webconomy

Our Growing Hunger for Being Mobile and Attached

2009-11-09T17:06:00.000-04:00

PC processor shipments are up worldwide. This in itself is a good sign of economic recovery, since these chips go into a lot of devices - and perhaps most interestingly, they go into mobile devices. And that's just the sector that saw the most growth - mobile phones and netbooks at 34.8% compared to 11% for laptops and desktops.

Yet another indicator of our growing hunger to be connected yet mobile at the same time. Are we developing nomadic tendencies? Digital nomads? Certainly with the growing power of the iPhone, Palm Pre and Blackberry on top of Netbooks and increasing availability of wireless Internet access it must be so.

How do you think such mobility might shape our business world in the future?

Battery Power Driving the Web: Why It's Important

2009-09-03T12:07:00.007-03:00

Batteries. We all either like or hate that little Energizer battery flopping around the space station, while Duracell tell's us it's the battery of choice for emergency workers. But batteries play a vital role in the Web, one we don't think about, yet are an invisible technology (except when they drain on us) that are a part of being engaged online. I'd invest in battery stocks myself; OK I already have.

There's a big battle going on now over battery life in Netbooks, Laptops and Smart Phones (and here). In fact it's become a key selling feature of some devices, almost as critical as the quality of the brand. Apple has been slammed for years over battery drainage for MacBooks (I can attest to that) and then over iPhone battery life - with Guy Kawasaki quickly posting tips on how to conserve power in them. Now both Apple and Microsoft are saying their new OS will support longer battery life.

We've become more and more mobile over the years and I'm sure we can all recall the many times at a cafe, restaurant and hotel or meeting room where the first thing we've done is look for a plug. Like we horde reward points on air miles, so we horde battery juice.

The ever increasing presence of wireless Web access, even on public transit and mobile carriers coming out with wireless 3G modems to easily connect attests to our increasing engagement with Netbooks, Laptops and Smart Phones. We just keep wanting more juice to power them.

This is leading to some serious innovations in battery technology and manufacturers are finding themselves ever more deeply engaged with chip manufacturers and other hardware component makers - all working to reduce power consumption while making processing better.

For us, the Web becomes ever more ubiquitous, and it's batteries that are playing the role of keeping us connected. Don't forget, all those data centres in the Cloud are also using BBU (Battery Back Ups) a well as generators for emergencies.

Yup, investing in battery stocks is probably a good idea. It's what will keep the wireless Web hopping.

Is Hyperlocalization Still A Mere Dream? What About Enough?

2009-08-11T16:09:00.005-03:00

Big word; hyperlocalization or "hyper-local". For those not familiar with it, essentially it means the Web being highly local, right down to what's happening on your street. It's not there yet. At least, not on a scale that has much relevance to big brands or local, small businesses. Once it has an economic impact, then it will really get relevant.

Google, along with specialized search engines, like Halifax's promising GenieKnows, are trying. And they're doing a fairly good job. Here are the three challenges I see that has been around a while and is changing, but slowly.

1. Local relevance = Enough Factor

2. User input

3. Invisible Technology

1. Local Relevance:

Does a barber, shoe cobbler, muffler repair centre, plumber need to have a website. There is an argument that they do. I wrote an article about a shoe cobbler over a year ago who see's no need for a website; and he's right. He has enough business. He's making enough money and doesn't need more, he's 2nd generation and the stores been there about 30+ years.

Most small business owners in trades such as plumbing and electrics might have a website. But for them it's just a glorified ad. They see no need to add much to their website because the Yellow Pages are working (online and in print) and well, most have enough business. There is very little motivation to extend their online presence.

It's the "enough" factor. They don't want more than the 10 or so employees they have or the headaches of expansion, capitalizing that growth and then all the issues that go with feeding a larger set of operating costs. They have "enough."

2. User/Data Input

This goes directly to user input. A Search Engine, no matter who good the algorithms are is useless unless someone is creating content to be found. I can't count the number of sites I've been on that content (locally) is well over a year old. That kind of content is stale. It takes people to input the content for the engines to search. That is, fresh, relevant content locally.

3. Invisible Technology

Which goes to the third point; it has to be mindnumbingly easy to input the content. It's not yet. It has to be as easy and as accessible as the standard landline telephone - pick it up (dial-tone) and dial. Done. But it's not. You need to have someone with the ability to run a PC or use a Smart Phone app (if you're in the biz you're snickering at me how easy it is. Take yourself out of your skill-set and be a shoe cobbler who uses a very basic POS and rarely goes online if at all...see my point?)

Localization is getting better. There are some services that have launched that are enabling people to easily input data right down to potholes on their street. Getting citizens to regularly update data still requires some knowledge.

Over the next 5-10 years this will change dramatically. In fact, it's the next logical step and I suspect we'll see some interesting models develop. As more and more people from developed nations (the Western World) get online and the technology becomes pervasive (it's still only ubiquitous) localization must get better - as must the way we input data and interact with the Web. But localization remains a dream for now. Whoever figures out a good model is set to make some serious cash.

What do you think? What am I missing? What tools are changing this? Is Twitter?

Will Boomers Be Forced Into the Cloud?

2009-08-06T10:50:00.003-03:00

In a word, yes. A number are already there. But a blog post today I discovered through a "tweet" on Twitter set me to thunking about Boomers adopting Social Media and the Web as a whole. The survey on Social Media use by Boomers found that well over 80% don't read or pay attention to blogs, don't care for Twitter and rarely participate in forums. I'm not surprised. It goes to my research findings in Atlantic Canada.

In fact, as a whole, the time Boomers do spend online tends to be very Web 1.0-ish. Checking on health information and email being tops in another recent survey. But I argue that Boomers will increasingly adopt Social Media services and Cloud -based services. Why? Pure economics.

My primary example is banking. Banks installed ATM's just around 20 years ago. And unceremoniously thrust mundane tasks onto consumers. More insultingly they started charging a "convenience" fee for services you perform or when withdrawing from a competitive bank. Then they added insult to injury by bringing on phone banking. But we adopted the services and now Canadians and Americans make over 45% of their purchases using a debit card. Including boomers.

Increasingly, as the cost of Internet access declines, speeds increase and PC's & smart phones become more ubiquitous this will change access to services. Within a few more years, much of our activities around knowledge-based functions, will be via the Cloud.

Health: Your health records will be online, you'll set appointments with your doctor via an online calendar.

Banking: More and more activities will be done via online banking; mortgages, loans...in some cases we're already there.

Government Interaction: Drivers license renewal, license plates, fine payments (already there), deed transfers, various licenses and more...all done online via the Cloud.

But you might say "no way, the Boomers have to much economic clout." But businesses, many run by Boomers make decisions based on cost reduction and revenue improvement. Cloud-based services reduce labour costs significantly. As always, economic factors such as this will drive Boomers online. And as Social Media continues to add niches, so will they adopt these tools to connect with their families.

From Doomsday to Boomsday In A Press Release

2009-07-27T16:58:00.003-03:00

And suddenly we've gone from "Depression Era 2.0" to being on the verge of an "Economic Resurgence"...perhaps industrial media saw that all the negative hype and prophesying crushing economic defeat was not helping their advertising dollars? Today's positive housing sales announcement follows on the heels of "cautious optimism" (read: major PR spin) from economists saying maybe the worst is over.

Or was it ever the worst? Yes over 40 U.S. banks closed and several in Europe and other countries. Yes, the stock markets lost significant value and yes unemployment hopped up a bit. Back in February I did some reading between the lines on what media wasn't saying, a little "reality check" if you will.

So here's my hype-o-meter reading today: It's Boomsday Spin Time folks. Doom is out. Boom is in. We're on the upswing, the tide is turning...

...OK, maybe not so hyped so fast. I note the words of "caution" getting thrown in by media and economists...kind of like hedging their bets...yeah, and hedging paid off last time didn't it? I'm just sayin'.

The reality is; housing was way out of control, subprime mortgages were ridiculous to begin with, financial laws were too loose, stockmarkets were way overvalued and manufacturing costs are too high in North America. Then the turn to corn/grain for "green fuel" caused food costs to rise far too high and oil was also unreasonably high and at the mercy of speculators.

A few got really rich, a lot lost a lot of value and everything was out of whack. We had a necessary correction.

All of this was very good for Social Media and the Web economy as a whole as people cocooned and spent more time online, found it enjoyable and will likely stay there. Nice.

So now we spin up for boomsday...

The First Signs of Deeper Changes in Society from Social Media? Perhaps.

2009-07-13T19:26:00.006-03:00

Perhaps all that media "hype" about the dangers for kids on the Web over the past 10 years, then the efforts local law enforcement and parents have made to educate our children on the dangers of the Web is paying off. I was quite encouraged to read an article in TechCrunch today about how kids don't use Twitter primarily because they don't feel it's safe. This is good.

As the article points out, research indicates teens and "tweens" feel safer in closed Social Networks (i.e. Facebook, Bebo and MySpace) because they can better manage "who" they are connecting with. This is showing a change in online social behaviour. Perhaps this is one of the first larger signs of how society is learning to adapt Social Media tools.

Our kids are developing a "Web sense" about how they use these tools. What will be interesting is to see how these behaviours become more "normative" and in what ways Social Media tools and services become used. Do you think this is a positive sign? What changes in the "Net Generation" kids do you think we'll see in terms of social behaviour with technologies such as Social Networks.

I'm not a sociologist, but this seems a Leading Indicator of a deeper societal change as we adapt a technology to our culture. Your thoughts?

The Subculture of Twitter & MLM Scams

2009-07-07T20:40:00.006-03:00

When I read this opening comment on a cheesy sales wesbite "TWITTER is the most amazing marketing tool that has ever existed in the history of the internet!" I then realized a "subculture" had been evolving on Twitter for some time. Yes, it's the Amway type those folks who've fallen under the maudlin spell of "get-rich-quick", convinced that this program (out of the 200 others they've tried) is the only one while failing to realize there is always a Madoff cackling madly at the top of the pyramid their blithely paying into.

I suppose it had to happen. I noticed this weekend that 27% of my new followers on Twitter are in the MLM game. Desperate? More desperate than Wile E. Coyote it would seem. I noted 14 of these Twitter types instantly directing me back to some form of website that promoted how to get rich off of Twitter...I wonder if they realize that even the founders of Twitter haven't figured out a business model yet. I guess the irony is lost on the mindless. After all, they paid $19.99 (cause they bought at a "special low rate" and figure perhaps a few hundred others would.

So, we've got Ponzi and Pyramid Schemes, link-baiting and affiliate scams - with most of these sites being run by just a few at the top. The few who actually are getting rich. Kind of like the Rapture Market in the evangelical Christian Economy racking up huge funds espousing impending doom and the Republican News Network (a.k.a. Fox News) gorging on fear and loathing...

Some of my favourite Follow Thanks I've received recently:

"OMG! Thanks to follow! OMG! So true, here's how I got rich from Twitter & you can too"

"Yer so kewl! I love you! Tnx for the follow, get rich here (link)"...(ed. you love me? who the heck are you?)

"Wow, now your following me, here's how you can make $$ on Twitter..."

"Your great! Learn how to get more followers and get rich via Twitter..."

And so on...so apparently I should be filthy rich by now being on Twitter nearly two years!

Twitter has it's subculture and it's called MLM (Multi-Level Marketing) and they're breaking the first rule of "build trust first, then promote" by instantly promoting. A random sampling of 50 MLM Twitter users showed that 90% of the time, they were all following other MLM types...kind of like the dog that chases it's own tail. Hopefully they'll wear themselves out sooner than later and fall asleep.

The Problems of Web 2.0 & Free Software Applications

2009-06-30T21:20:00.004-03:00

Twitter has locked me out. I can't "tweet" or "re-tweet", I just can't do anything. At all. I'm not sure if someone has hijacked my account, if something odd happened. I installed the latest update of TweetDeck, signed in using my regular account and now I've been locked out. Done. Two hours later and I still can't get in.

Herein lies the main problem with Web 2.0 Apps; you do require patience and some knowledge of getting applications to work for you. At some point, you'll run into an issue with software updates a service shutdown or some other related technical issue. As I did with TweetDeck.

Unfortunately, TweetDeck has not found a simple way to enable updates without requiring a total re-sign-in. This issue resulted in me wiping TweetDeck from my hard drive and installing competitive (and better) solution, Seesmic. But I'm comfortable with doing this. Many, in fact, the majority of people, aren't.

So they stop participating. Frustration sets in. And here we find another issue. Economics. TweetDeck is free and the general public expects it to be so. TweetDeck is looking for a way to monetize it's solution I am sure, but it hasn't yet. So this challenges the expectations between consumer and the products they use when they are free - just how much service should we expect and what happens when we don't get any service?

As a consumer, we expect service, but when the product is free, the "social contract" changes. We haven't paid for anything and in a capitalist society, that means the provider really isn't obligated to do anything.

I don't have an answer. What do you think?

The Dangerous Side of Blogging & HIV

2009-06-10T20:59:00.003-03:00

Mainstream media loves a scary story about Social Media. Well, I have one of my own. I was a little nervous thinking about my approach to writing this blog entry. Overall, I am perhaps overly optimistic about the Social Web and the Web as a whole. Last year, I experienced the dark side of the Web.

In 2005 I began a blog called "Slimconomy" about the business and economics of HIV/AIDS. Why? Well, I had the distinct privilege of working for 3 years at the very front line of the battle against HIV/AIDS. I was marketing, globally, a 90-second rapid test for HIV. Arguably the best in the world. After 3 years of trotting around the world to some of the more remote and darker parts (Western and Central Africa and Latin America) on the road 80% of the time, I was exhausted. I decided a change was in order and left a great company, MedMira, which has a great product. I'm HIV negative just to state that. Anyone who calls it a "gay disease" is ignorant and daft beyond consideration.

Without going into the scary details of the business of HIV here, I'll tell the quick story. A year into my blogging, I wrote an article about the people who believe AIDS is a government/mega-corporation conspiracy despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Despite that I held a dying mother in my arms in a remote African village as her two sons of 6 and 7 looked on. Despite the horrors I'd seen in real-life. They are called the AIDS-Denialists. There are many of them.

My first blog entry attracted some heated blasts at me for writing against them. I wrote again. More hatred spewed at me. So I wrote again. From there it started to escalate. Within two weeks I received nastier and nastier emails.

Then it got worse. I got a phone call at home. It was a death threat. I thought, OK, a phone call is one thing. I ignored it and wrote more, delving into the bizarre beliefs of these denialists. Then I got a letter in the mail. Another death threat.

Yes, it was police time. Without going into too much detail, the threat was considered by authorities to be real, and from a known source of violent action - the detail was frightening. With a family I hold so dearly to my heart, it was time to think hard about what I was doing. I was writing a book about the business of HIV, with a contract from a publisher waiting to be signed.

With a very heavy heart, I put the blog into "hibernation", especially after Google contacted me about a Denial of Service Attack against my blog and some shifty moves by a far-right Christian Fundamentalist group.

The blog is hibernating more than a year later. I've had no more threats. Perhaps this blog post will produce some. Hopefully not. But it was a walk on the darkside of Social Media. One I hope never to take again. Perhaps I'll have the courage to bring Slimconomy back, but for now, not so.

Why "Slimconomy"? Well, in Africa, AIDS is called "Slim" because of the wasting part of the disease. Hence the economics of HIV and "Slim" = Slimconomy.

That's my experience of the downside of Social Media.

Social Media: It's Not The Technology It's How We Use It

2009-06-03T21:49:00.002-03:00

In a Twitter discussion tonight (#PR20chat - hat tip to Beth Harte for initiating a good chat), there was some discussion around "technology" and it's importance in Social Media. Yes, it is important, but the technology is simply an "enabler" or "facilitator" and the original intent of the creator of the technology can change - this the "bargain" created by the end user. The bargain?

Sure. As an example, Facebook was intended for students. After a few years, it became available to everyone and now the average age of a Facebook user is in their 40's. Why? Because that's how it was adopted. As MySpace was adopted by youth. The underlying technologies are similar, but the use is very different. So the bargain is recolved when

Twitter was put out as a secondary interest, but then the public got ahold of it and next thing we knew, it was an emotional search engine and became a vital political communications tool for Obama in 2008. The public changed the intent of the technology - and made the bargain on each tool, not the inventor of the technology.

Spammers got a hold of email and turned it into the next Direct Marketing tool. SMS/txt messaging has grown into a tool for bringing people together and helped organize the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine in 2005.

While it is vital to understand "how" the technologies work, it's most important to understand how they are actually used - and how they are used closes the bargain between the initiator and the end public.

More of the conversation on Twitter search here.

Thoughts?

Social Media, Scribes & The Printing Press

2009-06-01T19:43:00.003-03:00

The parallels between the early days of the printing press (late 1400's) and Social Media today are quite astounding. As Western Europe was going through the transition between Scribes and the newfangled and amazing thing called the "printing press" very few entrepreneurs made money. The business model was pretty much an unknown. Many failed, some succeeded. Today, we take "print" very much for granted and we pay for books, magazines and newspapers, although these business models too are changing.

Sound familiar? Twitter is searching for a viable business model. Marketers are trying to figure out how to leverage Social Media and generate returns. Variations on business models are tried all the time. Some work; most fail.

Yet we forge ahead, just like the early printing shops.

Back in those days they had in Europe what were called "cartolai" which were stationers shops; paper, ink, quills, blotters etc. As paper has been widely and instantly adopted in the 13th century, but oddly enough, the printing press struggled. The most celebrated Florentine book merchant, Vespasiano da Bisticci was said to have made no money printing books. Yet he did until he died.

The first commercially successful book printed was the bible. And certainly Christian e-commerce sites have done well by the Internet too. More similarities.

The transition from Scribes to printed matter was long and hard with a trail of financially ruined entrepreneurs. Sound familiar? Newspapers are today like the ancient Scribes.

Just as there are those who resist Social Media and call it useless (sic. Amanda Chapel construct) so was the same at the advent of the printing press. The Abbot of Sponheim Johannes Trithemius wrote a famous treatise on how Scribes should not stop copying despite the printing press, decrying the value and relevance of books. Yes, he published it as a book. And there was no way the car would replace the horse and buggy was there? Someone got a hitch in their get along methinks.

Surprisingly little has been written about the impact the printing press has had on our society. I was fortunate in my wanderings of a great used book store to stumble upon "The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe" by Elizabeth Eisenstein...what an eye opener to the parallels of the Internet and Social Media.

Do you see any parallels?

Google's Wave Means Absolute Zero

2009-05-28T21:27:00.002-03:00

As many know, and many others have blogged about already, Google launched it's "Wave" service, coming soon to a browser near you. The death knoll was sounded for Microsoft. Again. Yawn.

So I'm not going to babble on about the clash of industry titans and who may win. Who can really know? Nor will I go on about features and what it can do technically. While that's all very nice, what really got me with Google Wave was in fact that it is an Absolute Zero service.

What you say, does that mean? Good question.

Social Media tools and services have done so well for a very basic reason: They reduce the transaction cost of communicating to almost zero and ease "group tension."

The more a Social Media tool reduces the transaction cost, the more it is accepted in business and society. Such as Hotmail in 1997 (email in general), blogging in 2005, Facebook in 2007 and Twitter in 2009 and so on.

Google Wave hit's about as close as you can get to a zero transaction cost; in one spot you can collaborate in ways never before possible. Since you would need to engage several apps to achieve an organized function. That meant several programs and multiple windows open. Not anymore.

The one challenge of Social Media tools remains that you must be connected to the Cloud, either with a computer or mobile device. The limitation of mobile devices is screen size when it comes to something like Google Wave. But to me Google Wave brings the cost of transaction between members of a group or a network to almost zero.

That is impressive.

Collaborate or Collapse

2009-05-18T12:13:00.005-03:00

I recently wrote an entry on the fundamental changes coming from Social Media. One of these was how we can collaborate like never before. Those entrepreneurs, senior managers and others who don't realize the inherent meaning behind this ability to collaborate will find their career progress nosediving within 5-10 years. If you're just a couple years away from retirement, you might miss the impending changes.

So that's a bold statement. Why? Because as humans it's our ability to collaborate that has lead us to where we are today. We had to collaborate to build the first villages and put walls around them to protect the entire village from predators and enemies. We had to collaborate to build Stonehenge. Today, the Web is what it is as a whole because of collaboration.

The Web evolved through collaboration to where it is today. One prime example is the Wiki. The concept of a Wiki is an "argumentative" collaboration system. But the wiki is influencing changing workplace habits.

The Wiki is a prime representation of a Social Media tool that is making a difference in the organization. It allows people to collaborate on ideas and knowledge that turn into best practices, products, services and processes. Direct, measurable and understandable. Behaviour changing.

Most importantly to recognize though is it's not the technology of the Wiki. What's more deeply impressive is that we're learning better collaboration skills than ever before. This changes the workplace, management structure and governments. Think on that a moment. Interesting isn't it? In the entire history of the human family, we have never been able to collaborate like we can today. What do you think this will change?

(Image courtesy MindQuarry.com - sadly a failed Web 2.0 service)

Social Media Won't Be Causing a Revolution Anytime Soon

2009-05-10T20:26:00.004-03:00

So many of us Social Media consultants are often writing how Social Media is changing our world, how a revolution is underway. That Social Media is devaluing the newspaper and changing the PR profession. And so it is. But Social Media is still very young and the significance of the changes underway will not be fully understood for perhaps another 10-15 years at least. Why?

I covered this in part recently when speaking to the Communications Faculty at the NSCC about Social Media. The reason why has everything to do with human nature and our adoption and use of communications technology. A prime example is the printed book. Although Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1400's, it took several decades before protestant leader Luther realized he could print his own bible - the result was the Christian Reformation, then the French Revolution and modern democracy. Books are a social medium.

But before a technology can be used in a revolutionary way, it must evolve within a society. Technology does not cause a revolution, yet a revolution cannot start without the technology. As the image here shows, there are four distinct phases of adoption of communications technologies (and most any type of technology) before we might experience anything that is revolutionary. These "phases" are taken from sociology and are not my invention; the concepts are not new.

Phase 1: Normal - When technology is a normal part of our world. We've passed this phase.

Phase 2: Ubiquitous - This is where we are. Social Media is enabled by Web technologies, and the Web is now ubiquitous in Western Society and most of Asia, but less so in developing nations.

Phase 3: Pervasive - We're approaching this point. But there are still accessibility issues and knowledge of software to overcome.

Phase 4: Invisible - This is when a technology or medium is simply an everyday part of our lives, as in books or auto's. This is also when revolutions tend to occur.

Today, Social Media is uniquitous, but is not pervasive and certainly not invisible. Avid users of Social Media tools, mobile devices and computers might argue. But the fact is, over 80% of the population in Western worlds use computing technology and the Web in limited ways.

Where do you think we are?

Reference Articles:

Wally Bock: http://www.bockinfo.com/docs/fourphases.htm

Clay Shirkey: http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html

The Fundamental Impacts of Social Media in Society

2009-05-03T14:46:00.005-03:00

Never before in the history of mankind have we been able to communicate with each other the way we do now. These changes, enabled by technology, are changing the very root of how we work, play and grow our society.

Here's what has already fundamentally changed as a result of Social Media tools;

1. We can "network" to more people than ever before in man's history

2. We can connect to people pan-geographically like never before

3. The cost of communicating is the lowest in our history

5. We can communicate/share with text, audio and images unlike ever before

6. Our ability to communicate is faster than ever in mankind's history

7. Our ability to control/manage "how" we communicate with different social networks is more powerful

8. Never before in our history have we been able to "organize" into social groups like we can today

9. Never before in man's history have we been able to collaborate in building knowledge like we can now

10. We can now get an emotional reading on a population/demographic like never before

12. For the first time in history we can have multiple communications with distinct groups (i.e. work, family, friends) simultaneously.

These facts are quite profound. Since "socializing" is a primary human behaviour. Everyone belongs to some form of social group. Everyone. Whether that be our friends and family, our neighbourhood, work relationships or hobby groups.

We're now just learning how to use these tools. And we're only just beginning. We don't know how this will change our society, but it will and already is. Here area few of the areas I see that we'll face changes that I will address in future posts;

1. The way consumers and companies interact

2. Marketing and public relations will be re-invented

3. The way we view "privacy" will fundamentally change

4. Democratic process will change (becomming more democratic)

5. We now have the ability to affect global change (for good or bad)

6. The employee/employer relationship will change

7. Industrial Media will change

8. The social contract between Industrial Media and the general public is changing

9. We will become (already are) more globally and locally aware simultaneously

10. We will go through a stage of Hypersocialization

11. Our language(s) will change unlike ever before

What do you see? What do you think will change?

Keep in Mind: Technology does not cause a revolution. But a revolution cannot occur without the technology.

Twitter Vs. TV: It's Not Comparable

2009-04-28T19:32:00.003-03:00

So you've visited my blog for the first time. Will you come back? Perhaps. How many times? Probably once or twice. I'm not monetizing my blog, so I have no desire to really keep you coming back. I am passionate on what I do for a living and write, so I'll keep at it. If you don't like the content, you'll leave, and I'm fine with that.

This is not the case for a business. The purpose of a business is to generate profit, otherwise it is a non-profit organization and should therefore not pay taxes. In reading Nielson Wire's recent look at Twitter retention rates I'm catching a wiff of jealousy from Industrial Media - since Twitter is so active as a medium, it takes away viewership from broadcast television, which means lost ad revenue and perhaps less revenue for Nielson.

One clear fact I've come to discover with Twitter: Until you break the 100 followers mark, it doesn't make a lot of sense...but that's another blog post. Here, we're talking retention.

But is that relevant entirely? Television is a "passive" activity, there's little to not "activity", generally you don't interact with television. Which is a key point. We watch television because we want to "consume", but in a passive way - we simply want to be entertained for a while. Twitter is an "active" engagement medium, it's 2-way.

You can just read, but to get to get to a useful amount of information, you have to engage in the conversation. If you're not engaging, you miss things. In some cases, you might only engage with 10 people; and that's fine, since that's the only 10 people you care to engage with. Everyone else is moot.

I don't think it's a comparable metric. The two mediums are very different, therefore, retention is not really the metric is it? Rather, I think the metric should be "engagement" and you don't engage on TV, you watch. Twitter is "active" and television is "passive". Two different objectives. In my view, Nielson is approaching the issue in entirely the wrong way and comparing Twitter to Television is like comparing well, oh dear, apples to windows.

What do you thunk?

Industrial Media, The Web and Crying Wolf

2009-04-26T20:33:00.004-03:00

Watching the news this morning on CTV and CNN I was ready to go out buy a gas mask, seal the windows and hide my family indoors for a while...apparently we're all about to die from the swine flu. Listening closely to the anchors I heard such definitive and tremulous words as "large numbers" and "vast amounts of people" or "many, many people" as well as "global threat" and impending pandemic. Streets are being emptied and entire cities shut down.

This made me ponder what may be the true death of "Industrial Media." Their own over-hyping may be their very undoing. A quick Google search will point out the volume of discussion on how traditional media is dying. Unfortunately, Industrial Media has subscribed to this "perception" and in so doing has ramped up the hype process.

Less than a month into the financial hiccup last year Industrial Media was proclaiming economic doomsday, depression economies and mass global financial collapse - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now the latest hype is "Swine Flu"...but look and listen closely to the spin. There's a lot of "if's" and words that present a sense of "doom" and "massive quantities." Then listen to the U.S. and Canadian CDC who are trying to inject some common sense into the interviews they give.

So Industrial Media leverages fear and panic to drive viewership, which in turn improves advertising sales. This is not a sustainable business model. At some point, will we just turn it off? If everything is over-hyped and eventually we're all looking for the wolf but it never shows, then won't consumers at some point say no?

As we learn to look for alternate sources, and find sober second thought and better evidence of reality online, then this sows a serious seed of discontent into the mix for Industrial Media does it not?

Could such tactics lead to newer, more stable and reasonable reporting via the Web?

The Catch 22 of Corporate Social Media Engagement

2009-04-21T20:31:00.004-03:00

Social Media is all about people. For businesses looking to engage in Social Media this represents a bit of a conundrum. On the upside it means the people in your organization working your Social Media strategy are more directly connecting with existing and potential customers. Forming more engaging bonds.

As I read a great post from Beth Harte today regarding a local Domino's Pizza franchise owner, this conundrum struck me. The franchise owner understands and leverages Social Media tools very well to build relationships. This is good and his sales growth reflects his efforts.

Two things present an issue here 1) Dunbars Rule and 2) long-term sustainability and continuity of engagement. In Dunbars rule, the basic concept is that you can only effectively maintain about 150 relationships. It's just what our brains can handle. To a degree we can extend this using the right tools. But that only goes so far.

The second issue is more concerning over the longer term. What happens when the employees engaging in your Social Media efforts quit and move on? Or get hit by a bus? We've seen what happens to corporations with maverick CEO's coming and going (i.e. Lee Iacocca and Chrysler, which he left in shambles in sustainability terms) and lack of long-term shareholder value. It doesn't do much for the shareholders.

So a significant challenge over the longer term for businesses, organizations and governments engaging in Social Media will be the right tools to connect with larger audiences, continuity of their people engaging in Social Media and sustainable practices.

I don't have all the answers. I don't think we can yet, it's so early in the game. But perhaps we can start thinking of some? It's a Catch 22 in some ways isn't it?

What Signal is Ad Spending Really Giving Us?

2009-04-20T21:40:00.004-03:00

As the axiom goes "the only thing right about a sales forecast is that it's wrong." Seems those watching and forecasting ad spending trends are facing this dilemma in a world in drastic change mode. As eMarketer reported today, most ad spending won't just decline next year, it will plummet.

However, the silver lining (there's always a silver lining isn't there?) is that online ad spending is increasing, about 8.6% the forecasters are predicting. So, we continue to see ad spending in traditional media channels continuing to slump.

I doubt many are surprised that ad sales are declining so significantly in traditional mediums. I think there's two things at play here however; 1) people aren't responding to advertising anymore the way they used to and 2) people are creating their messages the way they want to and this presents a whole new set of challenges.

Let's also not forget that despite the explosive growth of the Web and the advancement of "digital" channels, there was a huge growth of new magazines and newspapers worldwide over the past ten years. Now we're in a market correction and so many of these specialty publication are dying as a result of natural market movements.

Perhaps the biggest take-away for me in this story is number 2 above; that consumers are fundamentally changing the social contract that has existed for the past 60+ years in the modern age of media. Seth Godin points out how marketers are liars...and as consumers, we're tired of the same old approach. What these stats may really be showing is the shift in this social contract as a result of the uptake of Social Media.

Do you think this is part of the story? Has the social contract ended?

The Jekyl & Hyde Evolution of Search?

2009-04-19T11:59:00.003-03:00

No tier 1 search engine delivers you results about your personal network. For years there have always been those companies who say they're the "Google killer"; we've yet to see anyone come close. Google has always been on the offensive and perhaps has launched only one defensive move in 2007 when Facebook enabled public search capability outside its network.

This past week Stumbleupon broke away from eBay and returned to it's original strategy, sparking further discussion that perhaps Stumbleupon could start to give Google a run for their money. And remember last July the launch of search engine Cuil? Started by former Google engineers they proclaimed the death of Google and launched. They dazzled in their failure, results even missing social media thought leader Chris Brogan.

In his weekly digest Jeremiah Owyang points out that Stumbelupon may be about the change "search" all over again. Then there's been discussion around Twitter changing "search." So, who's going to revolutionize the "search" business?

Right now, I don't think we can know what's going to happen, but I assert that we're entering a new phase of how people are using search tools. I think we've broken search into two classifications;

1) Generic Search: Where we search using standard consumer search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Cuil or Haiku and visual search engines like SearchMe. This covers everything except searching for information that is "personally relevant." None of the mainstream search engines are designed to deliver you content produced by or about your friends.

2) Personal Content Search: This is where the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Ning and social networking tools come into play. This is the content that is more relevant to the individual and their network. In part it is a reflection of an individuals desire to "connect" with more people while facing Dunbar's Rule that we can only connect to so many people meaningfully. But this connectivity can expand past the theoretical 150 threshold and therefore we look for content meaningful to our social interactions. Perhaps in part this is why services like FriendFeed are so valuable?

And this is where the mainstream search engines fail. It's general search versus social search. When Google figures that out, they will have taken a significant step and perhaps they already have, tying in Gmail and Gtalk with Android.

So what do you think? Do we have at the top level of "search" two primary search activities that we conduct?

Indicators of the Coming Change

2009-04-16T19:54:00.004-03:00

Research firm IDC in tracking PC sales showed less of a decline in sales than anticipated (7.1 rather than 8.2% as predicted.) While for the first time in memory television set sales are anticipated to decline, despite the U.S. and soon Canadian, switch to entirely digital networks.

Yet the growth of broadband Internet connections carries steadily upward and PC sales decline very little. While overall sales of handsets have leveled off, sales of "smart phones" like the BlackBerry and iPhone continue to increase; perhaps slightly lower, but they continue.

Prices for PC's are expected to drop in 2009 in line with smart phone costs and overall data packages for these phones. And this is important to note, for I see it signaling ever more relevance of the Web in our social and business lives.

The main driver to ever broader adoption of the Web and Web technologies still rests in four crucial areas;

1) Cost of the device/technology

2) Cost to access the Web

3)Micropyament Mechanisms

4) Ubiquity of Access

These three primary issues are what I have seen as roadblocks to broader adoption of the Web in society as a whole. As the cost of the device falls, so does the cost of access. This is currently happening.

The last two areas, micropayment mechanisms and ubiquity of access will improve, but I suspect somewhat slower than device and access costs. I've been touting the need for micropayment solutions since 1997, and while it's getting better (i.e. PayPal) it's still not there. The primary issue being credit card companies charging too high a rate to merchants for the transaction. Ubiquity of access still comes down to the same issue it has for the past ten years - that last quarter mile. Wireless is, I and many other pundits believe, the answer, but there is a cost of access and who pays. The provider of the service (i.e. the local coffee shop) or the "accessee" of the service (i.e. the patron.) The models are mixed and the arguments good on both sides.

In terms of the Social Web (Social Media) increased PC sales and smart phone sales means that this sector of the Web will grow much faster than what I term the "Commerce Web" or nice electronic brochures.

As the Social Web increases, businesses and organizations as a whole will be further drawn into using these tools. Not just to engage with their audiences, but as productivity and business tools. This is where Google, Salesforce.com, teamworkpm.net and others are set to see significant revenue growth.

So as much as there may be a "recession" (there is no "depression" folks, nowhere near it), the Web will take o an increasingly important place in our economy overall - one as yet largely ignored by the Luddites of traditional industries - to their peril.

"Localization" On The Web: Just Not Here Yet.

2009-04-13T09:20:00.004-03:00

"Hyperlocal" - are we there yet? In a NY Times article of April 12th, some "locally-focused" web services such as EveryBlock and Outside.in are presented. There's a number of "localised" mobile notification services and some varied attempts at localized search, including GenieKnows. Twitter is starting to have create some "localized" impact. But are we there yet? When will we be there? Not anytime soon.

Many of the biggest issues I see for "localism" or "localization" remain pretty much the same as it was 10 years ago - Web access, cost of entry, ubiquity and content loading. While these have become much better, they're still not quite there. Those that are, remain very much "local", such as LocalBlock which serves but 11 cities and then only in the U.S., Outside in claims to serve over 11,000 cities, but remains U.S.-centric and is still not massively popular. There is citizen journalism, but even this remains fragmented, unreliable and often is highly biased.

One of the more popular forms of localism is event information. There are a number of mobile apps and Web-based apps for local event listing, from Waldii to EventBrite to EventBox and...yes, far too many.

But the biggest issues I see are ubiquitous access, how these services are accessed and how the cost of content gathering/editing/analysis is covered. This is where a serious opportunity resides for newspapers. Some have started to leverage this, but for the most part, newspapers are still fighting the inevitable. The Guardian's April fools joke created a short spout of furor, yet they could be on to something.

A cold fact remains that not everyone is connected to the Web yet. In fact, the lower income demographic is at a serious disadvantage here. They can barely afford to have a phone, let alone pay a monthly fee to access the Web, plus they must find the means to buy a computer. Even an experiment by the Wall Street Journal in an affluent community, well connected to the Web was a disappointment.

While "hyperlocalisation" is a goal to work towards, the current executions remain fragmented and have yet to prove a viable business model - and "cobbling together" a bunch of choices is not the answer for true success. What may become opportunities here is Facebook or NetLog as Social Network tools. Another approach might be to more deeply understand how people share news, what they trust and what actions they might take. The future of hyperlocalism may rest in "news" becoming more active than passive.

Chicken, Potholes and Marketing

2009-04-06T21:19:00.003-03:00

Is KFC's latest marketing campaign smart and truly "responsible" in it's orientation or is it a sign that marketing today is suffering from an ability to find effectiveness in a world turned numb to most of the messaging we receive today? At first I thought it was a sign of desperation...then perhaps not.

Yes, city streets and the citizens of the 5 selected cities do benefit, municipal governments save and can apply the funds elsewhere. Oh and yes, we are talking about. in the Social Web and in professional media...and that exposure ads up. So it's innovative.

It is also an example of a strategy that crosses multiple mediums and perhaps will spark a flurry of other companies to run similarly oriented campaigns.

The upside might be that through responsible marketing tactics, the economy is somewhat spurred and citizens gain. Campbells Soup for example might suddenly sponsor major soup kitchens in depressed urban areas. Adidas might build soccer pitches in needy areas...

...and it's all good. For a while we might talk about these things, spread the word virally. I just hope we don't get "immune" to these tactics too quickly. Too many marketers have made promises that fell through at the purchase point. Too many marketers have lied and we've become tainted, untrusting and suspicious of the marketing message.

I like this campaign for a unique approach and that people win. It would be nice to see more companies giving back this way and creating a new style of social marketing. Perhaps. Jury's out yet. But done right, it might inspire cross-media discussion and action.

What do you thunk? What kind of similar campaign would you suggest?

The Challenge for Mobile Web Success

2009-03-31T21:44:00.003-03:00

The tech and marketing pundits are looking for the silver lining of these bleak times and "everything mobile" seems to be it. Perhaps another "bubble" to burst? Yet the numbers and chatter certainly seem to be pointing that way as indicated on Marketing Charts today. Such research by Tellabs says upwards of 71% of Americans and 41% of Western Europeans will use mobile data services more this year.

Of course the main concern of users is reliability, speed and...cost. Regardless, we've witnessed the gold rush of apps makers to cash in on iPhone apps (despite evidence that the Power Law Curve is very much at work here in that 97% of the apps downloaded don't get used more than 2-3 times before they're forgotten.) BlackBerry apps trail behind and then it trickles down for Google's Android and other devices. And therein lies what I see as the single biggest problem.

Cross-platform development capability. It's just not there. In fact, it reminds me of Windows Vs. Mac not so long ago. You had no way to interchange or share files. Today, this is not the case. The Web has further eliminated this divide with Webware apps.

Today, developing an app for a mobile device pretty much means you have to devote significant resources to one particular device or find a way to deliver the service via a WAP browser to reach other devices. All of which increases costs through larger development teams, increased learning curves and support.

One interesting service that may be an indicator of the ability to cover this "gap" is, well, PhoneGap. Best of all, it's Open Source. While it isn't perfect yet, I suspect it may be the "Linux" of mobile apps.

Until we see such a service broaden, I suspect user satisfaction will remain limited and the true explosion of mobile apps somewhat stunted.

What do you think? Have I missed the mark?

The Meaning of Twitter?

2009-03-21T13:09:00.005-03:00

Twitter is the next killer app of the Web after email. It may also be the world's most powerful barometer of societal emotion and the first truly societal opinion measure. And it's only in its infancy. Twitter is a temperature gauge of society, a mood monitor and the search engine of emotion.

I'm beginning to think Twitter may just be the social tool that signifies the immense societal changes underway that we are yet barely able to understand. Some anecdotal evidence of this can be found in how news and stories break today and the rapid vertical growth of Twitter in every day use.

Twitter tells anyone who wants to know what people are thinking, doing, feeling, planning, hate, love or care about. In this context it is no surprise that some of the earliest add-on tools to Twitter to be created was TwitterGrader (we all like to know our social standing in a community.) Then there's TwitterSearch which was an app bought by Twitter and integrated. TweetDeck soon appeared for "power twitterers" (guilty here of using it!), in fact here's a list of over 60 Twitter apps that have developed.

Our most basic nature as human beings is to socialize, whether that's on a large scale or small (i.e. just a few people for Twushi - Twitter folks gather for sushi), we crave social connections. Forming groups is fundamental to our everyday living - for work or play. Sharing information/knowledge is what makes our society grow, for good or bad.

Twitter is an enabler of fast group dynamics - faster than email. You can connect quickly around an issue; like the #coalition discussion in Canada that showed a fundamental societal difference in Canadian politics demographically. Obama's extensive use of Twitter in campaigning. When a topic gets heated in Twitter, people assign a "hashtag" to the theme (i.e. #coalition), and in fact you can define a hashtag.

All of this points to a simple communication tool that has enabled the connected world to find a powerful voice. As Twitter and it's ecosystem grow (like email did) we will see more and more examples of societal change driven by social tools.

Twitter is an early indicator of this impending change. Twitter, I think, is the first mass-scale societal radar, temperature gauge and barometer. Social protest in the future will be marked not just by marches on government buildings, but CyberMarches that take place using tools like Twitter - and spread virally to other connected networks....reaching more people faster than ever in human history.

Just as Wiki's an "argument-based" social tool, Twitter is an opinion-based tool.

What's your theory?