Brian Clegg's Blog, page 146

Oh, goody. A book trailer (yawn)

I've just put a competition on the www.popularscience.co.uk home page, giving away a copy of the excellent James Gleick's new book, The Information. When it had gone live, I was asked if I could add a link to the book trailer video. I did, but with gritted teeth. I really have no time for book trailers.

In the end, a book trailer is an advert for a book. I resent spending my time watching a video for this purpose. It's probably because I'm an old curmudgeon, but I'd much rather have written words than a video. It's all a matter of scanning.

If you give me a written press release on a book, I can scan the whole thing in about 10 seconds. If there's anything interesting I can then home in and read the detail I want. Video is so low tech in this regard. It's so twentieth century and linear. You have to sit through the thing in the order the maker put it in, at the speed they produced it. I want to control the input of media in my brain with this kind of thing.

I'm not saying I would never make a book trailer. I appreciate there are plenty of people for whom video works well, and so I'd be willing to give it a go. (And I even get mild entertainment from the Amazon.de trailer for one of my German books, even though it's not great.) But don't ask me to watch one. I don't have the patience and I resent not having the control.

In case you are interested, here is Gleick's trailer. It could be a good one, but I only got 5 seconds into it and got bored. I mean, it lasts over three minutes! If you like book trailers, why not watch it and give me a precis in the comments. Is it any good?

Service business 101: Starbucks Wars

My recent post about Stabucks versus Costa produced a surprising level of response, I think (as I indicated at the start of that post) because of a knee-jerk reaction to Starbucks-as-corporate-behemoth. But what I found fascinating in the comments was how many people don't understand the basics of the kind of business Starbucks is in, and think that it is all about selling great coffee. It really isn't. Before I was a science writer I spent a long time in business and I hope you won't mind a quick excursion into service business 101.

Some companies - the no frills ones, typically - are pretty much about what they seem. So EasyJet is in the business of getting people from A to B. But many businesses are really about something else - the experience. British Airways, for instance, is not primarily about getting you from A to B. They can get away with charging as much as 10 times what EasyJet does for the same journey because this is the case. Of course they have to do the basics as well - but the reason a customer goes to them and not to a no frills company is because of what they provide on top.

The same is true of most clothing shops. They are not really in the business of selling clothes, or they'd all be like Primark or George at ASDA. And, perhaps most starkly of all, most coffee shops are not about the quality of their coffee.

For one thing lots of people going in these places to buy coffee. But even if they do, it will usually be a secondary aspect of the visit. If I look at occasions I've drunk coffee in Starbucks I'd say about a third were to socialize with friends and family, about a third because I had to wait to do something else and wanted somewhere to sit, wait and use the Internet and about a third when I was in a strange place and needed somewhere I could rely on to deliver some refreshment with familiarity because I hadn't time to explore and find the better local version. Pretty well never was it because I wanted a great coffee. To be honest, coffee isn't that important in my life.

What you are buying with a service business like Starbucks is primarily the experience, not the coffee. And that's where in my humble-but-at-the-same-time-I-have-written-an-excellent-book-about-customer-service-recommended-by-Harvard-Business-School opinion Starbucks does a lot better than Costa.

You might wonder about takeaway coffee. Frankly there is no good reason for paying those prices for anyone's takeaway coffee. And if you have someone who makes better takeaway coffee that is convenient I can't see why anyone would sensibly buy from Starbucks. That a lot of people do is partly a testament to the power of brands, but also reflects the fact that Starbucks has some good locations. With takeaway convenience rules.

Think about it. Drinks like tea and coffee cost pence to make. Allow a 100 percent markup to make a profit - it's still pence. All the rest of the £2.30, or whatever you spend, is for something else.

One last observation - one of my commenters dug up the old 'I would never use Starbucks because they refused to serve war veterans' line. I can strongly recommend the website snopes.com for checking out urban legends (despite their irritating pop-up advertising, the content is excellent) - and their analysis of this story makes really interesting reading. It is a fascinating insight into the way untrue rumours can spread, and in this case could even be changed from the original US soldiers to Royal Marines. But it appears the 'wouldn't serve war veterans' line is a total fabrication.

Image from Wikipedia

Storm in a teacup

The recent solar storm was a classic example of the way the impact of scientific information on our everyday lives can be misrepresented with the best of intentions (in this case to get a story noticed) but can result in more harm than good.

I happened to be appearing on our local BBC radio station on Saturday with the excellent Mark O'Donnell and inevitably the solar storm was a big talking point. There was much fun had with audience suggesting things that could be blamed on the storm (e.g. The crisps were all crushed in someone's packet, Swindon Town losing to Oxford) and that's not surprising as some of the coverage suggested we could expect the end of life as we know it, where in practice no one noticed anything.

The problem is that the media is terrified of using probabilities, so tends not to paint a good picture of an event which we can only predict the impact of in statistical terms. Instead we got dire warnings of the worst possible outcome, which given the reality made the reports look like scientists were crying wolf.

Although this one was a false alarm we do have to face up to the distinct possibility that at some point we will get a repeat of the great solar storm of 1859. This caused sparks to fly from telegraph poles, gave telegraph operators electric shocks and set recording paper on fire. The aurora boreal is visible throughout the UK and as far south as Rome.

There's no doubt such a zapping would damage some of our ground-based electronics, but the biggest impact would be on satellites which could be uniformly and permanently knocked out because they have less protection from the Earth's magnetic field.

Just think - no GPS, devastated weather forecasting, loss of satellite communications for TV, telephone and Internet. We wouldn't lose all our electronic world, but it would be severely restricted for at least a decade before satellite capability could be restored.

Oh and no Sky TV. Not all bad, then. (Sorry, Sky, you'd be missed really, I'm sure. I just couldn't resist the tradition of Murdoch bashing.)

Image from Wikipedia

Exploring the Universe

Apologies to anyone who thinks my books are turning up rather too thick and fast this year - but I've got another one out! (It will be a bumper year: there are three more due out in the next six months.) On the other hand, it's very different from anything else I've done.


Exploring the Universe is a book of striking photographs in an exploration of astronomy and cosmology. It's a sort of manageable coffee table book - big enough for the photos to be impressive, but small enough to be able to read with your wrists falling off.

That reading part is important because although the pictures (around 100 of them) are a significant component of this book it was really important for me that the text was both readable and had plenty to say. I think a real danger with this kind of book is that they can be just a collection of pictures with some hastily assembled text. In this case I've tried to make sure that the text packs in plenty of fascinating information.

So, for example, while I hugely recommend the iPad Solar System app which inevitably is driven by the graphics, the book version of it was a bit of a let down, because the text is too bitty. In my tour through the universe, the text came first - and it flows through the book, rather than being a set of tiny standalone articles.

I ought to explain one thing - the title. It might sound like a book on space exploration, but I wanted to make the point that our main vehicle for exploring the universe is light, not spacecraft. Going out and experiencing things close up is never going to be an option for most of the universe. We have to rely on light in all its forms to enable us to find our way around our remarkable universal environment.

Take a look at the book's web page to find out more or buy a copy.

Starbucks versus Costa

I know some people think that Starbucks are on the same axis of corporate evil as McDonalds and Microsoft, but quite like them. I've recently had the opportunity to do a bit of a head to head comparison with their main UK competitor, Costa Coffee - and I'm afraid, Costa, for me Starbucks is well ahead.

It's interesting that last year Costa ran a 'we asked people to compare and 4 out 5 (or some such number) preferred our coffee to you know who.' This is falling for the dreadful Pepsi marketing error. Many years ago, Pepsi did taste tests and 'proved' that a lot of Coke drinkers prefered the taste of Pepsi. Pepsi entirely missed the point. People don't sit down, compare two colas on taste and buy the one they like better. When they buy Coca Cola, they buy the package - and when it comes to the whole ethos, Pepsi comes second best.


Similarly, it wouldn't really matter if Costa's coffees do taste a little better. Because that's not an issue. Starbucks coffee tastes fine. (I'm sorry coffee snobs, it does.) But the whole experience of going and having a coffee at a Starbucks is significantly nicer. Some key points to take note of, Costa:
Starbucks premises have a lighter look and feel. Costa has dark wood to Starbucks' light wood. Result - you feel depressed the minute you walk in a Costa shop.The staff are better in Starbucks. I'm sorry, I don't know why, but they are. (It would be interesting to compare pay, but I don't know if that's the reason.) Starbucks staff are pretty well always cheerful and friendly. Costa grudgingly serve you. What's more, almost every Costa I've ever been in, all or almost all of the staff had English as a foreign language. This just doesn't help when you ask for anything that isn't straight off the menu board. It's a pain.The design of the counter is better in Starbucks. Practically every Costa I've been in has the serving bar too close to the till. So you end up with the queue to collect drinks running back into the queue for the till. Messy.The loyalty card system is better at Starbucks. With Starbucks I have an iPhone app that not only keeps track of my reward information, I can even use it to pay for my drinks. At Costa I have to manually enter the LONG card number into the website to check my points.The fun extras are better at Starbucks. I love the little card you get every week that has some iTunes giveaway like a book or music. Costa may do something, but I haven't seen it yet.All in all - no contest. Get your act together Costa. It's not all about the coffee. Actually it's not mostly about the coffee. Coffee is cheap. We pay around £2 of that £2.30 not for the coffee but for the experience. Don't take this as a put down, take it as cheap consultancy. I'd normally charge several thousand pounds (and please do get in touch at brian@brianclegg.net if you'd like more detailed help). But you can have this for free.

Image from Wikipedia

Mindstretching time

Come on, it's Friday. Take a moment to give the leetle grey cells a spot of exercise. (Shut up, Hercule.) You may have heard this problem before. Don't stop reading if it seems familiar, though, we are going way beyond the usual conclusion.

Every morning a man gets into the lift (elevator) on the floor of the high rise block he lives in and rides down to ground level. Every evening he comes home, gets in the lift, rides up to the tenth floor (four floors below his own), gets out and walks the rest of the way. Why?

If you haven't heard it before, think about it for a while before reading on.

P
L
E
A
S
E


T
H
I
N
K


B
E
F
O
R
E

S
C
R
O
L
L
I
N
G

Now an extra piece of information. The man was easily tall enough to reach every button on the lift's control panel. Think about the problem some more. (I throw this in because the conventional 'right' answer is that the man is too short to reach any button higher than the 10th floor. But I'd like to expand your thinking beyond that 'right' answer.)

P
L
E
A
S
E

T
H
I
N
K

B
E
F
O
R
E


S
C
R
O
L
L
I
N
G

There are many possible solutions. The man could want a little exercise, but four floors of stairs are enough. He might suspect his wife of adultery and want to surprise her. He could stop off at a friend's flat four floors below for a drink each evening. And so on. But what if he actually has to get out rather than wants to - surely the conventional solution is now the only one? No. The higher lift buttons could be broken. The owners of the building could charge for each floor you ride up. He only has a ten floor ticket, so he has to walk the rest. Or there is building work going on in the afternoon which restricts the travel of the lift. Feel like arguing with these solutions? The traditional solution is equally frail - whenever there is someone else in the lift, a short person can get to the right floor. Or he could use a stick.

There are two useful lessons here. The first is that a late arriving piece of information can totally change your knowledge base - and it's difficult to give up an established position. The second is to observe just how many solutions there are - and how conditions can be used to question any idea, however valid. And a not so useful lesson - this also demonstrates why Sherlock Holmes style deduction is rubbish: there are always too many variables to strike lucky as often as he does.

If you come across such 'logic problems' in the future,  please look for alternative solutions.

Image from Wikipedia

E-ink begins to sink

A Kindle - be honest, does that look exciting?There are reports about that e-book readers are in decline. Apparently Amazon has significantly cut orders of its Kindle e-book reader. This seems strange news, when you consider how we are always hearing that e-books are taking over the world, but I don't find it at all surprising.

I'd say there were two factors at play here. One is that people have increasing availability of other devices like phones and tablets (particularly iPads but also Kindle Fires etc.) that work perfectly well as an e-book reader. It's true that a Kindle has some benefits - it's lighter and it has the e-ink screen which is easier to read outside, and less of a strain on the eyes (not that I find an iPad a strain). But multipurpose mobile devices have become the norm. We no longer want a pure e-book reader, any more than we want a pure mobile phone.

The other factor is that e-ink is dull. I'm sorry, it is. Not only does it show you the world in black and white, it just looks rubbish. Comparing an e-ink screen with an iPad or iPhone screen (* other tablets and smartphones are available) is like comparing reading something printed on an old dot matrix printer with laser printer output. It looks old and tired and grey.

E-readers were the triumph of practicality over style - but consumers are fickle and rarely stick with pure practicality for long. E-ink has begun to sink.

My Loch Ness Monster photo

I ought to say straight away, to avoid any disappointment, that I don't have a photo of the Loch Ness Monster. Sorry. But I do have a picture that I think exhibits some of the features of many LNM (as we scientific types prefer to call Nessie) snaps.

This is something that I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't been peering at the picture quite intently. This might seem unlikely, but I happen to have this photo as a desktop background, as a result of which it tends to be in front of my nose quite a lot. And this is the first similarity I suspect with those who find pictures of the LNM (or ghosts or whatever). To do this, people are staring at a picture, in their case hoping to find something.

In my picture (cunningly pretending to be a Polaroid thanks to Picasa) you see a vertical streak of sunlight on the water to the left of the scene. The question is, is there a person in the water, or is that little blob about halfway up the whole image just a rock or an effect of the light? To an LNMologist that might be plenty to report a sighting of the beastie. But what is really there?

In case you think I'm now going to reveal the truth, I haven't a clue. Here's what it looks like in close up and it could well be a person... but it could equally well not be.

For that matter the blob on the left could be another person reclining (though if they are, they either have an enormous head or it's a Sontaran).

I really don't know for certain. And that's the point. Unless it's a fake, the kind of photo that is presented to 'prove' the existence of the LNM (or UFOs) is almost always this kind. One that's easy to interpret as what you want to see. A bit like toast with someone famous's face on it.

So there you have it. My Loch Ness Monster photo. What do you think? Person or not?

It's the Bible truth

It might seem a little odd to review a book of Bible scholarship in a blog that's primarily about science and science writing, but bear with me. This is no normal religious book - and I came to it because it was recommended by no less than Richard Dawkins.

I have to say I found this book, which looks at the way the copying of the New Testament of the Bible introduced errors into it over the years, fascinating. This was for three reasons. First because as a writer. It's remarkable to see such a study of how a series of manuscripts going back a couple of thousand years have accumulated errors and changes. Secondly it really makes you wonder about people who think the Bible is an inerrant source of guidance (Dawkins' main point) and thirdly it shows how some of Christianity's less popular aspects are probably not part of the original version.

Because the book is quite thorough in detail, it helps to really be interested in language and also to have a mild familiarity with the Bible - otherwise it could be a bit of an uphill struggle.

What Ehrman reveals is the way that our translations of the New Testament of the Bible are based on various copied manuscripts and how errors in copying (both accidental and intentional to change the meaning) made various versions drift away from the originals. The detective story of piecing this together is really interesting, especially bearing in mind we don't actually know exactly what the originals said, so textual analysis has to be used to try to pin down what are the changes and what was the earliest version.

This is clearly a body blow for any intelligent person who believes the Bible is the absolute word of God containing no errors. (If that's not an oxymoron.) Such people often take the King James (AV) Bible as their 'absolute truth' version - yet it turns out that the New Testament of this was taken from a single, pretty dubious, late Greek source. It gets lots of things wrong.

I won't go through all the interesting stuff, but one result of reading this is that St Paul has gone up in my estimation. Some of his letters in the Bible make him come across as seriously misogynistic. He appears to say that women shouldn't speak in public and should only do what they are told by their husbands. But it turns out this anti-female stuff was added later by a tinkering scribe who clearly wanted to assert the traditional place of men in society. The original has quite a lot that puts forward women as equals, including naming a female apostle, a female deacon and eminent female members of the congregation. So, sorry St Paul - I got you wrong.

All in all an absorbing read for anyone into the way the written word changes with time and an absolute must for anyone who takes the Bible seriously.

See the book at Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com.

What makes a good bookshop?

I spent a chunk of Saturday in sunny Brighton a week ago (actually it was raining when I arrived, but let's not be picky). I was giving a talk at the Brighton Science Festival, but then had an excellent chat with one of the owners of an independent bookshop in Brighton, City Books.

I have to say I was very impressed. Their stand at the festival had an excellent collection of popular science books, and there was such obvious enthusiasm for the product, without the preciousness of some independent bookshops, where the people working there don't seem to even realize they have a product to sell.

I guess that's the downside to the kind of location I live in. With Borders closed, Swindon's only bookshop is Waterstones (I'm afraid I can't count W H Smiths). Our Waterstones is very nice and friendly, but in the end, even under the new regime, they are limited in how much flexibility they can have in what they do. The nearest independent I'm aware of is the White Horse bookshop in Marlborough. It's a lovely little shop, but it's a very local-books-and-stone-circle-lovers (not entirely surprising in Wiltshire), so not really the natural home of a popular science writer.

Running a bookshop is a brave venture in the economic climate booksellers face - I really just wanted to celebrate the fact that those who do it well are true national treasures.