I thought Spam went out of fashion?

As consumers we have the not inconsiderable burden of choosing where to spend our money. This dilemma is presented on a daily basis as we go about normal pursuits and routines. A sizeable faction of retailers and salesman are not content with letting the money fall from our purse in good time however, they instead feel that the only way to secure our hard earned cash is with a brute force approach.

As a child I remember seeing junk mail pile through the letterbox, only to be thumbed through and discarded. I always found it amazing that companies who spent a small fortune sending out thousands of unsolicited letters could make it worth their while. Presumably enough people must have been signing up for credit cards and cash prize puzzle competitions to cover the cost of the vast amounts of paper that end up in the bin. At least in this sector the evident underlying profitability of the operation provides some reassurance of the senders logic (providing we swerve the environmental hot potato on where all the waste paper goes).

Of course the modern age has heralded modern methods of purveying mass commercial plugging. The birth of 'SPAM' email is considered to be in 1978 when the same email was sent to 300 recipients without being personalised as was the trend at the time. Of course this made those diligently watching their inboxes more than a little upset. How dare the sender on this magical new system not take the time to write something which was addressed to them by name and had some relevance to what they might be interested in? If only they knew what was to come. By 1988 the first chain mail reared its head, "Make money fast" bore all the hallmarks of SPAM to come.

Unsolicited bulk email now makes up 80-85% of all emails sent worldwide. To this end both individuals and corporates spend significant time and money to filter out this bulk of chaff, to leave them with a workable system for communication. There is a worldwide contemptuous attitude towards such mail, with even the less internet-savvy individuals being able to spot most scam or promotional emails a mile off and send it reeling off into the ever-present Junk folder.

So how and why do the senders persist? Re-applying the metric of profit from the Junk postal mail story, it is reasonable to assume at least a few recipients must offer their wallets. What is different with email is the cost per send for the Spammer. With little or no overhead and the ability to be invisible as a sender, even one or two sign-ups from 2 million mail outs proves to be a good day at the office.

The only real solution is for the Internet community to form consensus and crack down on what is heralded as a free, easy and cheap solution for global communication. A strict opt-in service for inbox owners or lock-down of acceptable recipients would go some way to cleaning up our daily e-post bag. I am not sure the problem will ever go away, but with spending on combating SPAM estimated at upwards of £150 per Business user per year, can we really afford not to tackle the root cause?

Calculate the cost of SPAM to your Business with this nifty calculator... http://www.commtouch.com/spam-cost-calculator

The Great Carrier Bag Scandal

In a time of unprecedented ecological concern and constant reminders to be green, we as the UK general public have made a respectable stab at washing out our jam jars and turning down our thermostats. Whilst there will always be gaping holes in the sustainable practise of the nation with old-school industry and air-conditioned office blocks, the last few years have seen a conspicuous improvement in the attitude of consumers towards waste. Most importantly, we seem to still be happy enough, perhaps demonstrating that consumption and waste is not the only source of enjoyment in Western society.

In fact the recent drive to be "green" from both manufacturers and our peers has spawned a die-hard elite of frugalists and return of the 'make do and mend' brigade. The old British adage has been revived in a recent BBC remake where handy sowers and resourceful cooks provided lessons on how to reduce waste and save money.

The combination of belt-tightening and the dawning revelation that we might be actually be knackering the planet has prompted the almost ubiquitous 'war on carrier bags'. Once a time where triple bagging heavy items was actively encouraged by the teenage checkout assistant, punters now have to wrestle a few measly bags from the attendant just so they can get their products out the door. Instead loyalty points and growing sense of smugness are provided as recompense for bringing your own scrumpled carriers or buying into the bag for life scheme. All in all, a sustainability success you might say.

So how is it that logic still evades us in such glaring ways in other areas? I recently saw a pile of Argos catalogues which had made their way half a mile down a high street and subsequently been rained on providing enough material to create a sizeable papier mache sculpture. I am presuming that the culmination of 3000 pages of printed product adverts was not used before being discarded, instead providing a massive waste of energy and effort. What's more someone has to then be paid to clean it up.

Levels of product packaging seem to have also escaped the chop. Apart from my annoyance with the fact it often takes me 20 minutes to wrestle open stubborn plastic blister packs, there is simply no need to wrap things 4 times in a packagers almanac of different materials. Some of the worst offenders are listed over on Business Insider, with my personal favourite being individually wrapped bananas...

All this makes me worry that it doesn't really matter whether I only use one sheet of toilet paper, or whether I get some nectar points for bringing a smelly carrier bag for my shopping. In the grand scheme of things it feels like we need to do a lot more if we are serious about not living in a planet-wide rubbish dump before the next century.

The Chewbacca E-mail Defence

After four years of University and working in Industry I have come to notice a strange phenomenon which seems to afflict everyone from the lowest administrator to the highest director with equal virility. All of us have experienced the moment where all eyes turn in your direction on the revelation that an expectation has not been achieved or a target has been missed. Whether its coursework past its deadline, or a long overdue action point from a rather tedious meeting there is a stock standard defence which seems the commercial embodiment of the 'Get out of jail free card'.

"I sent you an email". A few small words so innocently placed, but covers all manner of sins. I don't really understand how it is that a Director on the Warpath or a Lecturer hell-bent on docking marks can be so easily subdued by the timely delivery of the phrase. Whether the purveyor of the excuse is telling the truth or not it I have seen devastating delivery causing instant disarray in those who are turning critical eyes.

On more than one occasion I have seen students excused timely coursework submission due to perceived uncertainty surrounding the delivery of electronic mail. I have even used the excuse myself to cover tardiness when contacting clients at work, professing that "my email didn't send the first time". And of course who could forget the classic Sales Rep tactic of insisting that they speak to the intended recipient in person, just to check if they got that email containing "A really interesting offer".

In an age where E-mail is ubiquitous and largely seen as superior to paper mail, are we really that uncertain as to the quality of the delivery mechanism? Surely if there was genuinely this much doubt as to whether Business-critical documents will arrive when we click 'Send' then we would save some of our raging contempt for Royal Mail, and vent it at E-mail providers instead.

Perhaps it is the lack of per-send cost associated with most E-mail services which lowers our expectations, or perhaps we enjoy the dance of uncertainty surrounding our merry distribution of scores of emails every day. Of course who would forgo the amusing back and forth whilst trying to dictate an E-mail address over the telephone prompting 4 failed emails and one Nigerian scam respondent before finally getting the message through.

Either way it makes me wonder how long before we start to demand more from our best electronic friend. With so much of Business and Personal life depending on timely and safe delivery of Electronic Mail, I think it might be time to iron out the kinks and fire some of these incompetent digital postmen.

There are even some hailing alternatives to E-mail altogether. Could RSS really be a replacement?

PS for those of you pondering the relation to Chewbacca, see this video for a likeness to many a meeting where the E-Mail diversion defence has been employed...

The perils of E-Commerce

In a retail culture where consumers now expect any self-respecting outlet to have an on-line store and delivery service, it is hard to imagine a time when 24/7 shopping was not available.

 'E-Commerce' as it has become known is the process of using ICT to support Business Activities. By allowing connection to customers, suppliers and the market place as a whole, organisations can gear up their sales and market reach with a relatively small outlay. E-Commerce was shown to have increased by an impressive 25% between 2008/09 (Office for National Statistics). 76% of Businesses in the same year had a website with many of them providing E-Commerce options to their customers, either as their primary route to market or as a subsidiary to a high street operation.

The rise of this new form of commercial interaction has stemmed from a drive for customer convenience and rapid service. In theory a well designed retail website will allow a customer to browse full details of a product, compare the prices on the entire market with a simple click, and place an order to be delivered at a time convenient for them.

Unfortunately however, all is not rosy in the garden of on-line sales. There are a wealth of considerations which need to be addressed in order to satisfy the customer and unfortunately many contenders are falling well short, often resulting in their ultimate demise.

Many E-Commerce websites are plagued by poor design. Considering the budgets behind such projects,and the importance of getting it right, you might expect on-line offerings of some major players to be flawless. As one of Britain's biggest supermarkets Tescos presents a clinical and cluttered home page followed up with some pretty customer login facilities. Similarly I don't know who told BHS that scrolling 90's-style neon was a good idea...

It also appears that many organisations who have taken the E-Commerce plunge also struggle with the fundamental logistics of the operation. Stock management and delivery as promised are fundamental elements which the retailer must get right if they are to offer any real benefit over simply visiting a high street store for the same product. Unfortunately however many retailers seem to be caught on the back foot all to often, leading to delivery delays and frustration. A quick search of customer forums yield all sorts of discontent. Recent experiences with both Mobile Fun and TotalPDA would lead me to join the rabble after some seriously poor delivery experiences.

Fundamentally the convenience and value of shopping on-line are all too often marred by the lottery of selecting a product sight-unseen, and the crossing your fingers whilst you hope the product turns up. I would hope that this will not always be the case, as with more and more commerce moving to the Internet, we deserve better.

The Spread of Information Poverty

The digital world is marching on, and most are happily jumping on board and enjoying the benefits of a more connected lifestyle with everything from smartphones to Oyster cards. Being of a (reasonably) new generation myself I have enjoyed growing up with this kind of technology along with my peers.

Mobile Phones, Game Boys, broadband, and digital cameras have all been born in my lifetime, and frankly every new product brings a certain degree of schoolboy-like excitement as I join the clamber to have the first go on the newest gadget or sign up for yet another life-altering on-line service.

However there is a divide forming in our nation, and across the World. Known as the Digital Divide it has gained press in recent years as the gulf has widened. Whilst some of us revel in digital harmony, others are becoming more and more disconnected in relative terms. Recent figures suggest that around 25% of UK homes still do not have an internet connection. In an age where the internet can facilitate thousands of daily activities we are beginning to face a new social conundrum, that of Information Poverty.

Broadband and many other technologies which facilitate the flow of daily consumable information are relatively cheap, and could be be funded monthly by diverting the funds from a few spared pints in the local. I do not believe it is the cost of technology which puts many off, but a fear of its complexity and bizarre nuances. Resorting to IT as a first port of call is something that has become ubiquitous in the younger generation during their studies, and the older generation as a powerful Business tool. Those who have not yet made the jump tend to reside in the more mature age groups, or those in less close affiliation with education or dynamic places of work.

Technologies such as the 'Basic Phone' have found a niche in the market for those wanting to forgo the hurdles and guessing games of modern, feature rich mobiles, instead simply making calls and staying connected. This opens up what many would consider a basic right for telephone access, to a market of older people or those who struggle to learn complex software. Similarly a software house has recently released a package aimed at helping those who are older or have memory problems to interface with a simplified yet functional daily planner in digital format. This helps them to harness the power of digital organisation which many of us now rely on.

It is exciting times for those of us riding the technology bandwagon, but as the digital society begins to take over, we have a duty to make sure people are not unwittingly left behind.

Business icon or celebrity sell-out?

This week has seen the eagerly awaited return of the Apprentice to our screens. We can expect much of what we know in terms of candidates and challenges. There will be the cocky few who are 'All mouth and no trousers' and will likely be claiming job-seekers after week 3, the frankly ludicrous candidates who don't really know what day it is let alone how to run a Business, and the usual post-production mastery that makes the unfortunate moments even more cataclysmic.

One notable difference in this series is that the contender will be competing for an investment to start their own Business. The infamous Lord Sugar will be handing out cash to one of the hopefuls in order for them to go out and "make it on their own" like he did. Having watched many of the series of the Apprentice I don't think there has been single episode where reference has not been made to the humble origins of selling scrap out of wheelbarrow which was said to be the foundation of Lord Sugars current Business empire.

And then of course there is the favourite of TV channel Dave, The Dragons den. A good few minutes at the start of every show is devoted to a flowery and grandiose description of the Business Moguls who occupy that hallowed warehouse and dash dreams for a living.

I am all in favour of the increased interest in Entrepreneurial endeavour and Business awareness which these shows and their patrons have instilled. However I have a worry for the future.

Every time a new series is commissioned, and every time a show producer needs a new edge to the programme, our patrons are called upon to provide new intrigue and entertainment. For instance the arsenal of pithy one liners currently sported by Lord Sugar which has clearly been in diligent preparation since the last series. Our Dragons are likewise coerced into making good TV by being conspicuously bullish and somewhat highly strung. However I simply don't believe they would be sitting on succesful Busienss empires if their on-screen persona was the one they started out with.

Ultimately these figureheads need to be careful their genuine Business acumen is not forgotten in a sea of rating-chasing and post production wizardry. How will history remember Lord Sugar? As a trusted advisor to the government on all things Business, or as a quick-witted yet stationary nay-sayer who will forever be silohetted in front of a pale blue boardroom?