler movie, most say Wedding Singer and movie buffs will add Punch-Drunk Love. His last few films, ‘That’s My Boy’ and ‘Blended’ have been critically panned and box office duds. In fact, the last movie, Blended, might have had a longer advertising campaign preceding the release, than the actual run it had in theaters!

On the lack of critical and commercial success, Netflix’s content chief has a data counterpoint: “Very uniquely, he stands out for his global appeal to Netflix subscribers. Even movies that were soft in the U.S. [theatrically] outperformed dramatically on Netflix in the U.S. and around the world.” (Source: Hollywood Reporter).

Don’t get me wrong, I love data and am a big advocate for using it to make better and more informed business decisions. However, I am also against over-reliance on data and using it without the benefit of judgement to accompany the decision-making process. My thinking is best explained by David Ogilvy who once exclaimed about the ad industry’s over-reliance on research – “I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

If one were to take a closer look at Netflix catalogue you will find that of the twelve highest rated comedy films, currently available in USA (as of October 2014); 2 are foreign (The Intoucahbles and Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara), 8 were made between 1953 and 1987 (Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Roman Holiday, Sabrina, The Graduate, Charade, White Christmas, MASH and Good Morning Vietnam), only 2 are from this century – Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) and Silver Linings Playbook (2012).

Additionally, their top comedy recommendations for me include ‘Maz Jobrani: I come in Peace’, ‘Tortilla Soup’ and ‘Welcome to Dongmakgol’; each movie gets 4.5 / 5; stars as personalised recommendations for me. No doubt you are also scratching your head and asking “Max who?” and what the %$%^*$%* a Dongmakgol and can it be eaten?

Then there is also the fact that Netflix continues to have a large selection of Mr. Sandler’s movies in both the US and abroad; “We had almost all of Adam’s movies in the first pay window in the U.S. Today, we continue to have those movies in the first pay window in Canada. And then, through various windows that follow the pay window all the way to the deep catalog, we’ve licensed Adam’s movies in all of our territories.” (Source: Hollywood Reporter). Considering these two data points one could surmise that Netflix has a pretty poor selection of comedy films in their library but a wide selection of Mr. Sandler’s movies.

If you are like most people, who sign-up for a monthly subscription service, you only feel you are getting value for your money if you are able to watch movies frequently. You start by looking for recent comedy films, finding none you tend to default to one with a recognisable actor. On both these counts your Netflix search will deliver an abundance of Mr. Sandler’s titles because of the limitation of their current comedy catalogue. I have no doubt that their viewing data is accurate, and many subscribers are watching Mr. Sandler’s films, even repeatedly; but if I were to add a dose of judgement I would also guess that this is has less to do with his popularity or the quality of the films, and all to do with the fact that there is really nothing else worthwhile to watch…

Then there was also the bizarre press release issued by Mr. Sandler saying he signed this deal because “Netflix rhymed with wet chicks.” Hopefully, this is not an early indication of the substance of each of the $40 million a film that Netflix is reportedly paying him. (Source: Reuters).

While I laud Netflix use of data (House of Cards is a brilliant case in point) and for continually breaking ground in entertainment and forcing studios and TV networks to think in a more customer-centric manner; I am not sure I agree with their choice of Mr. Sandler. I wonder if this is an instance of using data for illumination, rather than support; but either way it will be interesting to see who has the last laugh.