Location-based services (LBS) represent a clear opportunity for retailers to broaden their breadth of consumer information. By promoting LBS activity among consumers they can hope to develop a much more complete picture of consumer behavior. This information could augment that compiled by businesses through loyalty/rewards programs that track in-house purchasing trends. By understanding where else their customers shop, how often, and what they purchase, businesses can attempt to capture greater wallet-share among their established customer base.
Though the benefit to the business is fairly clear to me the benefit to the consumer is a little tougher to come by. Personally I've looked into Foursquare and Facebook Places, but see no benefit to participating in them. I have no interest on being the "Mayor" of any store, or earning "badges" for completing tasks, trying new services. Certainly discounts are the most popular incentive for businesses to spur activity among rewards programs and I'm sure that will translate to LBS fairly well, but personally I have a limit to the amount of information I am willing to disseminate for a free bagel at DD's. LBS is far beyond that limit. It also sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. What's next? If you "subscribe" to a certain retailers LBS promotion allowing them to track you through GPS constantly in exchange for discounts, will everyone will a cell phone become a tool for data mining, are they already?
I realize this is an evolving trend and like I said, represents a tremendous opportunity for businesses to compile data, but as consumers we have to decide for ourselves where the line is. How much information are you willing to give up to receive discounts at your favorite coffee shop? How would you feel if that information was hacked off the corporate server? How would you feel if the internet ads you were seeing suddenly reflected not just what you search for in Google, Yahoo, etc., but where you went yesterday? I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I am somewhat private I guess, certainly enough to make a conscious decision not to participate in LBS myself. I don't protest its existence, I just fear some consumers, especially young ones, will jump at the opportunity while not fully understanding its implications.
Monday, November 29, 2010
"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" (The Atlantic, July/August 2008)
I must admit, upon reading the title of this article my immediate, subconscious reaction was a resounding "YES". This stance was summed up nicely toward the end of the article when the author discusses Plato's Phaedrus in which Socrates "bemoaned the development of writing." His fear was people would substitute books for personal knowledge, taking for granted the abundant availability of information in text form. Though this contention is clearly laughable this day-and-age, I believe the fundamental stance echoes today with the evolution of the internet. I fear many replace their desire for structured learning with the immediate access to a broad base of information on the internet.
In reality this article addresses whether or not the internet, and it's accessibility encapsulated by the functionality of Google, is changing the way our minds work, as opposed to making us "stupid". It suggests our minds are adapting to the easy accessibility of such a broad base of information by focusing quickly and superficially. That we tend to multi-task and maintain a shallow depth on any one topic/subject. That people who have adapted to the internet to access information no longer read books or articles of great length, rather they prefer to access the exact information they need when they need it via Google, or other search tools.
Though we rely on primarily qualitative data to make these contentions at this point, awaiting more in-depth studies, I think it's fairly clear these points have a great deal of merit. I certainly related with the author when he reflected on his inability to focus intensely on any long piece of literature, his mind tending to wonder and his preference to multi-task. As a matter-of-fact during the time I read the article and posted to this blog I returned 2 text messages, 3 e-mails, and took a phone call, clearly my level of focus could be brought into question.
So, the real question posed here is will fears of the internet's negative impact on our cognitive ability prove to have merit, or will they shadow Socrates’ fear of the written word in Phaedrus? Personally, as I've mentioned, I think the contention that the internet is changing the way our minds work has a lot of merit and will likely continue for some time. As far as having a negative impact on our cognitive abilities, or making us "stupid" I'm not so sure. Thinking differently does not necessarily make us stupid. I believe the broad availability of information, whether it be written word, internet, Google, Wikipedia, etc., is a good thing, The easier the accessibility the better. I believe this access will breed greater innovation and more impactful developments in the future.
What do you think? If you were born today, with the level of access we are afforded, how would your upbringing have changed? Do you think your long-term capabilities would be impacted? Negatively/positively?
8/10
In reality this article addresses whether or not the internet, and it's accessibility encapsulated by the functionality of Google, is changing the way our minds work, as opposed to making us "stupid". It suggests our minds are adapting to the easy accessibility of such a broad base of information by focusing quickly and superficially. That we tend to multi-task and maintain a shallow depth on any one topic/subject. That people who have adapted to the internet to access information no longer read books or articles of great length, rather they prefer to access the exact information they need when they need it via Google, or other search tools.
Though we rely on primarily qualitative data to make these contentions at this point, awaiting more in-depth studies, I think it's fairly clear these points have a great deal of merit. I certainly related with the author when he reflected on his inability to focus intensely on any long piece of literature, his mind tending to wonder and his preference to multi-task. As a matter-of-fact during the time I read the article and posted to this blog I returned 2 text messages, 3 e-mails, and took a phone call, clearly my level of focus could be brought into question.
So, the real question posed here is will fears of the internet's negative impact on our cognitive ability prove to have merit, or will they shadow Socrates’ fear of the written word in Phaedrus? Personally, as I've mentioned, I think the contention that the internet is changing the way our minds work has a lot of merit and will likely continue for some time. As far as having a negative impact on our cognitive abilities, or making us "stupid" I'm not so sure. Thinking differently does not necessarily make us stupid. I believe the broad availability of information, whether it be written word, internet, Google, Wikipedia, etc., is a good thing, The easier the accessibility the better. I believe this access will breed greater innovation and more impactful developments in the future.
What do you think? If you were born today, with the level of access we are afforded, how would your upbringing have changed? Do you think your long-term capabilities would be impacted? Negatively/positively?
8/10
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Consumer Vigilantes, Business Week: 3/3/2008
This article is another reminder of the power social media, and the web in general, provides to the average consumer. Through organized blogs and web pages scorned consumers can unite to exchange information and become a powerful, collective force against organization that empower them, through poor customer service. The level of power these groups amass is directly correlated to the level of poor customer service delivered by the corresponding companies. Cable and cell phone providers are typical targets due to the lack of immediate alternatives and ease of switching. Often times for both this would involve purchasing new equipment, service cancelation fees, and potentially many calls with customer service representatives on the part of the consumer. This makes people feel locked-in and frustrated, turning to alternative options to deal with their frustration.
Its clear that this is a trend that is not going away. As more and more people become active with twitter, facebook, blogs, and other social media platforms, this practice will certainly grow and intensify. Companies would be well-advised to address this possibility within their customer service department. In the article an area within Comcast's customer service department is discussed. This unit was tasked with monitoring social media outlets for issues and providing solutions to the consumers to alleviate their concerns. Though they were probably a little late to the game on this, I think other companies could learn a valuable lesson from them in this department. Cutting these concerns off as early as possible will certainly quiet the movement down and hopefully cause the group to discontinue their page/blog/videos/etc.
Having worked in financial services, and other service industries, my entire career I have noticed there are always some customers that are never happy. I think we've all sat next to THAT GUY at a restaurant, at the store, wherever that just won't be content unless his/her entire meal is comp'd and the server tips THEM just for their patience. I fear these types of consumers may represent a certain sub-group of these "consumer vigilantes". When I hear about the customers posting executive phone numbers, personal lines in some cases, I get a little concerned. What's next, home address? If these, let's call them difficult-to-please, consumers take to these methods it will pose an interesting problem to companies. Do they buy them off with discounts, vouchers, etc (equal to the restaurant manager comp'ing the patrons meal even though there really wasn't any major issue with service) or do they stand strong and counter the attacks with their side of the story??
What do you think, where is this trend heading and how should companies respond?
7/10
Its clear that this is a trend that is not going away. As more and more people become active with twitter, facebook, blogs, and other social media platforms, this practice will certainly grow and intensify. Companies would be well-advised to address this possibility within their customer service department. In the article an area within Comcast's customer service department is discussed. This unit was tasked with monitoring social media outlets for issues and providing solutions to the consumers to alleviate their concerns. Though they were probably a little late to the game on this, I think other companies could learn a valuable lesson from them in this department. Cutting these concerns off as early as possible will certainly quiet the movement down and hopefully cause the group to discontinue their page/blog/videos/etc.
Having worked in financial services, and other service industries, my entire career I have noticed there are always some customers that are never happy. I think we've all sat next to THAT GUY at a restaurant, at the store, wherever that just won't be content unless his/her entire meal is comp'd and the server tips THEM just for their patience. I fear these types of consumers may represent a certain sub-group of these "consumer vigilantes". When I hear about the customers posting executive phone numbers, personal lines in some cases, I get a little concerned. What's next, home address? If these, let's call them difficult-to-please, consumers take to these methods it will pose an interesting problem to companies. Do they buy them off with discounts, vouchers, etc (equal to the restaurant manager comp'ing the patrons meal even though there really wasn't any major issue with service) or do they stand strong and counter the attacks with their side of the story??
What do you think, where is this trend heading and how should companies respond?
7/10
Monday, November 8, 2010
USAA: Generation Y Assimilation- MISQE
When does an Enterprise 2.0 assimilation tool that promotes social activity and integration among new hires become more of a distraction than a benefit at work? This is an interesting question that organizations across the world are trying to figure out within this new era of social media at work.
This look into "Nexus" and it's utilization among USAA's IT department brought up some important issues. First, it may be tough to quantify the benefit of social integration into an organization, but it's importance is very clear to those who are attempting it. Building a base of friends at a new organization makes life so much easier. You can ask them questions about organizational norms, how to accomplish certain tasks quickly, where to go for what, and as illustrated in this case if an associate relocated for the position a forum to help assimilate them to the area is equally as critical.
Second, Enterprise 2.0 social media tools will inevitably provide both positive and negative consequences to the organization. The question will be do the positives outweigh the negatives. Does the quicker assimilation and happier employee base outweigh the loss of productivity due to social interaction at work. In the grand scheme of things, is there even a loss of productivity? Again, this may be tough to quantify.
Last, if these tools are to be utilized, they should be used by everyone. Selecting one group/division to use it while everyone is on the outside looking in could very well counteract any positive effects the tools had. It was clear middle management in the IT department at USAA had build animosity toward the new hires and rightfully so in my opinion, they were being left out of experiences, opportunities and benefits simply because they’re more tenured.
At the end of the day I think it's clear these can be powerful tools with a great deal of benefits, but an organization must be willing to go full-scale and take the good with the bad. You cannot seek the benefits of greater social interaction (increased productivity, associate satisfaction, etc.) without accepting the downside (questionable use of work time, resources, associate focus), they go hand-and-hand.
What do you think, if you have a tool like Nexus at work is it more of an organizational benefit or distraction? If you don't have anything like it, would you want it?
9/10
This look into "Nexus" and it's utilization among USAA's IT department brought up some important issues. First, it may be tough to quantify the benefit of social integration into an organization, but it's importance is very clear to those who are attempting it. Building a base of friends at a new organization makes life so much easier. You can ask them questions about organizational norms, how to accomplish certain tasks quickly, where to go for what, and as illustrated in this case if an associate relocated for the position a forum to help assimilate them to the area is equally as critical.
Second, Enterprise 2.0 social media tools will inevitably provide both positive and negative consequences to the organization. The question will be do the positives outweigh the negatives. Does the quicker assimilation and happier employee base outweigh the loss of productivity due to social interaction at work. In the grand scheme of things, is there even a loss of productivity? Again, this may be tough to quantify.
Last, if these tools are to be utilized, they should be used by everyone. Selecting one group/division to use it while everyone is on the outside looking in could very well counteract any positive effects the tools had. It was clear middle management in the IT department at USAA had build animosity toward the new hires and rightfully so in my opinion, they were being left out of experiences, opportunities and benefits simply because they’re more tenured.
At the end of the day I think it's clear these can be powerful tools with a great deal of benefits, but an organization must be willing to go full-scale and take the good with the bad. You cannot seek the benefits of greater social interaction (increased productivity, associate satisfaction, etc.) without accepting the downside (questionable use of work time, resources, associate focus), they go hand-and-hand.
What do you think, if you have a tool like Nexus at work is it more of an organizational benefit or distraction? If you don't have anything like it, would you want it?
9/10
Monday, November 1, 2010
Communispace: HBR Case
Communispace is a company that offers targeted consumer insight through a network of communities to aid a variety of companies in product development, marketing techniques, and general market insight. This case study analyzed the company’s business profile and whether it would be wise for them to broaden their operations into word of mouth campaigns, where instead of soliciting information from online community members they would provide products to a target online community in the hopes they would talk about the benefits of the products with friends, co-workers, family, etc.
The client in this case, that was requesting Communispace facilitate their word of mouth campaign, is a large consumer packaged goods company that could represent a major repeat source of revenue in the future. Though there is some concern amoung executives that doing this could adversely affect their core business of soliciting honest feedback from online communities, I feel like this concern is unwarranted. This seems to be a logical step for Communispace and would in no way effect their current business model, as long as this was clearly segmented from their current business model and new community members recruited specifically for the purpose of a word of mouth campaign. I might also develop separate branding for this new product as not to create confusion over Communispaces' core business of soliciting information from targeted online communities.
When considering a new product/service a company should analyze whether: A) There is a clear demand for the product/service, B) Whether this product/service is something current customers demand (providing a cross-selling opportunity, C) Whether the company has expertise in this area, D) What kind of initial investment would be required and what's the overall risk of failure?
In this case they have a large client requesting this service, it is a logical transition from their existing business model, it is something existing clients could benefit from, and requires little additional investment. To me this would be a no-brainer. After helping companies develop a new product I would solicit them to start a word of mouth campaign with a separate community, adding potential for additional revenue. Communispace could become not only a passive marketing research company, but a proactive viral campaign outlet.
Good article with a complete overview of issues involved: 9/10
The client in this case, that was requesting Communispace facilitate their word of mouth campaign, is a large consumer packaged goods company that could represent a major repeat source of revenue in the future. Though there is some concern amoung executives that doing this could adversely affect their core business of soliciting honest feedback from online communities, I feel like this concern is unwarranted. This seems to be a logical step for Communispace and would in no way effect their current business model, as long as this was clearly segmented from their current business model and new community members recruited specifically for the purpose of a word of mouth campaign. I might also develop separate branding for this new product as not to create confusion over Communispaces' core business of soliciting information from targeted online communities.
When considering a new product/service a company should analyze whether: A) There is a clear demand for the product/service, B) Whether this product/service is something current customers demand (providing a cross-selling opportunity, C) Whether the company has expertise in this area, D) What kind of initial investment would be required and what's the overall risk of failure?
In this case they have a large client requesting this service, it is a logical transition from their existing business model, it is something existing clients could benefit from, and requires little additional investment. To me this would be a no-brainer. After helping companies develop a new product I would solicit them to start a word of mouth campaign with a separate community, adding potential for additional revenue. Communispace could become not only a passive marketing research company, but a proactive viral campaign outlet.
Good article with a complete overview of issues involved: 9/10
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Case Study: Virtua's Social Media Plan..." (Gartner)
This case study is a brief outline of a global information technology services company’s implementation of social media policy for employees. It discusses the steps Virtua took to educate employees on the potential benefits the firm could realize from responsible social media interaction with other employees and current/potential customers and the guidelines it wanted employees to follow.
In the end Virtua realized many benefits from the social media plan it launched, including sales leads, increased customer interaction, and a broader online presence. They also learned a few important lessons. I found a couple of these to be especially important.
First, though it is important to educate employees on the firms goals with social media and monitor their involvement, this must be done so "with a light touch". Slip-ups and misuse is bound to occur at some point, most likely early on in the game. It’s important to use these as a lesson to educate employees on what is and what is not appropriate. Second, not everyone has the same need to engage in social media. Having different requirements for different roles is preferable. I think this is important because forcing individuals to use social media really runs counter to the fundamental purpose of social media. You can't force people to talk to others, or like others in real life and this is true online as well. The interaction must be genuine, otherwise it’s not worth having (ever been stuck in an awkward conversation with someone you didn’t like or had no interest in talking to??).
This case study is a brief outline of some important issues to consider when implementing social media in the workplace, it would be a nice supplement to broader research on implementation steps.
6/10
In the end Virtua realized many benefits from the social media plan it launched, including sales leads, increased customer interaction, and a broader online presence. They also learned a few important lessons. I found a couple of these to be especially important.
First, though it is important to educate employees on the firms goals with social media and monitor their involvement, this must be done so "with a light touch". Slip-ups and misuse is bound to occur at some point, most likely early on in the game. It’s important to use these as a lesson to educate employees on what is and what is not appropriate. Second, not everyone has the same need to engage in social media. Having different requirements for different roles is preferable. I think this is important because forcing individuals to use social media really runs counter to the fundamental purpose of social media. You can't force people to talk to others, or like others in real life and this is true online as well. The interaction must be genuine, otherwise it’s not worth having (ever been stuck in an awkward conversation with someone you didn’t like or had no interest in talking to??).
This case study is a brief outline of some important issues to consider when implementing social media in the workplace, it would be a nice supplement to broader research on implementation steps.
6/10
How to Establish a Social CRM Strategy (Gartner)
Gartner defines social CRM as: "a business strategy that entails the extension of marketing, sales and customer service processes to include the active participation of customers or visitors to an Internet channel (web or mobile) with the goal of fostering participation in the business process." This definition is purposely broad and vague. This article discusses the importance of establishing and communicating a definition specific to an organization. This definition will guide the use of social CRM and should be regularly updated as the platform develops and "matures".
I though this made a lot of sense given the vast array of possibilities for social CRM, along with the wide range of industries and organizations that will utilize it. Social CRM will look very different for say an animal shelter, a financial services company, and a car dealership. Organizations have different regulations, customers, and cultures and something as critical as customer interaction and feedback must be closely aligned with the organizations broader goals and objectives.
This article made two other points that I believe are very important. First "don't wait, opt for rapid integration, rather than an over-planned social CRM program". As I mentioned, anything that guides or restricts interaction with customers and clients is very important for any organization. I think there is temptation to over-plan and heavily restrict this type of platform on the part of senior management. This can really hinder affective adaptation though. Social CRM is very touch-and-feel and needs to change as customers become familiar with the platform and adapt to using it. A strong organizational definition of social CRM will guide it's use, but should not restrict it from adapting to a more effective platform.
Second: "consolidate all social CRM projects under a single team..." Having too many cooks in the kitchen can ruin the stew and having too many departments adapting to their ideal social CRM strategy can cause a lot of problems. Having one team or "project office" in charge of fielding departmental concerns/desires and adapting the social CRM platform to address them while maintaining a uniform appearance and feel to the customer or clients is critical.
The article closes with 10 tactical steps to follow in initial implementation of a social CRM strategy, many of the general guidelines above are reiterated.
So, what do you think? How do you balance the concerns of senior management wanting to control something as important as customer interaction with the effective implementation of social CRM which really requires a great deal of adapting and flexibility?
7/10
I though this made a lot of sense given the vast array of possibilities for social CRM, along with the wide range of industries and organizations that will utilize it. Social CRM will look very different for say an animal shelter, a financial services company, and a car dealership. Organizations have different regulations, customers, and cultures and something as critical as customer interaction and feedback must be closely aligned with the organizations broader goals and objectives.
This article made two other points that I believe are very important. First "don't wait, opt for rapid integration, rather than an over-planned social CRM program". As I mentioned, anything that guides or restricts interaction with customers and clients is very important for any organization. I think there is temptation to over-plan and heavily restrict this type of platform on the part of senior management. This can really hinder affective adaptation though. Social CRM is very touch-and-feel and needs to change as customers become familiar with the platform and adapt to using it. A strong organizational definition of social CRM will guide it's use, but should not restrict it from adapting to a more effective platform.
Second: "consolidate all social CRM projects under a single team..." Having too many cooks in the kitchen can ruin the stew and having too many departments adapting to their ideal social CRM strategy can cause a lot of problems. Having one team or "project office" in charge of fielding departmental concerns/desires and adapting the social CRM platform to address them while maintaining a uniform appearance and feel to the customer or clients is critical.
The article closes with 10 tactical steps to follow in initial implementation of a social CRM strategy, many of the general guidelines above are reiterated.
So, what do you think? How do you balance the concerns of senior management wanting to control something as important as customer interaction with the effective implementation of social CRM which really requires a great deal of adapting and flexibility?
7/10
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration
This MIT Sloan Management Review article discusses the effective implementation of web-based collaboration tools "that companies can buy or build in order to make visible the practices and output of their knowledge workers". It addresses a major concern, especially within large, dynamic organizations: "most knowledge work practices and output are invisible to most people {within the organization}".
The article addresses a common misconception that orderly intranets maintained by professional staff are more efficient and effective than more collaborative platforms in which people at all levels of the organization have a hand in designing and organizing content.
I found this article to be a well-organized and in-depth discussion on the issues that exist to organizations considering a "Enterprise 2.0" implementation. It starts with a fundamental outline of what effective platforms should look like, outlined in the "SLATES" acronym: Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, Extensions, Signals. It goes on to caution on structured roll-outs that would narrow the scope, and therefore perhaps the effectiveness of the platform. The fact is these platforms do not need special skills or training, allowing users to adapt to the environment in a way that most effectively improves their knowledge sharing is very important. With this said, it is also important "to give people a starting point that they can react to and modify". This could be an initial assignment to outline a specific project/issue. This will get people active and hopefully get the majority of the organization on-board.
The article closes with an outline of challenges and opportunities facing organizations rolling out a Enterprise 2.0 platform. The most profound being management controls and unfavorable content based on management views. There will, of course, be anxiety among management when allowing such an uncensored platform to exist with an organization-wide audience. The article concludes that management must encourage proactive thought and contribution while being delicate in its oversight as not to discourage activity.
I have to agree with the bulk of the articles content and feel this is a good "10,000 ft view" of enterprise-wide implementation of collaboration tools such as wiki's and blogs. I think large, diverse organizations would be remised not to implement Enterprise 2.0 platforms if they have not already. Certainly there are a multitude of concerns for some organizations though. Regulated organizations that are required to limit the transfer of certain types of information like: medical (HIPAA), financial, national defense, security, etc. will have a hard time adopting these platforms I believe. The very principals that support this platform run counter to the principals and spirit in which those regulations are founded on. In an increasingly regulated environment it will be interesting to see where a middle-ground can be reached, allowing those with authorization to collaborate freely while effectively protecting the information being disseminated.
9/10
The article addresses a common misconception that orderly intranets maintained by professional staff are more efficient and effective than more collaborative platforms in which people at all levels of the organization have a hand in designing and organizing content.
I found this article to be a well-organized and in-depth discussion on the issues that exist to organizations considering a "Enterprise 2.0" implementation. It starts with a fundamental outline of what effective platforms should look like, outlined in the "SLATES" acronym: Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, Extensions, Signals. It goes on to caution on structured roll-outs that would narrow the scope, and therefore perhaps the effectiveness of the platform. The fact is these platforms do not need special skills or training, allowing users to adapt to the environment in a way that most effectively improves their knowledge sharing is very important. With this said, it is also important "to give people a starting point that they can react to and modify". This could be an initial assignment to outline a specific project/issue. This will get people active and hopefully get the majority of the organization on-board.
The article closes with an outline of challenges and opportunities facing organizations rolling out a Enterprise 2.0 platform. The most profound being management controls and unfavorable content based on management views. There will, of course, be anxiety among management when allowing such an uncensored platform to exist with an organization-wide audience. The article concludes that management must encourage proactive thought and contribution while being delicate in its oversight as not to discourage activity.
I have to agree with the bulk of the articles content and feel this is a good "10,000 ft view" of enterprise-wide implementation of collaboration tools such as wiki's and blogs. I think large, diverse organizations would be remised not to implement Enterprise 2.0 platforms if they have not already. Certainly there are a multitude of concerns for some organizations though. Regulated organizations that are required to limit the transfer of certain types of information like: medical (HIPAA), financial, national defense, security, etc. will have a hard time adopting these platforms I believe. The very principals that support this platform run counter to the principals and spirit in which those regulations are founded on. In an increasingly regulated environment it will be interesting to see where a middle-ground can be reached, allowing those with authorization to collaborate freely while effectively protecting the information being disseminated.
9/10
Thursday, October 7, 2010
"Follow the Tweets" WSJ Article- 11/30/2009
This 2009 article outlines research conducted my doctoral students, and a professor at the University of Texas, Austin. It attempts to correlate Twitter activity with product demand. The researchers contend that companies and executives could utilize this information to maintain appropriate inventory levels and predict sales activity.
I'll admit, when this notion was presented toward the beginning of the article I almost started laughing. As they outlined their premise I did not stop. Lastly, the example they used in no way supported their contention that executives could use this activity to effectively predict inventory levels in given store locations. For the example they tracked box office sales for 3 different movies (nationally) and gauged them on the Twitter activity they found. In order to do this effectively they had to categorize the Tweets as either favorable, neutral, or negative.
First and foremost, this seems like an exhausting task for any company to undertake, not only that, but it’s very subjective in many cases. In addition, Twitter's approach to determining whether a Tweet is positive or negative seems flawed to me. In part, they track emoticons. A ":-)" means it’s a positive Tweet, a ":-(" means it’s a negative one. But, using the movie example, what if I Tweeted "Tried to see 'The Hangover, but it's sold out :-(", what if 50 people Tweeted that, 100! Does that mean people hate "The Hangover", I don't think so. Second, how does tracking box office sales nationally correlate to inventory levels? Let’s say retailers for instance, their product demands vary dramatically based on location? And "Land of the Lost", "My Life in Ruins", and "The Hangover"??? Really??? That's like trying to gauge whether people like steak over canned tuna, in oil. I mean lets shoot for something a little more challenging. What about a product release (say the IPAD) and gauging Tweets in Boston, NYC, Miami, and Chicago with sales levels for those cities? Prove that works and you got me.
Ok, enough negatives, on the up-side I did like their take-aways for company executives. Twitter can be a powerful additional resource for gauging customer satisfaction and even soliciting ideas for enhancements. Executives should not overlook this medium. Its real-time, it’s easy, and hello, its FREE! This should in no way be limited to Twitter though. An effective marketing/PR department would be well-served in developing a social-media research team that tracks and engages customer feedback on all social media sites. Quantitative and qualitative information can be compiled in quarterly reports and presented to senior management. I believe this process will soon replace, at least in part, more expensive methods utilized today.
What do you think?! Will Twitter evolve into a powerful market research tool in the future? Is there an opportunity for tech-savvy grad/undergrad students to create a Twitter Digest (Trademark Pending!!) for executives to use in product development, updating, marketing in designated industries?
6/10
Article: "Business Insight (A Special Report): Technology- Following the Tweets: By Monitoring Comments on Twitter, Companies Can Predict Where Next Week's Sales Are Heading", WSJ: 11/30/2009
I'll admit, when this notion was presented toward the beginning of the article I almost started laughing. As they outlined their premise I did not stop. Lastly, the example they used in no way supported their contention that executives could use this activity to effectively predict inventory levels in given store locations. For the example they tracked box office sales for 3 different movies (nationally) and gauged them on the Twitter activity they found. In order to do this effectively they had to categorize the Tweets as either favorable, neutral, or negative.
First and foremost, this seems like an exhausting task for any company to undertake, not only that, but it’s very subjective in many cases. In addition, Twitter's approach to determining whether a Tweet is positive or negative seems flawed to me. In part, they track emoticons. A ":-)" means it’s a positive Tweet, a ":-(" means it’s a negative one. But, using the movie example, what if I Tweeted "Tried to see 'The Hangover, but it's sold out :-(", what if 50 people Tweeted that, 100! Does that mean people hate "The Hangover", I don't think so. Second, how does tracking box office sales nationally correlate to inventory levels? Let’s say retailers for instance, their product demands vary dramatically based on location? And "Land of the Lost", "My Life in Ruins", and "The Hangover"??? Really??? That's like trying to gauge whether people like steak over canned tuna, in oil. I mean lets shoot for something a little more challenging. What about a product release (say the IPAD) and gauging Tweets in Boston, NYC, Miami, and Chicago with sales levels for those cities? Prove that works and you got me.
Ok, enough negatives, on the up-side I did like their take-aways for company executives. Twitter can be a powerful additional resource for gauging customer satisfaction and even soliciting ideas for enhancements. Executives should not overlook this medium. Its real-time, it’s easy, and hello, its FREE! This should in no way be limited to Twitter though. An effective marketing/PR department would be well-served in developing a social-media research team that tracks and engages customer feedback on all social media sites. Quantitative and qualitative information can be compiled in quarterly reports and presented to senior management. I believe this process will soon replace, at least in part, more expensive methods utilized today.
What do you think?! Will Twitter evolve into a powerful market research tool in the future? Is there an opportunity for tech-savvy grad/undergrad students to create a Twitter Digest (Trademark Pending!!) for executives to use in product development, updating, marketing in designated industries?
6/10
Article: "Business Insight (A Special Report): Technology- Following the Tweets: By Monitoring Comments on Twitter, Companies Can Predict Where Next Week's Sales Are Heading", WSJ: 11/30/2009
Friday, October 1, 2010
Facebook Fairytales: Damage Control
"Facebook Fairytales, Modern-Day Miracles to Inspire the Human Spirit", a collection of Facebook related success stories was compiled by Emily Liebert. It outlines a variety of successful outcomes, both business and personal, predicated on the social media medium Facebook.
Chapter 20, Damage Control, outlines the challenges faced by an up-and-coming comedian: Johnny Dam. After years on the stand-up circuit trying to build a name for himself he launched an internet television show called the Damage Report. He continued to struggle in a sea of extensive online media though. In early 2008 his show was picked up by an online LA talk-radio station. He now has a regular slot for 2 hours, 5 days a week.
Johnny found it very challenging to select material and appeal to a broad audience while spurring a dialogue with his listeners. This all changed when he started a Facebook page and started posting news articles he intended to discuss on his show though. With listeners/Facebook followers were now well versed on his topics of discussion the, dialogue began to build, listeners were debating more, his material became more interesting to everyone. After establishing a Facebook friend list of over 4,000 and building a successful listener base for his now more than 300 radio shows, Johnny was approached to create a TV show.
This story outlines a perfect example of how social media in general should be utilized. Here, a comedian trying to build his popularity and interact with his radio show listeners posted relevant news stories so his listeners can be better prepared to debate topics discussed on his show. This is in starch contrast to a company trying to pitch a new product or service, an endeavor that becomes perfectly transparent to the sensitive social media participants online. I believe Johnny stumbled into the perfect marketing technique at the perfect time for his radio show. Think about it, Johnny was try to interact with people to exchange ideas on current events (become more social). He wanted to do this to build a larger and more engaging audience for his online radio show (media). Do you think the most profound Social Media medium of the time would be a good way to do this? Probably.
Chapter 20, Damage Control, outlines the challenges faced by an up-and-coming comedian: Johnny Dam. After years on the stand-up circuit trying to build a name for himself he launched an internet television show called the Damage Report. He continued to struggle in a sea of extensive online media though. In early 2008 his show was picked up by an online LA talk-radio station. He now has a regular slot for 2 hours, 5 days a week.
Johnny found it very challenging to select material and appeal to a broad audience while spurring a dialogue with his listeners. This all changed when he started a Facebook page and started posting news articles he intended to discuss on his show though. With listeners/Facebook followers were now well versed on his topics of discussion the, dialogue began to build, listeners were debating more, his material became more interesting to everyone. After establishing a Facebook friend list of over 4,000 and building a successful listener base for his now more than 300 radio shows, Johnny was approached to create a TV show.
This story outlines a perfect example of how social media in general should be utilized. Here, a comedian trying to build his popularity and interact with his radio show listeners posted relevant news stories so his listeners can be better prepared to debate topics discussed on his show. This is in starch contrast to a company trying to pitch a new product or service, an endeavor that becomes perfectly transparent to the sensitive social media participants online. I believe Johnny stumbled into the perfect marketing technique at the perfect time for his radio show. Think about it, Johnny was try to interact with people to exchange ideas on current events (become more social). He wanted to do this to build a larger and more engaging audience for his online radio show (media). Do you think the most profound Social Media medium of the time would be a good way to do this? Probably.
Friday, September 24, 2010
"Is the Tipping Point Toast?" 01/28/2008, FastCompany.com
Some great points, and contentious arguments, are outlined in this article surrounding the idea that there are a select group of influential people that influence societal trends. This idea, outlined in Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point, has profoundly impacted the marketing industry for a number of years. The idea that certain people can "tip off" a trend, such as Hush Puppies in the mid-1990's as outlined in the article, gives a marketing agency a defined and scalable task: find and impact these select few.
Duncan Watts counters this contention with sophisticated computer models and large-scale studies, one of mirrors, though on a broader scale, Stanley Milgrams famous "Six Degrees of Separation" experiment in the 1960's. Though that initial study suggested a select 3 people accounted for over 50% of the final "degrees of separation" Duncan's study found this does not translate to a larger-scale experiment and was likely a statistical anomaly. The fact is, according to Duncan, successful trends have less to do with who starts them as it does with a societies general receptiveness to an idea or product. He uses forest fires as an analogy. No matter how powerful an initial spark is, if it occurs in a rain soaked, sparse forest with a well-equipped fire department near-by, it is unlikely to spread.
Duncan's ideas are well-conceived. No matter how influential a person (or group) is, they are not going to spark a societal trend based on their sole endorsement. Some of the methods used to support this idea have back-tracked successful trends to find that a few key-influencers helped spread the idea. This process takes for granted that the trend became successful though. I am sure unsuccessful trends would reveal a similar anomaly. I also feel they over-look the genuine nature of an endorsement here. They speak in great depth about key people with many social contacts beginning a trend, but I would like to see how these results vary when those people are paid to endorse the trend as opposed to genuinely discussing a product or idea they believe in.
People have become more and more sensitive to advertising in our society. A guard goes up as soon as we think we are being pitched a product or idea. Advertisers these days are tasked with approaching consumers while their guard is down, if they can do this they become much more influential. I imagine the same is true with trend setters. If their social network believes they are genuine in their endorsement the trends will be more likely to succeed.
Rating: 8/10
Duncan Watts counters this contention with sophisticated computer models and large-scale studies, one of mirrors, though on a broader scale, Stanley Milgrams famous "Six Degrees of Separation" experiment in the 1960's. Though that initial study suggested a select 3 people accounted for over 50% of the final "degrees of separation" Duncan's study found this does not translate to a larger-scale experiment and was likely a statistical anomaly. The fact is, according to Duncan, successful trends have less to do with who starts them as it does with a societies general receptiveness to an idea or product. He uses forest fires as an analogy. No matter how powerful an initial spark is, if it occurs in a rain soaked, sparse forest with a well-equipped fire department near-by, it is unlikely to spread.
Duncan's ideas are well-conceived. No matter how influential a person (or group) is, they are not going to spark a societal trend based on their sole endorsement. Some of the methods used to support this idea have back-tracked successful trends to find that a few key-influencers helped spread the idea. This process takes for granted that the trend became successful though. I am sure unsuccessful trends would reveal a similar anomaly. I also feel they over-look the genuine nature of an endorsement here. They speak in great depth about key people with many social contacts beginning a trend, but I would like to see how these results vary when those people are paid to endorse the trend as opposed to genuinely discussing a product or idea they believe in.
People have become more and more sensitive to advertising in our society. A guard goes up as soon as we think we are being pitched a product or idea. Advertisers these days are tasked with approaching consumers while their guard is down, if they can do this they become much more influential. I imagine the same is true with trend setters. If their social network believes they are genuine in their endorsement the trends will be more likely to succeed.
Rating: 8/10
Thursday, September 16, 2010
NYT Article: "All the New's That's Fit to Print Out"
In this July, 2007 article Jonathan Dee explores the efficacy of Wikipedia as an unbiased, authoritative news source and the hurdles involved in this endeavor given the vast online community of contributors involved with the site. In his quest Jon speaks with Jimmy Whales, the founder and "watchmaker-god" of Wikipedia along with various content supervisors known within the Wikipedia hierarchy as "admins". A position bestowed upon selected users (among the 4.6 million users at the time of this article) after nomination based on valuable contributions and review of responses to key questions. It is also the first step among a community of content "janitors" who have privileges to protect the integrity of the content on Wikipedia and preserve it's Five Pillars.
It is clear Jon values the intent of Wikipedia who's goal is to "make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone on the planet at no cost." It is also clear that he balances his respect for this noble cause with his academic and professional pursuit of journalism with one of the most respected names in print medium around, the New York Times. Multiple times throughout the article Jon outlines somewhat contentious exchanges with Jimmy Whales on who is contributing to the Wikipedia articles. He discusses one contributor who is a high school senior and suggests to Mr. Whales that contributors tend to be in their early 20's or younger. Mr. Whales suggests in response that editing encyclopedia entries is "not a young persons hobby".
Jon appears to justify the clear efficacy of Wikipedia, "which now accounts for 1 out of every 200 page views on the entire Internet", by suggesting it does not replace news sources (such as, oh, I don't know, the NYT) but rather regurgitates news already reported elsewhere operating as a "massive cooperative blog" while filtering "all the opinion out of it." It is clear Jon is attempting to outline the dichotomy of proper news and Wikipedia while expressing his respect for the endeavor and the individuals involved in it throughout this article.
(Side note: no "Wikipedia" registered in spell check?? Really??)
Rating: 8/10
It is clear Jon values the intent of Wikipedia who's goal is to "make the sum of human knowledge available to everyone on the planet at no cost." It is also clear that he balances his respect for this noble cause with his academic and professional pursuit of journalism with one of the most respected names in print medium around, the New York Times. Multiple times throughout the article Jon outlines somewhat contentious exchanges with Jimmy Whales on who is contributing to the Wikipedia articles. He discusses one contributor who is a high school senior and suggests to Mr. Whales that contributors tend to be in their early 20's or younger. Mr. Whales suggests in response that editing encyclopedia entries is "not a young persons hobby".
Jon appears to justify the clear efficacy of Wikipedia, "which now accounts for 1 out of every 200 page views on the entire Internet", by suggesting it does not replace news sources (such as, oh, I don't know, the NYT) but rather regurgitates news already reported elsewhere operating as a "massive cooperative blog" while filtering "all the opinion out of it." It is clear Jon is attempting to outline the dichotomy of proper news and Wikipedia while expressing his respect for the endeavor and the individuals involved in it throughout this article.
(Side note: no "Wikipedia" registered in spell check?? Really??)
Rating: 8/10
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Welcome
My name is Doug Bacon I am an Evening MBA student at Boston College. This blog is a course requirement for MI 621 (Social Media for Managers).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)