From 19.20.21:

"The rise of supercities is the defining megatrend of the 21st century. In 1800 less than 3% of the world lived in cities. In 1900 150 million people lived in the world's cities. More than half the people on Earth now live in cities."

We all know rapid changes are occurring in the way people live and interact with their environment and each other. What fascinates me is the little details. This post on The Year in Pictures blog has photos of people in Shanghai wearing pyjamas as outdoor clothing. Here's the book in which the photos appear over on Amazon, it's called Planet Shanghai by Justin Guariglia.

Gordon Brown has been prompted to try and convince people he's swinging into action over high oil prices by writing an article over on The Guardian's website. His recognition that demand is going to exceed supply from now into the future is welcome but his plans are hardly reassuring. Suggesting that "getting the world to act together" is not a solution I'd like to rely on happening in the way he is implying. I wonder what will happen as more people realise we've squandered a finite resource in an unimaginably careless fashion?

Reading Brown's article in my head made me feel like I was being addressed by Charlie Brown's teacher so I produced the wordcloud shown above to summarise what he said. The bigger the word the more frequently he used it. I think his focus around bills, consumers, economy and investment says it all. There's less emphasis on the environment and renewables and no mention whatsoever of peak oil. We should all just make like the Amish.

Update: Charlie tipped my off to wordle.net which generates very pretty word clouds from any text you choose to give it. The image below links through to a larger version, again using the text of the Gordon Brown's article.

So I'm reading this article from The Independent about mountaintop removal mining, another man-made horror inflicted on our shared environment, and read the following:

"Another way to see what's going on behind the ridge-line is to take a Google Earth virtual tour of an online memorial to the 470 mountains blown up and levelled in recent years."

I'd like to check this out but there isn't a link to it. Finding the relevant site wasn't a problem, I did a Google search and the site ilovemountains.org was the top result. The content on here appears to tally with what the article is discussing. Okay, I've found what I was looking for but there is a reason to get annoyed about having to take an extra step and it isn't just to do with laziness. Links are what make the web work. They give content a structure I can follow and allow me to interact with this content in all sorts of different ways. They also enable the web to be searchable so I can find other relevant pages. By not linking out The Independent is delivering a poor user experience and impairs my ability to easily investigate the topic further, which, given the fact I'm giving the article my attention, I may well want to do. What makes this policy of not linking out cynical is that the article gives me the option to 'Digg It', bookmark it in del.ico.us, share it via my Facebook profile and add it to Stumbleupon. The Independent would very much like me to promote their article for them via social sharing in order to gain the attention of further visitors. When it comes to sharing the attention itself however it's a different and more selfish story.

4 original comments:

[...] meaning to post on this for a while… now Mark H. has gawn done it, with this incisive observation on how annoying it is when websites insist on treating themselves as a final destination rather [...]
Pingback by hackbash » Blog Archive » Down with the news cul-de-sac — 29 May, 2008 @ 9:34 am

This is great Mark – can we shame them into a link rethink?
Comment by cpev — 29 May, 2008 @ 9:39 am

Agree – especially with your point in the last paragraph.
Your post stimulated Charlie into action on Hackbash. I added this comment:
Couldn’t agree more – it’s been on my list of Things to Complain About too, but I’m giving it a rest for the moment. I can only assume that papers are still struggling to move on from simply presenting information, and that they feel that embedding links will encourage people to go elsewhere.
I’d humbly offer this quote:
"When writing directly for the web, make sure that you insert any outward links around the appropriate words within your body copy, rather than in a side panel or at the bottom."
from my Press Gazette article on SEO for journalists. Ironically, PG didn’t publish inline links at the time, so it ended up looking stupid.
Another (probably worse given its target market) example is Computer Shopper. They’ve started putting inline links into their news stories (hallelujah!), but articles written for the magazine still aren’t transferred onto the website with inline links. It wouldn’t matter so much, but Dennis employs hateful Vibrant inline adverts.
If we’re all agreed that failing to put in relevant links is a disservice to your readers, then failing to do so but remembering to put in shit adverts is taking the piss out of them.
Comment by handolio — 31 May, 2008 @ 11:39 am

[...] is exactly what I was talking about when I said that major newspaper sites weren’t good web citizens. They behave like black [...]
Pingback by markhigginson.com/blog » The event horizon… — 2 November, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

I wrote a post about Amazon recently then discovered a company I hadn't heard of before that interested me in a similar way. Zappos sell shoes on the web. Stupid idea. I remember when it all went down at boo.com during the dot com bubble! No one thinks buying shoes online is a good idea. What if they don't fit? You need to go to a shop to try them on to make sure you like them. The fact a shop has a really limited selection is just something you have to accept. Zappos storefront is so-so... but they do have 133 pairs of etnies to choose from. I notice across the top that shipping is free... and returns are free too... for 365 days! A whole year! Oh, and the reviews from their customers aren't simply good, they're outstanding:

Customer service heaven
Zappos.com: 3 steps to great customer service
Zappos has otherworldly customer service

Check the comments:

"Zappos really does go above and beyond, and I'm just as comfortable there shoe shopping as I am in the store."

It seems they have the problems I thought existed sorted by getting products out to people very quickly, very efficiently and by making returns easy and free. They do in fact have a giant warehouse next to a UPS depot and phone-based customer service is available 24 hours a day. Their philosophy is explained on their site. So far, not bad. What makes them so interesting? How about the fact that they pay their new employees to leave? Employees get four weeks training at full salary and then are offered $1,000 to quit. Why?

"Because if you’re willing to take the company up on the offer, you obviously don’t have the sense of commitment they are looking for... and it’s willing to pay to learn sooner rather than later."

Here's a great quote:

"Companies don’t engage emotionally with their customers—people do. If you want to create a memorable company, you have to fill your company with memorable people."

... and this is making them money. In 1999 gross profit was next to nothing. In 2002 it was $32m. In 2005 $370m and they have a target of $1bn in 2008. Tony Hsieh, the CEO, says that:

"Our business is based on repeat customers and word of mouth. We view the money that we spend on customer service as marketing money that improves our brand."

Why I am interested in this? Because here is a company that not only could not have existed a few years ago but is making the network work for its customers, both on and off-line. How on it are they? Out of 1,600 employees 327 are on twitter. They're that social; this article explains it well. Each one of those employees is a public expression of commonly held values and creates a palpable feel that people make this organisation.

Update: Oops. Forgot to post the link to the Zappos blog.

Although I've found some of The Independent's reporting to be questionable, particularly an article from a while back on CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder), these two recent articles caught my eye: An epidemic of extinctions: Decimation of life on earth and 'Act now to save our natural environment or Britain's most precious wildlife will be lost forever' The first article has a global focus, the second looks at the loss of biodiversity in this country. The common cause is, of course, human action. A researcher from the Zoological Society of London is quoted as saying:

"It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans."

The figures pretty much speak for themselves. Until 1800 the human population of the planet was below 1 billion. Between 1850 and 1950 the population doubled. It then more than doubled again in the next fifty years up to 2000. Predictions indicate that this growth rate will slow up to 2050, but this still leaves a mind-boggling total human population of 8.9 billion people. I look at the growth that has occurred in a mere 150 years, unprecedented in all of human history, and the insanity of it staggers me. Why, as conscious beings, would we choose to destroy the environment that gives us life by simply reproducing in this uncontrolled way? Issues such as peak oil and overpopulation are intrinsically linked. The debate around peak oil may be picking up but overpopulation seems to be an issue that few people want to touch. I don't want to see our planet destroyed, it's where I keep all my stuff.

It's been nearly three months since I cancelled my Orange contract and switched to O2. Making phone calls has stopped being such a cause of frustration. Orange weren't going to make it that easy however and have attacked from the direction of the broadband service I had with my old contract. They've sent me a letter requesting that the wireless router they supplied be returned to them otherwise:

"... we will have to charge you £100 to cover the cost of your Livebox (as it's only on loan to you) and that's something neither of us wants to happen."

I'm not sure I fully believe them. That is, I'm not sure I believe they don't want to charge me £100. Although the fact the box is rented to you is mentioned in the terms and conditions it certainly wasn't mentioned when I cancelled the service. It's also taken them a suspiciously long time to request the box be returned to them. What do they do with these returned routers? Are they recycled? Sent out to new customers? They don't seem to care too much about the state it arrives back in as they've only supplied a flimsy pre-addressed plastic bag. And doesn't £100 seem a little bit steep for a wireless router? Fortunately I hadn't thrown it out so can get this back to them. Unfortunately I received a brand new package from Orange today. It contained a 'home broadband starter kit' and a letter welcoming me to their service. It seems incompetence never has a day off at Orange. The fact they've lost thousands of customers since the start of the year comes as no surprise.

Update: The reason I blog about these little frustrations rather than write to Orange customer services is that I don't believe my cause or the cause of any other customer will be helped by a standard letter of apology from them. These kind of interactions allow a company to treat its customers on a one-to-one basis and gives them grounds to pretend that the cause of the complaint is a one-off that never ordinarily happens. Writing about such incidents and posting them on the web, be it on blogs, review sites or forums provides a searchable and, to all intents and purposes, a permanent record of what has occurred. As more people use the web to find out if people recommend a product, service or company then it is a huge help if you can see that there is a lot of positive feedback or a lot of complaints about the thing you're about to spend your money on. If the weight of negative opinion causes the subject of those comments to listen and change the way they do business then it can only be a good thing.

Disclaimer: Part of my job involves looking at what people are saying about brands online as well as more general topics.

Charlie made some comment about Titus Andronicus and pies today which made me think of Fafblog, a hilarious and surreal blog I used to read and love that went quiet a couple of years ago. I looked up a pie related post for Charlie and lo and behold Fafblog is back! Momentous news. This is genius:

"I knew I forgot to pay one a the bills yesterday but I just thought it was the cable or the internet or somethin an I guess it musta been worse cause when I step outside this mornin somebody's shut off the time. Now everything's happenin all at once an there's all this history spilled all over the lawn. Now I got all these crusaders sackin the mailbox an morlocks hibernatin under the porch an at least a dozen Louis the Sixteenths grazin on the azalea bushes. Look at the mess!"

I've not blogged about peak oil for a couple of months so it was interesting to research the online travel sector recently and see how little this topic is discussed. The travel sector has really pushed social media. There can be no better way of encouraging people to travel than to provide a space where you can see other people's journeys and plan your own, informed by the advice of others who have just been there. There's also no better way of showing off your exploits than by sharing photos or blogging about your experience. It's another example of competitive consumption. Travelling is supported by being able to get where you want to go as cheaply as possible and there are a plethora of sites offering flight price comparisons to help you get the cheapest flight deal available. All this is about to change very quickly. With oil forecast to hit $200 within the next two years fuel costs are set to push up the prices of flights, if not cause airlines to merge or go out of business. On top of that the credit crunch must surely be causing people to be revising their holiday plans. Reports on American and British carriers state that fuel prices are having a serious affect on profits:

"During the first quarter of 2008 American airlines lost $328 million; Delta lost $274 million; United lost $537 million; Continental $80 million; Northwest $191 million; and US Airways $236 million."

Back in 2006 Robert F. Westcott, an adviser to Securing America's Future Energy, produced a report that stated:

"Global airlines are presently under extreme financial pressure with the current level of fuel prices. The total combined expenses for all U.S. air carriers (both domestic and international routes) are about $125 billion a year.2 With oil currently at $60 a barrel, jet fuel costs U.S. air carriers approximately $30 billion a year, or about one-quarter of total expenses. With oil at $120 a barrel, jet fuel will represent about one-half of total expenses (assuming no reduction in demand). Even if airlines were to impose fuel surcharges, they are still likely to cancel routes, lay off workers, cancel orders for new airplanes, or enter bankruptcy."

... and here we are at $120-a-barrel oil. Perhaps discussion about peak oil and its implications will go mainstream through more articles that touch on the subject appearing as the year goes on, particularly once the summer is over and people start to think about the cost of winter fuel. Most commentators still seem to be ignoring the fact the price of a barrel of oil has simply kept on rising and while nervous about the implications of such would rather the problem just went away, reasoning that a global economic slowdown will reduce demand and hence the price. I think we can assume that isn't going to happen and when the full enormity of the situation we're in sinks in the end of cheap travel is going to be the least of our worries. Economic growth requires access to plentiful and cheap sources of energy, two things in increasingly short supply due to our voracious civilisation's demands. The latest peak oil news is aggregated over at PowerSwitch if you want to follow developments.

Update: The Times highlighted the problems faced by both the American and European airline industries at the end of last month. I checked the share prices of five carriers (British Airways, Easyjet, Ryanair, Continental and Delta) over on Google Finance. The results don't look good. They've lost between 40 and 60% of their value since the beginning of 2007.

I joined Facebook when we* all piled on a few months back. It all went beserk for a little while, achieving critical mass among my friends with the result I was checking it every day. Now I hardly check it at all. I had hopes they'd innovate in a different direction and rather than a load of useless applications what it would turn into would be a way of managing your social network; that rather than a peripheral activity easily organising your social life would become the heart of the platform. I can't even sort my 'friends' by my really close friends I can actually go out with and vague 'friends-of-friends' friends. As it is Facebook just looks cynical and useless. Here's a good analysis from Fake Steve Jobs:

"Facebook is a Ponzi scheme. A handful of VCs have created the illusion of an actual market by funding apps companies and then doing deals with each other -- passing cash back and forth among (them) to make it look as if money is being made."

Does anyone have a workable strategy to make money off the thing besides convincing other people that limited means of annoying loose affiliations of people with adverts has some sort of intrinsic value? I wouldn't want to be holding a load of shares when people's attention wanders, though that said MySpace is still talked about as though it actually has a massive cash value. While mainstream column inches about Facebook have stretched off to the horizon the interesting stories are only touched upon. If you want to see where real interaction is at then news of The Pirate Bay hitting 12 million peers is of genuine interest. These people aren't banging on about some imaginary value of their service; they're getting on with the business of facilitating the free sharing of stuff people want and the people doing the sharing are not only downloading in ever greater numbers, they're making more and more torrents available too and making sure they can be easily obtained:

"... there has been a massive increase in the number of users actually seeding files, rather than just being regular peers. In 2004, around 20% of the tracker population were seeds... in 2008, the seeders amount to an impressive 50% of total tracker peers..."

As TorrentFreak reports The Pirate Bay has stated:

"What we want you to do is to spread the word to your friends and make more people share files! Let's break 15 million - and 20!"

The value of certain intellectual property is now effectively zero. What happens next, as this group continue their concerted attack on copyright and more people heed the call by simply downloading stuff will be interesting.

"Piratbyrån (The Bureau of Piracy) is not an organization, at least not primarily. First and foremost, Piratbyrån is since its beginning in 2003 an ongoing conversation. We are reflection over questions regarding copying, information infrastructure and digital culture."

On Facebook people are socialising not buying. On The Pirate Bay people are sharing not buying. Not good news if you want to turn a profit. * I know you did too.

Update: This sketch sums up the potential problem with Facebook rather well.