Feeding the Puppy

A short rant at eBay (and some Jedward love)

Dear eBay

Hi, how are you doing?  Oh, not well? 

Well yes, I kind of gathered that from the fact that at the beginning of the month you started to send me (no doubt as part of some sort of 'lapsed customer re-engagement program') an email EVERY SINGLE DAY...

....under the snappily titled 'Daily Deals'.  Yeah, I spotted that they were daily.  Nice.

  

Every day.  Every single day, without me asking for them.  Thanks for that.

Just quickly, I thought I'd list down what actually may be wrong with this...

...partially for you, and other companies, to think about when looking at big email databases full of emails (including mine) and wondering what to do with it...

...and partially as a cathartic rant from a new dad who had five hours sleep last night and just needs to VENT.

1. It's just spam

No matter what sort of relationship you've had with customers before, if you start emailing them more than they deem 'socially necessary', you take the 'relationship' and turn it into 'advertising'. 

Which may be what you want to do.  But to the customer, it just becomes more spam clogging up their inbox. 

Use advertising as advertising, and use emails as the opportunity to start a conversation.

PS. There are Nigerian Princes who would consider sending you emails daily as overkill...

2. It's not even targeted

I've used eBay a fair few times... I'm not any sort of power user, but there at least 25+ transactions that may give you a hint about the sorts of things I like.  Guitars, gadgets, and other random micselleany.

I imagine you have all this saved up against my profile, and could use it to target the 'deals' you show me a bit more cleverly.  Instead, the things you've told me that I can buy (and therefore think I may be interested in) include amongst other things...

5-1 Disney Hair Styler
WWE Smackdown 2010 for Xbox OR PS3
Stila Make-up set and bag
Mega Bloks Streetz Construction set
Jedward T-Shirt
Hannah Montana Sleepover pamper kit

I don't know what I did in the past to persuade you that I was a Disney fixated, crossdressing wrestling fan who was supporting Jedward in this year's X-Factor, but I'm now kind of worried.

Either that, or you're just sending me a random list of shit that's available to buy in eBay. 

Oh, it is the latter?  Phew.  I can't let people know about my Jedward fandom...

 


...on which matter, now that we're talking about it, I'd like to confirm that Jedward are the single most likely entity to save music...

...as it's entirely possible that when they win X-Factor this year on charm and showmanship alone, it'll bring every eccentric in the country out of the woodwork and into audtions, and next year's competition and all those after it will simply resemble the clown school that the X-Factor actually is...

...which means people might actually having to look elsewhere to listen to music.  We can but hope, anyway.  Meanwhile, back to the point...

3. It's NEVER-ENDING

...ok, I exagerrate slightly.  It can be ended, as you helpfully point out near the top of the emails.  But rather than an instant 'if you don't want these emails, click and we'll stop', it instead has the following message:

"If you no longer wish to receive our Daily Deals emails, no problem,
just click here and you will be removed within 4 working days."

Oh eBay, I worry about you for two reasons. 

Firstly, you've clearly got such awful automation in your system that if someone does click on the link, of of your guys at eBay has to manually look through the database and switch off the link.  There's no other excuse for it taking four days.

Which means that secondly, if someone does think (like I did) that they really don't want to get an email with two pointless offers every day, then they have to go through another four emails of something they clearly don't like or want.  Which isn't really a great way to make people like you.

So, eBay, please understand that yes, you were kinda fun and useful once, but now that you have taken to treating me to daily spam, I shall from hereon in have to reciprocate with growing indifference, annoyance, and an increasingly small likelihood to ever use you again. 

Kindest regards 'n that

John

PS. Say hi to Boo.com when you see her...

3rd Year Physics and the problem with Google Wave

Ain't this the truth?

 

(Via Zoe P)


Huge, almost feverish anticipation swept the internet when Google wave was announced.  The reality some weeks later is that people seem to be:

i) waiting for an invite

ii) have an invite, but haven't had the time or inclination to stop what they're doing and 'wave'...

iii) have an invitation, have tried it, but found no-one they want to wave with for any real purpose, so stopped using it

Why?  Well, I don't think it's a 'product' thing...

What is Google Wave?

Ok, a quick recap and opinion on what Google Wave is... having tried it (I'm part of iii above), it's clearly going to be a useful improvement on email.

Going back to my third year physics, conventional email is essentially a series circuit.  If one bulb goes, the whole circuit stops working.

 

(pics from here)

In terms of email, to maximise collaboration between 4 folk you'd send it to someone, who forwards it to someone else, who then sends it to someone else, and it arrives back in your inbox with input from everybody.  Then everyone's input is included.

If someone doesn't send it on, the circuit breaks, and nothing happens... until, like Christmas lights, the bulb is replaced.

In comparison, parallel circuits don't need every bulb to work in order for the others to keep working.  The others keep on working until you eventually replace the dud bulb.

 

If you attempt to make traditional email systems a 'parallel circuit' (usually by including everyone in the email all at once), then you undoubtedly end up with a disparate set of people's input strewn across different emails...

You get multiple iterations of the email, sometime simultaneously, which isn't really all that collaborative... and more often than not, he who shouts first shouts loudest in email chains...

Anyway, it's clear that Google Wave has been created to get over this problem, and it's clear we could do with something to help us over it... but why hasn't it taken off?

A fairly rubbish launch strategy

Google have launched things very successfully before using the 'limited invites' method... just think how precious Gmail invites were, and the great word-of-mouth that the service received from those who had it.

But why is it not yielding similar success for Wave?

Well, of course, it needs everyone to change system.  If you were on Gmail, you could still talk to people in with work, hotmail, yahoo or other email accounts.  Gmail spoke the same 'universal language' as the other systems, so still let people connect.

Wave's not like that.  It demands that everyone signs up to Wave in order to do stuff together.

And here's the problem... if you have a limited invite system in place, but need everyone in any group that want to 'Wave' together to have an invite in order to make it work properly, then there's going to be an issue...

...essentially you've designed a beautiful parallel circuit, but you're only letting one bulb use it at a time...

 

Fixing the problem

So, how can they rectify this issue?  Obviously they don't want everyone testing it at once... I'm sure there's all sorts of load testing issues and refinement stuff they're up to.

But perhaps they should change the way they distribute invites, or change the language they use to do it? 

Ask people something like 'want to collaborate with others on Google Wave?  Then write a quick outline of the project, give us the emails of the peopel you want to collaborate with, and we'll invite them for you...'

Rather than inviting people as individuals, invites teams of people as 'projects'.

And then all of those people will be able to see what Wave can really do for them...

A Gazillion Different iPhones

So, Mashable reported recently that there are now 100,000 approved apps for the iPhone.

Which is a big number. 

But not as big as the number I think is more interesting, and maybe more important. 

How many different combinations of iPhones are there with 100,000 available apps?

 

We can get the average number of apps per iPhone from reports like this from networkworld)

It's about 18, apparently (10 paid for, 8 free).

So from 100,000 apps, how many possible combinations of iPhone are there?

To work this out, I asked my brother, Andrew, who has a PHD in engineering and works at our sister agency BrandScience. 

Needless to say, he has a better grasp of numbers than I...

This is what he worked out:

No. of Apps   /   Total Combinations   

1        100,000       
2        4,999,950,000   
3        166,661,666,700,000   
4        4,166,416,671,249,980,000   
5        83,325,000,291,662,500,000,000
6        1,388,680,567,360,800,000,000,000,000
7        19,837,103,521,810,800,000,000,000,000,000
8        247,946,436,557,054,000,000,000,000,000,000,000   
9        2,754,740,009,356,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
10       27,544,920,827,561,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
11      250,383,330,322,534,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
12      2,086,298,234,634,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
13      16,046,522,144,975,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
14      114,603,114,979,263,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
15      763,913,803,621,103,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
16      4,773,745,103,441,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
17      28,076,360,613,085,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

...18:

        155,953,264,621,004,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
                              000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Yep; if you select just eighteen apps from the app store, you are selecting one of the 1.56E+74 possible 18 app iPhone combinations.

Which is a very big number indeed. 

To put it in context, if you multiply the number of hydrogen atoms in the galaxy (5E+68) by 311,907, then you get to the number of possible iPhone permutations. 

(EDIT: This is an update on the maths from Andrew... I misinterpreted original email)

 

Interesting?  Maybe, depending on your take on what 'interesting' is... but it's certainly important.

Why?  Because it represents just how unique and customisable the iPhone platform has become... the chances of you ever running into someone who has the same iPhone as you are entirely remote.

...which means that not only is your iPhone unique, it continues to be a social object even when everyone around you has one, because you're always likely to have something new, different and interesting to show each other.

So next year, when the Orange and Vodafone iPhone deals have really kicked in, it's not like everyone in the UK is going to have the same phone...

...they're going to have the most unique phone they've ever owned. 

It's just they're all going to have the same case for it...

 

A day for building social bonfires

 

Yes indeed, lest we forget it's Bonfire night, and given the history of the Bonfire & Fireworks analogy on Feeding the Puppy, it would have been remiss of me not to post the latest thoughts I've been having on this more fitting of days...

(As a brief reprise, for those who haven't seen or have forgotten it, skip through this again...)

Advertising Fireworks, Social Bonfires

View more presentations from John V Willshire.

So, what now?

After the IPA Social Event (which I first started writing about Bonfires for), we all thought it'd be a good idea to keep the momentum behind the project going... build on the success, keep the bonfire burning as it were.

After all, it was just the end of the beginning.

Rather than a formal evening organised event, though, we wondered if holding three concurrent conversations over coffee, somewhere in London, would mean that people could spend half a morning dipping in and out of different conversations... sharing experiences, results, case studies and the like.

How best to make it happen?

It's not just an 'advertising' issue

Largely every type of agency and communications company going are all looking at this area, whether they're involved in advertising, PR, corporate comms, internal etc.

The shift in the way the world communicates has affected many industries, not just the one that you or I happen to find ourselves working in.

At its simplest, I think everyone can take the graph below, look at their own industry as say 'yep, that's happening to us, and we're not totally sure how to deal with it /create it / measure it / value it / charge for it yet.

 

So we'd love to see folks from across as wide a spectrum as possible... the sharing of results & case studies is something that the Measurement Camp guys have been doing a great job every month, so we'd love to see them down there.

Then there's all the folks interested in making businesses internally social too... Enterprise 2.0, or Social Business Design.  I found the Corporate Social Networking Forum earlier this year a fascinating insight into how other industries are harnessing the available tools to add significant value to their businesses.

And I'm quite sure that I'm missing out folk too... so in order to make an 'easy to manage' list of folk to tell about it, I've made my first twitter list...

Making a list, checking it twice...

We'll get on with confirming a date, thinking a bit more about the format & subject matter... just generally firming things up a little more.

And you? 

Well, if you think you'd be up for meeting up one morning for a couple of hours in early December and sharing some social insights over coffee, then just add your twitter name TO THIS LIST HERE*.

Happy bonfire night... see you all soon I'm sure.

(*fingers crossed that I've got the list thing working OK...)

As Mary Poppins would say, 'The Job's a Game'...

Last year, when I was doing the IPA Excellence Diploma, I wrote an essay on the use of real time data to create daily, game-like interactions.  

You can read it here, if you're off the mind to...

A Spoonful of EasyJet

Ever since writing it, I've been particularly interested in creating work systems that incorporate elements of games.

Because as the principle behind 'spoonful of sugar' would have it, if you add an element of fun to a job, the job becomes a game.  And we'd all like it a lot more if our jobs were a bit more like games, yeah?

So I was very excited to find out about this forthcoming book...

Total Engagement
Using Games and Virtual Worlds to change the Way People Work and Businesses Compete 

 


Of course, I can't tell you owt about it, as I've only just ordered it from Amazon.  But the blurb certainly sells it to me...

"Implementing components of multiplayer computer games in the workplace will address a host of age-old problems. Games can not only stem boredom and decrease turnover, but also enhance collaboration and encourage creative leadership. Games require extraordinary teamwork, elaborate data analysis and strategy, recruitment and retention of top players, and quick decision making.

Recreating some elements of games - such as positioning tasks within stories, creating internal economies, and implementing participant-driven communication systems - can not only boost employee engagement but overall productivity."

Sounds really interesting, doesn't it?  I'm very much looking forward to reading it

(thanks to the tip off from the guys at Natron Baxter, an Applied Gaming outfit over there in that there USofA...)

Anyhoo, I think that it appeals so much because, as kids, my brother and I were big fans of 'God Games' like Civilisation, Populous et al, and like most blokes my age I've lost days to Championship Manager. 

 


If you're not familiar with the principles of such games, they are based upon an absolute mountain of data... with tens, hundreds or thousands of different characters, units and the like all needing your care and attention on a turn by turn basis. 

You've got a set objective at the end, of course, but the only way to win the game is to set that big objective aside, and deal with the game on a turn-by-turn basis.

So whilst your overall big strategy is there, it's actually much more important to continually pay attention to the thousands of smaller tactical decisions. 

The big strategy is as simple as 'win the space race' or 'defeat the other competitors'.  The methods you use to do that constantly change and evolve depending on the circumstances...

Is it possible to do it for companies?  Well, I believe so already... let's see what interesting examples and ideas the book brings when it arrives next week.

Barcodes, Perfect Competition, and the future of shopping

Barcodes?  The future of shopping?  Is this some weird sort of retro post?  Like when the newspaper does 'today in 1972...'?

Because, of course, there's nothing new about the barcode... it was first tested in US supermarkets in the sixties.  As technology goes, it's as old as the hills. 

 

So how on earth can it be the future of shopping?

Because what matters nowadays is not the barcode itself, but the reader...

Supermarkets (and now other high street chains) have been putting the control of scanning in the hands of customers for a few years now... not as an advantage to the customer, necessarily, but as an automation of a job that used to be done by checkout assistants.

(...the economic labour market implications of this helps explain why the five members of Girls Allowed had to find alternative employment...)

 


It's not really a move that's putting the customer 'in control' of course... the important part (price comparison with other possible competitors) is locked away. 

With developments such as this, and through years of watching shop assistants at work, we've all been taught by the shops how to scan barcodes... 

However... imagine you could take that barcode, and scan it with something else... something that lets you compare prices across every outlet, order it online... and essentially through market forces means that the price you pay becomes as low as possible...

Well, that scanner is here.  And it costs £1.19.  And it's an app for the iPhone 3GS called Redlaser...

 

It works like this; you fire up the app, and it uses the camera on the phone to take a picture of any UPC barcode you hold in front of it, as the video explains...

When I first heard about it, I expected it to work on things like books, CDs and the like... but then I tried it on baby milk...

 
...which quickly told me that our local pharmacy were charging £1.19 for something that costs £0.58 in Boots.

I still can't quite get my head around just how big a step this represents in the way our economy works... but it's taken me back to my Economics degree and a thing called Perfect Competition.

Like many things in Economics, Perfect Competition was just a theory based on unattainable assumptions... infinite buyers & sellers, costless transactions, zero entry/exit barriers and so on

...read the wikipedia entry here for a full explanation)...

...but the one assumption that is close to becoming fulfilled by Redlaser is Perfect Information; prices and quality of all goods in the market are known to every seller AND every buyer.

Perfect Competition as a theory has many ramifications... but perhaps the most important is this; it becomes impossible in the long run for any company in the market to do any more than cover their costs.

So for instance, if I have perfect information about everyone who sells Aptamil baby milk, and there is no 'transaction costs' which set any seller apart (e.g. I can order from all store in bulk via the internet), then I'll always just order the cheapest one. 

 


Which means for both the retailer (Boots) & manufacturer (Aptamil), I'll only ever give them the least possible money for the baby milk. 

If everyone did that, for every product, that manufacturers and retailers would only ever break even, as market forces will continually drive down prices...

(Now, that's not of course how everyone behaves now... but it's got me thinking of something that's worth a separate post.  And I think there's more implications for the Perfect Competition hypothesis from the internet too, but I'll go in to them on another separate post too...)

So we'll all have perfect price information, but what about the other half of Perfect Information; the quality of products? 

How can we possibly begin to share the information about a vast array of products across society in a way that bypasses manufacturers and retailers...

...oh, hang on, right you are...

 

Whatever it is you're buying nowadays, there's a discussion/forum/review on the internet from other people which will guide you as to the quality of the product you're looking at. 

What does it all mean? 

Well, in a world where people have access to Perfect Information about just about every market, what implications does this have for branding? 

Is traditional branding a mechanism that only works to protect price premiums in a world of imperfect competition?  Will I find out about the quality of products from other people, then the cheapest place to buy it via mechanisms like Redlaser?

I'm certainly going to be thinking about this a lot more in the weeks to come... probably at 4:00am when I'm feeding James with all this bargain baby milk we've been buying...

Twitter trend map searchery type thing...

I just came across this, as it started sending traffic to Feeding The Puppy...

...it's called Trendsmap, and it lets you look at Twitter Trends by location on a map of the world.  Oh yes, yes indeedy...

  

...then if you click on one of the words hovering over the area you're looking at, it will bring up the box on the left with the most recent tweets from that area on that subject.

Well worth a look, could be useful for a lot of things...

Adidas, iPhones and all those photos you take

I bought a new pair of trainers yesterday.  Like five of the last six pairs I've bought, they were a pair of 'classic' style adidas.  I took this picture with a blog post in mind...

But what was the blog post to be about? 

It might have been a discourse on brand loyalty, of course. 

In a market of such wide and varied choice, to stick dogmatically to one brand shows a really well developed relationship between myself and Adidas, surely? 

Well, kind of.  I just so happen to think the soles are better than Converse, and they tend to be discounted heavily in sales at show stores like Offspring.  The latest pair cost me £35 down from £65.  Being Scottish, it would appear the only thing I'm loyal to is a good bargain.

Or indeed it might have been about apps replacing objects in our lives. 

I used the QuadCamera app to take this shot, which I found out about from Iain.  It takes four (or eight) sequential shots, much like the Lomo Action Sampler:

Whilst the Lomo camera does one thing, uses film, and costs £25, the app costs £1.19 and of course shoots onto digital, meaning you can snap away happily as often as you like until you get the shot you want.

What I think we're increasingly seeing is the digital world continuing to replace things from the physical world; it started with music, of course, then after CDs it'll be DVDs... but the long term effect is that an app can be created to replace what a physical object used to. 

Skimming through my iPhone, I see you can get apps to replace cameras, diaries, notepads, pens, pencils, business cards, books, newspapers, torches, four-track recording devices, maps, dictaphones, percussive instruments, guitar tuners...

Good for me in the short term, of course.  But if no-one is selling this stuff anymore, and no one is making stuff either... then surely there's a big whole in the economy opening up somewhere?

But maybe the post wasn't about that either.


Maybe it was going to be about the sheer amount of stuff we make and share. 

I have hundreds and hundreds of snaps like this that live on my iPhone.  

Matt Jones coined a very nice phrase for it at the PSFK Good Idea conference earlier this year; the phone in your pocket is like a remembering machine that whispers to you constantly 'that's really interesting... you should take a photo of that'.

So I do, and you probably do as well.  If you think about how much stuff (specifically digital photos but other stuff too) we create, save and keep... and then never get a chance to look through again... it's amazing we actually remember about any of it.

We are surrounded by the digital detritus that we constantly create for ourselves, and send to each other.

Which would help explain why I can't really remember what I was going to blog about when I took this photo yesterday...

Hold the R'FID beans...

...first up, I know the post title is an awful pun on refried beans... but hey, if a boy can't use an awful pun on a Friday, when can he..?

Anyway, to the point; the whole RFID tag on supermarket items thing - are people barking up the wrong tree?

Some background...

I wrote a post here which covers this in more detail, but for a while now there's been a lot of stuff around talking about how life would be wonderful if everything sold on a supermarket's shelves came embedded with a little RFID tag...

...so that you could do all sorts of handy things with it.  When you took things home and kept them in your house, an RFID reader in your fridge or cupboards would know what you've got at home, what you need for certain recipes, what you need to pick up on the way etc etc etc.

As I say, read more about it here if you wanna.  It's all very handy, all very exciting...

...but it ain't here in any significant way yet.

And the reality, as this state of the market report from ReadWriteWeb says, is currently quite a way off, for various reasons; the cost of implementation, getting all suppliers to sign up, efficiency of technology and so on.

Whilst we wait for the business world to sort something out with better tech... will we see ordinary people just bodge and hack a version that works for them?

Say what you see...

Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle recently wrote a white paper called Web Squared: Web 2.0 five years on (found via ReadWriteWeb again).  In it, they talked about how RFID might not the way we extract 'identity data' from real world objects:

"A bottle of wine on your supermarket shelf (or any other object) needn't have an RFID tag to join the Internet of Things, it simply needs you to take a picture of its label. Your mobile phone, image recognition, search, and the sentient web will do the rest. We don't have to wait until each item in the supermarket has a unique machine-readable ID. Instead, we can make do with bar codes, tags on photos, and other "hacks" that are simply ways of brute-forcing identity out of reality."

So, for example, think about the way QR codes worked... they used cameras hooked to computers (your mobile, most likely) to turn an image into data:

 

So, when you saw a bottle of pepsi with a QR code on it, you could use your phone to capture the data from the code, access the content etc etc etc...

Think what's going on though... all the camera is doing is recognising shapes, colours, patterns.

And can of Pepsi Max is, visually, shapes, colours and patterns too... it's more complex, admittedly, but with the advancements in augmented reality (more great examples of that here) rapidly improving all the time, cameras will be able to recognise packaging as it comes off the shelf.

 

Then, if we can teach a computer to recognise packaging... can we teach it to recognise the visual signs of how much of the product we have left?

For instance...

I know this bottle of Pepsi is finished.  You know it's finished too.  I wonder how far we are away from teaching a computer to realise that it's finished, or half empty, or has been open for a week so is probably flat...

Because then what you might do is just stick the equivalent of a mobile phone camera in the inside of a fridge door, and when you need to have a look in the fridge... well, you just bring up the iPhone app that connects to the fridge camera and determines what's in there.

Which as my missus will tell you, is going to be a lot more efficient and reliable than sending me to look in the fridge... I can never find anything...

Anyway, the upshot of all this is that by the time RFID gets around to being implemented by creating physical ways of making it feasible and reliable, there may be a non-physical way of capturing and interpreting the same data.

'Twas ever thus, eh..?

It's iPhone day! Do you need one? Ask Hunch...

Welcome to June 19th, 2009, the day that may well be remembered for all time as 'the day Apple released an iPhone that was only a little better than the last one, in order to let the other phone manufacturers catch up a little and make a longer fight of it'.  Or something.

Anyway, you may (like me) be thinking 'I'm out of contract on my old phone.  Shall I get an iPhone 3GS?'

Well, via mashable, I've just come across something that may help you decide... it's called Hunch, and it's a new service that helps you make decisions.  It's also co-founded by Flickr co-founder Caterina Fake.  She's obviously very in to co-founding things.

The Hunch proposition is simple; "Hunch helps you make decisions, and gets smarter the more you use it".

Let's give it a whirl then...

OK, so after the first very obvious question, I'm thinking 'wow, it's just going to tell me what I want to hear...'.

But no, it takes this only as a first step, then starts questioning what I'll use the device for (phone calls/Mobile internet etc), what sort of job I do and whether technology is important to it, whether I'm with a service provider that does the iPhone... Hunch is asking a lot of rational questions that, if I'd just done my usual impulse buy, I'd have bypassed.

It's basically a decision tree, though it's a decision tree is defined and refined by the people who use the site, rather than being fixed.  So it cleverly crowdsources the right questions to ask...

...and then, it reaches a decision for me...

 

OK then, I will...

Now, think about what Hunch now knows about me... sure, it knows I want an iPhone.  But it also knows the sort of job I do, what I use a mobile device for, whether or not I can afford an iPhone... it's started to build up a picture of me through the data I've willingly given it.

And if I save my profile, and then ask more questions of it, it builds up a more robust picture of me... so will give me, on a personal level. better answers.

Meanwhile in the background, it's collecting data about everyone who uses it... it will be able to use all of that information to cross-pollinate the 'answers' it gives people. 

So if other iPhone purchasers have been asking about gaming systems, and then I ask about whether I should buy an XBox 360 or PS3, it has some data to help steer decisions, as well ask asking me a whole set of new questions...

 

So far, according to Mashable, Hunch has over 30,000 users, and a database of 7 million questions.  I'd expect that to get a lot bigger a lot faster, too.

It's another example of how the internet means companies need to think about 'thousands not millions'  (see the earlier post if you want a recap). 

If you want to talk to the people who might want an iPhone, or an XBox, or who want to know what film to see at the weekend or recipe to cook tonight with the aubergine they have left in their fridge... then places like Hunch could increasingly be where they turn first.