Is Unequal Access to Data Undermining Your Company’s Success?

Big data has far and away transcended its status as a technology buzzword. It has become a full-fledged infrastructural norm; countless business leaders have embraced its potential to provide enhanced insight, trend discovery, and other key variables contributing to their annual goals. This notion has created the need for multifaceted implementation strategies which, ideally, aim to use data as a binding agent for all company sectors, ultimately streamlining internal fluidity.

However, despite their ambition and openness to change, many of these leaders fail to recognize that their implementation strategies are flawed — namely in terms of distribution and accessibility. In turn, these inconsistencies can foster a culture of inequality and opacity, creating a counter effect and undermining the very success the strategy strives to achieve.

To curb these setbacks, organizations must be proactive in expanding data knowledge and utilization equally across their different departments.

Diagnosing the problem

To establish a stable data landscape, business leaders need to identify both the internal problem at hand and its broader implications. Limited data distribution should be viewed not only as a threat to corporate functions, but also a potential slight to certain divisions of the organization’s workforce.

The pitfalls of such disparities have already been carefully observed at a societal level, even before the pandemic took them to new heights, and to introduce them to the workplace is to court slow-burning disarray. Inner turmoil can quickly lead to poor external performance, causing companies to fall behind competitors that are more internally cohesive.

With the proper mindset in place, leaders can turn their attention to a variety of strategies to nip their data problem in the bud, and this begins with pinpointing where deficiencies lie. For instance, are employees reliant upon a “suboptimal mix of cloud-based technology and on-premise enterprise systems,” where the collective workforce is hamstrung by patchy, insufficient access — as nearly two-thirds of companies report — or is quality access simply limited to specific parts of the company? Organizations will need to assess workers’ level of “data illiteracy,” a consequence that occurs when data-driven decision-making is limited to select departments and teams.

Leaders must also recognize that the issue can spread beyond data access alone, impacting a company’s confidence in investing and technological innovation. For example, if the company empowers non-IT departments with the bulk of its data technology investment authority, IT workers may start to feel disenfranchised and contribute to a general sense of confusion and mismatched priority. These so-called “shadow systems” are not sustainable because they confuse expectations and leave some workers ill-equipped to address problems that would otherwise be in their wheelhouse.

Creating long-term success

With remote work enduring as a new norm, emphasis on data and technology is arguably at an all-time high, and the need for a tight digital ship has followed suit. Therefore, solutions to the above should be handled with diligence, and it is important to remember that seemingly cut-and-dry remedies are anything but; simply making data access more widespread is not the full answer. Instead, to create lasting success, a broader systemic change should be favored over a temporary band-aid.

By focusing on total reinvention, leaders will be able to properly address each micro-issue contributing to the macro flaw. These focal points could include better, more equal funding to multiple departments, stronger team integration to optimally disperse data knowledge and learning opportunities, and reallocation of investing dollars to reflect future innovation rather than retroactive level setting.

These efforts can also be applied to the introduction (or updating) of relative technology aimed at an improved data-driven work cycle. Access to AI and automation tools, for instance, should be evenly distributed to all applicable company fields — with training provided for those unversed in how to use these resources. Success in each of these areas will be contingent upon properly communicated expectations.

Regardless of where change is most needed, a general rule of thumb is to isolate growth areas that require a rapid return and use them as a kicking-off point. The current system should be audited based on its existing depth and reach, and any salvageable aspects can be leveraged during the construction of a stronger, more efficient successor. New infrastructure must also remain compatible with the business’s technological and financial capabilities.

This type of large-scale change may seem daunting, even unreachable, but it has become an objective necessity as COVID continues to rewrite the rulebook for businesses worldwide. That said, the challenge can be met head-on with a blend of forward-thinking, unfailing commitment, and, above all, constant transparency and attention to detail.

This article was originally published on Business2Community

By |2021-03-31T23:31:04+00:00February 13th, 2021|Business, Technology|

Will Cryptocurrency Ever Enter the Mainstream for Businesses?

At this time in 2018, the very idea of bitcoin becoming an accepted currency among major corporations would have been unlikely. Now, the idea still attracts some raised eyebrows — but it isn’t as immediately dismissed.

Cryptocurrency had its first spotlight moment in 2018. It was the modern era’s equivalent of the gold rush; all around the country, adventurous bitcoin dabblers found themselves raking in thousands — sometimes tens of thousands — of dollars after investing comparatively paltry sums.

“Bitcoin and, subsequently, a proliferation of other cryptocurrencies had become an object of global fascination, amid prophecies of societal upheaval and reform, but mainly on the promise of instant wealth,” journalist Nick Paumgarten wrote of the time for The New Yorker. “A peer-to-peer money system that cut out banks and governments had made it possible, and fashionable, to get rich by sticking it to the Man.”

But that promise of high returns soon began to buckle. In January of 2018, the total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies had peaked at $800 billion, skyrocketing up from the mere $18 billion reported the year before. It didn’t take long for the market to plunge; by the end of the year, the market had lost three-quarters of its value and stood at a mere $200 billion.

The cryptocurrency bubble had popped. But unlike other markets, it seemed as though the sheer intensity of the crash would bring the boom-and-bust cycle to a grinding (and permanent) halt. Headlines shared stories of would-be investors who invested their life savings, insurance payouts, and loans in the new market only to see the lion’s share of their hard-earned and borrowed money trickle away.

“What the average Joe hears is how friends lost fortunes,” Alex Kruger, a former banker and current cryptocurrency trader, told reporters for the New York Times. “Irrational exuberance leads to financial overhang and slows progress.”

The response from corporate interests was, at the time, similarly cold. One writer for the Financial Times noted that even well-regarded cryptocurrency enthusiasts were “met with a cold shoulder by US regulators” when they attempted to open exchange-traded funds for Bitcoin and encourage wider adoption.

But in recent months, hints of another crypto boom have begun to circulate. Recent reporting from Forbes’ Ron Shevlin indicates that trading of Bitcoin, Ethereum and other major cryptocurrencies increased sharply at the open of 2020, peaked in February, and remained at high levels through the first half of 2020. Roughly 15 percent of American adults now own cryptocurrency — and notably, half of them invested in the sector for the first time this year.

Corporate America, for its part, hasn’t paid the recovering cryptocurrency market much attention. But, as of October, two major financial firms have diverged from their peers to invest in the opportunity they believe the sector offers. Their names: PayPal and Square.

Early in the month, Square announced that it had purchased a total of 4,709 bitcoins at the cost of roughly $50 million, or one percent of the company’s total assets.

“We believe that bitcoin has the potential to be a more ubiquitous currency in the future,” Square’s Chief Financial Officer, Amrita Ahuja, shared in a press release. “As it grows in adoption, we intend to learn and participate in a disciplined way. For a company that is building products based on a more inclusive future, this investment is a step on that journey.”

PayPal took another route in upholding cryptocurrency. Rather than purchase bitcoin, it launched a cryptocurrency service that will allow customers to buy, hold, and sell digital currency on its site and associated applications. PayPal’s President and CEO, Dan Schulman, explained the company’s decision to create its crypto platform was based on the idea that the “efficiency, speed and resilience of cryptocurrencies” could “give people financial inclusion and access advantages.” Moreover, he said, the eventual shift to such digital currencies was “inevitable.”

But what would this “inevitable” future mean for businesses? If you were to ask Gavin Brown, the co-founder and director at the venture capital firm Blockchain Capital Limited, the answer would be a fundamental change in trade currency.

“In an era where companies such as McDonald’s have a higher credit rating than countries such as Ireland, the notion that multinational firms may issue their own currencies and request that their customers purchase with them is not that outlandish,” CNBC journalist Eustance Heung paraphrased of Brown’s perspective in a 2019 article. “What we’re probably likely to see is … almost like [corporate] groups or alliances coming round around mainstream currencies.”

There are certainly a few benefits to using cryptocurrency in business. Bitcoin and other similar currencies facilitate secure, speedy transactions that offer chargeback protection — because cryptocurrency doesn’t support debt or loans, companies can be sure that payments conveyed via bitcoin aren’t fraudulent or reversible. Bitcoin’s decentralized nature also allows businesses to reach international buyers who may not have previously been able to access their goods or services.

Cryptocurrency offers increased accessibility; however, it isn’t without its detractions.

At present, cryptocurrencies are not stable, insured, or regulated. This lack of clear support from federal bodies makes for tremendous market volatility and puts investors at a high risk of losing their — or their clients’ — fortunes. Most businesses will not want to roll the dice on a currency they can’t rely on.

So, will bitcoin see another, more long-lived, heyday in corporate America? The answer is unclear.

While there might be another cryptocurrency boom on the horizon, it will be a while before bitcoin and its competing currencies come into regular corporate trade. The degree of usage will most likely depend on what we see in the cryptocurrency market over the next few months to a year. Will we see another dramatic boom-bust cycle? Will investors flock to or flee cryptocurrency? Will matters stabilize or devolve once more into wild speculation?

If the market stabilizes and provides more consistent (if less lucrative) returns, we can expect businesses to enter into a period of cautious experimentation. PayPal and Square’s investments have lent bitcoin some credibility. Still, it remains to be seen whether — now that they have been giving tacit industry “permission” — other corporate interests will begin making investments in bitcoin and/or using it in trade.

If cryptocurrency does take off in the corporate sector, it seems likely that federal authorities will begin regulating the market. If we were to reach this point, we would be in a world where cryptocurrency has established an (albeit preliminary) place for itself as a credible form of business currency.

However, even this scenario requires a lot of if’s. It would appear best for companies and institutional investors to approach cryptocurrency conservatively and see how the above hypothetical plays out. Bitcoin may eventually lose its novelty status in big business — but there’s no sense in major corporate players charging forward while its stability remains unclear.

This article was originally published on Medium

By |2021-03-31T23:28:50+00:00January 29th, 2021|Business, Current Events, Technology|

CEOs: AI Is Not A Magic Wand

The technology holds great promise, no question—but deployment must be done strategically, and with the understanding that you likely won’t see gains on its first attempt to integrate.

If you achieve the improbable often enough, even the impossible stops feeling quite so out of reach.

Over the last several decades, artificial intelligence has permeated almost every American business sector. Its proponents position AI as the tech-savvy executive leader’s magic wand — a tool that can wave away inefficiency and spark new solutions in a pinch. Its apparent success has winched up our suspension of disbelief to ever-loftier heights; now, even if AI tools aren’t a perfect fix to a given challenge, we expect them to provide some significant benefit to our problem-solving efforts.

This false vision of AI’s capability as a one-size-fits-all tool is deeply problematic, but it’s not hard to see where the misunderstanding started. AI tools have accomplished a great deal across a shockingly wide variety of industries.

In pharma, AI helps researchers home in on new drugs solutions; in sustainable agriculture, it can be used to optimize water and waste management; and in marketing, AI chatbots have revolutionized the norms of customer service interactions and made it easier than ever for customers to find straightforward answers to their questions quickly.

Market research provides similar backing to AI’s versatility and value. In 2018, PwC released a report which noted that the value derived from the impact of AI on consumer behavior (i.e., through product personalization or greater efficiency) could top $9.1 trillion by 2030.

McKinsey researchers similarly note that 63 percent of executives whose companies have adopted AI say that the change has “provided an uptick in revenue in the business areas where it is used,” with respondents from high performers nearly three times likelier than those from other companies to report revenue gains of more than 10 percent. Forty-four percent say that the use of AI has reduced costs.

Findings like these paint a vision of AI as having an almost universal, plug-and-play ability to improve business outcomes. We’ve become so used to AI being a “fix” that our tendency to be strategic about how we deploy such tools has waned.

Earlier this year, a joint study conducted by the Boston Consulting Group and MIT Sloan Management Review found that only 11 percent of the firms that have deployed artificial intelligence sees a “sizable” return on their investments.

This is alarming, given the sheer volume that investors are putting into AI. Take the healthcare industry as an example; in 2019, surveyed healthcare executives estimated that their organizations would invest an average of $39.7 million over the following five years. To not receive a substantial return on that money would be disappointing, to say the very least.

As reported by Wired, the MIT/BCG report “is one of the first to explore whether companies are benefiting from AI. Its sobering finding offers a dose of realism amid recent AI hype. The report also offers some clues as to why some companies are profiting from AI and others appear to be pouring money down the drain.”

What, then, is the main culprit? According to researchers, it seems to be a lack of strategic direction during the implementation process.

“The people that are really getting value are stepping back and letting the machine tell them what they can do differently,” Sam Ransbotham, a professor at Boston College who co-authored the report, commented. “The gist is not blindly applying AI.”

The study’s researchers found that the most successful companies used their early experiences with AI tools — good or ill — to improve their business practices and better-orient artificial intelligence within their operations. Of those who took this approach, 73 percent said that they saw returns on their investments. Companies who paired their learning mindset with efforts to improve their algorithms also tended to see better returns than those who took a plug-and-play approach.

“The idea that either humans or machines are going to be superior, that’s the same sort of fallacious thinking,” Ransbotham told reporters.

Scientific American writers Griffin McCutcheon, John Malloy, Caitlyn Hall, and Nivedita Mahesh put Ransbotham’s point another way in an article titled — tellingly — “AI Isn’t the Solution to All of Our Problems.” They write:

“The belief that AI is a cure-all tool that will magically deliver solutions if only you can collect enough data is misleading and ultimately dangerous as it prevents other effective solutions from being implemented earlier or even explored. Instead, we need to both build AI responsibly and understand where it can be reasonably applied.”

In other words: We need to stop viewing AI as a fix-it tool and more as a consultant to collaborate with over months or years. While there’s little doubt that artificial intelligence can help business leaders cultivate profit and improve their business, their deployment of the technology must be done strategically — and within the understanding that the business probably won’t see the gains it hopes for on its first attempt to integrate AI.

If business leaders genuinely intend to make the most of the opportunity that artificial intelligence presents, they should be prepared to workshop. Adopt a flexible, experimental, and strategic mindset. Be ready to adjust your business operations to address any inefficiencies or opportunities the technology may spotlight — and, by that same token, take the initiative to continually hone your algorithms for greater accuracy. AI can provide guidance and inspiration, but it won’t offer outright answers.

Businesses are investing millions — often tens of millions — in AI technology. Why not take the time to learn how to use it properly?

This article was originally published on ChiefExecutive.net

By |2021-03-31T23:25:21+00:00January 23rd, 2021|Business, Technology|

Autonomous Cars: A Smart Cities Answer to COVID-Proof Transit?

Of all the circumstances that we might have imagined kickstarting America’s smart city aspirations, a pandemic surely wasn’t on our list. And yet, our anxieties over disease transmission might just be the fuel that propels us towards a future in which autonomous cars become the urban norm.

A huge setback for public transit

For the last several months, the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled us to change our perspectives to suit a newly disease-aware world. We’ve adapted our day-to-day routine to suit social distancing recommendations and become leery of crowded, high-traffic areas. Our faith in public transit, in particular, has been shaken so profoundly that it very nearly demands an innovative fix. Time magazine recently described COVID-19’s impact on public transit as “apocalyptic.”

“[Buses] that once carried anywhere from about 50 to 100 passengers have been limited to between 12 and 18 to prevent overcrowding in response to coronavirus […] Seattle transit riders have described budgeting as much as an extra hour per trip to account for the reduced capacity, eating into their time at work, school or with family,” Time’s Alejandro de la Garza wrote in July.

Sometimes, riders’ anxieties compel them to leave the bus before their stop; one woman who de la Garza interviewed described exiting several stops early with her seven-year-old son after the driver allowed a crowd of people to board at once.

“It’s very trying,” the source, Brittany Williams, shared. “I’ll put it in those terms.”

How can we keep public transit viable?

The obvious answer to the overcrowding and slow-transit problems would be to add more buses — but such a move doesn’t seem economically feasible with the current decline in public transit use. In July, the Transit App reported a 58 percent year-over-year reduction in travelers within Williams’ home city of Seattle.

Numbers are a little worse in Washington D.C., with a 66 percent decline in Metrobus use and a 90 percent drop in Metrorail traffic. The losses experienced in New York City are among the worst, with the Transit App noting a 95 percent loss in the spring and a still-alarming reduction rate of 84 percent in late summer.

Pandemic fears have limited traveling, which in turn has limited fares to a trickle and all but eliminated cities’ abilities to add to their public transit fleets. According to a recent McKinsey report, 52 percent of American respondents travel less than they did before COVID-19. Many who do travel opt for a private vehicle over bus or train trips. A full third of surveyed consumers say that they “value constant access to a private vehicle more than before COVID-19.”

To risk stating the obvious: not everyone can buy or store a public car, nor should they even if they could. The environmental impact of replacing public transit with individual vehicles would be environmentally disastrous and dramatically exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems. Moreover, reports indicate that purchasing intent has dropped with the economic downturn; people don’t want to buy new cars when their incomes are uncertain.

An opening for autonomous cars

But I would argue that city-dwellers don’t necessarily need private cars — they just need a mode of transport that offers the isolated, sterilized feel of personal vehicles with the cost-efficiency and dependability that characterizes good public transit. Ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft have set the groundwork for this, but aren’t a perfect fit. They’re expensive, focused on one person at a time, and naturally pose a virus-spread risk to passengers and drivers alike. But what if there were no drivers, only a limited number of masked and isolated passengers traveling pre-defined, regular routes?

Years ago, architect Peter Calthorpe painted a vision of California cities with autonomous cars that was very nearly this, writing: “Down the center of El Camino, on dedicated, tree-lined lanes, [would be] autonomous shuttle vans. They’d arrive every few minutes, pass each other at will, and rarely stop, because an app would group passengers by destination.”

There’s a window of opportunity to reshape consumer perception of autonomous cars within a public-transit perception. Instead of anxiously fleeing buses inundated with close-seated crowds, mothers like Brittany Williams could order an autonomous ride and sit, as per a COVID-optimized version of Calthorpe’s vision, either alone or with one or two distanced others. Between routes, these cars could be sanitized and sent off to support new passengers. Such an approach would establish self-driving vehicles not as a one-person luxury, but a new and COVID-thoughtful form of public transportation.

The sustainability and convenience benefits of adding a self-driving shuttle service to public transit are countless. These include lessening the need for private cars, mitigating traffic deadlock, and improving passenger convenience. Autonomous shuttles could shoulder at least some of the burden carried by other public transit services and lessen the need for additional (if half-filled) buses and trains.

While it is true that Uber and Lyft have been talking about developing autonomous cars and next-gen taxi services for years to no avail, we are now closer than ever before to achieving viable autonomous driving technology. Earlier this year, the GM-backed driverless car startup Cruise received a permit from the California DMV that would allow the company to test driverless cars without safety drivers, albeit only on specific roads.

This represents a significant step forward in the deployment of autonomous cars and, if successful, could lead to the first fully-autonomous vehicles. It is worth noting that despite delays, Cruise hopes to launch a self-driving taxi service soon; its fourth-generation autonomous cars features automatic doors, rear-seat airbags, and, notably, no steering wheel.

If Cruise can manage to accomplish this, it stands to reason that autonomous shuttles are not all that far away. If anything, cities might have more opportunities to partner with self-driving startups and incorporate autonomous shuttles into municipal transit. Given that pandemic-prompted anxieties will likely persist until (if not well beyond) the emergence of a mass-produced vaccine, it seems likely that the window of opportunity for piquing consumer interest in socially-distanced autonomous transit could extend out over years.

Of course, there are few clear speed bumps in the way.

For one, there is still a pervasive stigma around the perceived safety of autonomous cars. Uber memorably halted its experiments in 2018, when one of its experimental vehicles struck and killed pedestrian Elaine Herzberg in Tempe, Arizona.

At the time, there were rumors that the company planned to divest itself of its self-driving interests entirely; however, the company has begun to restart its efforts on a significantly smaller scale in recent months. Cruise — and any other autonomous car startup that takes on the challenge — will need to assure the public of its products’ safety before it can achieve widespread acceptance.

Another major issue will be cost.

With public transit in such dire straits, obtaining the funds for a partnership between self-driving car startups and municipal transit may prove difficult in the short term unless the local government is convinced of the public’s need for autonomous shuttles and the revenue that such an approach could attract as a result of said need. Proponents will need to launch a media campaign to raise public awareness and bolster backing for adding autonomous shuttles to municipal transit.

If we can get beyond some of these initial hurdles, we can kickstart a smart, sustainable and COVID-aware urban transit system. As with the early days of online shopping, consumer perceptions of autonomous driving will quickly shift from it being a laughable luxury to a must-have public service, especially under pandemic conditions.

Originally published on TriplePundit.com

By |2020-11-13T21:30:40+00:00November 13th, 2020|Current Events, Technology, Urban Planning|

For Investors, Property Tech Goes Far Beyond a Smart Home

At first listen, the term “property tech” seems to fit comfortably within the context of ultra-luxurious modernism. We picture something at home within sleek glass-and-metal walls and minimalist design. We imagine an -powered abode where the temperature, light, and -connected outlets can be adjusted with a few smartphone taps or an offhand remark, and a security app allows you to video chat doorstep visitors from halfway around the world.

These products align with the average consumer’s idea of residential technology. But for those in the commercial real estate sector, “property tech” has an entirely different definition — one far removed from the realm of modernist homeowners and IoT-enthusiasts. In fact, far from being an unnecessary luxury, property tech stands a good chance of revolutionizing commercial real estate at every point, from development to sales to property management.

Prop Tech: A Promising New Frontier for Commercial Real Estate

As defined by Tech Target,  refers to the “use of information technology (IT) to help individuals and companies research, buy, sell, and manage real estate.” Innovative PropTech solutions are usually designed to facilitate greater efficiency and connectivity in the real estate market, allowing consumers and vendors at all levels to achieve their goals quickly and at high quality. While PropTech capabilities vary widely across products, they tend to fall into three broad categories: smart home, real estate sharing, and .

The first category encompasses the majority of the IoT-powered home devices mentioned at the top of this piece — the smart thermostats, remotely-controlled home systems, and digital security solutions. Real estate sharing refers to online platforms like Airbnb, Redfin, and Zillow, which facilitate the advertisement and sale of real-world properties. The last term is all but self-explanatory; “fintech” references any tool that assists in real estate financial management or transactions.

The potential that PropTech holds to reform the commercial real estate sector is off the charts — and investors know it. According to a recent , global investment in real estate technology netted an incredible $12.6 billion across 347 deals in 2017 alone, $6.5 billion of which funneled directly to U.S.-based companies. Re:Tech researchers further noted that investment trends indicated a great deal of early interest in untested PropTech solutions, with early-stage companies receiving “the lion’s share” of funding dollars.

Early Successes Illustrate High Potential

This flurry of investor interest isn’t without basis. The PropTech sector has seen runaway growth and concrete success in recent years; aside from the evident popularity of digital-forward platforms like Airbnb and Zillow in the rental and buying markets, adoption of smart home technology has reached a fever pitch. Deloitte reports that sensor deployment in real estate is projected to grow at a  and will likely top 1.3 billion in 2020.

Some companies have even incorporated cutting-edge PropTech innovations into their business model to remarkable success. Take the Texas-based real estate investment firm Amherst Holdings as an example. Last year, Forbes profiled  and data modeling during the asset identification process, noting how Amherst used AI not only to discover investment properties, but also to make dozens of offers per day on potentially lucrative homes. The strategy has paid off; today, the investment firm is thriving, and its portfolio encompasses an incredible 16,000 homes across the American Sunbelt region.

New York: A New Sandbox for PropTech Creativity?

Now, however, companies may not need to foray into PropTech testing without support. Last November, New York announced that it would launch a pilot program that would allow PropTech startups to trial their products via NYC’s portfolio of public properties.  in a press release, “The New York City Economic Development Corporation will launch a pilot program that allows companies to implement proof-of-concept property technology products in the city’s 326.1 million square feet of owned and managed real estate.”

“We want to make our buildings available to incentivize the kinds of innovations that you are all out there working on day in and day out,” Vicki Been, the deputy mayor for housing and development, commented. “We want our buildings and our tenants to be helpful to you, and provide a way to test some of the ideas that you are developing so that we can get those ideas out to the market and into buildings even faster.”

In this way, the city is offering itself up as an innovation sandbox, a place where real estate innovators can test and troubleshoot their digital tools to the betterment of all — and especially New Yorkers.

With this philosophy of openness and curiosity comes an opportunity for New York-based real estate players to not only test innovative approaches but put them together into a unified strategy. We’ve all seen companies find significant success by leveraging one variety of PropTech solution. Airbnb thrives in facilitating short-term real estate transactions, Google and Amazon have cornered the smart home market, and Amherst Holdings has established a winning, AI-powered strategy for finding and acquiring assets. Individually, all of these tactics show impressive results — but what could we achieve if we managed to link them together?

The Tools of Today Could Create the RE Strategy of Tomorrow

In theory, the disparate PropTech solutions we see now could be stitched into a seamless strategy. The strategy might progress as follows — real estate operators could use  and  to identify lucrative neighborhoods and home in on investment properties, then apply -powered  to purchase those buildings. Next, they might retrofit their assets to have utility sensors that can ensure optimal utility use and management. These IoT-equipped devices could also better automate the care of a building by notifying owners when a system requires maintenance and providing real-time insights on how tenants .

When linked, these PropTech solutions can , allowing property firms an opportunity to gain better insights into how they can best use, maintain, and improve their asset properties.

The implications for commercial real estate improvement are huge — and, to be clear, this is all available technology. Real estate operators could incorporate PropTech into their strategic workflow today if they wanted. Will that change require some upfront investment and effort? Absolutely — but, as New York’s decision to offer itself as a testing sandbox demonstrates, there is no better time for real estate operators to get ahead of the curve and start crafting unified strategies than right now.

Originally published on 

By |2020-11-20T21:34:55+00:00July 20th, 2020|Business, Current Events, Technology|

Could COVID-19 Kickstart Surveillance Culture?

Several months ago, saying that the “cure” that facial recognition offers is worse than the ills it solves would have seemed hyperbolic. But now, the metaphor has become all too literal — and the medicine it promises isn’t quite so easy to reject when sickness is sweeping the globe.

Even as it depresses economies across the world, the coronavirus pandemic has sparked a new period of growth and development for facial recognition technology. Creators pitch their tools as a means to identify sick individuals without risking close-contact investigation.

In China, the biometrics company Telpo has launched non-contact body temperature measurement terminals that — they claim — can identify users even if they wear a face mask. Telpo is near-evangelical about how useful its technology could be during the coronavirus crisis, writing that “this technology can not only reduce the risk of cross infection but also improve traffic efficiency by more than 10 times […] It is suitable for government, customs, airports, railway stations, enterprises, schools, communities, and other crowded public places.”

COVID-19: A Push Towards Dystopia?

At a surface glance, Telpo’s offerings seem…good. Of course we want to limit the spread of infection across public spaces; of course we want to protect our health workers by using contactless diagnostic tools. Wouldn’t we be remiss if we didn’t at least consider the opportunity?

And this is the heart of the problem. The marketing pitch is tempting in these anxious, fearful times. But in practice, using facial recognition to track the coronavirus can be downright terrifying. Take Russia as an example — according to reports from BBC, city officials in Moscow have begun leveraging the city’s massive network of cameras to keep track of residents during the pandemic lockdown.

In desperate times like these, the knee-jerk suspicion that we typically hold towards invasive technology wavers. We think that maybe, just this once, it might be okay to accept facial recognition surveillance — provided, of course, that we can slam the door on it when the world returns to normal. But can we? Once we open Pandora’s box, can we force it shut again?

In March, the New York Times reported that the White House had opened talks with major tech companies, including Facebook and Google, to assess whether using aggregated location data sourced from our mobile phones would facilitate better containment of the virus. Several lawmakers immediately pushed back on the idea; however, the discussion does force us to wonder — would we turn to more desperate measures, like facial surveillance? How much privacy would we sacrifice in exchange for better perceived control over the pandemic?

Understanding America’s Surveillance Culture Risk

I’ve been thinking about this idea ever since January, when an expose published by the New York Times revealed that a startup called Clearview AI had quietly developed a facial recognition app capable of matching unknown subjects to their online images and profiles — and promptly peddled it to over 600 law enforcement agencies without any public scrutiny or oversight. Clearview stands as a precursor; a budding example of what surveillance culture in America could look like, if left unregulated. One quote in particular sticks in my head.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that because information constantly increases, there’s never going to be privacy,” David Scalzo, the founder of a private equity firm currently investing in Clearview commented for the Times. “Laws have to determine what’s legal, but you can’t ban technology. Sure, that might lead to a dystopian future or something, but you can’t ban it.”

Scalzo’s offhand, almost dismissive tone strikes an odd, chilling contrast to the gravity of his statement. If facial recognition technology will lead to a surveillance-state dystopia, shouldn’t we at least try to slow its forward momentum? Shouldn’t we at least consider the dangers that a dystopia might pose — especially during times like these, when privacy-eroding technology feels like a viable weapon against global pandemic?

I’m not the only one to ask these questions. Since January’s expose, Clearview AI has come under fire from no fewer than four lawsuits. The first castigated the company’s app for being an “insidious encroachment” on civil liberties; the second took aim both at Clearview’s tool and the IT products provider CDW for its licensing of the app for law enforcement use, alleging that “The [Chicago Police Department] […] gave approximately 30 [Crime Prevention and Information Center] officials full access to Clearview’s technology, effectively unleashing this vast, Orwellian surveillance tool on the citizens of Illinois.” The company was also recently sued in Virginia and Vermont.

All that said, it is worth noting that dozens of police departments across the country already use products with facial recognition capabilities. One report on the United States’ facial recognition market found that the industry is expected to grow from $3.2 billion in 2019 to $7.0 billion by 2024. The Washington Post further reports that the FBI alone has conducted over 390,000 facial-recognition searches across federal and local databases since 2011.

Unlike DNA evidence, facial recognition technology is usually relatively cheap and quick to use, lending itself easily to everyday use. It stands to reason that if better technology is made available, usage by public agencies will become even more commonplace. We need to keep this slippery slope in mind. During a pandemic, we might welcome tools that allow us to track and slow the spread of disease and overlook the dangerous precedent they set in the long-term.

Given all of this, it seems that we should, at the very least, avoid panic-prompted decisions to allow facial recognition — and instead, consider what we can do to avoid the slippery slope that facial recognition technology poses.

Are Bans Protection? Considering San Francisco

In the spring of 2019, San Francisco passed legislation that outright forbade government agencies from using tools capable of facial surveillance — although the ruling was amended to allow for equipped devices if there was no viable alternative. The lawmakers behind the new ordinance stated their reasoning clearly, writing that “the propensity for facial recognition technology to endanger civil rights and civil liberties substantially outweighs its purported benefits.”

They have a point. Facial recognition software is notorious for its inaccuracy. One new federal study also found that people of color, women, older subjects, and children faced higher misidentification rates than white men.

“One false match can lead to missed flights, lengthy interrogations, tense police encounters, false arrests, or worse,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the Washington Post. “But the technology’s flaws are only one concern. Face recognition technology — accurate or not — can enable undetectable, persistent, and suspicionless surveillance on an unprecedented scale.”

While it’s still too early to have a clear gauge on the ban’s efficacy, it is worth noting that the new legislation sparked a few significant and immediate changes to the city’s police department. In December, Wired reported that “When the surveillance law and facial recognition ban were proposed in late January, San Francisco police officials told Ars Technica that the department stopped testing facial recognition in 2017. The department didn’t publicly mention that it had contracted with DataWorks that same year to maintain a mug shot database and facial recognition software as well as a facial recognition server through summer 2020.”

The department scrambled to dismantle the software after the ban, but the department’s secretive approach remains problematic. The very fact that the San Francisco police department was able to acquire and apply facial recognition technology without public oversight is troubling.The city’s current restrictions offer a stumbling block by limiting acceptance of surveillance culture as a normal part of everyday life — and prevent us from automatically reaching for it as a solution during times of panic.

A stumbling block, however, is not an outright barricade. Currently, San Francisco is under a shelter-in-place mandate; as of April 6, it had a reported 583 confirmed cases and nine deaths. If the situation worsens, could organizers suggest that the city make an exception and use facial recognition tracking to flatten the curve, just this once? It’s a long-shot hypothetical, but it does lead us to wonder what could happen if we allow circumstances to convince us into surveillance culture, one small step at a time.

Bans can only do so much. While the San Francisco ruling proves that Scalzo’s claim that “Laws have to determine what’s legal, but you can’t ban technology” isn’t strictly speaking correct, the sentiment behind it remains. Circumstances can compel us into considering privacy-eroding tech even as those explorations lead us down a path to dystopia.

So, in a way, Scalzo is right; the proliferation of facial recognition technology is inevitable. But that doesn’t mean that we should give up on bans and protective measures. Instead, we should pursue them further and slow the momentum as much as we can — if only to give ourselves time to establish regulations, rules, and protections. We can’t give in to short-term thinking; we can’t start down the slippery slope towards surveillance culture without considering the potential consequences. Otherwise, we may well find that the “cure” that facial recognition promises is, in the long term, far worse than any short-term panic.

Originally published on Hackernoon.com

By |2020-06-12T21:03:05+00:00June 12th, 2020|Business, Current Events, Technology|

What Does It Matter If AI Writes Poetry?

Robots might take our jobs, but they (probably) won’t replace our wordsmiths.

These days, concerns about the slow proliferation of AI-powered workers underly a near-constant, if quiet, discussion about which positions will be lost in the shuffle. According to a report published earlier this year by the Brookings Institution, roughly a quarter of jobs in the United States are at “high risk” of automation. The risk is especially pointed in fields such as food service, production operations, transportation, and administrative support — all sectors that require repetitive work. However, some in creatively-driven disciplines feel that the thoughtful nature of their work protects them from automation.

It’s certainly a memorable passage — both for its utter lack of cohesion and its familiarity. The tone and language almost mimic J.K. Rowling’s style — if J.K. Rowling lost all sense and decided to create cannibalistic characters, that is. Passages like these are both comedic and oddly comforting. They amuse us, reassure us of humans’ literary superiority, and prove to us that our written voices can’t be replaced — not yet.

However, not everything produced by AI is as ludicrous as A Giant Pile of Ash. Some pieces veer on the teetering edge of sophistication. Journalist John A. Tures experimented with the quality of AI-written text for the Observer. His findings? Computers can condense long articles into blurbs well enough, if with errors and the occasional missed point. As Tures described, “It’s like using Google Translate to convert this into a different language, another robot we probably didn’t think about as a robot.” It’s not perfect, he writes, but neither is it entirely off the mark.

Moreover, he notes, some news organizations are already using AI text bots to do low-level reporting. The Washington Post, for example, uses a bot called Heliograf to handle local stories that human reporters might not have the time to cover. Tures notes that these bots are generally effective at writing grammatically-accurate copy quickly, but tend to lose points on understanding the broader context and meaningful nuance within a topic. “They are vulnerable to not understanding satires, spoofs or mistakes,” he writes.

And yet, even with their flaws, this technology is significantly more capable than those who look only at comedic misfires like A Giant Pile of Ash might believe. In an article for the Financial Times, writer Marcus du Sautoy reflects on his experience with AI writing, commenting, “I even employed code to get AI to write 350 words of my current book. No one has yet identified the algorithmically generated passage (which I’m not sure I’m so pleased about, given that I’m hoping, as an author, to be hard to replace).”

Du Sautoy does note that AI struggles to create overarching narratives and often loses track of broader ideas. The technology is far from being able to write a novel — but still, even though he passes off his perturbance at the AI’s ability to fit perfectly within his work as a literal afterthought, the point he makes is essential. AI is coming dangerously close to being able to mimic the appearance of literature, if not the substance.

Take Google’s POEMPORTRAITS as an example. In early spring, engineers working in partnership with Google’s Arts & Culture Lab rolled out an algorithm that could write poetry. The project leaders, Ross Goodwin and Es Devlin, trained an algorithm to write poems by supplying the program with over 25 million words written by 19th-century poets. As Devlin describes in a blog post, “It works a bit like predictive text: it doesn’t copy or rework existing phrases, but uses its training material to build a complex statistical model.”

When users donate a word and a self-portrait, the program overlays an AI-written poem over a colorized, Instagrammable version of their photograph. The poems themselves aren’t half bad on the first read; Devlin’s goes: “This convergence of the unknown hours, arts and splendor of the dark divided spring.”

As Devlin herself puts it, the poetry produced is “Surprisingly poignant, and at other times nonsensical.” The AI-provided poem sounds pretty, but is at best vague, and at worst devoid of meaning altogether. It’s a notable lapse, because poetry, at its heart, is about creating meaning and crafting implication through artful word selection. The turn-of-phrase beauty is essential — but it’s in no way the most important part of writing verse. In this context, AI-provided poetry seems hollow, shallow, and without the depth or meaning that drives literary tradition.

In other words, even beautiful phrases will miss the point if they don’t have a point to begin with.

In his article for the Observer, John A. Tures asked a journalism conference attendee his thoughts on what robots struggle with when it comes to writing. “He pointed out that robots don’t handle literature well,” Tures writes, “covering the facts, and maybe reactions, but not reason. It wouldn’t understand why something matters. Can you imagine a robot trying to figure out why To Kill A Mockingbird matters?”

Robots are going to verge into writing eventually — the forward march is already happening. Prose and poetry aren’t as protected within the creative employment bastion as we think they are; over time, we could see robots taking over roles that journalists used to hold. In our fake-news-dominated social media landscape, bad actors could even weaponize the technology to flood our media feeds and message boards. It’s undoubtedly dangerous — but that’s a risk that’s been talked about before.

Instead, I find myself wondering about the quieter, less immediately impactful risks. I’m worried that when AI writes what we read, our ability to think deeply about ourselves and our society will slowly erode.

Societies and individuals grow only when they are pushed to question themselves; to think, delve into the why behind their literature. We’re taught why To Kill a Mockingbird matters because that process of deep reading and introspection makes us think about ourselves, our communities, and what it means to want to change. In a world where so much of our communication is distilled down into tweet-optimized headlines and blurbs, where we’re not taking the time to read below a headline or first paragraph, these shallow, AI-penned lines are problematic — not because they exist, but because they do not spur thought.

“This convergence of the unknown hours, arts and splendor of the dark divided spring.”

The line sounds beautiful; it even evokes a vague image. Yet, it has no underlying message — although, to be fair, it wasn’t meant to make a point beyond coherency. It isn’t making a point. It’s shallow entertainment under a thin veil of sophistication. It fails at overarching narratives, doesn’t capture nuance, and fails to grasp the heartbeat of human history, empathy, and understanding.

If it doesn’t have that foundation to create a message, what does it have? When we get to a place where AI is writing for us — and be sure, that time will come — are we going to be thinking less? Will there be less depth to our stories, minimal thought inspired by their twists? Will it become an echoing room rather than a path forward? At the very least, will these stories take over our Twitter feeds and Facebook newsfeeds, pulling us away from human-crafted stories that push us to think?

I worry that’s the case. But then again, maybe I’m wrong — maybe reading about how an AI thinks that Ron ate Hermione’s family provides enough dark and hackneyed comedy to reassure our belief that AI will never step beyond its assigned role as a ludicrous word-hacker.

For now, at least.

By |2020-06-12T21:03:46+00:00April 17th, 2020|Culture, Technology|

Will AR Become Retail’s New Normal?

In recent years, smart devices have served as futuristic windows into new (and shoppable) consumer landscapes. The glimpses that tech offers allow us to put imagination aside and bring potential purchases into our lives for a trial run — virtually.

The opportunities are near-endless; rather than order glasses online and hope for a good fit, customers at Warby Parker can assess their favorite lenses with a quick selfie. Instead of lacing and unlacing countless pairs of shoes in-store, Nike shoppers can scan their feet and find a perfect fit by “trying on” their favorite products virtually.

Even in-store dressing rooms have their digital twins. At the Gap, customers can pick from five common body types to see how their favorite new styles will look on them without the time-consuming hassle of cycling through several outfits.

Augmented reality — technology that facilitates digital additions to real-world images — is slowly becoming an accepted part of the retail experience. AR allows us to visualize the goods we see in-store and online within our day-to-day environment. In a way, the tech’s capabilities speak to the heart of retail. Like store displays and flashy product photos, AR-powered apps help consumers visualize potential purchases within their home environments and daily routines — and even convince them to buy.

Currently, AR tech is still somewhat of a novelty. However, it seems likely that AR will evolve into an everyday aspect of retail shopping within a few short years. Researchers for Gartner found that 46 percent of surveyed retailers intended to deploy AR or VR customer experience solutions by 2020, and estimated that a whopping 100 million consumers would shop in AR online and in-store by the same year. Along the same lines, Goldman Sachs estimates that the global market for VR and AR in retail will top $1.6 billion by 2025.

However, the number of AR-powered shoppers is impressive even today. Earlier this year, eMarketer released a report that quantified the number of consumers who would use AR more than once a month at 68.7 million people, or 20.8 percent of the US population. The report points to increased familiarity with and interest in the technology as a significant driver behind the AR retail boom. One major source of that interest, the researchers write, was Pokémon Go.

While it would be oversimplifying to say that Pokémon Go sparked retail’s AR revolution, it wouldn’t be entirely incorrect, either. The virally-successful game served as many consumers’ first introduction to the technology’s engaging capabilities. When the game first exploded onto the market in 2016, it was all but commonplace to see people paused on sidewalks, furiously tapping their screen in an attempt to capture a digital creature.

It was the first wildly successful AR game. Unlike other smartphone apps, Pokémon Go superimposed its challenges over a real-world map of its user’s location, creating an immersive and novel experience for players. Apptopia estimates that at its peak, the game had 100 million users worldwide. It introduced countless people to the idea of integrating augmented reality into their daily lives — and sparked a few conversations among investors, too.

Soon after the game’s debut, CNBC reporters quoted Cowen & Co. analyst Oliver Chen as saying that Pokémon Go had the power to transform retail. As Chen explains, “The new free-to-play [augmented reality] gaming app has broad implications for retail as it addresses declining mall traffic, plus emerging trends toward social experience and health [and] wellness. [The game] illustrates how augmented reality could potentially play a more significant role in retail over time.”

Pokémon Go’s heyday has long passed us by, but the transformational potential of AR for retail remains. Partly because of the game’s popularity, AR applications have become increasingly common and accessible. Moreover, as analysts for the above eMarketer study point out, support for AR development is on the rise.

“The introduction of Apple’s ARKit and Google’s ARCore software development kits (SDKs) in 2017 signaled the tech industry’s confidence in—and ongoing support of—AR experiences,” the researchers write. “This is spurring developers to accelerate activity and create more applications.”

So, what benefits could these new, retail-focused AR applications bring? In theory, AR products could gamify the shopping experience, pique interest in products, promote in-store foot traffic, and improve customer engagement. The last is particularly important; in an age where online shopping is not-so-subtly encroaching on traditional stores, retailers face increased pressure to better engage customers by redefining shopping trips into shopping experiences.

AR presents a means to do so. Statistics provided by Retail Perceptions indicate that 61 percent of surveyed shoppers prefer to shop at stores that offer retail experiences, 71 percent would return more often if AR was available, and 40 percent would pay more for a product if they could try it out in AR first.

AR gives retailers the opportunity to boost consumer engagement, make shopping more of an experience than a chore, and create a more personalized digital experience for customers. In some cases, AR-powered ads can even establish stronger touchpoints on social media platforms. Where consumers might have zipped past a traditional ad without a thought, the interactive nature of AR encourages platform users to pause their scrolling and engage with the advertisement — thereby making it more likely that they will check out or even buy a product.

The shift to AR is already well underway. In the summer, L’Oreal Armani Beauty announced its intention to be the first beauty brand to integrate AR capabilities into its WeChat application. It has a new take on the virtual dressing room; in China, consumers will be able to virtually try out cosmetics and share their screenshots on social media. For L’Oreal, AR tech will create an opportunity for better customer experience, sales, and consumer-generated marketing all via one app.

If this announcement demonstrates anything, it would be that despite its relative nascence, AR solutions in retail are continually evolving. Today, those tools merge digital and retail capabilities, providing a means for companies to expand their stores through a camera lens.

It will be interesting to see what new retail opportunities will bloom from AR’s growth next.

Originally published on Disrupt Magazine

By |2020-06-12T21:06:31+00:00March 6th, 2020|Technology|

Soon, a “Smart Home” Will Just Be a Home

As the line dividing the internet and the physical world blurs in ever-increasing ways, it shouldn’t be a surprise that online amenities have arrived in the modern home. The growth of smart homes is predicted to increase massively over the next few years, and it’s not hard to see why. They offer convenience and a modern sheen to home living, but more importantly a high-tech layer of security that empowers homeowners to better keep their dwellings and family members safe.

The pitch is a compelling one to homeowners, as well as to investors. According to statistics provided by Statista, analysts anticipate that revenue in the smart home market will grow 15.43% year-over-year. Household penetration currently stands at 27.5% and is further projected to hit 47.4% by 2023. Smart homes are undoubtedly popular; for investors, the growing market could prove lucrative.
Here’s why homeowners are flocking towards smart home technology — and why tech-savvy real estate investors should take notice of the increasing consumer interest.

Staying guarded through tech

The most vulnerable point for most homes is the most common point of entry: the front door. Experts estimate that over a third of burglaries result from unlocked or unsecured front doors, meaning a safely locked entryway can be among the best deterrents from intruders. Smart locks that are activated and deactivated remotely via your home wifi leave homeowners secure in the knowledge that their homes are safely protected while they’re not there. Security-enabled apps like Nest can monitor the status of all entryways, meaning front or side doors can be unlocked for trusted guests or service workers while you’re at work or on vacation. Alerts to your phone can let you know if doors have been breached, meaning you’ll know the instant your home security company does that there’s been a break-in. While this won’t replace being actually there to survey the trouble, it provides some peace of mind to know your home tech is keeping you apprised of all that’s happening while you’re out of reach.

Danger alerts at the speed of WiFi

Crime isn’t the only major danger that smart tech can help homeowners face. The danger of house fires hasn’t been eliminated with technology, but cutting-edge smoke detectors offer a level of security that can only be found when including the most modern safety features. Photoelectric sensors can identify fires by type, catching even smoldering fires with little flame sooner than traditional detectors can. Linked to a smart home sound system, a smoke detector can even use voice notifications to alert you, over home speakers, where the fire is centered and how best to get out. In a situation where split-second decisions can prove life-changing, smart tech is a powerful safeguard for homeowners and their families.

Words of warning

Of course, when it comes to security, smart home tech presents one brand-new vulnerability that homeowners of the past never had to worry about. It may sound odd to consider, but the threat of home hacking is a real danger in a world where locks, smoke alarms, and other fixtures are all internet-enabled. The cat burglar of today may scope out his victims with a laptop or smartphone in hand, ready to attack with malicious software designed to disable home security or just harass and annoy homeowners by disabling appliances and lights.

Fortunately, safeguards against smart home hacking are similar to the ones we already take while online. Expert studies of security flaws found some fixes that ought to be familiar to anyone used to performing a basic cybersecurity routine. Two-factor authentication, strong passwords, and keeping up with regular security updates can keep smart home tech safe from malicious forces both online and in person. While most of us are probably new to downloading security updates to our door locks, the benefits of smarter control over home safety easily outweigh such a relatively minor inconvenience.

Convenience and novelty aren’t the only reasons smart homes have become attractive to buyers in the past decade. The above security features empower homeowners today to take greater control over the sanctity of their property, even when they’re thousands of miles away. For keeping your possessions, your home, and your family safe, smart homes present the next step in control over what happens to our homes. While this new opportunity does admittedly create its own new challenges, the benefits should entice anyone looking to fortify their castle, no matter what size. In the future, we can certainly expect homeowner buy-in — and investor interest — to grow.

Originally published on Medium

By |2020-06-12T21:07:37+00:00November 6th, 2019|Technology|

Cable is Dead, Long Live (Streaming) Cable

It’s no secret that cable is on its way out. Ever since Netflix’s sparked an explosion of public interest in streaming entertainment with its 2013 series hit House of Cards, traditional channels of access — cable, satellite, dish — have been rendered all but obsolete.

According to reports published by Leichtman Research Group, a firm that centers its research and analysis in the media and entertainment sectors, the six most popular cable companies lost a whopping 910,000 video subscribers in 2018. Satellite TV and DirectTV services fared even worse — analysts estimated that the former lost around 2,360,000 subscribers and the latter 1,236,000 that same year. The sharp decline isn’t new, either; LRG researchers believe that the user base for traditional services has sunk by nearly ten million since the first quarter of 2012. 

Streaming is slowly outmoding cable — except, of course, in cases where cable has managed to latch onto streaming itself. Interestingly, cable’s primary source of subscription growth has been via virtual MVPDs (vMVPDs), or services that offer a bundle of television channels through the internet without providing traditional data transport infrastructure. LRG analysts estimate that roughly four million subscribers have signed on for vMPVD services such as PlayStation Vue, YouTube TV, and Hulu Live. But these services seem more like a speedbump on cable’s decline than an actual stop, a gateway service to help longtime cable enthusiasts transition into a streaming norm. 

Streaming entertainment is the new normal, and any millennial could build a compelling case for why the change is a good one. After all, why would you pay for expensive cable bundles and struggle with limited viewing schedules when you can see your favorite shows and movies on Netflix or Hulu for less than $15 per month? Streaming offers original content at a reasonable price point and — unlike cable — is accessible from wherever an internet connection is available. It’s so popular that new streaming services have begun popping up like weeds. Apple TV+ goes online on November 1st, Disney+ opens for registration in November, and NBC’s Peacock is set to go live sometime in 2020. 

Cable is dying. But will streaming, the reason behind cable’s slow extinction, one day face the same decline? 

Cable is Dead, Long Live (Streaming) Cable

As it turns out, the streaming coup we see today may be just another remix of the same old industry song. 

Consider the now-giant HBO’s humble roots as an example. The service was arguably the first network to offer premium cable and ask viewers to pay a subscription fee — and it launched its experiment in the town of Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania shortly after Hurricane Agnes hit the area in 1972. The initiative had a rocky start, reportedly losing nearly $9,000 per month as it struggled to lay cable and pay for a microwave link to transmit entertainment offerings from New York City. But the project ultimately paid off in spades, heralding a new era for paid cable television. 

Cable television was new, convenient, and engaging. Its subscribers could view new and exciting content that wasn’t limited by the profanity and nudity guidelines imposed on basic cable programs. Eventually, cable providers began offering bundles to aggregate channels and make accessing paid content easy, convenient, and affordable.  

Sound familiar yet? 

Today, streaming entertainment services offer the same convenience, aggregation, and affordability that characterized cable — but better. Importantly, they also provide channel subscriptions a la carte, a move which cable companies tended to avoid out of concern that it would negatively impact subscription numbers

When giants such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime claimed dominance over the market, streaming seemed like the answer to all of cable subscribers’ problems. However, as more niche entertainment stream providers enter the field, we appear to be falling back into cable’s old woes. 

Today, viewers have over 300 streaming video services to choose from, each with their own subscription price. Many host original content, knowing that high-quality and exclusive offerings attract subscribers. According to one recent study from Deloitte, 57% of paid streaming users — and 71% of millennial users — report subscribing to access original content. However, users’ willingness to pay for content has its limits. As Deloitte’s researchers put the matter: “nearly one-half (47 percent) are frustrated by the growing number of subscriptions and services they need to piece together to watch what they want. Forty-eight percent say it’s harder to find the content they want to watch when it is spread across multiple services.”

Consumers don’t want to make a patchwork out of their streaming services to get the content they want. The fragmentation and consumer difficulty we face now is likely to intensify, given the sheer number of high-profile streaming platforms set to launch soon. As a result, talk of using bundling as a solution to subscriber frustrations has returned; according to IndieWire, WarnerMedia is reportedly aiming to launch a streaming platform that would bundle HBO, Cinemax, and some Warner Bros. content into one service. It would have a higher price point, too — $16-$17 per month. It seems only fair to expect prices to creep up further as other, competing bundles undergo discussion.  

Digital streaming is, without question, more convenient and better-suited to audience needs for affordable original content than paid cable. Streaming’s coup is a well-deserved one. However, it seems naive to think that the problems consumers complained of with cable — higher prices, annoying bundles — won’t appear as time goes on. 

Cable is dead. Long live (streaming) cable.

By |2020-02-11T15:15:14+00:00October 15th, 2019|Culture, Technology|