Networked Blogs

7 April 2013

Anonymity, Marketing and Predicting the Future [Noodle X]

Anonymity, Marketing and Predicting the Future shows that, although each culture has its own concepts of “anonymity” and “marketing,” anonymity will prove to have been a temporary phenomenon in most human cultures because communications technologies are counteracting it. Moreover, based on my studies of and experience with sociology, evolutionary psychology and technology, I observe that 20th century marketing is grounded in anonymity, so we can predict the future of marketing by exploring anonymity and its relationship to marketing.

In brief, marketing’s influence is most poignant when anonymity is high and the marketing “target” is ignorant of the product/service and how to use it. In this scenario, the target is most open marketing’s influence. Read on to learn how marketing is related to anonymity, where anonymity is going and how marketing can transform to strengthen its influence.

Marketing organizations that do not transform will be sidelined because anonymity is dissipating fast.

Marketing Processes

For our purposes, I’ll call out these marketing processes:

  • Marketing is the practice of trying to increase demand for a product or service.
  • Marketing uses numerous tactics to attract potential buyers’ attention and to influence behavior by increasing buyers’ perceived relevance of the product/service or by decreasing their perceived barriers to purchase.
  • Marketing mechanizes communication in several ways: it studies behavior by researching various swathes of target populations (“demographics”), designs messages and uses one-to-many mechanized communications to reach potential buyers (broadcast media, Internet adverts, social media content…).
  • Conventional business wisdom holds that the future of marketing is based on optimizing scale and personalization. “Big data” is the most recent incarnation. It mechanically assembles and analyzes data relevant to individuals in order to, mechanically, deliver individualized messages and offers.

How Marketing Is Based on Anonymity: A Simple Use Case

Increase demand and influence behavior have been effective in an environment of high anonymity in which potential buyers had few relevant sources of information and advice about outcomes they wanted to achieve. An important false assumption of 20th century marketing is that people want to buy products and services. They do buy, but only because products and services are enablers of outcomes that people want. The marketer loves products and services, but the user/buyer doesn’t care, with very few exceptions.

To see how this works, let’s think about a common use case. Think back to your first car, which you want to keep shiny, so you are a prospective buyer of waxing products. You have a kind of decision making funnel that helps you create a predictable outcome with the least amount of risk. The funnel has many shades of gray, but at its simplest it looks like this:

  1. The “tried and true” is the process/products you’ve used before. The least risk because you have used it before and attained a result. This is white anonymity (none).
  2. Getting advice from the highest trusted authority available. Here, you ask a friend who always has a fantastic looking car and does her own washing and waxing, which is the same process that you want to use. Quite low risk, but higher than the tried and true. Gray anonymity; its shade varies with how well you and the authority know each other (trust and the authority’s social knowledge of your personality and abilities).
  3. Getting advice from a low-confidence source, either a person you barely know, or a website or other third party. This is the highest risk. Black anonymity. This is where marketing influence lives.

Number one is the most preferred source, number three the least.

Enter Digital Social Venues

Digital social venues straddle the second and third parts of the funnel. They are a completely new source of information and, even better, interactivity. Anyone can ask questions of the community, which may be quite large. Here are three examples for our use case.

I analyze behavior in thousands of interactions on client engagements, and I’ve learned that digital social venues are breakthrough because they provide information integrated with social context. Most people don’t think about it, but at some level they know they want outcomes, and social context is the channel for outcomes. Talking about “the situation” naturally is social.

Study the three examples for our use case. People who choose to participate are passionate or knowledgeable or both, and their many-to-many interaction quickly provides the social and contextual information that confers extensive authority, even though you often don’t know any of the people personally.

No brand can compete with this because none of these people have anything to “gain” by misleading you, where the brand is hardly an impartial trusted source. True, people may mislead out of ignorance, but because they interact in the group, ignorance quickly becomes apparent in most cases. Having observed and analyzed thousands of such interactions, I predict that 20th century (mass) marketing will see diminishing returns to scale. People will believe it less and less, and its ability to influence will fall. It will be disintermediated by digital social venues.

Big Data—Why It Won’t Be a Marketing Panacea

Mechanized communication and Optimizing scale/personalization will continue to create efficiencies, but their impact will disappoint because they are still in the third part of the funnel. They are doing more of the same, more efficiently. And prospective users will increasingly ignore the third part because superior information is available via their tablet or smartphone, instantly, anywhere.

As a three-time marketing executive myself, I would think this last assertion preposterous if I hadn’t subsequently experienced sociality in digital social venues. Think Yelp for anywhere you want to do business, or Amazon for any product you are considering online.

Further, I have spent most of my career entertaining a belief that most marketing still harbors: “customers use facts to make rational decisions.” What I have learned is that “outcomes” are grounded in emotion, and facts are supporting actors, even extras. The stars are emotional experiences that outcomes help people have. Clotaire Rapaille has done pioneering work in decision-making in the context of marketing and global brands. Here’s a nugget of Rapaille’s thinking that helps to explain the confusion:

People don’t admit they make decisions based on emotion, so marketing research that asks people about their decisions is usually misleading. People fake it; they rationalize their decisions because they want to believe that they are governed by rationality. They are not.

Moreover, when people are talking with each other, socially, the outcome naturally emerges. That doesn’t happen when people communicate with brands because brands ask the wrong questions, they are focused on products, not outcomes.

Marketers will ask, “Why won’t big data save the marketing status quo? What could be better than individualized offers based on people’s unique data?” Response: personal attention by a group of other people.

Big data will add incremental value—individualized communications and offers are more relevant than generalized—but it won’t prevent 20th century marketing from losing influence. Remember, prior to digital social venues, people had two main types of information: other people with whom they had some kind of personal connection (few and hard to access practically) or commercial/third party factual information (i.e. Consumer Reports) or brand information. These latter sources are generalized and do not take into account the user’s individual needs; moreover, they are not interactive, which prevents the user from getting clarification.

Big data continues along the impersonal marketing scale vector, so even its “individualized” offers and communications, although incrementally more relevant, will be less emotionally attractive than human interactions in digital social venues for most users. In addition, because it is mechanized, it will commoditize relatively quickly; it will become table stakes and its differentiation will be fleeting.

How Anonymity and Ignorance Are Dissipating

Human beings don’t like risks, and we share our dislike of risk with other animals. In other words, it is written into animals’ DNA because higher risk threatens survival. Since we have a strong preference for predicting outcomes, anything that helps us to do that will be extremely attractive at a deep level.

  • The forum discussions in the above use case served as a simple example of collective risk mitigation. Other prevalent examples are reviews on Amazon.com and Yelp.
  • Anonymity means uncertainty. Human beings never lived in anonymity before urbanization led to the rise of large cities, beginning with mercantilism (trade is necessary for cities). This represents a very short interval in our 250,000 year history.
  • Digital social networks counteract ignorance and anonymity. Sociality is primates’ (and human beings’) key survival strategy, so I predict that digital social networks will continue to grow—and digital sociality uses any available technology. In 2013, “social” features are being bolted onto every software product because sociality is critical to relevance and viability.
  • Even though people prize anonymity—it is strongly related to what we currently call “privacy” (many cultures almost equate it with “liberty”)—I believe it will continue to lose to our desire to be connected to mitigate our risks. As I argued in The Big Switch review (see “Privacy”), I think we will discover that anonymity (privacy) was not “natural” for humans. We will seek a new synthesis that optimizes sociality and privacy.
  • The bottom line is that more social networks mean more relevant information infused with social context from (relatively) impartial third parties (other people interacting voluntarily). Marketing, since it is practiced by firms making products or delivering services, will always be trusted less than impartial people.
  • Marketers who don’t get this shift will end up like the unsecured creditors, standing behind a long line of secured creditors. Marketers will earn smaller and smaller crumbs of attention and confidence because more reliable sources are exploding. This won’t be obvious at first because large portions of populations are still learning how to use social technologies, but the latter are steadily making their way into people’s lifestreams, how people live and do things. Generations of marketing and conditioning are firmly embedded in older strata of populations, and this temporarily dampens the effect.

Looking at the situation another way, 2oth century marketing is no longer needed because personalized recommendations are increasingly available anywhere, anytime.

21st Century Marketing: Making the Transition

When read from the perspective of 20th century marketing, the above is admittedly a grim scenario, but there has never been a better time to be in marketing—for marketers who practice some mental jujitsu to transform their practices and earn new relevance. Here’s how:

  • Let go. No, it won’t happen overnight in most brands and industries, but 20th century marketing will disappear because machine-created messages will be increasingly ignored.
  • Bank on the lack of anonymity. Assume that all aspects of your actions and conduct will be shared by everyone and will influence buying decisions. You won’t. Marketing was able to influence large portions of populations living in anonymity because, in many buying situations, no greater authority was practically available. Understanding and accepting this shift is the first step.
  • Trust and respect the users of your product or service to know what is best for them. Trust their friends and advisors, too. Remember, now they increasingly have many advisors whom they trust more than strangers. Therefore, don’t try to “sell” or “market” your product or service.
  • Accept that your users don’t like your product nearly as much as you do. They use it to produce an outcome, some improvement in their lives. People buy holes, not drills.
  • Shift your resources to focus on user outcomes by interacting with users in digital social venues and serving them. Actively assist them to have their desired outcomes without focusing on your product or service. For more on this, see Building Post-Product Relationship in the Social Channel.
  • I believe that serving people is the new “marketing.” Moreover, because digital social venues are highly networked, when you serve the few, you influence the many. For more on this, see Customer Service Is the New Marketing.
  • Mine and deliver your firm’s/brand’s knowledge to market to build influence by serving people online. To make this practical and efficient, you need to conduct a strategy to make explicit what users (stakeholders, customers, clients) you want to service in what contexts). Then optimize the most valuable information/expertise you have with your ease of sharing.
  • Prior to digital social technologies, marketers had a valid excuse for being out of alignment with their users. Communication about outcomes was too impractical, expensive and distorted. This is less true every day now. Rather than focusing primarily on your product or service, focus on user outcomes. Firms/brands that do this will lead. Others will perish.
  • Open and maintain conversations with your users to study how they are using your product and what outcomes are most important. This will help you (longer term) to design new products/services by collaborating with users. Being engaged with users of your product/service will give you real-time information about outcomes and is the aorta of relevance and profit.

I’ll go as far as saying that, in 20 years at the outside, marketers will look back, scratch their heads, and wonder how 20th century marketing and product development could possibly work without continuous collaboration with users/customers. Exactly.

The post Anonymity, Marketing and Predicting the Future [Noodle X] appeared first on Christopher S. Rollyson and Associates.

This post originated at CSRA's blog. Please share your thoughts and comments here. Thank you.

8 November 2012

Bank Branch Disruption Enables Unusual Opportunity [updated]

Branch disruption enables unusual opportunity for bank executives who consider transforming their relationships with clients. More generally, retail banking provides an excellent example of an Industrial Economy industry whose services are facing commoditization and weakening profits due to the waning of the Productized Channel of Value. In 2013, bank branch networks are under intense scrutiny because they are expensive, and client visits have been falling steadily for several years as e-banking and m-banking adoption have accelerated. Astute banks will use branches to transform their client relationships by leveraging the Social Channel. Here’s how they will do it.

Bricks, Mortar—and Bars

Federal Reserve Bank of ChicagoPhysical presence has a special significance in banking that merits some reflection to appreciate its impact on the prospect of much-needed bank transformation. Banking is one of the most primal industries: banks’ bars, soaring columns, wood and marble are extravagant when compared to other business buildings, but they serve to remind clients that their money is safe. By extension, this safety relates to clients’ families, legacies and futures. This aspect of banks’ locations is bottom-of-the-pyramid, primal, unconscious and very real. By contrast, retail shops or restaurants seek to charm, give comfort and pique excitement , but their importance is at a more “entertainment” level than banks’. Banks were modeled after temples, after all.

The significance of bank branches is compounded when we consider that bankers’ livelihoods are based on clients feeling secure and “keeping their money with us.” Of course, anyone who has delved into modern banking knows that few branches have much physical money anymore. Bars have virtually disappeared in favor of electronic security. Underneath everything, however, physical locations still carry this “security” significance, so discussions of “branch flexing” or optimization that lose sight of it may fail to anticipate significant resistance to change.

Bank Branch Milestones (United States)

The above notwithstanding, some milestones can help us understand two key themes that are tying bank executives in knots: they don’t want clients to transact in branches, where their transaction (fulfillment) costs are high, yet they want clients in branches, so bankers can “develop relationships” and cross-sell products (services). They have yet to resolve the conundrum.

  • 1900-1969—There were no branches in the modern sense. Your bank was your bank. “That’s where my money is.”
  • 1969-1993—The first ATM launched in 1969. Banks developed ATM networks. Branches and pseudo-branches developed in some states as banks tried to build economies of scale in spite of restrictive federal and state laws limiting bank branches.
  • 1994-present—Banks capitalized on evolving legislation (deregulation) and steadily developed branch networks to increase convenience and build scale. Internet banking began slowly, soon after the launch of Mosaic, Netscape and other browsers as well as banks’ consultants’ prowess and Web-enabling enterprise systems; “online banking” became a “core” offering during the 2000s.
  • 2007-present—Mobile banking hit an inflection point with the release of the iPhone, which led smartphone adoption in the U.S. With mobile Web interfaces and mobile apps, clients manage an increasing portion of their accounts, execute transactions, etc.

Observations

  • Reflecting on the milestones, I’ll hazard that bank executives, having champed at the bit for many years, built branches aggressively to increase client convenience (“we’re everywhere you want to be”) and build scale. At the same time, bank consolidation has been torrid, so there’s a branding and market penetration element to branching, too. It may be that these organization-driven business cases caused executives to lose sight of client adoption of alternate channels—and overbuild.
  • Depending on whose numbers one uses, transactions at branches continued to increase despite the increasing number of branches—until relatively recently, when transactions began their steady decline (this one projects 7% per year through 2015).
  • During the last 40 years, banks have actively encouraged clients to adopt technologies that shifted transactions away from branches to ATMs, online banking and mobile banking.
  • Now, however, banks find themselves in a quandary: since branch visits have fallen, the opportunity to increase “share of wallet” and cross-sell has diminished; moreover, as in every other sector, clients’ first stop in learning about banking “products and services” is online and in social networks. This has confronted retail businesses in general with disruption that few appreciate, even today.
  • The global financial debacle of 2007-10 begot extensive and expensive compliance measures and capital requirements, which eat into profitability, along with the record-low Fed Funds rate.

Beyond the Bank

Bank Branch Disruption Enables Unusual OpportunityAs suggested in Building Post-Product Relationship in the Social Channel, a large portion of the “retail” value proposition has dissipated, in most categories, and this is accelerating. In most cases, there is superior information and selection online, and Web 3.0′s offline/online integration will only accelerate the trend.

Banks arguably sell services that are ultimately computer services, so, unlike clothing or sexy electronic gadgets, “shopping” as entertainment doesn’t come easily to financial services. In fact, banks would look silly if they tried to emulate retailers that are tapping the social-as-entertainment layer of the Social Channel. No, banks will win by tapping the social-as-business-collaboration layer of the Social Channel, but doing so will demand a fundamental rethink of their identity and relationships to clients, but that lock leads to the blue ocean. The alternative, thinking inside the box, will seek to use management tools to grind out productivity improvements in the red ocean. Productivity improvements are laudable and can contribute to competitiveness, but banks that rely on that approach will go down with the ship because it doesn’t address differentiation, which is now in the Social Channel.

Banking in the Social Channel

The Social Channel, being comprised of innumerable digital social venues, enables people to be social which, prior to Web 2.0 applications, was very difficult for mainstream users to do online. There were no social features, tools or widespread adoption online. There are now, and options are exploding.

For primates, being “social” means being natural. It means talking about the end, what’s really important, more than the means. Prior to Web 2.0, organizations held the lion’s share of digital presences, so most interactions were between people and firms. Not social. But people prefer social interactions because they can “be themselves” more… talk with their colleagues, friends and acquaintances naturally. In 2012 that horse is not only out of the barn, she’s in the next county.

Banks, like all organizations, need to learn to relate to people socially while being true to their identities. This is eminently doable. Here’s a conceptual framework.

Step One: Rethinking “Social”

To begin, it’s necessary to go beyond the “social” stereotype. We humans are so social that we have a hard time perceiving and understanding sociality objectively. For our purposes here, I’ll propose this working definition:

Being “social” means interacting with people we trust, so we can be less guarded when discussing what’s most important.

Taking these words literally does not pre-suppose beer and football or Hollywood. But most people associate “social” with leisure, home, friends. Not “work.” However, according to this definition, LinkedIn is very social, in a business sense. People are discovering new people, interacting with them and forming judgments about how they can trust—and therefore relate to—them. Higher trust means being less guarded and collaborating more deeply.

Step Two: Making Banking Social

Bankers, as all other professionals, can be forgiven for not “knowing” their clients because, prior to Web 2.0, there was no economical means of doing so. However, the Social Channel is replete with opportunity once they learn to relate to people while people are relating to their trusted colleagues, friends and acquaintances. Simply put, we can get to know what’s most important about someone, not by relating to him or her one on one. No, in most cases, we’ll learn far more by observing how s/he interacts within a trusted entourage. And trust is relative.

When clients are interacting, they often have amateurish knowledge of financial services and products and how they work. But the revolution is, they help each other in areas they know much more about than most bankers: user outcomes. As any banker who has mastered “consultative selling” knows, people usually need help in thinking through what they want. Learning in groups is a very social process. People share their thoughts, and others react by adding angles, disagreeing, agreeing, and everyone learns very quickly.

Therefore, to make banking social, bankers need to commit to focusing on client outcomes. Most will probably think, “But I already do that, I’m in consultative sales!” I’ll argue that the latter doesn’t go far enough because its goal is understanding the client’s situation only well enough to “get her into the right product.” In most cases, the consultative seller isn’t really interested in the client’s situation because the goal is to sell a product. That used to add value, but adds far less now because clients are getting accustomed to interacting business-socially, where other clients are primarily interested in the outcome, no one is selling anything. Yesterday, “consultative” approaches differentiated, today they ring hollow.

Keep in mind that interacting “socially,” that is, with a client and her entourage, has never been economical on a mass scale before the emergence of the Social Channel. Today, bankers can engage clients and prospects by participating in public outcomes-oriented discussions that are happening right now. They can also create digital social venues that can attract clients and prospects. Even better, they can do both.

Lest you find this discussion a bit abstract, dial into these banking conversations, which feature straight-ahead businesspeople helping each other.

Step Three: Back to Branches

To recap so far, banks are being squeezed in a three-way vice: regulation-driven operational costs are rising, client adoption of alternate channels (online, mobile, social) has tipped, and branch operational costs remain high. Since transactions have been successfully pushed to other channels, selling opportunities have diminished.

CSRA’s crystal ball says that bank branches can capitalize on several converging Knowledge Economy trends:

  • For a growing portion of the population, “free agency” is the default for knowledge workers, not lifetime employment. Most people work interim jobs and serve as contractors, whether literally or in practice. In the management ranks, tenures are short and searches long, so most employment is “interim” for practical purposes. Let’s call all these people “mobile knowledge workers.”
  • Mobile knowledge workers are equipped with smartphones, tablets and laptops, but they are increasingly working near their clients and prospects (“go to where the customer is”). Having a physical office is expensive and impractical since they have meetings all over a metropolitan area—or the country or the world.
  • CSRA’s current research is preliminary, but mobile knowledge workers’ biggest frustration with using hotels, restaurants and cafes as impromptu offices is the lack of a “professional environment.” Moreover, they spend much time alone, so working solitary has its limits, so many like to work “around” other people.
  • Many financial facets of mobile knowledge workers’ lives are being disrupted, which affords astute financial providers the opportunity to be relevant at a whole new level—by focusing on emerging needs and outcomes.

We are engaged in diligencing the concept, but the Bank Branch Client Coworking space looks as if it has legs. This concept combines physical coworking spaces in select branches with an online client social network in which clients can interact among themselves, facilitated by banks’ specialists, experts and social business teams. The coworking spaces are conceptually positioned between airport lounges and Starbucks.

What I find most exciting about this concept is that it:

  • Repurposes real estate in high traffic locations in the service of a highly desirable, growing demographic in a visceral and meaningful way.
  • Amps up the dynamism of bank branches—with the organic energy and interactions of clients.
  • Uses the private social network to add unprecedented leverage to experts and specialists across the bank, who can interact online, boosting their utility. This can transform the “branch” network paradigm.
  • Affords the opportunity to have client-centric round tables and educational sessions on user outcome-specific topics—online and offline. Offline events can be captured online for viewing in the private social network.
  • Updates the original bank location value proposition to the Knowledge Economy—security, integrity and professionalism—by providing clients a “home away from home.”
  • Clients gain access to online and offline spaces with existing bank credentials, which enables banks to understand their behavior.
  • It can morph into a platform for concepting, piloting and scaling many types of services as well as value-added services.
  • I’ll close with this breakthrough coworking space example from State Farm. The social context is completely different, but the concept is relevant: State Farm is learning about an exciting new client by interacting with them socially, online and offline.

CSRA is conducting a research survey as a part of our diligence process, “FSI Social Business Adoption 2013.” If you are a financial services executive and would like to participate, I invite your inquiry.

Please share your thoughts about the future of bank branches in comments.

References

You can find many of the resource sources I’ve used on my Pinboard.

The post Bank Branch Disruption Enables Unusual Opportunity [updated] appeared first on Christopher S. Rollyson and Associates.

This post originated at CSRA's blog. Please share your thoughts and comments here. Thank you.

3 April 2012

Reputation and Business

In An Offer You Can’t Refuse, Lydia Dishman interviews CEO Justin Moore, who discusses his business leadership “lessons learned” from watching The Godfather. It’s a solid post, but very thoughtful and insightful comments take it into classic territory. That said, the post didn’t hit the bullseye for our context here—B2B relationship building—so here goes with the pieces I think it missed. I invite you to add yours in comments.

Five Lessons from The Godfather

Moore’s five lessons are solid and bear repeating here: create a community, hold people accountable, don’t get emotional, be decisive and spend time with family. Let’s look at them in more detail:

  1. Create community—this was my favorite because it emphasized serving people without having a “return favor” in mind. Implicit is, “I understand that you have something important you want done, and I can help you with that. I hope to never ask a favor of you, but I might one day. You are obligated to me.” Of course, in the film, this is dramatic and frightening, but businesspeople would do well to think long and hard about it. Helping people do things that are important to them, letting them know you understand the importance, forms a strong bond. Take these things seriously. This also reminds me of guanxi in China.
  2. Hold people accountable—the post didn’t say this, but it’s implicit: include yourself in “people.” The leader sets the tone for accountability and performance. It means maintaining commitment to your intent, especially when it’s most inconvenient. Slacking off or fudging is viral. Steve Jobs comes to mind here.
  3. Don’t get emotional—I had the most trouble with this one as Moore by Dishman described it. Reading between the lines, it means “don’t let emotion prevent what’s right for the business.” I had the most trouble with the zero sum element of Moore’s description; I don’t think a zero sum mentality need be assumed in business, although there are clearly zero sum situations for which one must be prepared.
  4. Be decisive—implicit in this one is “Don’t be afraid of risk” (although respect it). Action declares and gets results. Also nice is Moore’s remark about trusting other people to do the right thing.
  5. Spend time with family—I’d abstract this one and translate it, “Insist on balance.” Effective leaders have wide perspectives, and this requires “getting out of the office” and changing point of view. Also, having one’s work serve a higher purpose. Baked in also is being in touch with humanity; although “don’t get emotional” is key in business, being very emotional with family is likewise.

What It Missed

Many of the things Moore cited about The Godfather served a higher purpose that wasn’t mentioned: reputation. Reputation is the substrate for all five lessons and drives influence: people will ask you to help them get done what’s most important to them when they trust you. And they become big fans when you help them. Accountability and toughness/no emotion/commitment/decisiveness also add to reputation. Reputation is key to “holding the territory” in business, market position.

The post Reputation and Business appeared first on Christopher S. Rollyson and Associates.

This post originated at CSRA's blog. Please share your thoughts and comments here. Thank you.

2 February 2012

Global Social Business Strategy

How robust stakeholder and workstream research can create global opportunities

CSRA just completed a global study of social business in ten OECD language markets that may bode well for commercial and nonprofit organizations that are considering global audiences. We found that when you ground your social business strategy on rigorous research into the people you want to engage (stakeholders) and their specific online activities (workstreams), social business strategy can be applicable in several language markets simultaneously, leading to significant leverage and supporting global go-to-market initiatives. Having personally worked and lived in several language markets, I was surprised by the strong stakeholder/workstream patterns; I had assumed that the markets would differ from each other far more. Here I’ll offer my reflections on the research as well as recommendations for using social networks for global initiatives.

Potent Brew: Stakeholder/Workstream Scenarios Boost Relevance Across Markets

I have to admit, if I hadn’t led the research, I would find my statement above a highly dubious proposition. I would immediately think, “Another U.S.-based firm ignorant of ‘foreign’ cultures tells us they’re all the same.” However, I believe the findings show another example of how social business is changing relationships between organization and people. Moreover, the strong stakeholder/workstream aspect of the study shows how digital social networks are creating global niches with which organizations can form highly engaged relationships. For example, if your organization produces road rallies of MGs around the world, participants’ highly specific interests and conversations will often trump their cultural differences. When you start thinking about it that way, our findings are not surprising at all. But the finding would have been far less true if it had addressed a broader audience of, say, “automotive enthusiasts” or a general workstream like “automotive events.” MG road rallies draw people together. But marketers have to get over their love for large, general audiences because they usually exhibit less persistent engagement and commitment.

Organizations are accustomed to marketing research that is usually long-cycle, structured, costly and therefore limited. Conducting real-time analysis of conversations in digital social venues is much more like user experience research, in which very few firms have ever invested. But user experience research is so valuable because it studies people within their “native habitats,” not in conference rooms to which they were attracted by $200 checks. It picks up tacit knowledge that forms the context for what researchers see. And digital social venues make findings actionable immediately. So, in-depth study of certain types of people (stakeholders) is not new, but digital social venues’ immediacy and transparency enable firms to take it to a new level.

When you combine in-depth persona studies with workstreams, you get what we call scenarios, which are analogous to software use cases, models for situations in which people in defined roles are trying to accomplish tasks. Scenarios enable you to understand people and their motivations for online activity, dramatically improving your ability to be relevant because you can help them get things done. Typical marketing persona studies are too coarse-grained for social business: you can’t have authentic interactions with a demographic like “50 year old auto enthusiasts.” You need to get more fine-grained. Workstreams for the MG rallies might be shipping the car to the rally location, working on the engine, creating the rally team, gadgets to improve teams’ accuracy. Scenarios increase the likelihood of finding patterns across cultures and languages. In addition, scenarios’ stakeholder/workstream lenses help you to identify and appreciate differences in online behavior that matter.

Putting Strategy into Practice

While it is exciting to find strong patterns of engagement across cultures, it would be risky to assume that you could engage in the same way in each market. Here is a general approach to growing the scale and scope of your social business strategy globally:

  • Ground the strategy on fine-grained persona studies of stakeholders that matter to your business, and couple it with workstream analysis to create several scenarios. Test them against real online interactions. Verify that the stakeholders you want are talking about workstreams that make them relevant to you. If they aren’t, open your aperture enough to pick up related conversations, learn and tweak your scenarios. You will often discover some stakeholders are having relevant conversations and others aren’t.
  • Depending on your business context, you could also find global conversations about your scenarios in common European languages, as we did, because, when people are having conversations in global contexts, they use connector languages. We found relatively high numbers of English conversations in France, Germany, Japan, China and Nigeria. Using IP addresses, it is fairly simple to determine whence conversations originate. These results are certainly a fraction of those in local languages, but they can be quite indicative of the presence of the scenarios in those language markets.
  • Now that you have some indication of the numbers and characteristics of your targeted conversations, look in the mirror. Determine what your organization can add to these conversations that is distinctive and high-value to stakeholders. High-value in their terms, not yours. Organizations are usually too enamored with their own services or products. Stakeholders rarely care; they are motivated by the utility of your services and products that they create while using them. Create your content strategy based on this.
  • Test your strategy with a pilot in a defined market with which your team has native experience. This can limit variables before you approach different markets. Select optimal venues, and begin interacting and measuring your impact. Consistently serve people and prove your commitment to them. Measure results using quantitative metrics that focus on trust (here’s one example). Conduct the pilot for several weeks, and use results to refine your content strategy. Focus your analytical intent around the question, “How do people try to get this done in this language market?” And, “How can we serve them in a unique way that resonates with our core competencies?” The testing period enables you to validate or change your value proposition.
  • Now go to another market that is distinct from the first one but whose conversations share similarities with it. Determine the variables that are different. Here, your question is, “How to people in this language market try to get this done? What differences exist on the ground cause people to think about it or approach it differently? The second pilot should last another several weeks.
  • Hop to a third market. Compare results, and determine crossover among markets. At this point, you have valuable insight into how the scenarios are played out in various language markets, and this can enable you to create global social business initiatives—when you discover crossover. Or you may want to try cross-pollinating groups as a way to add value.
  • Watch your IP addresses! Some languages are tightly coupled to geographies while others aren’t. To the extent that location changes the conditions in which the scenarios play out, you may see significant differences within languages. English conversations in India are very different from those in Indiana.
  • A note on creating the pilot teams. If you have locations in the geographies you are exploring, invoke their cultural expertise to help select the pilot team, but realize that successful teams require sophisticated language, analytical and socialtech skills to understand what they are seeing and to interact appropriately in digital social venues. Pick your partners very carefully, don’t assume that anyone that speaks x language and is a marketing analyst can do it. Do not pick “localization firms” or translators, who generally have no experience with live interaction. Don’t necessarily pick global marketing agencies unless their personnel have proven track records in digital social venues (99% still fail this test). Go with a local socialtech boutique with a track record for research and interaction in that language market.

The post Global Social Business Strategy appeared first on Christopher S. Rollyson and Associates.

This post originated at CSRA's blog. Please share your thoughts and comments here. Thank you.

2 November 2011

Using Social Networks for National & Global Recruiting and Sales: Three-Stage Adoption Model

How firms can increase quality of recruits and sales leads while cutting costs

Alumni 2.0: Creating & tapping a collaborative alumni network to cut recruiting & sales costs

Social networks can help organizations, whether commercial, nonprofit or government, to significantly improve their efficiency in business processes like recruiting, sales and service. This is what we call “Enterprise Process Innovation” because, by using social networks to create and nurture relationships with alumni, your employees can diminish the time required to accomplish tasks within these processes. It’s well known that most alumni, former employees, move to firms that are related to your business (adjacent in the value chain) or complementary in some way. Yes, some move to competitors, but they are usually in the minority. Social networks, by significantly reducing the cost of having relevant, quality conversations, make robust employee-alumni networks actionable as never before.

All organizations (I’ll use “firm” to denote for profit, government and nonprofit) have business processes that benefit from relevant insight and introductions from other people: insight about the situation of the prospect, where the best sources of new recruits, etc. Alumni 2.0 is an evolutionary approach to transforming firms’ relationships with employees. The legacy employment model is utilitarian: firms hire when they need skills and fire when business drops. End of story. Some firms make half-hearted attempts with sub-par email newsletters, but these don’t even begin to tap the potential of vibrant employee-alumni networks.

Here I will lay out an incremental, three-stage model that starts simply, pays dividends quickly and evolves to support more complex business processes over time.

Stage1: Recruiting

When your firm does business across large distances that require significant travel costs during your recruiting process, you have the opportunity to use social networks, social apps and video to significantly reduce these monetary and time costs. You do this by developing a public network by using microblogging (i.e. Twitter) and/or social network messaging (i.e. LinkedIn/Facebook) to share thoughts, challenges and job opportunities, so they get to know your firm behind the curtain, they come to know the culture and increase their comfort level with you. And those who don’t fit will lose interest, reducing attrition rates. Then you can use video for first stage interviewing. This can lower your recruiting costs considerably. Here’s how to do it.

  • Let’s assume that Recruiting is in Human Resources, which supports many parts of the firm. For the pilot, select a department or group that tries to recruit people who have a high comfort level with social networks and video. Further, select champions carefully, pick people who feel comfortable with innovation and uncertainty.
  • Put together an engagement strategy. Work with the sponsor organization to develop specific profiles of people they usually try to attract, and rank their priority.
  • Take your candidate definitions and create keyword families and complex searches that you use to find candidates talking online. Rank social venues based on the quality and quantity of conversations you find.
  • Select a small group of employees in the sponsor organization; develop voluntary guidelines for their profiles and interactions in the venues (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, blogs). It’s important that they share exciting projects, challenges and job opportunities that are active or emerging, as well as appropriate “behind the curtain” tidbits about why it’s fun to work there. To minimize gaffes, you need to be clear about what’s okay to share and not. It’s also important that you select potential recruits’ future work colleagues to participate in the pilot, not HR. If you are a volunteer nonprofit, have volunteers and management share this information; if you are a software firm, enlist engineers. The point is, you provide a stream of information that is interesting and relevant to the type of candidates and their influencers you want to attract.
  • Conduct first interviews using video instead of phone using Skype or an enterprise solution. Most people have video on their laptops now. Make sure this interview is conducted in accordance with your culture.
  • If the sponsor organization does a lot of recruiting, consider making 3-5 videos of key people talking about what they’re working on and why it’s important, how they work with other people. You can point prospects and candidates to these. When possible, let people share some more personal information, too.

Recommended Goals

  • Experiment with sharing certain types of things, and track what resonates best with high-priority prospects. Use the high quality conversations that were found by your keyword families/searches as a starting point.
  • Don’t overlook social aspects of work and what people like to do in their spare time. This can be huge. Let’s say that a large portion of your engineers like a certain video game; let them mention it if they want.
  • When opportunities open, ask people to suggest candidates. Ask them what they think about the job description; based on their feedback, tweak it to make sure it’s clear to candidates. Thank them when you use their advice, and even when you don’t.
  • Celebrate wins online.
  • Two great examples I just discovered today Social Media, Virtual Meetings Help Firms Enter Markets and Save Capital.
  • Financial metrics: the main goal here is building and maintaining a stream of quality leads and hires. Put these numbers against your legacy process (travel, recruiters, job ads).

Stage2: Alumni

We are all very familiar with schools’ strategies of “creating durable relationships” among schoolmates that transcend time. True, most schools talk more than they act, but the concept of creating “alumni” relationships can be very useful to most firms. Have you ever thought that, unless you are a new startup, you have vastly more alumni (people who have worked with you and moved on) than employees? Depending on your firm culture and trust level with employees, a certain portion of “alumni,” if they have accomplished something meaningful while they worked with you and/or if they created valuable professional relationships, retain a certain amount of goodwill toward you—and vice versa. In Stage2, you want to nurture this base of goodwill to benefit alumni and your firm. Stage2 works as long as a large portion of your employees does not leave harboring bitterness due to their employment experience. However, the experiences of alumni of most organizations fit the bell curve, which holds that most have a reasonably positive memory of their experience with you, while some love you and others hate you. Secondly, the beauty of social networks is that employees aren’t only relating to your firm; they have the opportunity to relate to other individuals, whether other alumni or current employees. So even if they aren’t favorably disposed toward your firm, Stage2 can work when they feel goodwill toward former colleagues.

For you to tap Stage2′s full potential, you need to adopt a new way of thinking about your relationships with employees because your firm needs to take the lead in serving alumni in their goals. This isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition, but you need to show through your actions that you care about alumni, and you will help them accomplish things that are important to them now. When your help takes place in a transparent digital social venue like LinkedIn or Google+, you can affect a large group of alumni relatively quickly. Think about yourself: how would you feel if you asked for and received some very helpful information from a former colleague that helped you land a new job or contract? Even better, other alumni see these things happening, which can build goodwill quite quickly. Here’s how to do it.

  • Since, unlike Stage1, Stage2 creates a digital private space, you need to get a social business/media policy in place that vets and defines what can and can’t be shared. Most glitches occur when there are misunderstandings. This is usually a short engagement with a firm that’s experienced with it (CSRA does it in 1-3 weeks).
  • When the policy is underway, you need to create an alumni engagement strategy. In many cases, since Human Resources has led Stage1, they can provide continuity and lead Stage2 as well, but any area of the firm can lead. Selfishly, the sponsor organization needs to define and rank the importance of alumni. Who’s most important to your business goals? Getting this right lays the foundation of your authenticity and ability to commit to alumni long-term. In addition, it’s important to scope the pilot small, so don’t pursue large complex initiatives that involve multiple areas.
  • Take your alumni definitions and create keyword families and complex searches that you use to find alumni talking online. Note, whether they are your alumni or those of a competitor doesn’t matter; you want to prove out your definitions and find people online talking about issues/challenges/topics that are relevant to your business and are related to the conversations you would like to have with alumni.
  • Based on these conversations, rank social venues. This will tell you in which venues you need to invest (i.e. LinkedIn, Yahoo, Facebook, Google+, Xing, Viadeo..). Create a private, password-protected LinkedIn Group, Facebook Group or Google+ Circle.
  • Select a small group of employees for your pilot; develop voluntary guidelines for their profiles and interactions. You can coach and mentor them on how to look their best on LinkedIn and how to search for and help fellow alumni using LinkedIn Answers and Groups. They will need guidance and mentoring for what to share and how to spark and maintain conversations online. As they interact in LinkedIn, their networks with alumni will grow naturally. When you do Stage2 right and build trust with employees, the fact that their networks are growing will create alignment between the firm, employees and alumni.
  • For example, if you are a U.S.-based B2B, LinkedIn will probably rank highly for your alumni. You have to be clear that your employees are masters of their own destiny and their profiles and interactions are their own. You need to be comfortable with the realization that these relationships might lead to some employees discovering opportunities outside your firm. If they feel that you want what’s best for them and this is truly your attitude, you will win their trust and commitment. You can’t fake this and don’t even need to because you will get much more than you lose (see goals).
  • Once alumni see that you sincerely want to help them reach their goals outside their formal relationship with you, their goodwill toward your firm, employees and other alumni will increase significantly.
  • Think about the impact: what if you could significantly improve the attitudes of the hundreds or thousands of alumni you have toward your firm? That’s the end-game here.

Recommended goals

  • Talk excitedly about challenges and emerging job opportunities you have, and ask alumni to recommend people. During the pilot, you want to establish alumni as a reliable source for recruits.
  • Ask alumni in certain geos about their favorite local networking events, meet them there and exchange introductions with people onsite.
  • Define and track how many meaningful introductions your team makes on behalf of alumni. This is most important because it shows how you care. These actions have to be meaningful to alumni.
  • Toward the end of the pilot, use private LinkedIn Answers or a Group to ask alumni how they would like you to help them. Don’t do this at the beginning, only after you have begun to develop trust in-venue (i.e. in LinkedIn).
  • When you end up hiring people recommended by alumni, celebrate in-venue.
  • Encourage alumni to reach out to employees to help them online with their current challenges. Encourage alumni to connect with employees and to use their LinkedIn networks for support in their current roles. You can coach the pilot employee group on how to be proactive with this. Remember, when alumni in LinkedIn see your employees helping alumni with current challenges, it will transform their attitude towards you. It will also transform employees’ attitudes because you will show that you care about the relationship past employment. This will activate a strong network that transcends employment. And many established firms have thousands of alumni who are increasingly online.
  • During the pilot, mentor employees in training and mentoring other contributors to create a scalable team.
  • Scale the program by repeating the pilot process in other organizations.
  • Scale the program by asking for referrals for consultants and contract workers (same idea, but not recruiting employees).
  • Think about using the program to help employees find other jobs when their jobs get eliminated and there’s no role they want internally. Although most organizations will find this challenging, consider what it will mean to current employees and alumni: by actively helping them to find opportunities, you are sending a powerful message that you care about them.
  • Financial metrics: similar to Stage1, but here you can address a wider range of recruits, where Stage1 is limited to people who are comfortable with public Twitter and Facebook interactions. So you want to build and maintain quality leads and hires. Compare these numbers against your legacy process (travel, recruiters, job ads).

Stage3: Revenue/Business Development/Sales

At this point, you have experimented with using social networks for two stages of recruiting. You have learned about what motivates employee and alumni contributors. In Stage3, you turn similar attention to producing revenue opportunities for you and alumni within allowable parameters. Stage3 has employees collaborating with alumni to give and receive information and relationships to accomplish their and your revenue-related business goals. Obviously, how you proceed with Stage3 will depend on your business, so here we can only present some general guidelines. However, the constant is your employees and alumni are giving and receiving help within the context of business and revenue production. This help usually takes the form of leads, introductions to people and insights into prospects’ businesses. The goal could mean sourcing new partnerships, entering new geographies, asking for introductions for new prospects, getting insights for a new product or service, etc. Here is a general outline.

  • The context of Stage1 and Stage2 was employment: helping alumni pursue their career goals and you with recruiting. Sponsor organizations had people talking online about their current challenges and opportunities. Similarly, here the sponsor organization needs to start having interesting, meaningful and relevant conversations online to develop and audience of alumni that has similar interests. If you’re a B2B, alumni are often in adjacent parts of the value chain. These conversations have to be relevant to alumni and your employees for complementary reasons. These conversations will build awareness.
  • Similarly, when pilot contributors are trying to develop relationships with alums who can help them, they can refer to in-Group conversations (on LinkedIn) in which they have discussed certain aspects of the challenge or the value proposition, how they like to serve certain types of clients. These become private reference points that they can reuse repeatedly.
  • They can make requests like, “We’re looking at an opportunity with XYZ, can anyone give us some general insight into their shrinkage situation in malls?” Note that contributors need guidance about what kind of requests they make. They never ask for privileged information, for example.
  • Similarly, they encourage alumni to ask for their help.
  • They need coaching about being transparent about conflicts of interest that will occasionally arise (i.e. when an alum works for a direct competitor). As long as they are up-front and matter of fact, people will understand.
  • During Stage3 pilots, track assists your team(s) gives and gets, and define them according to some value scale. For example, an introduction to someone who makes a buying decision is different from someone giving general information about business conditions.
  • Make sure you focus on supporting alumni and that their requests are met. This is more important than the help you get from them because it will maintain their interest in you and keep your relevance to them high (hence engagement).
  • For more context on how social networks can shrink the business development/sales cycle by 30-50%, see How Social Networks Change the Rules of Business Development and Profit.
  • Financial metrics: compare the types of help you get and how quickly they shrink the sales cycle. For most B2B organizations, sales processes are long and costly, so there is much room for improving velocity. Also track the quality of help you give and celebrate wins online. This is important for building and maintaining momentum.

Conclusions

  • This approach will have a dramatic impact on professional services firms, which have high recruiting costs; similarly, a large portion of their employees are directly responsible for business development, and they are global. This goes for most firms that have high per-employee recruiting costs and that do business in many geos.
  • The way in which you pursue this incremental approach will vary tremendously based on your culture and current relationships with employees. I hope you can appreciate that most of these things are relative. There is no absolute way to do it.
  • You start small in public venues (Stage1) and begin proving out the concepts. When you do this right, it builds excitement and momentum.
  • Trust is the bedrock of the program; as long as you have a reasonable level of trust with a representative portion of alumni, you can build from there.
  • You have to lead by showing you mean what you say: you want to serve alumni by helping them. Address this in Stage2. Under-promise and over-deliver. You have to be honest with yourselves here about cultural limits you may face. If some senior management, who may be steeped in legacy attitudes towards employment, take that into account by keeping pilots small and producing results before asking to scale the program, which will eventually require transformation of employment attitudes and (undoubtedly) policies.
  • Keep in mind that you can duplicate Stage1 in several areas of the firm before going to Stage2. This can be useful if you need to convince upper management of the value of social networks. Nothing sells like success.
  • Also see Alumni 2.0: Employer-Employee Realignment to learn more about the value proposition and business drivers of Alumni 2.0.
  • Although presented in 2009, Using LinkedIn for International Business might give you some additional context for Stage3.

What are your experiences with using social networks for recruiting and business development support?

The post Using Social Networks for National & Global Recruiting and Sales: Three-Stage Adoption Model appeared first on Christopher S. Rollyson and Associates.

This post originated at CSRA's blog. Please share your thoughts and comments here. Thank you.

4 March 2011

Book Review/The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to Google

Curmudgeonly Looking into the Past to Divine the Future—That Nagging Privacy Issue—Debunking the Elephant

The Big Switch is a valuable book that reflects what has become Nick Carr’s trademark role, heckling IT and Web enthusiasts, albeit from good seats. Carr seems to relish his role as “the fly in the ointment” of the idealistic IT-enabled world that Web missionaries espouse. Although this book has shortcomings, I recommend it for two reasons. First, Carr makes a convincing and useful argument that the “electrification” of business and society (the Edison part) has valuable lessons for the “computerization” transformation of business and society (the Google part) that is currently unfolding. This parallel provides context to think about some of the disruptions around your business, society and career. Second, Carr raises serious questions about possible privacy implications of computerization. He palpably weighs in on the dark side and seems to want the world to change course from the “googlization of life.” If you haven’t read The Long Tail, I would read these books in proximity because they are very complementary and both quick, important reads.

As usual, I will outline the book’s chapters before giving my interpretation and insights in Analysis and Conclusions.

Book Overview

Part 1, One Machine, describes the development of man’s mastery of physical power during the industrial age, highlighting the contribution of electricity. Carr weaves an interesting story that reads like a novel, although he provides solid research and notes.

Chapter 1, Burden’s Wheel

  • Carr points out that economics force change; touches on the innovation of harnessing water power to drive machines and factories.
  • Industry carries the context of physical and industrial power, but it morphs to information power in the computer age.

Chapter 2, The Inventor and his Clerk

  • Juxtaposes Thomas Edison, the inventor, and Samuel Insull, the businessman.
  • How Insull envisioned the potential of the system, the network, and ultimately built what became Commonwealth Edison.
  • Edison saw the business as designing and manufacturing the machines to create electricity.
  • Insull saw more potential in creating a pervasive system, the network.

Chapter 3, Digital millwork

  • A very short treatment of the development of the computing industry.
  • Carr does it reasonable credit in few pages. Although much of the story will be familiar to people in the business, everyone will learn some pleasing new nuggets.
  • He goes from IBM punchcards for the 1890 U.S. census through the now-emergent utility age, via stopovers in client/server.

Chapter 4, Good-bye Mr. Gates,

  • Parallels Bill Gates with Thomas Edison: like Edison, Gates is caught up in the machines, he doesn’t appreciate the network.
  • Brief mention of “the cloud,” recognizes the importance of Salesforce. It doesn’t go as far as to describe GrandCentral, which was the root of the Web services storehouse that Salesforce is now leveraging.
  • Ties “computing” to “electricity” throughout, using interesting examples.

Chapter 5, White City

  • How pervasive electrification changed industry, business and culture, thereby unleashing a new S-curve of industrialization; this reduced manual blue collar jobs, increased machine operation-based blue collar jobs and created new white collar managerial jobs; the latter were needed to manage information and communications.
  • Now each machine had its own power and motor, which unshackled them from leather belts and shafts. This led to a huge burst of productivity and rising wages even as prices of products fell.
  • Companies became much larger and more complex, with integrated processes that required more coordination. This led to the rise of knowledge workers and mass education.
  • How electricity transformed society. On the consumer front, electricity enabled home appliances while it demanded standardization at all levels of the electrical system, so it could act as one machine. Few people are alive today who remember that electricity at the dawn of the 20th century was like “I.T.” in the 1980s and 1990s, cobbled together components that required innumerable “electricians” to ticker and keep them running.
  • On the cultural side, idealists and advertising promoted a vision for egalitarianism and leisure. But it didn’t materialize; the irony of “home appliances” was that, far from liberating the housewife, they increased standards for “cleanliness” and removed the rationale for servants, so housewives worked as hard as before, if not harder.

Part 2, Living in the Cloud, will be very much a review for people in the business from a history viewpoint, but its standout value is the philosophical, societal and political questions it raises. Where Part 1 focused on parallels between electricity and computing, Part 2 shifts to discussing their differences.

Chapter 6, World Wide Computer

  • Discusses the nature of software and how it differs from manufactured products: software is more abstract, (today it is) networked/distributed and carries little/no marginal costs for multi-use. At least floppies and CDs were a product that cost something, but downloading is virtually free.
  • Moreover, web-based software is programmable even though most people no longer have to be programmers.
  • An anecdote illustrates the differences between Web 1.0 websites and Web 2.0 blogs. A (Ford) Mustang aficionado with a failed Website tries again; he builds a blog on WordPress, also using Flickr for photos, YouTube for videos, Last.fm for music, MyBloglog for promotion, Feedburner for distribution and Adsense to make some money. He succeeds in building traffic the second time.
  • Further examples of the shift from the “real” world to virtual worlds: how banks, theaters, schools, stores, libraries and playgrounds are rapidly becoming virtualized, and the trend is accelerating. Cars are becoming multimedia centers (VW and Ford examples).
  • Mobility and iPhone-like devices enable people to “live inside” World Wide Computer. This sets the scene for his reservations about these trends in the rest of the book. He writes that the path may turn out to be “something less than a new Eden.”

Chapter 7, From the Many to the Few

  • Touches on famous startups YouTube, Skype, Craigslist and PlentyOfFish, which profit from free content produced by people in their spare time, a trend that he likens to the hobbies of yesteryear.
  • The dark side here is that software (websites) and these volunteers are ultimately displacing workers. He discusses the concept of increasing returns to scale (data products don’t entail increases in materials costs as products did during the industrial age). This is opposite to industrial age’s diminishing returns to scale, which held that, the more products you made, the more costs you incurred.
  • This results in falling costs for consumers, but it also displaces workers. His main example is the media business, which is deflating fast. He likens the trend to how electrification replaced manual workers with machines, and eventually led to a shift from blue collar to white collar workers.
  • Unlike during the industrial age, World Wide Computer is not creating new jobs because people aren’t necessary, even though cited scientists admit that “non-routine cognitive tasks” are still too complicated for computers to handle.
  • Moreover, YouTube’s members do all the work, for free; ditto for Wikipedia, Yelp and others. It’s a market of free labor whose scale, scope and sophistication is growing quickly.
  • Carr discusses the idealism of “the gift economy” and egalitarian ideals. How crowdsourcing and volunteers replace workers.
  • Net-net: the industrial age concentrated wealth in a small number of companies that hired workers; the information economy is concentrating wealth in small numbers of individuals who don’t need workers.

Chapter 8, The Great Unbundling

  • Summarizes how “the bundle,” information products like newspapers, is shattering.
  • Points out that electrification led to shared media experiences while jobs in big companies brought people together in a mass culture.
  • Mass culture is fragmenting today, due to low distribution costs and virtual goods (unfortunately, he doesn’t reference Coase and transaction costs, how these are economically viable when the organization can outperform “the chaotic world out there”; actually, it is a good problem to have, the “world out there” is becoming far more efficient, which is destroying the organization’s competitive advantage.). He warns against the possibility of inferior “quality” of Wikipedia (versus Britannica, which he doesn’t mention by name, nor does he disclose that he’s an advisor to the company).
  • How newspapers financed “quality” journalism with ads that people saw because they had to buy the bundle. How journalists are now writing for the search engines (implying lower quality).
  • Culture is fragmenting, which can lead to polarization; Google’s personalization of content enables people to read only what they want; will it lead to intolerance? He implies it will.

Chapter 9, Fighting the Net

  • A weak chapter gives short shrift to a very important subject.
  • It mentions some threats from the Internet: bots, terrorists using Google maps in Iraq.
  • The fragility of the Net because it’s also a target.

Chapter 10, A Spider’s Web

  • By far the most valuable chapter, as it discusses what the digital breadcrumbs we are leaving everywhere might mean for what we regard as “privacy.”
  • Cites the story of Thelma Arnold, who was revealed in a 2006 New York Times article. Reporters Michael Barbaro and Tom Zeller, under direction of editor David Gallagher, analyzed “anonymized” AOL search data that had been released for research purposes. Like most Internet companies, AOL has a user agreement that says that users’ privacy is safe because, although AOL tracks everything members do, it does not tie member activities to their identities. However, by triangulating searches of “4417749,” the reporters were able to identify Thelma Arnold, who ended up on the front page of the New York Times.
  • Carr explains that, by putting together disparate data, maps and other myriad digital breadcrumbs, it isn’t too difficult to determine identity from anonymized data.
  • References research, “You Are What You Say: Privacy Risks of Public Mentions.”
  • Emphasizes that computers were conceived as technologies of control, which monitor and influence human behavior.
  • How governments are successfully insisting on control; cites Yahoo and Google in China, where the government sees the Web as a new propaganda channel.
  • Meanwhile, corporations are gaining unprecedented knowledge of workers via the Blackberry, and IBM and Google are creating productivity algorithms.
  • Suggests that companies will try to control how consumers act; how people already friend products and brands, how the Internet is a marketing channel and research lab.
  • Cites ongoing research that MRI our brains to understand how and when we buy.
  • The main message is that people are unaware that they are spinning a digital web around themselves with every click.

Chapter 11, iGod

  • Revisits Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who are working toward a technology meld with the brain, like HAL 9000 without the bug.
  • Reportedly, Messieurs Brin and Page want to improve the brain by using a search engine to understand the world and morph to AI (artificial intelligence).
  • Cites Ray Kurzweil, who predits that AI will supercede biological intelligence by 2040, and ongoing research into neural interfaces between brain and computer.
  • John Battelle calls the Internet “a database of human intentions.”
  • How Google makes us all a kind of mechanical turk that is unknowingly weaving the Semantic Web.
  • So far, humans have will, but machines do not, so the latter can’t be spontaneous (requires will) or deal with ambiguity.
  • However, people are becoming dependent on World Wide Computer.
  • Is it changing how we think? How our brains work?

Analysis and Conclusions

Key Points

  • I have reviewed The Big Switch due to Chapter 10, which raises key questions that all organizations and people must consider. The genie is out of the bottle, and I predict that, within five years, software will be free online that will create profiles from deep data mining to put everyone’s profile online for free (all your online searches and activity). Scott McNealy’s notorious comment (“Privacy? You haven’t got any privacy, get over it”) was literally true but it was practically too difficult to act on; however, Moore’s Law and cloud computing continue to slash the cost of computing, so it will be pervasive and free. And retroactive.
  • World Wide Computer does not have a will, so people and organizations will do well to recognize what is emerging and act to make it serve them. Many “consumers” are quite passive, which is a choice, whether conscious or not.
  • As I have predicted for years, services will emerge that separate us from our online activities. We will pay to get off the grid under certain circumstances.
  • The data and profiles are being built one click at a time, and not clicking is not really an option for most people. Soon, what you buy will be integrated into the mobile device; it will become more data fields around your identity.
  • As I predicted in Geography 3.0, the entire organization of society around large organizations is breaking down and unbundling; I’d love to get Carr’s riff on that idea. Electricity released tremendous energy by giving each machine its own power source; previously, the belts and pulleys were a huge constraint on manufacturing. In the Knowledge Economy, people are similarly shackled to jobs in large, inflexible organizations that are no longer needed. Organizations will become much smaller, but they will be networked with others, just more self-contained and much more efficient. I predict the breakdown of large organizations, when it takes place within an ultra-efficient networked environment, will drive huge productivity surges.
  • By the way, employer-sponsored health care is a huge belt because it prevents people from moving to better situations, a significant deadweight loss.

The Elephant in the Room

  • The book’s biggest limitation is Carr’s point of view. He does not address his sympathies to publishing and journalism, a legacy business that is deflating and will never recover. He does not disclose his position on the board of Encyclopedia Britannica. This creates a huge blind spot in his peripheral vision and weakens his authority on the entire subject. Media and mass culture seem to be a sacred cow.
  • Disclosure: I am personally more critical of mass media: like all human endeavors, it is not all positive. Why should all the means of producing and distributing “facts” and opinions be concentrated within few outlets? I don’t think that people need experts to monopolize communications to make sure “quality” is good. There will always be a place for expert writers, reporters and journalists, but they will compete with other sources for people’s attention. People are ultimately responsible for what information they respect and what they believe. Yes, more choice demands more of people, but it can also make them smarter.
  • I read far more diverse content than almost anyone online due to a wide range of client work. It’s really possible to find anything online, as you have doubtlessly experienced as well. Some is shocking or revolting, but other things are delightful and inspirational. It’s the whole spectrum. It’s not sanitized. It’s real.
  • It is shocking and alarming to see word of mouth being digitized because all human communication is increasingly visible, and we don’t want to see some of it. It is our will to experience what we want when we have a choice. As a matter of fact, online we are more likely to encounter “different” points of view to challenge our own than offline, a glaring weakness in Carr’s argument.

The Knowledge Economy

  • Carr’s point of view weakens his vision for the book’s economics argument. He can’t imagine the new jobs that the information age will create, so he assumes there will not be any. He seems to regard society as a mass of consumers without much imagination.
  • CSRA’s social business engagements with commercial and government clients suggest the future. Think about yourself: are you more likely to respond to an interaction with a machine or another person? Social technologies like Twitter or Facebook, which are weaving World Wide Computer, enable people and companies to automate certain aspects of interaction. But, companies consistently discover, much to their chagrin, people don’t respond as readily to machines as they do to other people who care. We all respond to individualized attention and care.
  • Read the Gossip, Grooming, and the Evolution of Language review. It will give you a well researched understanding of how sophisticated people are at detecting deceptions, and machines trying “to show they care” are deceptions because they have no will and therefore cannot care. People will always want personal attention from other people for certain things, and they will place a higher value on such attention, which will create opportunities. Service will always differentiate because it is not mechanized. The forms the service takes will evolve, but service will never “go out of style.”
  • For example, organizations of all kinds are discovering that “social media” is not a silver bullet; it’s not effective by itself, it requires focus and well designed work processes for people who show they care consistently and authentically. A machine can’t be authentic because it has no will.
  • It’s precisely the will that people respond to, and Carr fails to appreciate that.
  • I disagree with Carr’s argument about fragmentation, which I’ve oft heard elsewhere. I have worked and lived in many parts of several countries. My experience corroborates Carr’s assertion that most people naturally segregate because they often feel more comfortable living around “people like them.” For most of human existence, people have lived in very tight groups and had limited contact with outsiders. However, especially when circumstances are volatile, people with diverse networks have the advantage because their peripheral vision is wider and they can respond to disruption better. Within groups, there will always be people who serve as bridges to other groups and introduce new thinking to their groups. That’s how networks work. In fact, Dunbar asserts that the main reason that Cro-Magnon displaced Neanderthal was not brain size, but the fact that he traveled more and had more diverse networks.

Privacy

  • Having been an Internaut for many years, I have long appreciated Scott McNealy’s remark, which Carr also cites. It’s a cavalier statement uttered by someone who knows the Internet, and it’s utterly true. The Thelma Arnold case shows clearly how this lack of privacy already plays out. I hand it to Carr for using it.
  • As subscribers know, I often take an historical perspective of human experience to inform my predictions of the future, as Carr has done in The Big Switch. Looking at history, the concept of “privacy” is a curious one. For virtually all of human existence, people have had precious little privacy. Life in a small town? Life in a hunter gatherer band? You’ve got to be kidding! Although I don’t relish my prediction that anyone will be able to see anyone else’s clickthroughs, we could look at it in different ways.
    • As Carr says, people are increasingly spending their time in “virtual” digital worlds, which are described electronically by their clickthroughs. If you or I walk downtown, our behaviors are observed. We have an offline “clickthrough.” Why is online different?
    • Wouldn’t being observed make people more accountable for their behavior?
  • I am detecting, within myself and other people with whom I discuss “privacy,” a kind of dissidence around privacy. Here’s the problem:
    • There is implicit confusion around what Carr brought up in Chapter 11, an “intimate” collaboration between people and their computers. The context is that our interactions with World Wide Computer have been private, and providers like Google and AOL publicly maintain this illusion today.
    • The ultimate privacy is the freedom to think and have our private opinions within our minds; one of our most precious expressions of free will is the will to disclose.
    • Actions reflect opinions and thoughts, but the latter two must be deduced because our minds are black boxes.
    • We understand the context of going downtown. We know we are being observed, so we take that into account when deciding how to conduct ourselves.
    • Online, however, what Carr is saying is that, retroactively, our online actions can be disclosed and thoughts can be deduced, which would change the context and violate the promise.
  • The ironic part is that companies or governments can be held accountable to law, but others flout law. I can imagine such a disclosure being open sourced and free online, like Wikileaks or Napster, even if countries’ legislatures pass laws barring governments or enterprises from using such data. In fact, I think there is very little people can do to prevent it, although I’m not a data scientist.
  • As I have advised clients for years, assume that everything is being recorded, and act accordingly. If there are activities you want to pursue using a computer but don’t want to generate data in the cloud, use your own machine(s) offline.
  • In closing, I agree with Carr that the mechanization of information processing poses new challenges, and it will certainly produce surprising outcomes. That’s why the book is so important. Yes, for all of human existence, we have had little privacy, but people have been observing us, and people are inherently less efficient than machines at recording, storing and distributing data. Machines have no will—and no mercy.

The post Book Review/The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to Google appeared first on Christopher S. Rollyson and Associates.

This post originated at CSRA's blog. Please share your thoughts and comments here. Thank you.

2 September 2010

Enterprise Adoption of Social Business 2010—Social Knowledge Gap a Key Barrier

Social networks let us have more relationships but we don’t know how

“Digital social networks are transforming… [everything], from society and romance to politics and business… because they change the economics of how people discover, develop and maintain relationships.” – Social Networks’ Relationship Life Cycle

Social networks are remaking society because they enable us to have more relationships and more kinds of relationships. Relationships give us more diverse kinds of information, and information leads to more dynamic action. The problem is, most people don’t know how to be social appropriately in this emerging environment, which will delay value creation and pervasive adoption. However, if you recognize these limitations and take them into account, you will have the advantage over your rivals, many of whom will get frustrated and curtail their social media investments.

This post is the third installment of the Midyear Update. It gets personal, where the first tackled strategy, and the second social technologies. I’ll discuss the biggest hidden barrier to social business adoption and how you can guide your firm through it. I include this in the mid-year update because it has been such a prevalent part of client work this year. Understanding it is key to building and maintaining momentum.

Continue reading Enterprise Adoption of Social Business 2010—Social Knowledge Gap a Key Barrier

LinkedInEmailEvernoteInstapaperBeboXINGViadeoShare
29 August 2009

Countering Social Networks’ Unique Challenges with the Relationship Life Cycle

Contradictions Abound—What Seems New Is Ancient—Sorting through the Clutter to Create Value

socnwk_twirl_warpcropDigital social networks are transforming every field of human endeavor, from society and romance to politics and business. This is happening because they change the economics of how people discover, develop and maintain relationships. Although some will argue this point, we humans share with other animals the propensity to take more of something desirable when given the chance, and social networks enable us to have more relationships.

However, as I predicted in the Web 2.0 Adoption Curve, 2009-2015, there will be a significant backlash against social networks during 2009-2010 because the market’s perceived value of social networks is much higher than its skill with the tools. This will result in inflated expectations and ensuing disappointments. Most executives are distracted by social networks’ strangeness and features, and they miss the obvious, that social networks offer a quantum leap in productivity for developing and managing relationships. Much of the market will reject social networks as a fad and will sit on the sidelines during the Failure & Disappointment part of the adoption curve. However, people and companies that understand the real proposition will develop a rare competitive advantage while competitors are snoozing.

Continue reading Countering Social Networks’ Unique Challenges with the Relationship Life Cycle

LinkedInEmailEvernoteInstapaperBeboXINGViadeoShare
18 April 2009

Realizing Value from Social Networks: A Life Cycle Model

pdfFusing Business Development and Social Networking to Create Breakaway Value

IOR Before ROI

lifecycle-headAs disruptive innovations cross the chasm and prepare for widespread adoption, early adopters need to integrate them with the levers of market power to create unusual value.  For over 20 years, I have helped companies seize unusual advantage by adopting disruption ahead of competitors, so here I’ll share how early adopters are creating value with social network investments.  Specifically, I will show how to combine social networking with “business development” (practice development, sales).  I will begin with a high-level description of the social network-led business development life cycle, and I’ll close with key thoughts on value and ROI. Although the immediate context here is B2B and business development, the principles also apply to the B2C environment.

Continue reading Realizing Value from Social Networks: A Life Cycle Model

LinkedInEmailEvernoteInstapaperBeboXINGViadeoShare
4 April 2009

Web 2.0 Adoption Curve, 2009-2015

A Blueprint for Social Networking Investments

Web 2.0 and Social Networks have gained perceptible mindshare during Q1 2009, and conversations with clients, fellow speakers at conferences and online conversation are clearly showing the reappearance of a familiar adoption curve. Here I will discuss the Adoption Curve for Web 2.0 and Social Networks and provide rough milestones, so you can use it to gauge your investments in Web 2.0. You can avoid some of the extremes that the majority of the market will experience.

In addition, I will also show how Web 2.0 provides a rare opportunity to develop competitive advantage ahead of the market.

Continue reading Web 2.0 Adoption Curve, 2009-2015

LinkedInEmailEvernoteInstapaperBeboXINGViadeoShare