Jan 14, 2013 | Collaboration, Social Media
Perhaps the most profound effect of the now almost ubiquitous availability of connectivity is the move from a communication landscape that is controlled by the few who have the capital to buy the gear and produce stuff with it, to everybody with a mobile phone being a producer.
The old world, where there were two options, one to many, as in the case of a publisher of any media, or one to one, as in the case the telephone and letter, is dead. Now we have many to many, and the old way has been swamped.
It happened in the London bombings in July 2005. The news of the bombings was broken by commuters with phones, and for a while those caught inside the security cordons set up were the only source of information. The news of the earthquake in China in 2008 exploded onto the net before the US Geological service posted news that an earthquake had happened onto its information site. It now happens every day, the NSW bushfires were first reported by passersby, and the alert mechanisms for places in danger now rely on social media.
On a similar, but far more personal vein, I heard of the death of Arran Swartz over the weekend via various blog sites I follow, but did not see the first news story until about 5 minutes ago. Vale a true activist innovator, gone way too young.
Marketers who wish to remain relevant need to adjust their thinking to accommodate and leverage this revolution in the velocity of information. Indeed, the only organisations unaffected are those that contain only one person. Hermits are pretty rare these days, and they probably have a phone anyway.
Jan 3, 2013 | Social Media
Where Social Media Will Grow in 2013 (and Where It Won’t).
This is a really good list. Every senior executive who still thinks social media is just where their kids post inappropriate photos should think about it.
Whilst you are at it, read this Forbes article as well, and have a look at the GE video. It may be an ad for Salesforce.com disguised as commentary by Beth Comstock, the GE marketing honcho, but the weight of GE is enormous, and their record of picking the trends over the last 20 years is extraordinarily good.
Dec 18, 2012 | Change, Governance, Management, Social Media, Strategy
Like most newspaper groups, Fairfax has failed to evolve to accommodate the depredations of the digital revolution. Their business model is broken, and the way forward is unclear.
The one spot of light in a gloomy future was the NZ auction site “Trade Me” which Fairfax bought for $700 million in 2006, then floated 34% onto the ASX, and a further 15% last year, raising $422 million, leaving them with a 51%, share which they are now selling for $616 million. The proceeds of the sale, are being used to pay down the debt accumulated to keep a redundant business model alive, offering an opportunity for it to change before being terminal.
Trade me was delivering profitability, superior return on funds, and an important toe in the digital water, but is being sacrificed to keep the legacy business afloat while it tries to adjust. In addition, Trade Me, along with Fairfax’s other less prominent digital assets offer the opportunity to experiment, test, to learn how to survive and compete in the digital environment.
The lesson in all this is that if you do not cannibalise yourself, somebody else will accommodate, and the pain of chewing your fingers will pale into insignificance against the pain of being chomped around the waist by a white pointer. The irony however is that the only digitally sustainable asset in the house has to be sold to buy some time, but leaves the business without any significant cash generator in the digital space. At least Fairfax shares rose yesterday, so directors are probably happy this morning.
Nov 26, 2012 | Change, Collaboration, Leadership, Social Media
What you do, say and think is no longer private. Our lives are opening up to scrutiny as our previously private data moves into the public domain at geometric speed. Much of being human depends on our ability to forge relationships with a few people based on dreams, problems, challenges, and attitudes that are shared with a small group, often only one person.
Radical transparency is the new reality of privacy where the notions of privacy as they have applied in the past to individuals and institutions are simply no longer relevant. It seems absurd to me that we still have regulated privacy in situations where there is a clear benefit to that community to remove it, such as in the case of contagious medical conditions, and whilst we shake our heads at the photos our kids (grandkids?) put up on facebook, that is the new reality.
This change happening around us is emerging as one of the most radical social revolutions in history. How are we, and our institutions going to deal with the absolute ubiquity of information?
Over the last decade, we have effectively given away the assumption of privacy as we understood it, surely the challenge now is to figure out how to manage the new transparency rather than doing a “Canute” about it.
This notion is engaging greater minds than mine. Part one of an email conversation between a couple of the real thinkers in this area, Clay Shirky and Don Tapscott, appeared recently in the Atlantic. It deals forces of change unleashed by the collective intelligence of the net, the 4 broad principals of the internet age, Collaboration, Transparency, Sharing, and Empowerment, as outlined by Don in his June 12 TED talk.
Part two of that conversation examines the impact of the information revolution on the Arab Spring, and its wider implications, demonstrating again, the 4 principals at work .
Radical transparency is a part of our world now, it cannot be undone, so our corporations, institutions, and every individual need to respond to this new reality.
Nov 15, 2012 | Change, Communication, Marketing, Social Media
Comment on digital media, the opportunities, challenges, and pay-offs is largely made by people engaged in the business, and they are different.
In a previous life, I dealt with a series of advertising agencies in the great days of the radio/mag/TV triumvirate of advertising, spending a “shedload” of money.
In those days, the personnel engaged in the industry all seemed to live, work, and play east of St. Leonards (in Sydney, Australia), while most of my consumers lived west of Lidcombe. Whilst these may locations may not be as different as night and day geographically, there were fundamental demographic, ethnic, cultural, and economic differences that, had to impact on their consumption behavior, and the manner in which they consumed and responded to advertising.
It is a reasonable assumption to think that the democratisation of media enabled by the internet would change these demarcation lines, at least blurr them, but instead they have seemed to have redefined them as obsessed, or otherwise by digital media, as noted by Bob Hoffman.
Consumers use the net as a tool, and like all tools, they use them differently depending on their skills, inclinations, experience, and where they are. However, the tool now understands how, where, when, and why it is being used, by whom, and responds accordingly. In this terrific post by Avinash Kaushink, consumer purchase behaviour, and the manner in which the data can be leveraged is examined, with Ash’s usual forensic eye.
Nov 7, 2012 | Branding, Change, Communication, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
“Change behavior, before you try and change attitudes”.
These were the wise words delivered to me by Hugh McKay, 30 years ago, and I have never forgotten them, and am constantly reminded as I see people justify something they have done that is different, unexpected, or inconsistent.
Behavior is easier to change than attitudes, so get to the behavior first, then again, and slowly, attitudes will alter to accommodate the altered behavior.
Therefore if you want to have effective advertising, focus on which behaviors you want to change, and worry about attitude later, but generally, you need not worry, it will take care of itself.
People are the same as they were 50 years ago, 500 years ago, the things they own and want have changed absolutely, but what motivates people has not. Just look at the behavior that Shakespeare wrote about, greed, jealousy, love, ambition and regret, they are still all with us.
The net is just like an electronic yellow pages. When you know you want something, you go to it to find the best buy, what meets your specs, etc, but you do not create demand in the yellow pages, similarly, you do not create demand on the net, the best you can do is generate awareness of your offer.
Make sure that the two fundamental purposes of advertising are not mixed.
The first is to create awareness,
The second is to create demand.
These two things are not the same, and the communication strategy used must be consistent with the potential of the medium and the manner of the message to achieve it.
