ShipCrunch

Are we in need of a serious digital fire sale?

Is the Internet, and the jolly nook of it inhabited by shipping, in serious need of an arsonist?

By Ryan Skinner (email)

Go to LinkedIn and search for maritime groups, or shipping groups. Then click on something like the 50th page of search results. It's a sorry sight. Groups are started with love, or self-love, if you will. One member, maybe two. How are those discussions, you think?

The same thing can be encountered on twitter. Mark Warner of ShipServ (@mdwarner) has recently noted that Clarksons is on twitter. They're tweeting index moves to a hearty dozen people or so. I recently chatted with a marine media type who explained that the shipping titles simply don't know what else to do with twitter than churn out headlines.

And churning out headlines has become the new virtue. Shipping actually now has its own content farm, a la Demand Media (no, I won't link to them, damnit). I've had not a few sources point out that their articles are fallacy-ridden. How many other publishers can truly claim to be much better online - cranking out the texts, either in the hope or conviction that this will pay off.

It doesn't. For most of the smaller media entrepreneurs in shipping, it's a matter of leapfrogging from pivot to pivot (the term for failing your way into a new business model).

Go to the App Store, and you'll find a new app called "Shipping Professional". I've been told it's a premium app, where you get access to an RSS feed of headlines. Click on any of them and you hit a paywall. Nice. They're ready for a pivot methinks.

Not surprisingly, when your average shipping dude encounters all this, he rolls his eyes. "It's just what I told you. The Internet's full of trash. There's no value in it." (Ironically, most shipping dudes feel the same about print shipping magazines and newspapers, but that's another story for another day).

So, I ask: Are we drowning in digital chaff?

Jeff Jarvis is a role model for me - he's an astoundingly smart guy when it comes to media, and I read his blog buzzmachine.com like wine. He recently posted about one of the (few) interesting presentations at Davos by a guy who argues convincingly that, no, there is not too much content in the world. There's too little.

It's a tough concept to swallow after reading an error-riddled article about shipping emissions. But it's true.

New media has opened up the sluices of information, opinions and analysis. This blog, among many others, poured through. And each of those microgroups in LinkedIn. And the spammers, content farms and bot-feeds.

From this dreck, quality rises. That's what Google helped us figure out. Do you think, a decade ago, that there would be so much content on the Internet, and that it might be possible to navigate it somehow? You know, back when Yahoo! was indexing the web with people at the levers. Filtering and consumption improved. Radically.

The point is this: So many things can now start. Most of it will fail. Some of it will succeed. And the failures will learn, and come back a little wiser. That's the metaphorical pivot.

So, if you feel pissed or astonished at the pure volume and/or misery of content you find online, think this: Thank god. From this pile will come some great things, and I don't need to do anything more than ignore what I don't like.

Thou shalt be judged. Harshly. By us. Soon.

Online marketplaces are not anonymous. You will be judged on your performance.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

Remember how the Internet was going to introduce a whole new level of competition and accountability to business transactions? Suddenly, anyone could do business with anyone.

Did it happen? Sort of. Like Knock Nevis, purchasing organizations don't turn on a dime. Even if they could theoretically find ten suppliers in every port, they weren't quite sure what to do with these suppliers.

A survey I completed together with ShipServ and their CMO John Watton last year identified trust as one of the biggest sticking points for shipping e-commerce. Who is this supplier? Is it reliable? Will it deliver? Can it work with my ERP? Serious questions.

Crying for innovation

They're famous for it: Innovators and frustration with "how things are". Here's one.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

I don't know Alex Vari. I've never met him, and I know basically nothing about what he has designed. What I do know is this: He's well-frustrated with conservatism in shipping. It's probably what gives innovators their spark - a bit of frustration, a bit of ingenuity, a bit of "goddamn it if this thing can't be done better".

He sent me a mail titled "marine innovation", and I thought it was a great little heartfelt essay on the state of innovation in shipping. I asked him if I could simply repost his letter here, and he said that I should do it. If you read it, and want to contact Alex directly, you can do so here.

My interest in this topic is that for the last few YEARS now I have been seeking support for a project I have for the development of a TOTALLY new hull design. I believe my design will overcome most of the problems currently faced by power-driven, larger vessels with regard to high and efficient speed.

Without going into the actual design itself, you may be interested to learn of my experiences in this quest. Almost without exception, all of the companies I have contacted so far are unprepared to handle the subject of innovation. They have no procedures in place to handle these types of approaches. In some cases, they are openly hostile when you indicated that there may be another way to look at the problem.

The problem I think is that basically they have no understanding of what innovation really means. Innovation rarely comes from a direction in which you are looking. Changes are usually incremental and we can handle these types of events. Innovation, however, is usually classed as - at best - a disruptive event, and - at worst - a destructive one.

...

It's all very well for the current players to pat each other on the back and carry on with business as usual, saying they are making changes and improvements. They have nicely divided the pie into its segments and are doing nicely, thank you. If, however, someone from outside of the "club", without the accepted credentials, experience, etc., raises the possibility that there may be another way, well, I can tell you from personal experience it's an uphill battle.

I suppose it's only natural. There is even a problem of language. How do you describe something new using old terminology. Craft are either displacement or planing or a bit of both, right? There is, however, another way, but as yet I have no word for it nor can I succinctly describe how it works.

Just a few thoughts about innovation from a frustrated innovator.

What do you fellow innovators think? Is this a common sore point?

Can you pay your way out of ignorance?

A new guide to marine efficiency technologies is out. It's called "The Guide". Is it "The Answer"?

By Ryan Skinner (email)

Most publishers give reviewers a free copy of the book. A few days ago a PR rep from Blue Communications sent me a press release (here it is: Download Fathom 'The Guide' Press Release Jan (1)) about a new book. Yes, a press release about a book. Presumably, I would have to buy it (at around $400), if I want to review it. It's OK. I don't.

But I'll help them spread the word about it. We know full well that shipping companies are writhing and contorting themselves to figure out how best to figure out the efficiency beast. A publisher called Fathom (get it?) has now created a guide to shipping efficiency technologies, snappily called The Guide. They give a review of 60+ technologies that improve efficiency, and add information about the companies that offer them.

Thus, my question: Can you pay your way out of ignorance? God, I hope so. Or I hope people can at least read their way out of ignorance. We've seen a passel of indices related to efficiency, we'll see more and more books like this, there are conferences and seminars and who knows what else. If you can't pay your way out of ignorance, these people's business models are in trouble.

Questions for The Guide: Does your reference book tell a shipping company about the thorny process of grafting a new efficiency technology on an existing structure? Does it describe how this efficiency technology will meet regulations that haven't even been written yet? What were the sources of your information about technologies - the suppliers themselves, Lloyd's Register, or impartial users?

What The Guide doesn't purport to offer (sadly) is a community around the content, to provide a mechanism for vetting and renewing the statements, and to build a path for future development of these technologies. Geomares Publishing at least tried to do as much with its book, The Electronic Chart. They seemed to fail, but at least they had their head on straight.

Does shipping have an efficiency dilemma?

Does more efficient shipping equal more ships and more pollution and emissions? The Jevons Paradox.

By Ryan Skinner (email)

I've had an operation in the new year, and thus more time to read some meaty stuff. I stumbled over a particularly compelling little article in the New Yorker that argued persuasively against the dangers of energy efficiency.

"Em, what?" you may ask. How is energy efficiency dangerous? I'd encourage anyone to consult the full article (a great read) by David Owen directly here. [Sorry, subscription required for full text].

For everyone else, here's the gist. A 19th Century economist named William Stanley Jevons noted that his contemporaries were confusing economic use of fuel (efficiency) with reduced consumption. In fact, the opposite often takes place: Greater efficiency spurs renewed investment and results in even greater consumption. It's become known as the Jevons paradox.

The logic holds. It's similar to an argument I heard about car safety. With all the safe accoutrements that have been added to modern cars, why is traffic mortality still so high? Because people drive faster. If you want real traffic safety, replace the airbag in the steering wheel with a spring-loaded knife. That'll slow people down.

This paradox can be easily seen in shipping. How many times have we heard shipping's wafer-thin champions describe how the per-unit efficiency and cleanliness of ships have radically improved? Of course, any idiot can see that shipping's overall environmental footprint has grown and grown. Cleaner ships begat more ships begat more pollution.

Some would argue that the connection between efficient ships and pollution has become "decoupled". That is, more efficient ships would not trigger increased investment. When energy becomes only a marginal proportion of costs, this happens. So tell me, is energy a marginal proportion of shipping's costs? Will it be any time soon?

A valuable thought experiment in this context might be to consider how great the volume of transport could be given zero costs. That is, if anything could be transported (say, teleported) anywhere, instantly, at zero cost, how much more would be transported than today?

The ultimate irony of some of Jevons' champions is their argument that the best way to cut greenhouse gas emissions would be to mandate unefficient ships. It's counterintuitive, but it at least moves the focus from a slightly misleading metric - efficiency - to the most painful one - cost.

What do you think? Is the game of chasing efficiency counterproductive?