Some have dubbed this The End of the Servant Economy.

Perhaps it is. But what do we mean by a "servant"?

If I lived in Downton Abbey or Bridgerton (I wish!) then the distinction between servant and not would be fairly clear. A servant is someone who lives in your home, who works exclusively for you, performing menial tasks.

On-demand grocery delivery riders don't tend to live with their customers. Nor are they exclusive either to supplier or customer. So they're not servants in that sense.

Are they menial? Is that what we mean by servants?

It takes a lot of skill to properly clean a house. A cook needs command of a kitchen and the skill to know what to order. A butler must be trained in etiquette and household management.

Some of these tasks are things that any competent adult could learn to do. But it is sometimes necessary to pay a skilled labourer for their expertise. And it is sometimes necessary to pay an unskilled labourer for their time.

Would you describe an emergency plumber or electrician as a servant? Probably not. But you press a button in an app and a plumber runs along and cleans up your mess. How is that different from ordering a delivery driver?

Perhaps the title "servant" is now only reserved for someone who has a low level of skill? This is a confusing situation!

I briefly chatted to the author of the "Servant Economy" article to try and bash-out the edges of the argument.

Terence Eden is on Mastodon

@edent

Replying to @katebevan@katebevan @sarahoconnor_ It's an interesting argument. But I get stuck with the framing of the word "servant".
Is my accountant a servant? What about a chef at a restaurant?
Or is it only for low-skill roles?
Or, is it about something I could do myself - like washing windows, mowing a lawn, etc?

---

Sarah O'Connor

@sarahoconnor_

Replying to @edent@edent @katebevan I think it's about having people at your disposal who can respond to your wants (give you a ride, bring you something) almost instantly. A household private chef can make you a sandwich. Going to a restaurant, waiting with other customers to order, etc, is different.

---

I think that's a reasonable starting point.

In a literal sense, anyone who serves you is a servant. A waiter in a restaurant is a servant. You could just as easily walk to the kitchen to give your order, pick it up when ready, and clear your plates away at the end.

So there is sort-of a psychological aspect to this. We don't make a demand of the waiter's labour. They walk up to our table and offer their services to us.

There's a "beck and call" aspect. The ability to demand that someone serves you. A taxi driver cruising the streets is offering their services - which you accept when you hail them. You calling the taxi company via phone and requesting them is just that - a request. But the algorithm and incentives behind most popular apps creates a demand. If they don't fulfil your demand (and don't receive a good ranking) they are at risk of penalisation.

So the nature of servitude becomes one of power dynamics. Plumbers are in short supply - so they can deny your demand without penalty. A delivery driver knows they can be quickly replaced - and are therefore at high risk of being penalised if they refuse your demand.

If you have have power over someone, they become your servant. Is that right?

The French psychologist Pascale Molinier wrote a wonderful paper which I found in The Commoner called "Of Feminists and Their Cleaning Ladies". In it she describes the tension of being a feminist and outsourcing traditional female domestic roles to other women:

... [T]he relationship with the cleaner displays a psychological tension between the desire to be served without needing to think about it – in which we find what Joan Tronto refers to as the "irresponsibility of privileged people" – and the desire to create a reciprocal link which "domesticates" this relationship.

This tension is not specific to the relationship between female employers and their domestic employees, it interrogates our relationship with care more widely, in that we all benefit from it.

P. Molinier, Of Feminists and their Cleaning Ladies: caught between the reciprocity of care and the desire for depersonalisation, Multitudes 2009/3-4, no. 37-38, p. 113-121

For lots of us, we know that we could walk down to the shops to pick up biscuits. But we value our time above that of someone else's labour. So we exercise our spending power to temporarily demand someone fulfils our whims.

Ultimately then, I think this comes down to guilt. We flatter ourselves that we live in an egalitarian society. Interacting with people when there is a significant disparity in our relative power causes us cognitive dissonance. So we - perhaps somewhat dismissively - define certain people as servants.

Despite the fact that they are doing a valuable job (both socially useful and evidently worth paying for) it gets designated as a mere frippery.

I'm going to miss the era of Venture-Capital subsidised services. I think the people doing the hard work to actually get goods into customers' hands shouldn't be thought of as servants; they should be thought of as co-founders.

Every so often, I spy something that reminds me just how far they need to go in order to fully "get" the web.

This latest example is from the Financial Times. I have huge admiration for the FT. Their reporting is usually spot on, their website is mostly excellent and their mobile site is very credible. But take a look at the bottom of this story.

See Page 2

Those words "Network Envy, Page 2 - BT Under Pressure, Page 16" aren't hyperlinks. They are just scraps of text telling me to turn to a separate page in my paper to read the story.

This tells us several interesting things about the FT.

• Their web and mobile content comes from the same back-end as their print content.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but...
• Their back end system has no understanding of the web (or the writer for this particular story doesn't understand it)
• There is no specific editor for the (mobile) web edition of the paper.  Allowing mistakes like this slip through shows a disregard for your readership.
• The mindset of the writers and editors aren't focused on the web.  This may be the tools they have at their disposal or it may be their training.  One thing is for certain - this is a print story which has been thrown with very little consideration on to a different medium.

Think what they could be doing.  The first mention of a company could be linked to all the news stories they have.  Given this is the FT, why not stick a live stock price after every company's name?  When a CEO is mentioned - link to their profile.

The power of hypertext is that it is so much better than regular text.  Not only more expressive, but more useful.  It can be dynamically generated and updated.  It can grant the joy of serendipidous discoveries to your readers.

Ignore the hype about blogs, comments, sharing, and twittering - it's links which make the difference.  Links are what drive the web and make it better than newsprint.  They connect your content - making it greater than the sum of its pieces.

It's your content - but better.

Capgemini Advert in the FT

Lest you think I've been monkeying around with screensizes, let me assure you that the image above is at exactly the same resolution that it appeared on my BlackBerry Bold. One of the most popular business devices.

Let's take a look at the advert by itself.

Capgemini Advert

Despite the whole image being 300 pixels wide, the consultants at Capgemini have opted to use a mere 120 pixels to get their message across to the readers of the FT.

Even if your eyesight hadn't become strained from staring at pink paper for the last 30 years, you'd find it hard to make out what the advert is saying. Let's zoom in on those sparse 120 pixels

Zoomed In

The original image is so small, that when enlarged, it becomes obvious that the famous moto "Consulting. Technology. Outsourcing" was little more than a blur.

So, what is this advert for? The banner image shows nothing more than the logo - and poorly at that. Why would anyone click? Let's see what happens when we do.

Oh Dear

Capgemini Home Page

Once again a mobile advert on a mobile site has taken us to a page which is definitely not mobile-friendly. The page is http://www.capgemini.com/supply-chain-management/

To compound the error, what do we spot in the lower right corner?

Flash! Argh!

The number of phones which support Adobe's Flash Player within the browser is minuscule.  The BlackBerry is not among their number.  Nor is the sainted iPhone.

Luckily the HTC Hero, running Google's Android, does play flash files.  Shall we take a look at what's on offer?

Capgemini website on Android

It's a video.  A not-at-all-boring video about supply chain management.  The video is probably very interesting to those people who read the FT and visit Capgemini's website. You can download the video directly (warning - 15MB .flv file).

Conclusions

I would hope all of these points are obvious to you.

• Make your advert legible.
• Make full use of the medium.  If you've been given a 300x50 pixel banner - fill it.
• Give an indication of what your advert points to.  Much like Cool URIs - you need something for a human to latch on to.
• Point to a mobile site.
• If the browser can't support certain content, make sure you have an alternative available.
• Video is a great medium for advertising.  Making mobile-friendly video isn't hard.  You can use services like http://m.youtube.com/ to automatically make your video suitable for mobile if you don't have the skill to do it yourself.
• Ask yourself - "What is the point of this advert?" Why would someone click on it?  What benefit will the customer get?  What benefit will the advertiser get?  If you can't answer these questions, you've got a Badvertisement

That a €multi-billion firm like Capgemini can get it so wrong is very depressing.  All that talent, money and effort squandered on an advert which shows them in a very poor light.  Perhaps the FT should consider screening the adverts it places on its mobile site so as not to infuriate its readers.

Insert a pound in the slot, press the button for The Times, aim your handheld's IrDA at the blinking light and ZAP! All the latest news for you to read on your train journey.

It's just as well that my idea never got out of the paper prototyping stage.  While BlueTooth has supplanted Infrared in the majority of modern phones, it is network provided data which is now king.

The Daily Show did a wonderful interview with the New York Times. The interviewer asked the editor...

Can you show me one thing in this paper that happened today?

And, of course, the answer is "no".

I remember on that dreadful day in September, barely a few hours had gone by before the first "extra" editions of the Evening Standard had pictures and analysis.

A few hours? That feels like a life-time. Especially when it comes to breaking and developing news.  There is a huge lag between a reporter typing away, the presses rolling, and the delivery drivers depositing the paper on the streets.

The Internet totally eliminates that lag.  A journalist can clatter words onto a laptop and with a push of a button have them broadcast to the world via their website.

The Web is Too Slow

I simply can't wait until I'm back at my desk. Nor can I be bothered to boot my laptop, find some Wifi, find some power, load FireFox, etc...

Flip open my phone, click news, read. That's what I want. And that's what I can get.  For breaking news, the mobile Internet is the only real solution.

What's Available

I present here a quick overview of the most popular British Newspapers' mobile sites.  I've also included the New York Times for international flavour and Reuters for the agency view.

List of mobile newspapers - spot the favicon

I don't intend to comment on the politics of the papers, nor their choice of stories  - I'm going to concentrate on the first impression only. Later I'll do a full review of their capabilities.

The first thing to spot is the use of the Favicon. Favicons are the little icons which are used to differentiate your site from others. Think of it like a visual bookmark.  Bizarrely, half of the UK papers don't use a Favicon.  That means that in the bookmarks list they are likely to be overlooked.

A special mention for Reuters' Favicon (highlighted) - It's an indistinct yellow splodge.  I've highlighted it because it's hard to see yellow against a grey background.

FT.com - http://m.ft.com/🔗

m.FT.com

Traditionally printed on pink paper, the mobile site seeks to replicate the distinctive hue of its paper counter part.  From a branding perspective, this instantly tells the user that they are on familiar ground.  It doesn't affect the readability - so why not.

Showing the time next to a story instantly tells the reader how "fresh" the content is.  Confusingly, there's no date displayed.

Search is always important to readers; allowing them to get straight to the content they want.  Not having any navigation is a hindrance to users quickly finding their way around.  While users will scroll to get to navigation - placing it at the top is an easy way to let them choose where to go next.

While advertising is a necessary evil, this advert is hard to read and jars with the rest of the page.  The layout of the whole page seems very heavy on the dead-space.

Guardian - http://m.guardian.co.uk/🔗

m.Guardian.co.uk

I've already reviewed the Guardian - but to my mind it still stands out as one of the best examples of mobile news sites.  Compact and efficient layout, navigation, teaser images, and the date all contribute to a well designed first impression.

The Independent - http://m.independent.co.uk/🔗

m.independent.co.uk

Dispensing with navigation has allowed The Independent to cram a few more stories above the fold.  Although their teaser text hasn't been optimised for the size of the screen leaving some rather jarring dead-space.

The colouring is rather plain, but fits in well with the paper's brand.  Colouring the background space given over to the advert is an interesting design choice.  It simultaneously draws attention to the advert while keeping it conceptually separate from the rest of the site.

Metro - http://metro.mobi/🔗

metro.mobi

The Metro is technically a newspaper.  The mobile site reflects the paper version - cheap, cheerful, primary colours and a blonde on the front page.  The total dominance of the image detracts from the rather good navigation choices - split by category.  The masthead is perhaps a bit large - but the promise of the image will probably be enough to get 50% of the population to scroll down.

It's interesting to notice that there are no stories or direct links to stories to be seen.

New York Times - http://mobile.nytimes.com/🔗

mobile.nytimes.com

They "Gray Lady" lives up to its reputation with a very plain site which, nevertheless, packs in a lot of information.

Using an anchor link to get to the navigation is a smart choice.  It reduces clutter at the top while keeping navigation options available.  With intelligent use of space they've also crammed in a search box.  The date and time give the viewer the reassurance that the news they are reading is not stale.

Unlike the other sites, the NYT places images on right.  While this is distinctive, readers of English are accustomed to a flow of information from left to right.  I wonder if this style helps or hinders readability.

The link to a dedicated application is a smart touch and will probably upsell readers.  Unfortunatley it comes at the expense of looking like it is part of the headline.   A less subtle change of font, colour, or placement would help here.

Reuters - http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/mobile/uk/🔗

uk.mobile.reuters.com

Reuters is not a newspaper. It is austere and feature poor. Deliberately so - it caters to those who want the news without any fuss. That said, they do make poor use of the space available; only the lower third contains any real content.  It makes a nice change not to have an advert at the very top of the page - but the heaps of space aren't really necessary.

Shifting the masthead and date on to one line, then removing some extraneous space would provide a better first impression by bringing more news to the forefront.

The Sun - http://thesun.mobi/🔗

thesun.mobi

The Sun is Britain's biggest selling paper.  Unlike the others, they totally eschew advertising at the top of their site.

The page is strongly branded and very picture heavy - that's likely to negatively impact download times. Navigation is very clear but it is missing search. They have deliberately taken the paper's style - the ripped edges of the image, for example - and applied it directly to the mobile.  That's not always a great idea, but it certainly makes it stand out from the crowd.

Times - http://timesmobile.mobi/🔗

timesmobile.mobi

I've reviewed the Time before.  I find the logo unnecessarily large.  It's great that they've got the date and time on there - but giving them their own line feels like an inefficient use of space.

Essentially, over half the screen is wasted here.

Mirror - http://m.mirror.co.uk/🔗

m.mirror.co.uk

The Mirror's mobile site feels dominated by its advert - yet, impressively, they still manage to keep 3 stories above the fold.

There's no navigation or search.  Indeed, it's as simple as you can be without the barren space typified by Reuters.

While offering a good amount of news - this really gives the impression of being Lidl's site, with a bit of news thrown in.  Adverts should be carefully designed not to swamp the pages on which they live.

Telegraph - http://m.telegraph.co.uk/🔗

m.telegraph.co.uk

Alphabetically last, The Telegraph is a rather mixed bunch.  The only images are an advert and its logo.  The navigation and use of date are well integrated. Despite this, they can only fit two stories above the fold.

There are no images to entice the user - although the text rich screen does convey a depth of purpose that the others may be missing.

Conclusion

It's important to remember that users will scroll. The idea of putting important assets "above the fold" is, at best, a distraction. But there's no denying that the first impression really does count.

It's heartening to know that the UK's mobile (mainstream) news market is so vibrant and healthy. While they differ in functionality and content - these sites show that providing news on the mobile is no longer a niche activity.

Mobile news sites come in a wide range of shapes and sizes - demonstrating that mobile needn't be static and simplified.

These sites - despite their problems - are evidence that mobile news, for many people, is the news.