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!
Friday, January 29, 2010
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
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Can Google's New Wave Out Do Cisco's Disco?
In a cursory look at the number of Twitter posts re: Google's Wave app, today (where I noted one poster said he's convinced Wave combines "the worst of email and IM all together in the same place") - I watched as, every 30 seconds, between 150 and 250 new tweets were posted on the subject. In contrast, only between 5 and 15 tweets were chirping every 30 seconds about Cisco's acquisition of Tandberg.
Not that I'm seeking intellectual understanding of the PR quotient here (I get it that Wave's cool factor, applicability to the everyday person, and, more generally, its "Googliness" makes it immediately more popular than chatter about two, crusty high-tech behomouths), but I ask you, if you mute the hype and look at the "nMash" business opportunities each of these items of public interest presents (one a new, potentially killer app; the other a deal that may highlight Cisco's next arena of complete domination [of course, until Google finds a way to usurp]: enterprise-level, secure digital video communications), which one really deserves more chatter in terms of immediate or not-too-distant-future application for good in business and life? Are they equally, potentially next-level news? Or, does Wave really hold more potential and, thus, is receiving its fair share of twittering and newsy-ness?
Google's Wave app, while still buggy, sure, is easily one of the most elegant idea mashes we've seen since Apple pushed iPhone and created a platform to launch millions of apps - many of them mashes. Clearly, Wave looks to have the same platform and revenue sharing opportunity for developer mashers as iPhone did and does.
Meanwhile, Cisco, the wired and wireless networking Olympian, just bought 3 billion dollars worth of Defense, Education and Fortune 500 client base as well as technology that it is sure to "improve" and mash with its current software and hardware assets. I wonder what this might mean for the future of mobile, secure video? What are the implications for Distance Learning?
I could go on, but it would be much more fun to read what you all think (?)...
Not that I'm seeking intellectual understanding of the PR quotient here (I get it that Wave's cool factor, applicability to the everyday person, and, more generally, its "Googliness" makes it immediately more popular than chatter about two, crusty high-tech behomouths), but I ask you, if you mute the hype and look at the "nMash" business opportunities each of these items of public interest presents (one a new, potentially killer app; the other a deal that may highlight Cisco's next arena of complete domination [of course, until Google finds a way to usurp]: enterprise-level, secure digital video communications), which one really deserves more chatter in terms of immediate or not-too-distant-future application for good in business and life? Are they equally, potentially next-level news? Or, does Wave really hold more potential and, thus, is receiving its fair share of twittering and newsy-ness?
Google's Wave app, while still buggy, sure, is easily one of the most elegant idea mashes we've seen since Apple pushed iPhone and created a platform to launch millions of apps - many of them mashes. Clearly, Wave looks to have the same platform and revenue sharing opportunity for developer mashers as iPhone did and does.
Meanwhile, Cisco, the wired and wireless networking Olympian, just bought 3 billion dollars worth of Defense, Education and Fortune 500 client base as well as technology that it is sure to "improve" and mash with its current software and hardware assets. I wonder what this might mean for the future of mobile, secure video? What are the implications for Distance Learning?
I could go on, but it would be much more fun to read what you all think (?)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)