In its most recent announcement to make global headlines, Google is honing in on an "experiment" with mega-fast fiber networks in select U.S. communities (for more on Google's Decision click HERE). So, the owner of the most Dark Fiber on the planet is poised to push the U.S. into gig+ offerings to the residence, huh? I say, cool! Someone has to do it, why not Google? Bring on "Fast-Fi," combine it with VoIP, own my mailbox, and make me a mobile Android :).
At 1 gigabyte per second, the Fast-Fi networks will be up to 300 times faster than your cable or DSL network connection today. So, what does that kind of bandwidth to your house and computer mean, and what is the potential of Google's experiment in super-fast fiber networks for commercial, educational and governmental institutions if these networks become ubiquitous? Let me ponder a few potential applications and results of this level of bandwidth, with you allowing me some latitude for meandering thoughts and connections, and, hopefully, providing me with your own thoughts via feedback and comment at the end.
COMMERCIAL
U.S. homes receiving that kind of bandwidth, consistently and nationwide, could give new meaning to "home office." At 1 gig per second, you can run a global business from your den: staying connected to others via streaming, always-on live video conference feeds for meetings with partners and staff using enterprise class equipment from companies like Tandberg/Cisco, while simultaneously delivering virtual training and or webinar events for your organization via applications like GoToMeeting from Citrix (and, involving those folks you're looking at via video feed). This could happen in realtime, while you're also accessing your CRM and Financial software packages, likely now running in the "cloud." In fact, with that amount of available bandwidth, you'd be able to set up your own rack of servers in your linen closet and deliver Software-as-a-Service (i.e. Cloud-based) applications yourself. The aggregation of all of these services could even drive the concept of Personal Web Portal to new and unforeseen heights.
Geez. With the commoditization of computer and peripheral equipment, we could see the residential construction industry come back strong due to massive demands for "home office additions," not to mention the swell of opportunity for "home business" office products and electronics as people begin to see home offices as permanent locations, instead of sattelite or remote locations. This might be just what Google has in mind - restarting the engine on the struggling economy!
Of course, if the home office is newly defined as THE office for professionals who are not tied to hands-on labor (e.g., construction, farming or manufacturing production), look for these types of workers to begin slowly migrating to a) the cities and sub-burbs with these "Fast-Fi" networks, or, assuming ubiquitous market coverage of the Fast-Fi networks, b) to locations that are interest and attribute driven, instead of work required.
EDUCATIONAL
The proliferation and success of the online education industry - Phoenix University, Walden University, Argosy University, Cambridge University, Kaplan, as well as the traditional University's forays online and the Virtual High School programs that are gaining ground in over-populating counties - combined with the proliferation of eLearning tools and platforms, is the first wave of transformation of our outdated education delivery systems in the U.S.
Just as "home office" might be a term with new meaning, a ubiquitous Fast-Fi network could mean the next phase for educational model shift in the U.S. Our views on "education" and the "education institution" itself might change even more dramatically than the prophets of online learning have foreseen since the advent of and prognostication for Internet technologies for teaching and learning.
Take the current trend toward "home schooling," with over 1.5 million students estimated to learn at home today and the rise of numerous organizations representing and selling directly to this marketplace. Home schooling literally requires students learning curriculum at home and testing against local and state standards with all of the "other" traditional students at their local schools. With over 1.5 million home schooled learners, websites and other means of communication have provided for the creation (formal or informal) of local communities of home schoolers, usually identified by neighborhood. In these neighborhoods, not all homes may yet be fortunate enough to have computers; so, the home(s) with the computer(s) often become(s) the computer lab(s) where students in the neighborhood learn technology skills, surf the net for homework responsibilities, and where parents research and even purchase study aids, school curriculum and other related items.
Like the commercial potentials for Fast-Fi, then, gig-speed networks, cool video and other social apps, and the continued commoditization driving price reductions in personal and business computing equipment and software, creates the potential for Virtual Schools to be much more virtual - potentially, and finally, making the physical school building either much smaller (reserved for administration offices), or completely obsolete.
Removing the student and teachers from the classroom and pushing them online, means safety and security concerns go down (this being one of the issues resulting in parents deciding on the home schooling route). Virtual schooling also opens up the possibility for truly "global schools," where teachers are not only teaching from different states, but also from different countries - providing unique and cultural perspectives, and, as such, driving much more respect for global diversity and global economy.
However, such education at a distance also removes the physical and social interaction aspects of schooling that is so important to creating a well-rounded citizen (not to mention the development of friendships and social behaviors) which will need to be addressed in new ways.
What I like most about the possibilities of Fast-Fi for education, though, is the potential it implies for greater involvement of parents, who, working from home or not, will be much closer and available to their children during and around the educational experience. The ability to find new ways to include and interact with parents in the educational process means improved communication in the "golden triad" of student-teacher-parent and more immediate attention to (and steering of) student learning and or disabilities.
GOVERNMENT
The Federal government, and state and local governments, their agencies and their leaders are consistent candidates for the kinds of improved communications and automated processes that increased bandwidth and applications ready to take advantage of such fat pipe can bring to their operations. A Fast-Fi network that allows images, documents and video to flow at blinding speeds creates the ability for massive operational efficiencies (e.g., reduced travel, reduced physical storage requirements, increased service organization speeds and improved accuracy of data). It also means increased and immediate interaction with citizens and interest groups via voice, video and other web-based communications - making for a happier and more engaged populace due to the sense of belonging to and involvement with (not to mention improved "customer service" aspects of) a government whose organizations are processing work on-time and on-budget based on feedback from their communities.
Beyond the back-end processing benefits that Fast-Fi could hold for governmental organizations, the social networking aspects that proved so influential in President Barack Obama's race to the top would be greatly enhanced - for the benefit of the politician as well as for the benefit of the citizen and the application vendor of choice (e.g. Facebook or Twitter). How?
Imagine the power of immediately connecting via high-definition video/audio link when you are "friended" in facebook and that new friend in online and open to "chat." The social dimensions of Facebook just expanded.
Imagine creating an "ad hoc" Twitter Event for your Parks & Recreation initiative on the fly at a pub in a town by simply notifying all of your causes friends who are online to join you from the pub via your iPad broadcast, using a peripheral web cam, which you can stream right into the local TV station's broadcast booth. Wham! Instant SoapBox (not to mention a PR person's nightmare).
SUMMARY
So, is this a bit far-fetched? Maybe. But not too far, I think. Some of it is possible today, with work, and would be even easier with an ultra-high-speed fiber network. What did I miss? Well, I'm sure there are implications for mobile apps, voice, VoIP and other technologies I've haven't considered here.
Let me know what you think!
~LGP
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Creative v. CFO: Differentiation in Lean Times
How do you invest to create digital differentiation for your company and brands in a time when that could mean spending more than you've budgeted? Well, besides leveraging existing digital marketing and advertising technologies and platforms - such as integrating social media and and building better reporting systems to divine analytics that help you spend smarter - you might also give serious thought to the investment you make in your creative people (outsource and internal).
In his recent iMedia Connection article, Sean X Cummings (Entrepreneurial leader of SXC Marketing), provides a very nice explanation as to why digital marketing (advertising in particular), of late, is now often so mediocre and even irrelevant (wish he'd just said "less SXC"). While he points out a number of strong causes for innovation mediocrity in the industry and at large, in one important moment, he notes:
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a fundamental shift in which agencies have started to be run by CFOs and account teams. If we want to start innovating in this industry again, we have to restore the creatives as the heads of agencies. Sure, many more agencies' financial structures will become completely screwed up -- they will not be as profitable, and in fact, many will fail as a result. But we will innovate.
Let's face it, measurement and analytics are here to stay; especially in a down economy. And, I haven't seen too many business teams capable of innovating anything without the comforting CYA that comes from large "team ideation" conclaves, where the finger pointing for a bad idea can't fall on just one individual when that wonderful work that took 2 days sequestered in a conference room with coffee, pastries and then liquor at the celebration dinner goes as stale as the donuts did after the first 8 hours.
In his recent iMedia Connection article, Sean X Cummings (Entrepreneurial leader of SXC Marketing), provides a very nice explanation as to why digital marketing (advertising in particular), of late, is now often so mediocre and even irrelevant (wish he'd just said "less SXC"). While he points out a number of strong causes for innovation mediocrity in the industry and at large, in one important moment, he notes:
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a fundamental shift in which agencies have started to be run by CFOs and account teams. If we want to start innovating in this industry again, we have to restore the creatives as the heads of agencies. Sure, many more agencies' financial structures will become completely screwed up -- they will not be as profitable, and in fact, many will fail as a result. But we will innovate.
Let's face it, measurement and analytics are here to stay; especially in a down economy. And, I haven't seen too many business teams capable of innovating anything without the comforting CYA that comes from large "team ideation" conclaves, where the finger pointing for a bad idea can't fall on just one individual when that wonderful work that took 2 days sequestered in a conference room with coffee, pastries and then liquor at the celebration dinner goes as stale as the donuts did after the first 8 hours.
Anyway, suffice it to say that now might not be the best time to simply push the CFOs and CYA orgs back to their closets and spreadsheets (Investors and clients and client's investors would likely have a mass coronary over such a dramatic shift in the corporate mantle).
However, I certainly agree with Sean's general thought process and opinion: especially, if it involves incremental approaches and projects that help us move toward the ideal vision by (as he says elsewhere in the same post) "(s)tart[ing] small...[and] (b)uild[ing] on small successes...."
I'd probably go even further than just giving the creative guys and gals more free reign in the direction of company resources. For example, I'd advocate for new accounting and incentive thresholds - innovative in themselves - that would give creative genius much greater freedom to spend, but also provide sliding scale incentives (and, perhaps, even some penalties) based on profitability and performance results - ensuring that CFOs, Investors and Clients don't think the sky is falling and do have the ability to see a "check and balance" system at work.
I'd also recommend we consider new implementations of budgets (or increases where monies already exist) for creative R&D in agencies and firms (perhaps, even shared, joint venture style with major clients), tying innovation of new technologies and approaches to an incentive plan, too. There's lots of precedent out there for this kind of behavior, just not enough innovation by risk-averse senior managers in making such activities more common, and thus, more comfortable.
In the end, it's a new work world in 2010 for many who are switching roles, or looking for new ones. In a time of economic downturns, fear pushes organizations into belt tightening mode, and gives the CFOs control of the notches. In the heady times of a cash surplus marketplace, the pendulum often swings in the other direction, giving executive steering controls to those with vision and innovation tendencies.
For me, nothing good seems to come from either reactive pole. Usually the best agencies, marketers and firms have purposely or intuitively found stability and growth through maintaining harmony between those who create and those who administer.
As far as the CYA teams and ideation by Socratic Method goes: I doubt we'll see them go away. However, educating team members in the true purpose of the Socratic Method is important. I think Socrates would agree that debate (or discussion, or ideation) by the caucus is the single best way to the truth (or best idea) of a matter, idea or question; but not that the matter, idea or question would be fully resolved or tested based on the debate. Instead, I believe he'd say that the result of debate provided another matter, idea or question to be tested and proved. In fact, it's funny how, in most of these meetings (as in many Focus Groups), one or two voices seem to always be stronger, or, interpreted slightly differently, smarter.
I've never heard a more apt description of the practice of marketing or advertising. Our ideas are usually built by consensus, but driven by one or 2 individuals with the best ideas. What's interesting is that I've been in these meetings for almost 20 years, as consultant and client, and have often heard the best ideas spring not from the marketer, but from the finance person, the ops guy, or the production leader.
Harmony and a system of checks and balances, then, must also include the possibility for equal participation in the ideation process. In companies where I've been responsible for ideation, I've often used survey tools, and, more recently, social networks, to gather ideas from the largest possible invested audience, then trimmed down the best of those ideas through discussion with a small team that all organization members agree are the best representatives of that org's interests. This quorum has been the most successful in-house tactic I've used, because I've taken its one or two best ideas (filtered from the many) to the outsource team and given them free-range to create within the limits of budget and approved concept direction.
This formula, which combines CFO interests, creative innovation, and communal voice has been the best I've seen to clear mediocrity from view. In fact, work in these kinds of environments over the years is what inspired me to begin The Virtual Idea Blender blog you're reading.
As always, I'm interested in feedback. Let me know your thoughts!
-LGP
Friday, January 29, 2010
Necessity of Social Network Influence over New Product Development & Sales Cycles
There's a lot of talk (and case study, too) regarding Social Networks for corporate brands - the Facebook, MySpace and Twitter pages and their advertising, contest and informational content dedicated to "engaging" with customers.
In the world of Public Social Networks (as opposed to private social networks that are invite only for company partners and customers), online magazine, eMarketer, recently published "What Social Followers Want," providing a summary overview and citing multiple studies that suggest the current highest demands of the closest circle of a brand's friends in an online social community (previously understood and referred to in this blog as "personality," which could be any type of "content" found online or off that drives an audience to a site, publications or broadcast) are not necessarily JUST deals and discounts from the manufacturer's and retailers.
In addition to discounts, it seems brand audience also engages deeply due to an ongoing interest in a "friended" brand's new product development initiatives. This is good. In fact, it is probably one of the single most interesting and, potentially, important product cost reduction aspects that social media offers, today. It's also probably why two-thirds of marketing pros say they're going to invest in Social Media programs this year, and 40% of them are shifting dollars away from traditional direct marketing to go social, according to a new Alterian survey highlighted on TechCrunch.
In a company I used to work at, I drove development of a private social network for partners, customers and affiliates, where the potential for users sits in the multiple millions. While the site's membership is not yet at that level, the immediate understanding and need was that, besides providing a place for like-minded individuals to organize around the educational and procedural requirements and benefits of my company and its partners' offerings, we also built a specific program and site area to address the "voice of the customer," specifically. This area is used to engage excellent and long-term customers directly in discussions surrounding current product features and functionality as well as future recommended features and functionality.
Estimations for cost savings based on this new level of engagement, combined with tweaks in the product development process itself, were somewhere near 20-25% - a big savings when you consider that every product for this company costs at least USD $2,000,000 to create and even more to send into the market. However, the benefits of pin-pointing product features to retire and those to improve and add don't end at cost reduction. This kind of network and program also increase the speed-to-market factor with an end-product that provides WHAT THE CUSTOMER ASKED FOR and, probably, also helped test at prototype stages, and, maybe even agreed to purchase at release. This effect is probably even greater on the bottom and top lines. Furthermore, faster speed-to-market means improved product relevancy, which translates to greater potential sales.
Imagine, then, what happens if you engage your customers in the public forums - potentially, outside of your private network comfort zone - on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace and elsewhere. A full social networking perspective for your organization includes the right strategy to engage and reward both your close circle of "friends" and the outer circles of people familiar with or interested in your brand, but not yet truly connected. Find someone to help, and if you don't know how, then try, for example, my firm, 3 Degrees Deep :) or someone like it.
Bottom line: So, is social media and network still just one facet of the marketing mix for an organization? Yes. However, even though you still need a 360 degree approach to integrated and unified marketing, failing to include and explore the benefits of social media integration into your organization is failing to keep up with the times. It's also very expensive.
Let me know what you think!
In the world of Public Social Networks (as opposed to private social networks that are invite only for company partners and customers), online magazine, eMarketer, recently published "What Social Followers Want," providing a summary overview and citing multiple studies that suggest the current highest demands of the closest circle of a brand's friends in an online social community (previously understood and referred to in this blog as "personality," which could be any type of "content" found online or off that drives an audience to a site, publications or broadcast) are not necessarily JUST deals and discounts from the manufacturer's and retailers.
In addition to discounts, it seems brand audience also engages deeply due to an ongoing interest in a "friended" brand's new product development initiatives. This is good. In fact, it is probably one of the single most interesting and, potentially, important product cost reduction aspects that social media offers, today. It's also probably why two-thirds of marketing pros say they're going to invest in Social Media programs this year, and 40% of them are shifting dollars away from traditional direct marketing to go social, according to a new Alterian survey highlighted on TechCrunch.
In a company I used to work at, I drove development of a private social network for partners, customers and affiliates, where the potential for users sits in the multiple millions. While the site's membership is not yet at that level, the immediate understanding and need was that, besides providing a place for like-minded individuals to organize around the educational and procedural requirements and benefits of my company and its partners' offerings, we also built a specific program and site area to address the "voice of the customer," specifically. This area is used to engage excellent and long-term customers directly in discussions surrounding current product features and functionality as well as future recommended features and functionality.
Estimations for cost savings based on this new level of engagement, combined with tweaks in the product development process itself, were somewhere near 20-25% - a big savings when you consider that every product for this company costs at least USD $2,000,000 to create and even more to send into the market. However, the benefits of pin-pointing product features to retire and those to improve and add don't end at cost reduction. This kind of network and program also increase the speed-to-market factor with an end-product that provides WHAT THE CUSTOMER ASKED FOR and, probably, also helped test at prototype stages, and, maybe even agreed to purchase at release. This effect is probably even greater on the bottom and top lines. Furthermore, faster speed-to-market means improved product relevancy, which translates to greater potential sales.
Imagine, then, what happens if you engage your customers in the public forums - potentially, outside of your private network comfort zone - on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace and elsewhere. A full social networking perspective for your organization includes the right strategy to engage and reward both your close circle of "friends" and the outer circles of people familiar with or interested in your brand, but not yet truly connected. Find someone to help, and if you don't know how, then try, for example, my firm, 3 Degrees Deep :) or someone like it.
Bottom line: So, is social media and network still just one facet of the marketing mix for an organization? Yes. However, even though you still need a 360 degree approach to integrated and unified marketing, failing to include and explore the benefits of social media integration into your organization is failing to keep up with the times. It's also very expensive.
Let me know what you think!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Social Media Models vs. Rush Limbaugh and Other Evil-Doers
PROLOUGE
A recent posting on a friend's Facebook page created a torrent of discussion surrounding Rush Limbaugh's most recent on-air time in syndicated radio, TV and its Internet media spin-offs (video, podcasts, etc.). Limbaugh's most recent remarks include (as they usually do) clear racial, ideological, social and moral injustices and affronts to anyone with a sense of right and wrong and a modicum of intelligence. He is, certainly, difficult to digest. Unfortunately, this indigestibility is also what keeps Limbaugh on the air.
So, the string of Facebook queries and comments wondering why Limbaugh is allowed to continue to make his vicious and ridiculous diatribe live on the air waves (beyond his obvious right to freedom of speech in this country) got me thinking about the recent revival of social consciousness in the world, the emergence of social media outlets like Facebook, and the obvious conflict of these renewed values and new, equalizing modes of expression in the face of the tried and true financial media model that supports transactional commerce in the Media markets, today.
Let me go on record as stating that I believe emerging social technologies and a revival of social consciousness may present a new way to battle the media model that has kept the Rush Limbaugh's of the world blasting away on the air. However, before tackling the "new," it's probably worth digressing for a minute to understand (at a high level, mind you) how today's media model can support a recognized buffoon and loudmouth with no real becoming qualities to speak of, saving his power to draw listeners/viewers.
QUICK MEDIA MODEL PRIMER
Some Facebook posters on this topic are (rightly) outraged and upset, pointing their fingers at the Media captains who allow Limbaugh to remain on the air, suggesting that such a show of "support" by the networks is indicative of a "stance" - that the Media moguls are in league with Limbaugh, and agree with his perverse, scattered and one-dimensional ideas.
While there may be a Media Mogul or two with sympathy for Rush Limbaugh, I know folks in Programming and Media Marketing, and I can tell you first-hand that they are not driven by any ideology besides that of the all mighty dollar, because their jobs depend on positive cash flow and their bosses (the media moguls) demand positive cash flow. So, I submit that the view of ideological empathy for Rush by the network kings and queens is less likely supportable as cause for his presence on the air waves than the much simpler fact that Limbaugh's audience size is bigger than he is and has a direct correlation to actual and potential advertising and derivative dollars for those media outlets giving him air time.
Let's expand that though just a little with a brief, high-level look at the Media business model.
AUDIENCE POWER
Audience size and sustainability is at the heart of the financial model for sustaining commerce in the Media Industry. And, audience size and sustainability is driven by the attraction of audience members to a Personality, or set of personalities. (online, we often refer to Personality simply as "content"). Rush Limbaugh is a personality - just like Cher or Barack Obama or the Jonas Brothers, only with different politics and motivations. And, like any true personality (for good or evil), Limbaugh attracts an audience. Because this audience is large, Limbaugh's shows can command premium advertising dollars, which may also result in derivative marketing and merchandising opportunities. Because his personality can command premium advertising and potential derivative dollars, the media companies who syndicate him continue to do so in hopes of growing the associated dollars. All of these cycles are, of course, dependent on Limbaugh maintaining and even growing his following by maintaining his "personality."
If we can accept that audience driven by personality is the core of the media business model, then we can also accept that money, not ideology, is the "stance" of those media moguls supporting the perpetuation of Rush Limbaugh on the air waves. This model is just as applicable to "New Media" industry players as it is to "traditional" Media players.
EXPANDING ON THE CONCEPT (A LITTLE)
Overly simplified, Nielsen's Ratings and other surveys and internal reports from linked analytical systems suggest the AUDIENCE SIZE and demographics that any given Personality (show, network or content) commands at a given date and time. Similarly, in Newspapers and Periodical and Trade Publications, "circulation" is the key factor that relates the known audience size and demographics of a Personality (publication) at any given date and time, based on metrics derived from their distribution and sales. For "New Media," because most of the communications, commerce and transactions occur in an online format where "data" is readily tracked and monitored, web analytics and integrated data reporting systems provide even more information on a personality's audience than in traditional media formats. This data is literally spun into gold (and silver or bronze, too, if the audience size and demographics are not large enough or sustainable).
So, online, offline or both, it is the SIZE OF A PERSONALITY'S AUDIENCE, with consideration for local vs. global distribution and demographics, that drives that media company's rate for advertising during its broadcast or in its pages (I won't get into complexities of pricing). Consequently, it is advertising dollars and their potential derivative dollars from branding and partnering models (co-branding, spin-offs, merchandising, etc.) that allow the media company to pay for the development of new shows/publications/content for that "personality" and its supporting equipment, promotion and staff members.
RESULT?: THE GREATER THE AUDIENCE FOR A "PERSONALITY," THE MORE ADVERTISING AND DERIVATIVE REVENUES IT DRIVES, AND THE MORE MONEY A MEDIA COMPANY WILL SPEND IN DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SHOW/PUBLICATION SO IT CAN DRIVE MORE ADVERTISING AND DERIVATIVE DOLLARS, AD INFINITUM.
This result is no different for New Media companies that operate web properties, or for the traditional companies that have extended their reach by moving into the online world. So, again overly simplified, if the media model is really just the perpetuation and exploitation of a personality's audience, the advertising and derivative dollars it can command, and the ongoing investment required for building and sustaining said personality, audience and advertising/merchandising cycles, then, we might agree that the place to point fingers is not really the media companies, themselves; but, instead, at both the advertisers and the listeners/viewers, each of whom is perpetuating the life-cycle of a personality.
CHANGES AFOOT: SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Of course, the question you may ask is "How do you change a centuries old model, let alone the habits of people with individualized tastes for entertainment?" Advertisers want the biggest bang for their buck, so they'll want their dollars spent in ways that ensure their message reaches the largest audiences containing the right demographic profiles. And, perhaps even more difficult to address are the listeners/viewers, who are more entertained by controversial personalities than by boring ones. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of Limbaugh's "fan base" actually consists of listeners/viewers who "love to hate" him rather than agree with him.
You might also ask, "how, exactly, do Social Consciousness and Social Media fit into this discussion?"
Well, for the most part, while the New Media model is just extending the traditional media model, the power of the Audience may be even greater in an era where social technologies and communities are emerging around every topic and cause, and social responsibility has become en vogue in the global corporate landscape. Just read the pages of recent work by Jeff Javis (What Would Google Do?), for an example of the power of the Internet and the combined force of blogging and social communities who can demand (and receive) a significant change in and bettering of customer service from DELL computers, or create a groundswell of votes that lead to the election of America's first African-American President.
Social Media and Internet technology tools and new business models allow for the immediate creation of cheap and effective platforms for individuals interested in stopping (or at least quieting) the Rush Limbaughs of the world, because they equalize opportunity - providing the ability for one person to command as much attention as the mega corporation with the same online tools and tactics.
What's more, it's now "hip" for a corporation to be socially and environmentally responsible. Typically labeled as Corporate Social Responsibility, most corporations are now public about their "beliefs" and "value systems" regarding communities where they are headquartered or do work, charity organizations they fund or support, and initiatives they are spearheading to make the world a better place. Because many of these Corporate Social Responsibility programs are aligned with or directly sponsor online, private or public social networks, there has never been a better time to bring your issue or cause to light. And, if the company or organization is not sponsoring such a community or effort, now is a great time for you to make a stink that forces them to acquiesce to the "social" norms of corporate behavior in the 21st Century.
By design, social network communities like Facebook and YouTube, "private" social networks driven by corporations and organizations concerned with the "voice of the customer" as a new driver for product development and customer service, and "Free" social networking tools like Ning, Blogger, Wordpress, and others, are "open" forum tools that help you and your organization or community develop searchable, promotable and linkable pages, sites, blogs , videos, etc. for immediate access and availability to anyone who can be interested, influenced or advertised to via the web.
With these tools available to anyone who can access and use a computer, there is no limit to the number of anti-Limbaugh sites, Blogs, videos and other web-based "content" that could be used as "anti-personality matter" in the waging of an online war against his voice and presence in the media. If there's anything the web (and Google) has taught us, it's that THE AGGREGATE VOLUME OF CONTENT COMBINED WITH ITS QUALITATIVE AND UNIQUENESS VALUES AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF OTHER UNIQUE CONTENT IT IS LINKED TO, WINS.
Huh?
More simply, the searchable, indexable web, including the "blogosphere" and, now, even the social media universe, is an ever expanding ocean of ever evolving content. Its also where EVERYONE GOES FOR INFORMATION. Put enough "anti-personality" content into that ocean and people will start to rebel against that personality as a social, online wave. Make your cause into a real online movement (by linking all of the different pages and sites and blogs and videos, etc., together, and continuing to build on it, globally), and you will create a tsunami that begins to influence viewing/listening habits, which will influence media programming and advertising rates, which will influence (read: redirect) advertiser spending, which will silence the lambs (or Limbaughs), if you will.
Is this an educational process? Yes. Is this a marketing process? Yes. Is this a technical development process? Yes. Is this even possible? Yes, with the right spirit and patience, you can do it. Plus, it feels good to get the words into the world!
Good luck, and, as always, let me know what you think!
So, the string of Facebook queries and comments wondering why Limbaugh is allowed to continue to make his vicious and ridiculous diatribe live on the air waves (beyond his obvious right to freedom of speech in this country) got me thinking about the recent revival of social consciousness in the world, the emergence of social media outlets like Facebook, and the obvious conflict of these renewed values and new, equalizing modes of expression in the face of the tried and true financial media model that supports transactional commerce in the Media markets, today.
Let me go on record as stating that I believe emerging social technologies and a revival of social consciousness may present a new way to battle the media model that has kept the Rush Limbaugh's of the world blasting away on the air. However, before tackling the "new," it's probably worth digressing for a minute to understand (at a high level, mind you) how today's media model can support a recognized buffoon and loudmouth with no real becoming qualities to speak of, saving his power to draw listeners/viewers.
QUICK MEDIA MODEL PRIMER
Some Facebook posters on this topic are (rightly) outraged and upset, pointing their fingers at the Media captains who allow Limbaugh to remain on the air, suggesting that such a show of "support" by the networks is indicative of a "stance" - that the Media moguls are in league with Limbaugh, and agree with his perverse, scattered and one-dimensional ideas.
While there may be a Media Mogul or two with sympathy for Rush Limbaugh, I know folks in Programming and Media Marketing, and I can tell you first-hand that they are not driven by any ideology besides that of the all mighty dollar, because their jobs depend on positive cash flow and their bosses (the media moguls) demand positive cash flow. So, I submit that the view of ideological empathy for Rush by the network kings and queens is less likely supportable as cause for his presence on the air waves than the much simpler fact that Limbaugh's audience size is bigger than he is and has a direct correlation to actual and potential advertising and derivative dollars for those media outlets giving him air time.
Let's expand that though just a little with a brief, high-level look at the Media business model.
AUDIENCE POWER
Audience size and sustainability is at the heart of the financial model for sustaining commerce in the Media Industry. And, audience size and sustainability is driven by the attraction of audience members to a Personality, or set of personalities. (online, we often refer to Personality simply as "content"). Rush Limbaugh is a personality - just like Cher or Barack Obama or the Jonas Brothers, only with different politics and motivations. And, like any true personality (for good or evil), Limbaugh attracts an audience. Because this audience is large, Limbaugh's shows can command premium advertising dollars, which may also result in derivative marketing and merchandising opportunities. Because his personality can command premium advertising and potential derivative dollars, the media companies who syndicate him continue to do so in hopes of growing the associated dollars. All of these cycles are, of course, dependent on Limbaugh maintaining and even growing his following by maintaining his "personality."
If we can accept that audience driven by personality is the core of the media business model, then we can also accept that money, not ideology, is the "stance" of those media moguls supporting the perpetuation of Rush Limbaugh on the air waves. This model is just as applicable to "New Media" industry players as it is to "traditional" Media players.
EXPANDING ON THE CONCEPT (A LITTLE)
Overly simplified, Nielsen's Ratings and other surveys and internal reports from linked analytical systems suggest the AUDIENCE SIZE and demographics that any given Personality (show, network or content) commands at a given date and time. Similarly, in Newspapers and Periodical and Trade Publications, "circulation" is the key factor that relates the known audience size and demographics of a Personality (publication) at any given date and time, based on metrics derived from their distribution and sales. For "New Media," because most of the communications, commerce and transactions occur in an online format where "data" is readily tracked and monitored, web analytics and integrated data reporting systems provide even more information on a personality's audience than in traditional media formats. This data is literally spun into gold (and silver or bronze, too, if the audience size and demographics are not large enough or sustainable).
So, online, offline or both, it is the SIZE OF A PERSONALITY'S AUDIENCE, with consideration for local vs. global distribution and demographics, that drives that media company's rate for advertising during its broadcast or in its pages (I won't get into complexities of pricing). Consequently, it is advertising dollars and their potential derivative dollars from branding and partnering models (co-branding, spin-offs, merchandising, etc.) that allow the media company to pay for the development of new shows/publications/content for that "personality" and its supporting equipment, promotion and staff members.
RESULT?: THE GREATER THE AUDIENCE FOR A "PERSONALITY," THE MORE ADVERTISING AND DERIVATIVE REVENUES IT DRIVES, AND THE MORE MONEY A MEDIA COMPANY WILL SPEND IN DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SHOW/PUBLICATION SO IT CAN DRIVE MORE ADVERTISING AND DERIVATIVE DOLLARS, AD INFINITUM.
This result is no different for New Media companies that operate web properties, or for the traditional companies that have extended their reach by moving into the online world. So, again overly simplified, if the media model is really just the perpetuation and exploitation of a personality's audience, the advertising and derivative dollars it can command, and the ongoing investment required for building and sustaining said personality, audience and advertising/merchandising cycles, then, we might agree that the place to point fingers is not really the media companies, themselves; but, instead, at both the advertisers and the listeners/viewers, each of whom is perpetuating the life-cycle of a personality.
CHANGES AFOOT: SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Of course, the question you may ask is "How do you change a centuries old model, let alone the habits of people with individualized tastes for entertainment?" Advertisers want the biggest bang for their buck, so they'll want their dollars spent in ways that ensure their message reaches the largest audiences containing the right demographic profiles. And, perhaps even more difficult to address are the listeners/viewers, who are more entertained by controversial personalities than by boring ones. In fact, I'd bet that the majority of Limbaugh's "fan base" actually consists of listeners/viewers who "love to hate" him rather than agree with him.
You might also ask, "how, exactly, do Social Consciousness and Social Media fit into this discussion?"
Well, for the most part, while the New Media model is just extending the traditional media model, the power of the Audience may be even greater in an era where social technologies and communities are emerging around every topic and cause, and social responsibility has become en vogue in the global corporate landscape. Just read the pages of recent work by Jeff Javis (What Would Google Do?), for an example of the power of the Internet and the combined force of blogging and social communities who can demand (and receive) a significant change in and bettering of customer service from DELL computers, or create a groundswell of votes that lead to the election of America's first African-American President.
Social Media and Internet technology tools and new business models allow for the immediate creation of cheap and effective platforms for individuals interested in stopping (or at least quieting) the Rush Limbaughs of the world, because they equalize opportunity - providing the ability for one person to command as much attention as the mega corporation with the same online tools and tactics.
What's more, it's now "hip" for a corporation to be socially and environmentally responsible. Typically labeled as Corporate Social Responsibility, most corporations are now public about their "beliefs" and "value systems" regarding communities where they are headquartered or do work, charity organizations they fund or support, and initiatives they are spearheading to make the world a better place. Because many of these Corporate Social Responsibility programs are aligned with or directly sponsor online, private or public social networks, there has never been a better time to bring your issue or cause to light. And, if the company or organization is not sponsoring such a community or effort, now is a great time for you to make a stink that forces them to acquiesce to the "social" norms of corporate behavior in the 21st Century.
By design, social network communities like Facebook and YouTube, "private" social networks driven by corporations and organizations concerned with the "voice of the customer" as a new driver for product development and customer service, and "Free" social networking tools like Ning, Blogger, Wordpress, and others, are "open" forum tools that help you and your organization or community develop searchable, promotable and linkable pages, sites, blogs , videos, etc. for immediate access and availability to anyone who can be interested, influenced or advertised to via the web.
With these tools available to anyone who can access and use a computer, there is no limit to the number of anti-Limbaugh sites, Blogs, videos and other web-based "content" that could be used as "anti-personality matter" in the waging of an online war against his voice and presence in the media. If there's anything the web (and Google) has taught us, it's that THE AGGREGATE VOLUME OF CONTENT COMBINED WITH ITS QUALITATIVE AND UNIQUENESS VALUES AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF OTHER UNIQUE CONTENT IT IS LINKED TO, WINS.
Huh?
More simply, the searchable, indexable web, including the "blogosphere" and, now, even the social media universe, is an ever expanding ocean of ever evolving content. Its also where EVERYONE GOES FOR INFORMATION. Put enough "anti-personality" content into that ocean and people will start to rebel against that personality as a social, online wave. Make your cause into a real online movement (by linking all of the different pages and sites and blogs and videos, etc., together, and continuing to build on it, globally), and you will create a tsunami that begins to influence viewing/listening habits, which will influence media programming and advertising rates, which will influence (read: redirect) advertiser spending, which will silence the lambs (or Limbaughs), if you will.
Is this an educational process? Yes. Is this a marketing process? Yes. Is this a technical development process? Yes. Is this even possible? Yes, with the right spirit and patience, you can do it. Plus, it feels good to get the words into the world!
Good luck, and, as always, let me know what you think!
Friday, October 30, 2009
E-nough Already!: Doing Business Without The "e" (and other prefixes, acronyms and nonsense words)
Okay. I know there are many brilliant people out there in the marketing, social media and enterprise business arena - not to mention their customers - who are, like me, simply tired of the "e's" and "i's" and other alphabetical prefixes, acronyms and nonsensical words stamped on products, processes and even in the names of organizations (forget the iPhone and eHarmony, look no further than "nMash"!).
Well, with 20 years in as a tech industry marketer, operator and consumer, I think I can represent many of us when I say "e-nough"! As kitchy and catchy as these tags are, they served a purpose at the dawn and juvenile stages of the Internet revolution: they helped identify and explain a new way of doing business (e-business); integrating systems (e-enterprise - c'mon, really? There's already an "e" in enterprise!); conducting government (e-gov); and, connecting to customers, friends, family and remote locations (e.g,. Wi-FI, GPS, tMobile (?). With next step into the reality of "Social Media" and "Social Business" we're now subjected to countless threads of "Web 2.0" and "Enterprise 2.0" (a new marketing twist to help us identify the latest phoenix) and, my personal favorite, "SocNet," ugly techno-slang for "Social Network" (really, I think of it as lazy slang for bloggers that is a result of years of "writing for the web").
What does it all mean?
Who knows, for sure? Certainly, additions to language are continual and new ideas, concepts and inventions spark the fire in entirely new genres of word families and usage. Unfortunately, there is an expiration date on language that hypes versus language that helps.
The time has come for us to drop the "e" and all of its baggage. Today, we need to help EVERYONE along and within the value chain (from manufacturer to retailer to consumer) understand and integrate their EVERYDAY life and work with these tools that were once "other worldly," but which are now "our worldly." (See further discussion on this, particularly Bert DuMars comments in Jennifer Leggio's "Social Business" blog at ZDNet.com)
"e" and its brethren promote a false differentiation between business and communications online compared to those in the real world. Worse, extrapolations of these simple prefix monikers, which are pounded into our heads at every advertising and branding opportunity, further differentiate the meanings of the words they modify in an age when we should be focusing on how it all fits together, instead of on silos (of data, language, politics, budgets, demographics, etc.).
Just consider the difference in meaning we attach to the term e-commerce versus its original form, commerce. If you're in business today, or even if you're a consumer, don't these two ideas "mash" in your head (sorry to further the problem with a "mash" metaphor)? As a business consultant, I can tell you that a company that hasn't integrated some form of "e" into its commerce by now is in big trouble - "e" left the station 5 years ago, "SocNet" is making its final stops before rocketing into its own orbit. Just drop the "e" already!The two terms are synonomous!
I could continue ranting about million other "e's," acronyms and nonsensical words/names in this post, but you'll probably just shoot me notes asking about the whole other universe of symbols (@, #, ^, _ , etc.). Right?
Let's not go there....Instead let me know if you agree that the time for these prefixes and nonsensical terms is done, and that - as we organize and envision this new popular concept of the Social Web, inviting all of us to engage in conversations, together - perhaps, we can make our language more social again, too, helping instead of hyping.
~LP
Well, with 20 years in as a tech industry marketer, operator and consumer, I think I can represent many of us when I say "e-nough"! As kitchy and catchy as these tags are, they served a purpose at the dawn and juvenile stages of the Internet revolution: they helped identify and explain a new way of doing business (e-business); integrating systems (e-enterprise - c'mon, really? There's already an "e" in enterprise!); conducting government (e-gov); and, connecting to customers, friends, family and remote locations (e.g,. Wi-FI, GPS, tMobile (?). With next step into the reality of "Social Media" and "Social Business" we're now subjected to countless threads of "Web 2.0" and "Enterprise 2.0" (a new marketing twist to help us identify the latest phoenix) and, my personal favorite, "SocNet," ugly techno-slang for "Social Network" (really, I think of it as lazy slang for bloggers that is a result of years of "writing for the web").
What does it all mean?
Who knows, for sure? Certainly, additions to language are continual and new ideas, concepts and inventions spark the fire in entirely new genres of word families and usage. Unfortunately, there is an expiration date on language that hypes versus language that helps.
The time has come for us to drop the "e" and all of its baggage. Today, we need to help EVERYONE along and within the value chain (from manufacturer to retailer to consumer) understand and integrate their EVERYDAY life and work with these tools that were once "other worldly," but which are now "our worldly." (See further discussion on this, particularly Bert DuMars comments in Jennifer Leggio's "Social Business" blog at ZDNet.com)
"e" and its brethren promote a false differentiation between business and communications online compared to those in the real world. Worse, extrapolations of these simple prefix monikers, which are pounded into our heads at every advertising and branding opportunity, further differentiate the meanings of the words they modify in an age when we should be focusing on how it all fits together, instead of on silos (of data, language, politics, budgets, demographics, etc.).
Just consider the difference in meaning we attach to the term e-commerce versus its original form, commerce. If you're in business today, or even if you're a consumer, don't these two ideas "mash" in your head (sorry to further the problem with a "mash" metaphor)? As a business consultant, I can tell you that a company that hasn't integrated some form of "e" into its commerce by now is in big trouble - "e" left the station 5 years ago, "SocNet" is making its final stops before rocketing into its own orbit. Just drop the "e" already!The two terms are synonomous!
I could continue ranting about million other "e's," acronyms and nonsensical words/names in this post, but you'll probably just shoot me notes asking about the whole other universe of symbols (@, #, ^, _ , etc.). Right?
Let's not go there....Instead let me know if you agree that the time for these prefixes and nonsensical terms is done, and that - as we organize and envision this new popular concept of the Social Web, inviting all of us to engage in conversations, together - perhaps, we can make our language more social again, too, helping instead of hyping.
~LP
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Organizing the Social Media Universe: Big Bang and Cosmological Redshift
Not to get to enmeshed in metaphors, or science for that matter; but, one way to look at, and ORGANIZE, the emergence of new ideas like Social Media, and the technologies, processes and businesses that develop around them is to take the concept of the expanding space paradigm (or "cosmological redshift") first introduced by Hubble (of the telescope namesake) and overlay it onto today's most fascinating and popular area of dynamic business growth (and hype).
Let's use the current fascination of the world, techies, developers, newsies (and me, too!) surrounding the social media landscape (to mix my metaphors) as an example. And, let's extend our universe metaphor by adding in the theory of "cosmological red shift."
Now, I'm no astronomer, but I like the way this works when we think of emerging businesses, verticals and practices. For those unfamiliar with it (and too lazy to check out the link to its explanation, above), cosmological red shift refers (in very simplified terms) to the expansion of the universe, including all galaxies and planets in it, following the "Big Bang."
As an example of this theory, and to cite the Wikipdia explanation some more, we often find "the "raisin bread model" shown below, where one imagines a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven. The loaf (space) expands as a whole, but the raisins (gravitationally bound objects) do not expand; they merely grow farther away from each other.
Of course, "...unlike real cosmological matter, ...loaves of bread are bound together electromagnetically and will not continue to expand on their own after an initial tug."
What the heck does this have to do with Social business?
Okay. So, consider Social Media as the ever-expanding "rasin bread" loaf - the universe in total. Then, consider that there are raisins (galaxies) in this universe that are made up of the various tools (planets) for communication, development, marketing and transacting of social business (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Ning, Salesforce.com, Groupsite.com, Google Wave, Bing.com, LinkedIn, Foursquare, MySpace, Digg, Apple, etc.). Finally, consider that as each of these "planets" gains gravitational force (eyeballs, APIs, audience, participation, etc.), they begin to literally create satellites (moons) and even new galaxies in the form of businesses and applications (i.e., just consider the results of developing with the Twitter API, the Apple iPhone application development business engine, or the Starbuck's community).
As these galaxies expand further and further from each other (and as we discover new galaxies when ideas, technologies and practices collide in space), and their planets and moons grow mass, they increase their gravitational pull even as the universe, as whole, expands continually.
So, I leave you with the ever growing Social Media universe as an interesting (or not?) example of how to frame and organize your thoughts as new technologies, ideas and practices seem to come at us at the speed of light.
The big question for many will be: How do I avoid the black holes and colossal asteroids?
ANSWER: Read the stars and keep your rocket fueled.
P.S. One of the best visual maps of the current Social Media (Enterprise 2.0) TOOL UNIVERSE was compiled by Dion Hinchcliffe at ZDNet (someone you should definitely follow). Click here to see where I found the cool graphic map below (and to see it bigger), and to read more of the great stuff from Dion.....
~LP
Let's use the current fascination of the world, techies, developers, newsies (and me, too!) surrounding the social media landscape (to mix my metaphors) as an example. And, let's extend our universe metaphor by adding in the theory of "cosmological red shift."
Now, I'm no astronomer, but I like the way this works when we think of emerging businesses, verticals and practices. For those unfamiliar with it (and too lazy to check out the link to its explanation, above), cosmological red shift refers (in very simplified terms) to the expansion of the universe, including all galaxies and planets in it, following the "Big Bang."
As an example of this theory, and to cite the Wikipdia explanation some more, we often find "the "raisin bread model" shown below, where one imagines a loaf of raisin bread expanding in the oven. The loaf (space) expands as a whole, but the raisins (gravitationally bound objects) do not expand; they merely grow farther away from each other.
Of course, "...unlike real cosmological matter, ...loaves of bread are bound together electromagnetically and will not continue to expand on their own after an initial tug."
What the heck does this have to do with Social business?
Okay. So, consider Social Media as the ever-expanding "rasin bread" loaf - the universe in total. Then, consider that there are raisins (galaxies) in this universe that are made up of the various tools (planets) for communication, development, marketing and transacting of social business (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Ning, Salesforce.com, Groupsite.com, Google Wave, Bing.com, LinkedIn, Foursquare, MySpace, Digg, Apple, etc.). Finally, consider that as each of these "planets" gains gravitational force (eyeballs, APIs, audience, participation, etc.), they begin to literally create satellites (moons) and even new galaxies in the form of businesses and applications (i.e., just consider the results of developing with the Twitter API, the Apple iPhone application development business engine, or the Starbuck's community).
As these galaxies expand further and further from each other (and as we discover new galaxies when ideas, technologies and practices collide in space), and their planets and moons grow mass, they increase their gravitational pull even as the universe, as whole, expands continually.
So, I leave you with the ever growing Social Media universe as an interesting (or not?) example of how to frame and organize your thoughts as new technologies, ideas and practices seem to come at us at the speed of light.
The big question for many will be: How do I avoid the black holes and colossal asteroids?
ANSWER: Read the stars and keep your rocket fueled.
P.S. One of the best visual maps of the current Social Media (Enterprise 2.0) TOOL UNIVERSE was compiled by Dion Hinchcliffe at ZDNet (someone you should definitely follow). Click here to see where I found the cool graphic map below (and to see it bigger), and to read more of the great stuff from Dion.....
~LP
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Dialing up Stats: Gary Hayes's Social Web Counter
So, unless I'm missing something, Gary Hayes has provided us with the first real organized statistical perspective of the social web. In one of the coolest things I've seen in the last quarter, Gary's The Social Web counter (find it here http://www.personalizemedia.com/the-count/) takes a birds eye view of the vast and rapidly expanding social business universe :
It's plugged into this blog's sidebar for good, as a reminder of:
Plus, it's just plain fun to click from "Now" to "+1 Day" to "+1 Year" and watch the "RED SHIFT" of the social universe...
He's also developed one for the Mobile Web:
Excellent stuff, Gary.
Keep mashing n mashing! And, tell me what you think about all of this.
LP
It's plugged into this blog's sidebar for good, as a reminder of:
- The mashability of all things web; and,
- Just how big the social and mobile web economy is and continues to become.
Plus, it's just plain fun to click from "Now" to "+1 Day" to "+1 Year" and watch the "RED SHIFT" of the social universe...
As he says at http://www.personalizemedia.com/the-count/
The social web has exploded in the last year and below are some of the key data points that the ‘Gary’s Social Media Count’ is based on (many will be updated!).
- 20 hours of video uploaded every minute onto YouTube (source YouTube blog Aug 09)
- Facebook 600k new members per day, and photos, videos per month, 700mill & 4 mill respectively (source Inside Facebook Feb 09)
- Twitter 18 million new users per year & 4 million tweets sent daily (source TechCrunch Apr 09)
- iPolicy UK – SMS messaging has a bright future (Aug 09)
- 900 000 blogs posts put up every day (source Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2008)
- YouTube daily, 96 million videos watched, $1mill bandwidth costs (source Comscore Jul 06 !)
- UPDATE: YouTube 1Billion watched per day SMH (2009)- counter updated!
- Second Life 250k virtual goods made daily, text messages 1250 per second (source Linden Lab release Sep 09)
- Money – $5.5 billion on virtual goods (casual & game worlds) even Facebooks gifts make $70 million annually (source Viximo Aug 09)
- Flickr has 73 million visitors a month who upload 700 million photos (source Yahoo Mar 09)
- Mobile social network subscribers – 92.5 million at the end of 2008, by end of 2013 rising to between 641.6-873.1 million or 132 mill annually (source Informa PDF)
- SMS – Over 2.3 trillion messages will be sent across major markets worldwide in 2008 (source Everysingleoneofus sms statistics)
He's also developed one for the Mobile Web:
Excellent stuff, Gary.
Keep mashing n mashing! And, tell me what you think about all of this.
LP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)