Consumers needed only to transfer Jonathan’s card image to their smartphones and display it on the screen for scanning. Hundreds used the card’s fluctuating balance to buy themselves coffee. Many also put money on the card (reportedly more than $8,000 was deposited – read Mashable’s story). It quickly became a share and pay-it-forward system – proof that most people are honest, appreciative and giving.

Starbucks loved the experiment and hoped for its true success. But, when a San Francisco hacker wrote a script to transfer funds off Jonathan’s Card and onto his own, the coffee giant pulled the plug. Late yesterday, Starbucks canceled the card for use.

Sam Odio also published his method for stealing coffee money and posted the script for anyone to grab and use. His reason? He didn’t like yuppies buying coffee for other yuppies. Odio admittedly transferred more than $600 from the card, and encouraged others to do the same in his post, “How to use Jonathan’s card to buy yourself an iPad“.

Soonafter, Odio’s Twitter account was flooded with tweets, the majority bashing him for ruining the experiment. Some argue, however, that Odio was simply proving a point – that not only are corporate systems vulnerable, but so is social “goodness”.

Odio, who’s been pretty mum about the ordeal, explained Stark need only ask for the card money to be returned. He’s trying to justify his hack by auctioning off his Starbucks cards for charity.

It’s funny, because I am a loyal Starbucks customer, and yet I drive a ’96 vehicle approaching 145,000 miles. There’s nothing else about me that screams “yuppie”… but, if that’s how Odio sees it…

Does anything, however, justify Odio’s actions?

In my book, Odio is a thief. While you can argue Stark made the card vulnerable by including the account number on the snapshot, nothing changes the intent – for users to take a coffee, give a coffee… Look deeper, though, and you’ll realize that this wasn’t Odio just taking money from someone else – he actually hacked one or more of Starbucks’ systems to obtain information on balances and transfer funds.

Odio can pride himself on saying he’s donating the money to charity. That doesn’t change the fact he stole from one cause to give to another. Some call him a modern-day Robin Hood, but it’s clear Odio took action to gain attention and punish those who have good taste in coffee.

Does Stark, Starbucks or even those who funded the card have a legal leg to stand on? Could any of them press criminal charges against Odio? I’m sure an attorney could answer those questions. Morality, however, tells me that Odio isn’t worthy of respect. If anything, he needs to realize something quite important…

The simple act of kindness of, say, buying a stranger a cup of coffee can and has “done good”. Years ago, after an emotional ordeal, I ordered a burger at a drive through. The server could tell I’d been crying for some time. She handed me my order, then handed me a slice of pie in a box and said, “This is on me. I hope it sweetens up your day”. I’ll never forget that experience. And, you know what? It did make me feel better and made me remember that the little things can make huge differences.

Fortunately, there’s something good that arises from the negative. Today, I walked into a convenience store, walked up to the cashier, and said, “See that guy over there? I’d like to buy his coffee.” I paid, and left.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2011/08/13.
| Permalink | Be the first to Comment!
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags:

In his concise, logical post, Brogan explains how an order of fajita’s passing through a restaurant dining room triggers more orders (ooh, the sizzle; ooh, the smell—its enough to make me want to head to On the Border right now).

Brogan’s idea is to offer incentives to customers if they tweet their purchase.

Know what? It could work.

There are already social sites that allow users to share their purchase information—what they bought and how much they spent—but such services require users be connected (much like you must be friends with a Facebook’er to see what he/she is sharing). Brogan’s concept is similar, but provides for broader reach using platforms most of our friends already use. The question is—as he puts it—how do you tempt others to follow suiy when they can’t “smell the fajitas”?

Some of Brogan’s loyal followers have posted creative ideas, the most compelling being offering a small discount (like 5%) if someone agrees to tweet or like their purchase in real-time. Some online stores already have “I just bought” tweet functionality built-in, but, for most, there’s no real way to confirm if the shopper actually completes the task. Thus, a real-time discount would require some development work if the store owner wants to prevent rewards hitting those who don’t hold up their end of the bargain. For some shopping carts it could mean generating coupons for a future purchase.

Instant gratification (discounts now, rather than later) is a great way to close sales. The way I see it, social media could easily play a big role in not only finalizing purchases, but bringing more people in the door.

What say you? Is live-tweeting what you’re buying worth a discount? Are consumers willing to share their purchases with the world?

Chime in below.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2011/04/13.
| Permalink | Be the first to Comment!
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: conversion, facebook, marketing, social media, twitter

I love what Facebook can do for a business. Yes, I think every small business needs a presence on the social giant. This doesn’t change the fact, however, that Facebook itself is not that original.

Yesterday, Facebook announced the overhaul of Facebook Groups, providing a new way for friends to communicate with each other. In short, now users can create “groups” of friends and family, and chat, in real time, with several at once.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberk told Mashable that the new features solve the biggest problem we’ve, until now, faced with social media:

Before today’s changes, interactions on Facebook were primarily one-on-one (messages) or interactions with all of your Facebook friends (status updates). From what I gathered, Groups is designed to solve that issue, something that Zuckerberg calls “the biggest problem in social networking.”

Now, if you look at social media as all things “social” on the Internet, you’ll realize that Facebook isn’t the inventor of anything new. Services like America Online, CompuServe and Prodigy used these types of features more than a decade ago. And many similar services offering up means to selectively communicate with approved friends and family have come and gone.

So, while I applaud Facebook for expanding it’s offering and recognizing features a good number of its users will appreciate, I’d like to see the goliath avoid comments that allude they invented the wheel.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/10/07.
| Permalink | 3 comments
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: facebook, social media

Remember Everything. That’s Evernote’s motto… but, is it really? This company seems to have forgotten what it takes to “grow”.

Evernote is a cloud service that allows users to keep track of many things – such as notes, ideas and outlines. It syncs with computers and smartphones via software.

The Evernote service launched in 2008 and took more than a year to reach a million users. They were once “nobodies”. This month they reached a 4 million user-base. (see report)

Evernote Corporation claims its service works with every device – for smartphones that’s primarily done via installed apps. However, earlier this week webOSroundup reported Evernote’s plans to cease development for webOS.

“We’d love to see the WebOS platform succeed at HP, but our resources are limited, so the WebOS client is currently on the “back burner” while we wait to see what happens with the platform.” – Dave Engberg, Evernote

In short, Evernote isn’t interested in catering to a smaller user base, and that includes fixing bugs in an actively-served app from Palm’s catalog.

It’s not that webOS users themselves are being totally ignored. Yesterday webOSroundup ran another article, whereas an Evernote employee said he was passing the complaint to the CEO, who would converse with management. Which… makes me wonder…

How big or small is this company? From the emails, there are at least two regular employees (or reps), a CEO and management team. Perhaps not a goliath, but certainly larger than the majority of app developers. By ignoring user-bases Evernote is telling us the company is either short-staffed or doesn’t want to spend the money on an outside developer.

The way I see it, if Evernote bails out of webOS just to sit, and wait, and see… well, then the webOS community doesn’t need the service. It’s that simple. Hey, there are plenty of competing services and it’s no secret that more stellar cloud services are being developed. If Evernote wants let its competition grab a bigger piece of the pie, that’s Evernote’s business. If the company’s not willing to take the risk on a great platform – that definitely has potential – why should users take the risk on its cloud services?

While this may make sense to companies vying only for the largest group of potential users, Evernote shouldn’t ignore smaller groups, comprised of truly dedicated users who tend to be more vocal with their support of a product. To ignore those users is to forget from whence Evernote came.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/08/26.
| Permalink | 11 comments
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: cloud computing, mobile apps, smartphone, webOS

This week Practical eCommerce contributor Armando Roggio brought to light a common practice by shady companies, calling out BigCommerce in the process. In his article, An Eye on BigCommerce, Roggio shone the light on the issue of misattributing publications and news agencies when it comes to including quotes in marketing materials.

Misattribution is when companies display endorsements and credit them to the wrong publication or news channel. This is often in the form of quotes and sound bytes.

In short, BigCommerce attributes specific publications and websites with promoting quotes, despite the fact the comments were often made by someone being interviewed.

Roggio raises the question of whether or not BigCommerce’s actions were a mistake or purposeful. I have no question about it at all – it’s clear they were quotes by individuals within an article.

Sadly, this site is mostly read by professionals, so the average user often sees these types of endorsements as real and encouraging.

Isn’t funny that if I’m paid to review a product or service (I’ve never done this, by the way), I need to disclose that information? Yet, there’s little publications can do in the case of misattribution than send a cease and desist.

Fair marketing? Not. And companies like BigCommerce (there are thousands of them) need to be held accountable. It’s obvious that businesses perform this practice because they’ve no real endorsements. For that, I say either build your product features and give others reasons to market for you, or close up shop. This middle ground is simply unacceptable.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/08/12.
| Permalink | 3 comments
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: advertising, marketing, practical ecommerce, scams

But, consider this: Amazon topped $1 billion in mobile sales in the last 12 months alone. $1 billion – that’s a nice big chunk of change. What we don’t know is how many of those sales occurred due to lack of mobile shopping sites in general. After all, if there’s only one mobile site you can find that carries a product you need to order while riding the train, what choice do you have?

The way I see it, if you aren’t investing in your company’s future, you might as well be prepared to pass up a potentially big market. Sure, it will be several years before mobile shopping will gain a hefty percentage of total eCommerce sales, but the early adopters in the game stand to do far better than those who wait until the visual proof is there.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/07/23.
| Permalink | Be the first to Comment!
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: Ecommerce, mobile commerce

Apple has made its mark on the smartphone market, and the iPhone won’t be “killed” by another device any time soon. More than 3 million iPhone 4′s were sold, and even if that number was just one-third, they’d still make money. Apple has a broad number of devotees, so the iPhone  isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

According to Wikipedia, as of December 2009, there were more than 285 million cell-phone toting Americans. Reported numbers of iPhones sold in the US greatly vary from 17 million to more than 20 million. Reports show Android devices have sold around 9 million. Hard data for other devices, including webOS, is hard to come by, but take note that “sold” doesn’t always mean in-use. For example, someone may have damaged their iPhone and bought a new one, but that still translates to a single user.

But even if the numbers are on a per-user scale, and accurate, that still leaves well over 200 million Americans using non-smartphones.

The way I see it, advocates of other devices (I’m particular to Palm’s webOS) need to spend less time focusing on getting iPhone, Android and other users to switch, and spend more time showing non-smartphone users why they need a full-featured mobile device. After all, the market of conversion from standard cell phones to smartphones stands to gain a lot more than the conversion of current users themselves.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/07/18.
| Permalink | 1 comment
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: iphone, smartphone, Technology, webOS

The way I see it, AT&T owes the bulk of its monetary success of their business to Apple. So why do they continuously offer iPhone users poor service?

Read just about any article, or watch just about any interview, and you’ll hear the same thing: iPhone users are frustrated with the service they receive from their carrier. So much, in fact, if it weren’t for the exclusive iPhone agreement they have with Apple, AT&T would have fewer stores and less revenue to advertise.

Survey results vary across mediums, but in my experience, AT&T makes a good amount of money based on iPhone exclusivity. The company stands to lose a pretty big chunk should Apple decide not to renew the contract that is up in 2012. Every iPhone-using colleague of mine left another carrier just to get Apple’s device, and plans to move to any other carrier should the iPhone be offered elsewhere.

It’s not just iPhone revenue that will be lost, either. Family plans – which save consumers money by grouping several devices and service to a single account – are increasingly popular. Most iPhone users I’ve met pay for two or more lines on a plan, even if secondary lines don’t use an iPhone. When a two- or three-line plan can cost more than $150 per month, that’s a significant amount of money AT&T’s at risk of losing.

Even worse, many carrier reps in local markets do nothing but sell phones and accessories. Employees at the store close to me, for example, weren’t aware of Consumer Reports‘ recommendations, had no knowledge of a class action lawsuit against Apple and their employer, and were ignorant of reports that thousands of users have reception issues. This means reps aren’t keeping up with news about their employer and the devices they sell, and AT&T certainly isn’t funneling information down the chain. So, when a potential customer enters the store with iPhone reservations, the rep isn’t armed with any real data because he doesn’t even know what problems have surfaced in the media.

Very public, celebrity complaints don’t help AT&T (or Apple), either, and recently Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak recommended users experiencing problems pick up a Palm Pre as part of a backup plan.

Lastly, AT&T misleads potential consumers by stating it “covers 97% of Americans.” What they mean is that service is available to 97%, and even that is regularly disputed.

What say you, loyal reader? Is AT&T doomed when the contract is up? Will Apple offer the iPhone to other carriers? And, if you’re an iPhone user, would you switch carriers or devices? Inquiring minds want to know.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/07/16.
| Permalink | 3 comments
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: iphone, smartphone

Okay, that would be extreme, but who’s to say someone isn’t going to think how cool it would be to see their dwindling balance as if they were Michael Douglas’ character in Disclosure? They’re already going at it with games on mobile devices. There would be nothing like bobbing your head around while standing in line at Starbucks playing fighter pilot on your smartphone, right?

I’m not totally against 3-D, but, I have to be honest, the big wave of demands and production lines is of serious concern. I know the technology is so much better than it was when I watched (and was utterly disappointed, I might add) JAWS 3-D, but it’s still not something I want to become a standard in my life. I can assure you, if 3-D games, movies and television shows become the standard, I’ll be watching and liking these forms of entertainment a whole lot less, and here’s why:

• I get eye strain as it is. I don’t care what anyone says, watching inanimate objects flying at you for a long period of time can’t be good.
• Too many people won’t take it in moderation, then they’ll drive. Ever play Tetris for hours on end? The after-effect of seeing shapes floating all over the place, even while at the grocery store, is a major distraction.
• It will take too long to pass any laws banning it’s use in vehicles, and even then, people will do it anyway.
• People already text and watch YouTube clips while driving. Do you get where I’m going with this? Dodge, duck, drive, duck, drive, dodge…
• Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in “treats” and I have always found 3-D to be a treat. It’s like enjoying Purdy’s truffles during the holidays. It’s something I look forward to and if I did it every day, they’d wind up being no better than a Snickers bar.

It’s my hope that networks, film companies and game producers realize that there are plenty of people who don’t want to be tied to 3-D and create options. And, that somehow, front-seat mounted screens in vehicles are 3-D disabled.

On a funny note, during July 4th festivities they were passing out special glasses so you could watch the fireworks in 3-D. We asked, “Aren’t the fireworks already in 3-D?” We got confusing looks in return. Turns out they were prism viewers, and thus just added rainbow bursts to each white or yellow light source. I could stand it for about 20 seconds.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/07/14.
| Permalink | Be the first to Comment!
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: my life, Technology

This week a federal judge granted class action status to a lawsuit against Apple and AT&T. The suit claims AT&T “locked” iPhone users into a five-year contract with the carrier, despite having only signed a standard two-year carrier contract. It also claims Apple “locks” it’s devices, restricting which apps owners can actually install on iPhones. The term “monopoly” is used. (Source: Mashable)

While I can certainly relate and understand iPhone owners’ complaints about Apple and AT&T as companies, a class action about contracts and non-open source devices isn’t worthy of my tax dollars. My reasoning is based on already existing, acceptable, business practices throughout the country.

Most cell carriers have offered exclusive models of devices, and not all carriers get every device (Verizon never got the Nexus One, despite plans that it would). Some Android devices can only be found on single carriers.

Apple’s control over the app catalog system is nothing new. Was the fact they run it via iTunes not a dead giveaway that they control the content?

The iPhone has been locked (though it has been jail broken) since day one, and this, also, wasn’t a secret.

And no one is forcing iPhone users to stay with AT&T. It’s their choice to continue using the iPhone with carrier service. You can use plenty of features (just not calling or texting) without being connected to AT&T’s network.

Now, a few non-device related examples:

• NFL Sunday Ticket. You want it? You have to subscribe to DIRECTV. It’s exclusive.
• OnStar is a GM service. For a few years it was offered additionally, yet exclusively, through Verizon.
• There are still exclusive programming methods and feature sets exclusive to both Windows and Mac. And there always will be.

My point is, exclusive agreements aren’t new. In fact, we lock ourselves into them (either by necessity or choice) every day. My contract with DIRECTTV is up next month, but I won’t be moving to Dish. My husband loves the Sunday Ticket. Do I feel “locked”? Sure, but it’s our choice to use the service in order to reap the benefits we want.

I had considered the iPhone (Palm’s webOS wasn’t out yet), but nothing was convincing enough for me to leave my current carrier (that, and my husband refused to let me get a phone we couldn’t insure at the time). Most of my iPhone-toting colleagues did switch carriers – hesitantly – and affirm that if the iPhone ever expands beyond the reach of AT&T, they’ll switch.

From what I can tell, the issue on the contract is really with AT&T’s service. But is there a monopoly here? I don’t see it. If there is, then thousands of other companies are to blame as well.

I’ll leave you with something TO complain about:

In 2006 we purchased a new Mac (latest and greatest) and the HD version of Final Cut Pro. Months later, Apple began shipping Macs with the Intel chipset. We would have liked to upgrade to the next version of Final Cut but found that upgrading OSX wouldn’t cut it. Nope, we’d have to be another new Mac. So this Mac – advertised as a machine built to long outlast any PC (and cost more than twice as much) – soon became a dinosaur because upgrading software itself would require purchasing all new hardware.

And, a question:

At what point do we weigh what a company has done to us against what they’ve done for us, and decide if we should actually be supporting them? I don’t know about you, but if I felt duped this badly by any company, I wouldn’t just be wanting to switch carriers, I’d be switching devices.

© Pamela Hazelton, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Originally published on 2010/07/13.
| Permalink | Be the first to Comment!
|Add to del.icio.us|
Post tags: Apple, AT&T, iphone, mobile apps, smartphone, Technology