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 21, 2010 | Customers, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy
As the marginal cost of transactions on the web approaches zero, more and more stuff is “free” . When something is given, the act of giving usually sets up a dynamic of “obligation” on the part of the receiver.
This blog is published on WordPress, for free, the cost to WordPress of hosting my blog, and supplying me with the software is approaching zero.
At some point, I will probably want some features not offered for free. At that time, it is highly unlikely I will go anywhere but the upgrade button on the Blog dashboard, and then Wordpress will generate some revenue, and I will feel I have offered some return for the free use of the software and hosting to this point, as well as not having to climb the barriers to exit.
This dynamic is being repeated everywhere on the web, almost to the point of “free” being the generic price of many services, Wikipedia being the classic.
For marketers, the question is “what is better than free?”, how can we attract customers when free is no longer sufficiently distinctive to be attractive? This goes to the heart of how publishers, of all types, reconstruct their business model to extract a living as their consumer base gets increasingly used to getting their “product” for free.
Nov 15, 2010 | Branding, Customers, Marketing, Social Media
I am a member of three frequent flier programs, Qantas, Virgin and Singapore, and get frequent updates, offers, and spam from all three, all ignored.
I know where and why my business is split, but they do not, and none have ever asked me the question, although it would be very valuable information to have, not just for me, as my expenditure would hardly rate as significant, but at a macro level. If they had the information, and could mine it, and develop programs that may make them more relevant to me, and presumably many other consumers.
Well, that is coming.
The emerging location tools of the mobile world are going to offer the possibility that Qantas will be able to track my presence in an airport and know when I am not booked to travel with them.
Intrusive perhaps, but valuable consumer share of wallet information if they cared to ask why I travelled with one and not another in any given circumstance.
Nov 8, 2010 | Collaboration, Innovation, Social Media
A community of practice used to mean a small group of specialists who engaged in face to face consideration of issues of mutual interest, resulting in innovative solutions to issues concerning their area of speciaisation.
Interaction between “connectors” with similar interests who inhabited other communities occurred in a limited manner, often at gatherings such as industry conferences.
The application of the term now has been substantially widened by the use of social networking tools in ways that are completely new, to the point where we now have communities of interest in areas that would never have supported a community of practice.
Sites like Flikr are a great example, ranging from broad communities of interest to very narrow communities of practice in highly specific techniques where the chance of a pre-net community of practice forming would have been virtually zero.
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.
