No need to go to Mars, let us go to Cuba!

The recent announcement of the normalisation of US-Cuba relations is a great news item.  

I cannot help thinking that many in the IT world are now planning to conquer Cuba.  So those crowfunders that are planning to go to Mars should think twice.

Let us imagine how IT in Cuba would develop.  So far some basic software is going to be allowed to circulate.  But what is next? Will it be the telecoms infrastructure, the cloud services, the legacy systems? Will the Western world impose its evolutionary and strategically aligned view of IT in this new 'universe'? 

To my limited knowledge, there is already mobile comunicacions.  There is blogging.  But there is no electronic data to be considered as such.  Good thing I think.  Hopefully the drive to see this universe conquered in terms of Big Data will be delayed.  At least for a while.  

IT helps colonise the world.  It brings possibilities but also problems.  I really hope Cuba does its own history with IT rather than simply copy what others have done.  IT brings ways of thinking.  And of living. They should decide which of these are desirable and which are not.   And they should also be allowed to teach the rest of the world one or two things about IT.  

Rest in peace dear friend, even if LinkedIn does not allow you!

This week I got an email in which a dear deceased friend (Rajan) invites me via LinkedIn to connect with some people.  Yes, LinkedIn, one of the most popular social (or shall we say professional) networking sites.  

It caught my eye for several reasons.  First, my friend has been deceased for at least four (4) years.  That is enough reason to feel surprised and shocked.  

Second, although my friend was great at introducing people to each other, I doubt that he had in his will that LinkedIn should continue doing so.  My friend died at the time where electronic social networking was becoming an interesting phenomenon.  The email seems to have come from an interest group that he very likely set up and never left.  So LinkedIn has continued doing something on behalf of this group.

Third, this got me thinking that unless you tell LinkedIn or someone in this interest group what happened to my friend, the website will continue introducing people to each other.  As if human life would lose its value for the sake of the purpose of this website: making intelligent connections.  The website seems automatically programmed, or supported, by so called 'intelligent tools' which based on your personal information and electronic behaviour, will find the right people to introduce you to.  

So the issue of how intelligent technology can become makes me think about what Stephen Hawking has recently said about Artificial Intelligence.  He is concerned that if not properly checked or programmed to respect human life at all cost, Artificial Intelligence can take over the human race and create new forms of 'life' in the planet, many of which would make logical sense to this intelligence at the expense of human life.  

How is this a systems problem? Well, take your pick.  We are creating technology systems that can become blind to how their creators see the world.  We are creating blindness to human events (death in this case).  We are not properly balancing human with online interaction. 

For websites like LinkedIn the obvious solution would be to ask us, human beings, to inform them of any event or changing circumstance in our lives.  So far LinkedIn is good in asking us about changes in our jobs, skills, knowledge and connections.  I wonder if they are going to create an 'obituary' for people who die.  But would you like it to fill it in? 

At Rajan's funeral I met his family and friends, and believe it or not, I am connected to one or two of them via LinkedIn! 

So this blogpost is the best obituary I can write for him.  Rest in peace dear friend.  Even if LinkedIn does not leave you and I in peace! 

Meet the new UK supermarket: Are we there yet? Fortunately not!

This week I heard the news that one of the big four UK supermarket chains (Sainsbury's) has decided to stop plans to increase the number of shops.  

What the news suggested was that senior managers and executives took this decision based on the worryingly share increase of not so big supermarkets like Lidle and Aldi.  Sainsbury's like Tesco now want to concentrate on making existing shops more appealing to customers.  

Bits of memory recall from something I read in the UK Guardian newspaper tell me that this type of decision can be challenged. Aldi and Lidle have only a tiny portion of the market.  So expecting them to grow exponentially or taking a bigger share from the big four is not realistic.  

What the big four seem to be suffering is from a lack of understanding of the fact that people like you and I do not spend as much as we used to in supermarkets. 

The reasons (and I write about what I read plus other bits)?  Well, for a start the economic crisis.  We have become more conscious, also because we do not want to throw away food that we do not consume (this might explain why the big four still take a big share via express shops).  Second (and related to a express way of shopping), some of us have managed to squeeze some flexibility in our lives, so that we still shop but for fewer items when we need to.  

This is not to say that we still have a big shopping during the week.  Only that we leave things for later when we really need them.  What is wrong with that? 

Third, online shopping has also made us more aware.  The consumer experience online is not leading to prefer online shopping but rather to avoid deception. Just think of the last time you bought something that looked good on the screen, only to find out it was not what you expected. Supermarkets have taken advantage of this type of 'natural' error by keeping your favourite shopping list online.  I keep making mistakes by ordering the same without realising that I do not consume some of these 'preferred' ones. 

So either physically or online, supermarkets seem to entice us to go back shopping but without considering fully the above reasons.  

Ironically I go physically more often to supermarkets than I used to and I notice the following.

Lots of people (including myself) make the trip as an excuse to entertain myself and my kids.  We go searching for a bit of fresh air and something nice to treat ourselves and our loved ones.  We could do with some add ons, like for instance nicer spaces to seat and have coffee; a post office, a news agent; a dentist or a GP; children's entertainment; a venue to do a bit of sport, or listen to music.  

We want to have a good experience, not only do the shopping.  

But what are we getting instead?  Petrol stations (inaccessible if you go by foot); travel exchange money shops; electronics shops; cardboard and plastics recycling (ok, this is handy but partially, as it is also inaccessible by foot); insurance salespeople; credit card salespeople; tons of alcohol piled up here and there.  

And the list continues...

I think it is time supermarkets reinvent themselves.  Fortunately the big four have become puzzled by what others are doing. So they need to look at themselves deep and hard.  

I do not think they need to follow cost-based business models (like Aldi and Lidle's although they are also good at bringing nice products from the European continent).  

Supermarkets need to turn your eyes to the communities around them.  

And if they are going to use information technology, they should make it help us to have a pleasant and honest experience either online or offline.  

  

Nice one IKEA, could I now get my pay check as I helped you sort out this mess?

On the move...of houses.  Me and my family have finally moved to our new place. 

And like many other people, we have bought furniture and other things from IKEA, the big store that has almost everything.

To its credit, the superstores have been thought of as innovative experiences, something like taking a flight whilst you are still on the ground.  They design a journey for you to go through different sections, get ideas, measure things, ask for advice, use computer software, have a nice lunch with the family, get Swedish groceries and even get to change the nappies of your little ones.  IKEA is the only store where I found a baby changing unit in the men's toilet.  And they also have a children's play area, only that it is for those aged 3 or over.  

The business/service model 'works' for IKEA on the basis that  additional costs are offset because it is you who can collect your goods and take them with you.  You can check the inventory of each superstore if you need to.  You can get things straight away by going there instead of buying them online. At the store you pick the goods from a warehouse area.  If they are too heavy or bulky to fit in your car, you can then give them back and they will deliver to your door next day.  For a fee.

And you can assemble things yourself.  

Great.  

I live in a DIY country.  By this I mean many people assemble things themselves.  They paint; decorate; install.  So much so that when we moved to our new place the builders we hired discovered all the wonders that DIY people do.

The DIY country is also a cowboy builders one.  This means that often, DIY people just patch things up, and leave many surprises to you.  

Great. 

Yes, IKEA gives people the chance to buy cheap, with an OK degree of quality.  It also gives them free reign to do whatever they want.  Not only IKEA, but all those in the DIY sector.  

Whilst doing this, IKEA creates many systemic effects which makes me thing I should get paid by them:

• The website is not great.  I thought I had bought a pair of chairs together with their cushions.  Only the cushions arrived, as I had to also select the chair frames.  The website let me carry on without selecting frames.  When I called them, they said I needed to go to the superstore because they would not sell me the frames only.  As I showed my disappointment, the woman on the phone suggested: "Have a talk with your partner and decide what to do".  We decided to go to the superstore with our children:  30 miles each way (with horrible traffic at the entrance), plus 3 hours doing the superstore tour and having lunch.  Should I complain about this?  Well, let's carry on.  
• Even if you can buy things online, the delivery times given by the website are at least one week later.  That is another reason why we went to the superstore.  I have yet to discover faster options. 
• Whilst at the store, I have to join the stream of visitors.  It is like going to an exhibition.  We have to move fast.  You can picture this with two toddlers, each in a sort of supermarket trolley, trying to grab everything that they can.  
• The first time we went to the store, we were 'lucky' that the stuff was so heavy we were helped to send it straight away to delivery from the warehouse section for next day delivery.  They said they would deliver at 11am. So I got ready to be at our new place to receive the items. They arrived 3 hours later.  Driver and helper looked so tired that I gave them a hand.  And they had to make 6 more deliveries on that day!! 
• The second time we went to the store, we picked the stuff ourselves.  With the twins in our trolleys (it was only me and my wife), we were lucky again that the boxes just fitted in the trolleys and later on in our car (I was given different box sizes in the website).

If I can account for the time I spent helping IKEA (at the store, in my house); the time spent by one of the builders assembling things well in our new place; the time of my wife helping out and the time of my twins (enduring the journeys), I should probably ask IKEA for a pay check.

They would probably say that still they helped me save a few quid.  But who is right here?  Me or them?  

All I can say is that we live in an age where computers help everyone to feel we are in control of things, specially in control of time and money, in control of our lives.  But we are not.  IKEA would claim they are helping me in my dream of having a new place.  I could also claim I am helping them by sorting out the messes they cause with their business model.  

We need better business models.  Models in which technology (i.e. websites, call centres) serves people by giving more options; by helping us make better decisions (for instance the decision to go to a store); by reducing false expectations (i.e. delivery times).  By not treating us like 'stupid' people (those who did not know how they or their technology works) whilst claiming that we are very intelligent, savvy, DIY customers.

And yes, together we are creating messes.  I know I am responsible for these messes, they should accept it as well.

From Orange to Sour: Why Mobile Phone Companies may go bust because of their attitude.

Today in the UK a mobile phone retailer called Phones4U has gone bust.  It has called the administrators.

I happened to be walking today when I passed one of their branches in the Peacocks shopping centre in Woking.  

The door was partially open, and the salesmen were having what looked like a meeting.  Definitely what went in the headquarters was affecting the future of these people. 

Poor guys I thought to myself, and popped in by my until now mobile provider branch:  ORANGE, who is now owned by EE.

I asked a question about when I would get a code as I want to switch to another company which gives me a new phone and a better deal for my needs.  I was given some short answers, including "you will have to speak to customer service as I do not fully about your case".

Out of curiosity I asked if they had a better deal than the one I am getting.  They do not.  I asked if they were prepared to match the deal, to which they said: No.  

Then I said, you are losing a loyal customer of over 6 years.  The salesman replied: "we are not prepared to lose some money in one single customer, we keep getting new customers everyday, you can then go, have a nice day".

And then the teacher in me popped out and I tried to explain that I teach at university and that I know that gaining new customers is more expensive than trying to keep existing ones.  

This salesmen replied that he has over 10 years experience and he knows about word of mouth, and he does not need to be lectured. I tried to reason and also I said he should consider the concept of loyalty.  He said something else I do not remember,  raised his voice and showed me the door.  To which I replied that he was mistreating me and to my knowledge I was not mistreating him. And I left.  

If this is the attitude that mobile phone retailers are adopting, so it is no surprise some of them go bust.  At the retail level, people seem to be pressured to gain new customers.  Whether they have the power to bargain in order to retain existing ones I do not know.  

But what I know is that a good attitude makes the difference.  Even if I could not be offered a better deal, the response from the salesman could have been more deferential, if not well mannered.  

So I wonder how long more ORANGE will thrive in this business with promoting this attitude among their employees, and if they really realise the power of word of mouth.  As a dissatisfied customer I can be more dangerous.  And as a blogger even more! I can be a negative marketeer.  It does not cost them anything.  

Companies need to realise that their relationships with direct and indirect customers matter.  They need to realise that their business models might pay in the short term, but that with attitudes like the above they are generating their own demise in the medium or long term.  And they will have to invest more to regain the trust of people.  I wonder if they consider this in their balance sheets.  

Or course among customers there is the mentality of shopping around and haggling.  I am not inventing it.  If this causes resentment among employees, they should vent it somewhere else, not with people like me.  I am not the victim, I am just part of a whole system of products and services.  I could be part of this company as a passive customer or as an active campaigner for good or bad.  

We had better be nice to each other.  

We are part of a whole system.  

We can still do business, but at least keep respect as a core value! 

Sour Orange, that is what this company is for me.  Even if they offer me a great deal for broadband or other products, I know their attitude now.  

Our digital deeds and misdeeds

I am just another digital being who is currently using a tablet to write this blog post.  My worries might be similar to yours.  One of them is about my own digital footprint as I wrote in a past post.  We leave too many traces that can be picked up by other people and can be wrongly used.  

In academic life digital footprints are important.  We have to make sure that our ideas persist through time, and that people remember us, if not quote us or praise us and leave digital traces of their worship. So I am a member of communities like Google Scholar, Research Gate and the like.   I would love people to cite my articles.  As a digital being I would like to know that my ideas have some impact if not influence.  

Despite this,  what I find challenging is the continuous confusion of my own identity as a human being with the digital traces of my ideas.  I am confused as to whether being digital is taking over being human.  I keep reminding myself that I am not my articles, neither am I what people make of them.  

We live in a supposedly networked world.  Instant communication can be achieved.  Access to digitised documents can be ensured, provided you often pay a fee for it.  To get a full picture of someone we have to get access to both her ideas and her 'profile'.  Like everyone else, I check on other people's digital information.  And I also become prone to make judgments on the basis of this information.  With this I am contributing to an merging trend of conceiving digital footprints as deeds or misdeeds.  

And I am not the only one.  I am sure many companies will now influence their decisions to hire/fire people after seeing their digital information.  The more popular or unpopular people are perceived in social media networks plays a role.  Football players, celebrities or even your classmates can be your target or the target of someone else.  What they do or fail to do quickly becomes what they are today.  

Of course it is not up to us how people judge digital footprints.  I sometimes check other people's profiles on the web.  I also like to meet them face to face whenever possible.  And then my judgments can change about them. So I still have some leeway when it comes to judge myself and others.  

Still, we claim we need transparency in the online world.  However initial judgments of someone's online profile often change negatively after meeting them face to face.  Because we know that we can all embellish our digital information. And also because we know that after all we are human.  So what can we do if we acknowledge this contradiction? 

Perhaps we need to rescue the importance of having more time to make judgments or even question why we need to judge ourselves and others so quickly and so often.   

And perhaps we need to stop thinking that we are our digital footprints.  

The customer is dead: long life to the new kings of profit, the delivery companies

Whilst many organisations would claim that they live and breathe for their customers, current reality shows that they have become trapped in pleasing their own interests, in particular they have been bending to the demands of delivery companies.

The use of information technologies in the 1990s and 2000s brought the promise that it was possible for organisations to serve customers who were almost anywhere and any time.  Fast forward now to this current year and the reality is more complex that that.  

Customers from Amazon for instance have lost the option of paying very little or nothing to get their deliveries.  Now and in order to to be delivered their products they have to pay a considerable amount.  The so called free delivery is in fact a delivery that would probably cost Amazon next to nothing.  Customers are not assured when they are going to get their products.  It is up to the transport systems and the companies that operate within those systems.  With hefty fees to pay for short time deliveries, it is no wonder that Amazon and Royal Mail are showing sustained profits. They can dictate the terms of their services to us customers.  And who are we to complain? We are just sand grains on the beach. 

Pick now Ocado, the online grocery store.  They are increasing the price of their anytime delivery monthly membership fee to £9.99 from £6.99.  You can pick anytime you want for the delivery.  Except for the fact that if you pick a time which is too soon (for instance 7am next day when you are ordering at 5pm), you will probably will not have any slot available, or some of your products will not be available either.  Ok, you can say it is about the supply chain of products, but it is also their transport system, how they organise deliveries.  It cannot accommodate overnight demand.  But you still pay the montly fee. So I am opting out.  

IKEA offers home delivery with a standard delivery option.  It takes about a week.  IKEA work together with Parcelforce, a delivery company associated with Royal Mail.  They update you with an exact date of delivery.  So you need to be there to receive the items.  You also pay a fee.  But you do not get to choose what date to receive the items.  It is Parcelforce's decision.  Based on what? Availability or their convenience to deliver in bulk in your area? Again, this is driven by the delivery company not invididual customers.  

When did premium delivery become so expensive? 

We might be victims of our own demise.  With more customers demanding the same thing (fast delivery at almost no price), we now have to put up with the realities of electronic commerce and etailing. First class letters cost more than second class.  But when did second class become subject to what the mail service wanted it to be? It is not us customers who are driving this anymore. 

I am wondering if those deciding how the transport systems that serve our deliveries are thinking beyond their own economies of scale and their profit.  They have a social responsibility to fulfil. 

USC or passing the buck: How etailers cannot deal with simple things

I am currently in the library of my hometown.  After buying a pair of trainers at USC, an etailer of fashion clothes and shoes.

Popped in last Sunday to try the trainers, I liked them so I came back today.  Wanted to wear them straight away, so I was directed to the cashier who could also lend me a pair of scissors to cut the labels.

So before I was given the price (these trainers were on a discount) I was asked if I wanted to buy a bag for the shoes.  I was offered different types.  All I remember is that one type of bags would cost 80 pence. 

I was also put in front of me the box for the shoes.  I said I did not want it, all I wanted was a bag to put the old shoes.

The cashier said that I HAD to take the box.  Because they did not have anywhere to put it.  

So I paid and I said again, I do not need the box.  She said I must take it with me.  What if I do not need it? 

Here comes the fantastic suggestion:  Then throw it away!!

So what appears to be a somehow (but not fully) responsible business when it comes to generate waste (in the form of plastic bags) comes out as a totally careless one.  How come don't they have a way to dispose of their own packing?  Why should the customer do so?

I can understand why they want to charge people for bags (sadly, this is a policy that is now gaining acceptance among businesses in the UK to 'stop' waste).  But should not the problem be resolved in a more sensible and common-sense oriented way? 

So I went to the homepage of USC.  Given my experience with Fatface (you can read it all in my previous post), I now want to raise a complain with customer service.  In this Link they offer a generic form for contact.  There is NO option for the type of query I want to raise.  It seems this business does not have an option that allows them to lean from the customer.  They only want to hear what they want to hear. Complete deafness.  

So I will write to their email address and will give them a link to this blogpost. 

Am I asking for a very complicated thing to be sorted out?  For sure not!  If I was to order my trainers online I would have been the one having to deal with the waste (box, shoes, etc).  But this time I wanted to save me and this company the hassle.  

It was supposed to be a green day, that is why I am cycling.  But reality has hit me in the face.  Etailers like USC only care about their supply chains, they do not seem to care about their environment, even if they encounter 'responsible' customers like me.  I am not a saint when it comes to recycling, but this time I tried, and I failed.  

Ps:  The city council has installed different bins.  One of them is for paper.  But the box did not fit in it, so I had to throw the box in the 'general waste' one.  The council has also its own view of what constitutes 'paper'.

Fatface or flat in your face: how abuse of email and bad customer service damages relationships

Fatface, a clothing company, one of my favourites in the UK until now.  

For my birthday, I go online and buy a nice garment.  Decided to collec them in a store.  It is Sunday, and I get an email confirmation of the order,  the email says I should wait for another email telling me when the garment is in the store.  

I get another email on Monday, telling me it has been dispatched to the store.  I cannot wait.  My birthday is on Thursday, so I decide I will go there on that day.  Three more days...

Thursday comes, I drive to Fatface store in Weybridge, in the middle of a traffic jam. It is 11am.  I am anxious as I have little time to spare.  I show my reference number to the salesman, and I get the following: 

"Your order has not arrived yet.  I know it is confusing, but you should wait for another email telling them that the order has been received.  Sorry about this,  we can keep the item for as long as you need us to here.  When can you come back to collect it? "

I feel like falling flat in my face...

First I replied, I cannot drive to this store anytime I want,  I have a family and a job to look after.  

Secondly, why did I get an email telling me that the order was dispatched?  What is the value of doing this?

Third, you guys have a lousy transport system, it takes more than 3 days for items to arrive on store from wherever they have been stored.

Fourth, can I cancel the order now? 

To this last thing he then replies: 

"I am sorry but you have to wait for the item to arrive, collect it and then claim a refund"

That was the icing on the cake really..

Ok, I may have misread the email on Monday, but why did I need confirmation of dispatch? Many companies email you when they are about to deliver the item to you.  This email did not add anything. It confused me.   

Many companies misuse information systems.  As a customer, they get you involved in the mess of their supply chains through badly conceived emails.  And they top their inefficiency with a lousy customer service. All because they think that a supply chain is about saving money in transport and doing so by inundating customers with emails.  

This week I got another email reminding me that the item is in store, and that at the end of the week it will be returned to the warehouse and I will be refunded if I do not collect it.  It is still my fault, not theirs. 

On the day of my birthday, I told the clerk that I teach a course on e-business, and the apologised again but did not allow me to explain that a key idea is to think of the customer journey, the things we do online and offline to get what we want as a product.  There are customers who can afford to get to a store, and in my case I was also thinking of saving a bit of money in the delivery (£4.95 for a delivery whose delivery day is uncertain, so we still pay for Fatface inefficiencies in transport!). 

Understanding the customer journey means looking at me as a human being, what I do, what I expect.  Then we can design email and service systems together as a 'whole'.  As customers we do not need things that do not add value to our journey and our busy life in general.  We need convenience, opportunity, a helping hand, a shoulder to cry and a professional response from companies.  

You can re-read the above paragraphs and make up your mind as to what I got from Fatface. On the day of my birthday. 

A more careful consideration of this journey for people like me (even if I am in the minority of Fatface customer segmentation) would have made my birthday mor enjoyable.  So after falling flat in my face I decided to enjoy the rest of my birthday without Fatface. And perhaps I will enjoy the rest of my life without them.  

I have also learned that it is good to teach, it gives you ideas to check every day.  

Buy me now or wait until I grow older, wiser and become more expensive

Facebook announced last week the acquisition of WhatsApp, instant messaging platform in a deal close to 19billion US dollars.

One year ago the deal would have costed Facebook about one billion US dollars.  So the wait proved costly.  But at that point WhatsApp was not as widely known as it is now.  

The ecosystem of social media platforms and applications is very dynamic.  Not all of them survive the forces of the market and popularity.  Not all of them promote good practices.  Just remember Facebook Beacon's application.  It would connect Facebook with your purchases and would let everybody on your network know what you had just bought.  

The approach in that case was different.  It was the application collecting data without your full consent.  Now it is you who give that informants to Facebook via another application called Foursquare.  So you want to be popular and tell everybody you are in an expensive restaurant.  So you login in Foursquare.  And then Facebook (with your consent, presumably) would make sure advertisers know about your preferences.  The same can happen with WhatsApp users...

Facebook has grown wiser.  It is now more careful, it waits for people to adopt a new application before buying it or implementing a similar one.  But those people developing applications are also wiser, and they know that they can position themselves as indispensable and ask for anything in terms of money.  So that Facebook will have to take an interest later on when they have proved to be popular and acceptable.  

Will this transaction be beneficial for both parties? Well, WhatsApp owners have got some cash and shares.  Possibly they will also lead their company from the inside.  Like a good football player that is bought by a good team, the future lies not only in the player but on how the team play together.  We will see how well the management of this new venture does.  

Facebook wants to be the only social platform that people use to connect to each other.  The more we connect to Facebook the more they know about us, the more people like me look for alternatives.   I think I have grown older, bit wiser and definitely more expensive :)

My digital footprint

I was struck by a recent article in bbc news on the new Google acquisitions: smart thermostat maker Nest, and robotics company Boston Dynamics.  

You can read the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25725808

So it seems Google wants to have its fingers in many different pies.  And it wants to connect smart appliances to the internet.  

Inn the future we could have android running on these appliances.  That seems to be a way forward.  This is not in my predictions post (see my previous post), but it makes good sense.  Something that was announced in the book by Negroponte "Being Digital" (1995): you can talk to your microwave, your dishwasher or your car.  

According to this article Google seems to be going further than that.  It is collecting data about you and me.  Your presences when you search the web, when you set up your mobile phone.  And who knows, the type of food that you out in the microwave, your eating times, the routes that you take to go to work.  Google is connecting many things to the internet.  Or shall we say that Google is collecting your digital footprints?

Yes. 

Is this a bad thing?

Maybe, maybe not.  There is a lot of data out there, and we are becoming used to think that someone or something has to process it to help us in order to make our lives easier.  For instance we do not quarrel anymore about the weather forecast.  We seem to need to know what is going to happen.  We need that kind of 'information'.  Siri is supposed to learn from us and help us.  And we let it do it

The only problem that I see today is that we need to leave our digital footprints.  We need to leave them somewhere.  We also need to let Google collect them.  And then Google will create a knowledge base from which we can all learn new things.  But we will then learn and use what is suggested as best.  Or what comes first in our search for answers.  Your foot prints and mines together.  Collective intelligence.  What if that is wrong? What if we want 'out' of the collective? Now can we challenge it? 

Reminds me of Startrek and the Borg rather than Big Brother.  We are one. We think like one.  We assimilate others.  Resistance is futile...Only to discover that there was a Borg queen. 

Or shall we say two Borg kings?