I find myself fascinated by the posts that Tom Mandel has written on open email as social networking here and here. While I was in college, back in the pre-Internet, pre-PC days, I worked as an editorial assistant at a magazine, a job that entailed transcribing, typing, and distributing reams of interoffice memos, not to mention handling, reading, filing postal mail for senior editors. This was considered a prime job because of the opportunity to immerse yourself in the editorial business via the correspondence of experienced professionals. Thus it was with interest I read Tom’s posts about tagging email and open email servers that would allow for the spread of the “tacit knowledge” of which “email is chock full.” So true.
It also occurred to me when reading the wide variety of posts here that the networks we are talking about differ in two big ways — one is what I will call the value chain. I’ve written about this before, and essentially it is the notion that for any network you can follow the creation of value as it moves from node to node. Another main point of difference is the nodes themselves. In Tom’s posts, he postulates a network where email and conversation threads are the nodes. In other posts on this blogs, nodes under discussion include people, views and transactions, services, energy networks.
Not that this is an all-inclusive list, by any means. Simply an illustration of what I’m coming to see as building blocks of social networks — nodes and value.
It’s not clear which is a crazier idea: making computers understand the nuances of human language, or building a startup search engine to compete with Google and other entrenched giants. PowerSet is trying to do both. Even in its pre-launch stage, the startup is generating significant buzz for its technology and backers, as well as the massive opportunities if it can deliver on its ambitious goals.
In this conversation, I speak with PowerSet CEO Barney Pell about the future of search, the Semantic Web, Web 2.0, and just how our interactions with computers might improve in the coming years.
A few days ago I was talking to the CEO of a large media company. They’ve been experimenting with different advertising models on their long form video content. She’s excited about the results.
A week earlier, a CTO of one of the leading blogging companies talked to me about their experiments with social network-based viral ads and how they search for influencers. In between those two conversations a CEO from a European agency told me that CPG companies are struggling trying to redefine their advertising approaches at “the moment of truth” – when customers are making their purchase decision. All of them agree on one thing: advertising is changing and they are not sure where it is going to take them.
What we have been seeing for the last several years is just the beginning of systemic changes to the entire advertising industry. And these changes are accelerating. Since early March, U.S. prime-time viewership for the four biggest broadcast networks was down 2.7 million to 37.6 million people, from 40.3 million during the same period in 2006 – only some of it due to PVRs. The change is more profound: our media consumption is changing. In addition to spending more and more time on the Internet, PVRs, iPods, Zens, and other devices means that we are watching TV very differently than we were watching even a year ago, but we are using the same old measurements – adding a 24-hour window after the shows to measure PVR watching doesn’t reflect the extent of changes in our viewing habits.
The Internet has its own problems. Just 3 weeks ago IAB published an open letter to comScore and Nielsen/Netratings asking them to submit to an audit of their numbers.
At the same time advertisers are asking for data about commercial watching on TV and time spent on websites rather than just page views. The advertising value chain is changing, the lines between promotion and advertising are blurring, new forms and approaches to advertising are constantly being tried. But measurements haven’t caught up. We can’t agree on what we are supposed to measure and how.
It is one of those rare moments when the entire domain model that everyone has been using for many years is changing. Unfortunately we are still thinking about the industry using traditional archetypes. We talk about TV advertising dollars moving to the Internet, inserting ads into VOD, selling avails on eBay, measuring page views, and using upfronts for the Internet. Instead, we should look at the entire advertising system as a single structure that needs to be planned, developed, managed and measured across media and methods using integrated approaches measured and adjusted in real time. This is not going to happen soon. And it is not going to be easy. It will require reorganization of agencies, media distribution, marketing departments and budgets, development of new automated systems, integration of measures, ad planning and media buying not only for TV and the Internet but also digital signage and radio, and close coordination with direct mail. A key prerequisites of these new realities: data capture and aggregation from as diverse sources as STBs, Internet, game consoles, POS, location sensing devices, portable media players, kiosks, etc., is not only difficult technically but will require partnerships that are not going to happen for quite sometime.
It is time for the advertising, media industries, and advertisers, to develop this vision and to figure out how to get there as soon as we can.
Last week I was in Paris at the annual Xtech conference, listening to some of Europe’s (and America’s) best developers and open data advocates sharing their experience. One of the talks that really had an impact on me - actually, left me with my jaw hanging open - was Gavin Bell’s What is your provenance? in which he explores the unintended social networks that we form online.
Even ten years ago, our identity was formed of things such as our postal address or phone number, and these data were generally not available to people unless we gave it to them. Now much of our identity these days is available online, held at a distance from ourselves by social networking sites, blogs, wikis, and a host of other fora. How much can people find out about us without us being there? What kind of composite image of ourselves can we create from the information we’ve scattered across the web?
Gavin decided to find out what picture is formed of him by the data that he and other people have published. He started with the about page on his own website, GavinBell.com, which points to a number of other places where Gavin has identified himself using the rel=”me” tag. This includes his Flickr photos page which then leads to his Flickr profile. That links back to GavinBell.com, with the rel=”me” tag, strongly identifying these two pages as belonging to the same person.
Of course, Flickr also provides lists of buddies - data that can be scraped, along with screen name, real name and location (if given). By following the buddy list links, it’s then possible to scrape the data from his friend’s buddies pages, building up a picture of his wider Flickr network.
But there’s no reason to limit this data trail to Flickr. Scrape the links from friends’ profile pages, follow them, find more rel=”me” tags, more links to other social networking sites, such as Upcoming, and examine contacts there, and a clear picture of who knows who and what the web knows about each of them emerges.
The same works for any number of sites, Magnolia, Vox, Digg, Cork’d, and Gavin went on to talk about how you could use the same techniques with blogs, Del.icio.us and tags to form a picture of what you think you write about on your blog, and what other people think you write about. Fascinating, yes, but also alarming.
One of the things that struck me was that, logically, I know that there’s lots of information out there about me that people could collate to form a picture of the sort of person I am, what my interests are, who I know, where I go. Emotionally, though, I didn’t realise just how easy it was until Gavin showed us.
Last autumn, Facebook decided to expose its user’s actions within the site in a ‘news feed’. Suddenly, it was easy to see who was joining or leaving which group, who was leaving messages on whose walls, and who was friending or splitting up from whom. Users rebelled - whilst all of that data was there for people to see if they dug deep enough, no one was expecting it to be collated and exposed.
The underlying assumption in Facebook - and indeed, in life - is that others shouldn’t collate and expose your data without good reason. Indeed, much of the work that we do with the Open Rights Group, a UK-based digital rights advocacy group, is about the government collecting or collating data in ways that are not in the public interest.
The cynical might say that it would serve me right if someone did aggregate all my personal data and publish it for the world to see, but we all generate data - scads and scads of it, much of it perforce. And we can’t prevent others from doing with it what they will - it is, after all, out there. Question is, how will we deal with having that level of transparency foisted upon us?
One of the unexpected benefits of the blogging phenomenon has been the way that blog search engines such as Technorati have exposed the richness of the non-English web. Back in the olden days, when the internet was flat, you saw the web through your own linguistic filters - English was the dominant language and it spread as far as the mouse could click. Now there are vibrant Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and even Welsh communities online that are easily found and accessed. Wikipedia comes in 252 languages; Google search is available in over 100 languages. No longer do we live in linguistic silos unable to see or interact with speakers of other languages - instead, multilingualism is all around us.
But the web still errs towards a very basic view of language, assuming that language and nationality share the same borders and that people use language in an either/or manner. Reality is far more complex than that and in this video conversation I talk to bilingual language-blogger and social media consultant, Stephanie Booth (Climb To The Stars).
1. A trademark or distinctive name identifying a product or a manufacturer.
2. A mark indicating identity or ownership, burned on the hide of an animal with a hot iron.
We marketers like to delude ourselves. We delude ourselves into believing that if we can distill the meaning of a product or service to its very essence, that if we can determine the perfect message and imagery, then the market will internalize those things for which the brand “stands” (and perhaps look a little less closely at the actual product or service to which the brand has been applied). That’s what we do. We create “brands” that will resonate in the market.
But a “market” is not an undifferentiated mass of consumers[1] with upturned gullets interested in gobbling up our marketing messages. A “market” is actually a place. When you hear the word market, think “bazaar,” not “customer segment.”
Some of the historically great “brands” are learning this the hard way. Let’s look at Sony, for example. Some estimates state that Sony is going to lose up to $1 billion dollars on creating and marketing its new PS3 gaming console in its first year[2]. One BILLION dollars. With that kind of money, they should be able to ensure that the “branding” in the market is perfect, right?
Not even close.
Wikipedia defines “social media” as “the online tools and platforms that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with each other. Social media can take many different forms, including text, images, audio, and video. Popular social mediums include blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis and vlogs.”[3]
The ease of access to social media has flattened and democratized the market/bazaar. Instead of those with the loudest megaphones and billion dollar marketing budgets running roughshod over customers, we, the customers, now have the ability to critique, to talk back and to connect with each others and share stories and opinions. What does this mean for marketing? It means that the old, top-down hierarchy of searing brands into the consumer psyche is done. Over. Finished.
Let’s look at a tangible example. In the wake of the PS3 launch, an individual only known by the online handle of “heavyarms117″ posted a video to YouTube entitled “How To Kill A Brand”[4] (based on the song “How To Save A Life,” by The Fray). Here’s the first verse:
Step 1, you make your console
cost the most,
You beat your chest and proudly boast,
Despite no good exclusive games
You make a bunch of ridiculous claims,
Then ignore our need to play online
Don’t make it fun like Xbox Live
Use Blue Ray, which I don’t need
Now you’re getting your ass kicked by the Wii
Sony, you went wrong, with your PS3
I’ll just keep playing my 360
Hope this song has helped, you understand
Now you know, How You Killed Your Brand…
Simple. To the point. And devastating. As of this writing, the video has been viewed 1,419,639 times, and generated over 12,000 comments. What was the cost to produce it? Minimal. The cost was some basic editing equipment that comes with every laptop and a few hours of time.
1.4 million connected customers versus a top-down, billion dollar budget? I’ll take the customer in that race every time.
So, if the customer is truly in control of the brand, what can we as marketers do?
If the customer truly is in control as a result of the advent of social media, the most important thing to do is to actually engage in transparent, authentic conversation. Anything less eventually ends up with a situation similar to the one in which we currently see Sony and other brands. This means listening in the blogosphere, and taking the pure, raw customer feedback that is out there and bringing it back into the organization. It means creating social networks and online communities where customers can engage with your organization and each other. It means acting not as teflon-covered representatives of the organization, but instead engaging in natural exchanges as the human beings that we are.
“But what if the customer is critical, or says bad things about us?” It’s happening already on the over 70 million blogs online, and between the hundreds of millions of members of existing online social networks. And when it does happen, a marketer’s best bet is not to go into “spin” mode, but instead to address the issue directly. If there is no issue, or the facts surrounding the conversation are incorrect, then correct them factually. However, if there actually is an issue, address it, and state what is going to be done, and by when. For example:
1) Say what happened - State the case, tell what happened, explain what the situation was. Don’t spin, don’t make excuses. Just state the facts.
2) Say what you’re going to do about it â Inform customers about the short term fix. How are you going to put out the fire?
3) Plan for Murphy - Ok, the immediate crisis is over. What are you going to do to make sure this doesn’t happen again
4) Report back - Let the customers know what’s going on. Was the short term fix applied? Are the long-term changes happening?
Following this simple process can avert the firestorms that erupt online when an organization decides to batten down the hatches and ignore what’s actually being said about them via social media.
And so, here we are today. We’ve created an entire industry based on marketing via top-down methods, based on the broadcast models of TV and print that have served marketing well for the past fifty years. But things have changed, radically and quickly. Customers are turning off the TV and putting down the newspaper and getting their information about brands not from our billboards and glossy collateral, but instead from their trusted colleagues online.
Even those colleagues only known online as “heavyarms117.”
We are thrilled to announce the 2007 Supernova/TechCrunch Connected Innovators, selected from over 120 applicants to present at this year’s conference:
These startups all have extraordinary potential to create new markets and shape the connected future. Most are making significant announcements at Supernova. Find out more on Thursday, June 21!
I’m Scott Brown, marketing strategist for the Cisco Media Solutions Group. Two aspects of my world, my role as a marketer, and my job in a business unit focused on the digital disruption of media & entertainment, have collided, leaving me wondering: how far apart are the futures of Hollywood and Madison Ave?
For the last 10 years technology companies have been talking about and promising “convergence.” Few would argue that we’re finally in the era of converged voice, video and data (and yes, at least in the beginnings of mobile) networks.
The conversation I’d like to have with you is about the next wave of convergence on the horizon — the convergence of marketing, communications and entertainment content.
Think about it: is the Diet Coke and Mentos video entertainment content, or marketing? Does the video become less entertaining if it had been sponsored by Coke or Mentos? Is a corporate-sponsored social media site just “fun,” or a new channel for connecting/communicating with customers? Today, technology convergence and the digitization of content are blurring the lines between what used to be considered three discrete activities.
If you’re not a purist, you might not care. But if you’re a marketer and wonder how you’re going to build a brand in a world with DVRs, wikis and a general explosion of entertainment options (with its continuing fragmentation of audience), you should care a lot.
It’s not like this issue keeps me up at nights (our newborn does that), but it merits a discussion. I’d love to hear your perspectives on how marketing and your jobs are evolving as a result of the convergence of marketing, entertainment and communications.
Join this conversation and give us your thoughts on:
Has anything really changed, or is the online world just a new distribution channel for marketers to leverage/incorporate?
How do you cost-effectively build a national brand when your early adopters are DVRing your ads?
What is the best role for social-networking communities in your marketing mix? Will there be a backlash against community?
Does the role of marketing measurement and metrics change in this new world?
Has the practice of marketing changed in every industry, or just a technology market thing?
Kevin Werbach and Dan Scheinman, general manager of Cisco’s Media Solutions Group, got a head-start on this topic in this Knowledge@Wharton podcast taped to support this conversational theme. Kevin and Dan touch on a wide range of topics from tech market trends to the impact of the digital disruption on the media & entertainment industry, marketers and consumers.
Why is Cisco interested in participating in this year’s Supernova Conference? We’ve got some great people on staff that are looking at significant emerging technology trends. Together, we are committed to creating an open environment for learning about and sharing ideas on technology and business innovation. And, there’s a lot happening. Here’s how I tend to think about the state of the industry and different areas we’d like to explore with you:
Let’s start with the recipe: integrate communication, collaboration, community, and entertainment. Add lots of grass-roots energy. Double content every hour and pepper heavily with uncertainty in business models, and consume it from a fire hose!
The results of this high-energy, information-technology meal affect the way we live, work, learn, and play, as information technology (of all kinds) doubles in price, performance, capacity, and bandwidth every year. Life is going digital and more connected, and content is being produced and ravished at an increasingly rapid pace. It is not a question of if or when it is going to happen. It is happening now, and we have reached a point of critical mass.
With this recipe how do you spell relief for business hurdles and opportunities that are relevant to forward-looking people today? My Cisco® colleagues and I, along with other experts, invite you to join us in conversations where we will share our points of view and ideas around the following topics:
“Regulatory, Dual, or Long-Term Business-Value Driven?” Robert Massoudi ,Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group.
“Future of Advertising,” Leszek Izdebski, Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group.
“Business Social Networking: More than a High-Tech Water Cooler” and “The Humanity in the Technology of Business Communications,” Roger Farnsworth, Cisco Executive Thought Leadership Group
We look forward to meeting you in person and continuing our live discussions during the Supernova conference in June in the “Markets and Relationships Connected Challenge,” hosted by Leszek Izdebski; the roundtable discussion, “Regulatory, Dual or Long-Term Business-Value Driven,” hosted by Robert Massoudi; and, Rick Hutley’s participation in the “Does the Network Need an Upgrade?” session..
Howard Greenstein and David Parmet took some great photos our pre-Supernova mixer in NYC last night. It was a blast. Silicon Valley may get all the attention, but there is no shortage of energy and ideas among the East Coast tech community. Thanks to everyone who came!
Next week, San Francisco. We had to close the registration list for the SF mixer after only a couple days, but please put your name on the waiting list, as we’re trying to free up more space.
