Nov 24, 2010 | Change, Communication, Management, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
The power in commercial relationships has shifted dramatically since the net. It has removed the power previously held by companies and institutions and handed it to individuals who choose to use it.
No more can an enterprise afford to ignore or annoy an individual without cause, or even with cause, as the individual now has the capacity to publicly respond with twitter, facebook, linked-in, et al, and have an impact inconceivable just a few years ago.
This is not evolution, it is revolution, as the constraints on the ability to communicate and coalesce around an issue is unprecedented, and represents a fundamental re-ordering of the balance of power. The changes in the external environment are changing much, much quicker than the average organisation is able to change in anticipation, creating a significant short term risk for many of them.
Nov 22, 2010 | Change, Communication, Management, Social Media
Corporations default to functional silos, despite the efforts of most to recognise the horizontal cross functional nature of processes, the things that gets stuff done. This is because in the past, you required hands to move things around, make calls, stuff envelopes, travel, all adding to the cost of completion.
Individuals personal networks tend to also run in silos, the football group, the school friends, workmates, and so on, but the demarcation is a bit more blurred than at work.
Social networking tools have further blurred the demarcation , and networks can go way beyond the face to face relationships of old, and those networks can be leveraged across many tipping points and considerable social energy can be built, simply by harnessing the dynamics of the group.
Corporations are coming around to this self-evident (if you happen to be under 35)fact, but they are largely run by people not engaged with social networks so the evolution is far quicker outside corporations than inside them. Remember the huge embarrassment of Nestle a while ago, in relation to use of non sustainable sources of Palm oil, embarrassment that could have been easily mitigated had someone in a senior position watched their own facebook site, twitter, or even listened to someone who was.
The formation of groups around a question, issue, or cause is suddenly quite easy, and for corporations adds a huge risk to their intangible assets, and they usually are blissfully unaware in the boardroom.
The risk can be mitigated, but it requires individual with the organisational power to cede control of the details of “management” of the on line groups to individuals who are engaged in the processes, as the risks can emerge almost instantly, and requires instant response.
Nov 1, 2010 | Branding, Communication, Innovation, Marketing, Social Media
The communication alternatives are mind-boggling today, but sometimes someone comes up with an innovative way to combine them. Imagine Social Responsibility Marketing linked with social networking and the broadcast media, backed by comment around the world, for what must be a pretty modest outlay compared to, say, a 30 second ad spot in the superbowl that few remember. Pretty cool!.
“Chalkbot” did it brilliantly for Nike during the recent Tour de France, just how you measure the impact is a tricky question, but the value must be huge, and it is going viral, so will multiply for Nike and cancer awareness over time. Next year will be “huger”
Nike is a consistently brilliant marketer, they may have plenty of $ to splash around, but they just go to the essence of brand-building by grabbing people by the heart, not the wallet, and not letting go.
Oct 28, 2010 | Communication, Social Media
It seems that there is something at work that is largely unnoticed. We no longer trust what we read in newspapers, but we tend to trust what we see on the net, weather it be in wikipedia, on a site like Business Spectator that has journalists of real stature, or in some random blog.
Just because somebody said it, does not make it right, but it also seems that if it is said digitally, the default is to trust it, at least a bit.
In Sydney, there are two newspapers, the Telegraph and the Herald, neither are held in much esteem these days, although nobody seems to believe what they read in the “Tele” it is almost a work of daily fiction. Similarly the weekly “womens” (don’t men read them?) magazines are filled with complete fabrications, a few weeks ago one of them had an “exclusive” on the wedding of local actor Kate Ritchie, down to photos of the smiling bride and new husband, interviews, and comment on the honeymoon destination. Absolute fiction, some goose sat in a room and made it all up, photo-shopped composite “photographs” and all, but it was published as an exclusive!
Is this just a bit of fun, or a more serious erosion of our standards and expectations of the profession of journalism, and the publishers that bring it to us. Had it been on line, it may have had more credibility, and I am wondering why?
Anyone can be a publisher these days, all you need is a computer and a free weblog account, when in the past, at least you had to be serious to stump up the capital involved in the printing and distribution networks, and the expenses involved in staff, offices, phones, and the rest. I suspect the “old media” is hastening its own demise by desperately seeking to attract readers for short term circulation numbers to sustain advertising, when they may be better off recognising the world hs changed, and alter their business model accordingly.
Oct 25, 2010 | Collaboration, Communication, Social Media
Why is it that in the face of plummeting communication costs, and remarkable availability of new tools to make it easy, that business travel continues to grow?
On first glance, we should be travelling less, not more, but on further consideration, perhaps it is the richness of the face to face engagement and the potential to develop “social capital” with customers, geographically spread colleagues and suppliers that is keeping us on the planes, and the communication tools let us keep on top of the necessary crap in the office without having to be there.
Travel may be complementary to other communication costs, rather than the new tools being a substitute for travel as we all assumed to now.
The depth of personal, face to face communication cannot be substituted by the width possible with social tools, as looking someone physically in the eye involves having some “skin in the game”, putting yourself out there in a way not equalled by electronic means. The evolution of communities and the social capital that keeps them glued to gather, will see roles changing, but the physical handshake cannot be substituted by exchanged electrons.
Oct 21, 2010 | Collaboration, Communication, Leadership, Strategy
Achieving transparency is at the core of a lot of what I do in the fields of demand chain development, strategic alignment, and mentoring leaders. Transparency enables emerging problems and issues to be identified, and addressed quickly, efficiently, and with a minimum of waste in the process, and for opportunities to be grabbed.
However, the downside that sometimes evolves, particularly in closely defined cultures, is that it also enables blame to be pinned on an individual or team, and this is hugely counter productive.
Once transparency is used as a finger pointing exercise, it will not get a second chance, as people learn quickly that it will be counter productive to bring problems to the notice of others, when they run a risk of being the messenger that gets shot.
