Google's Mental Space Oddity

Google really has created something like a second brain for all of us. It holds all kinds information too small, too irrelevant, yet all too useful to simply forget. I don't think Google is making us stupid, nor do I think it is making us distracted. I do think that the internet is making us distracted. I am, that's for sure. I can hardly stay on one web page at a time, and I often have a bunch of tabs open with all sorts of stuff on them. I check the same web pages over and over to see if there is anything now on them. I cringe at reading a blog post that involves me scrolling more than once to read it all. I don't blame myself, I blame how quick and easy it is to do. I am after all weak under the pressure of high-speed internet. Then again Google loves that we can speed around the net and check out all kinds of things because it gets to know us better.

I wonder if Nietzsche had trouble typing all those consonants in a row from his last name when he first got that type writer. The article said his new tool changed the way he wrote from thoughts to narrative and puns. It makes me think that our minds might be moving back to thought now with all the internet writing and reading we do. Isn't this blog simply my thoughts?

The idea of the perfect search engine seems self-defeating. If the engine gives us exactly what we want then we cease to give Google the data from all of our wandering. No longer would surfing the web exist, it would become precise like a deadly missile. One of the major purposes of the web might be lost. Luckily stumbleupon exists to give us target randomness, almost like a bizarro Google.

In all I think this article had some pretty cool stuff to talk about.

What do you all think about Nietzsche having five consonants in a row in his last name? Also would a perfect search engine really be that great? Wouldn't it stop so much data flow that could be useful to companies and people?

10/10

This Isn't Your Parents' Foursquare

Foursquare, of course, was only a stepping stone. It was revolutionary for a minute. It was fun, neat, and a little useful. Now it is time for it to be productive and essential. Foursquare and other location aware services have reached their peak, crawled back up the trough, and now must become intelligent and useful with our enlightened understanding of them. The goal in all of these articles is to combine the communication, location, purchases, and deals available through many types of LBS. This is an ideal goal, and one I believe can be reached.

In order to combine all four of these services people must be shown how much benefit they are actually receiving. If people don't think they will gain anything from the service they will never use it. But if people realize that the place where they buy coffee could start offering better food to gain more of their money and loyalty to their food then I believe they would be in. The biggest gain for businesses would be better targeted rewards and deals. Companies could eliminate redundant savings that don't really bring them any more sales than without the deals.

The overall idea of finally piecing together the full conversation people have with corporations everyday is brilliant. Consumers send messages beyond simply the verbal when the buy and don't buy products or travel to other retailers. If all the messages sent directly, indirectly, or subconsciously can be pooled together I believe everyone involved would gain. One obstacle I see remaining is the open sharing of consumer activity with separate corporations like DD and Starbucks. I think that both companies should be disclosed or able to purchase the same information to keep competition fair, and thus advantageous for the consumer.

Overall these articles were really interesting to read, I always enjoy something that presents an opinion on how things will be in the future. I would give these readings a 10/10. Can't wait for this class.

What will it take to get all four of these activities into one service? Buyouts, internal development, cooperation?

Heroes: Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

I liked the article from this week about work place HEROs, and on the other hand I am getting a little tired about new customer service methods, especially regarding Comcast. The thing I liked most about this article was its attempt on rating what project are worth while. The system is clearly flawed by having such a limited range of values to associate with each project. The evaluations are vague at best. Yet I appreciate how someone is trying to establish a methodology to practically choose projects to undertake. When dealing with ROI so many companies have trouble using the correct metrics, and I think this article is a step in the right direction. The hardest thing I believe to quantify is the "it" factor that these projects may possess, and the gut feeling of an experienced manager. No number can really be placed on either of these traits, both of which are hugely essential to success.

If you all had to implement one change in your work space, whether it is at school or in the office, what would it be?

The Fortune 500, and their 500 Million Fans

When I checked out this weeks readings I was a little disappointed to see the Starbucks case was all taken up. Nonetheless the Fortune 500 case was pretty interesting. I liked how it changed my idea that the biggest, most successful, and sometimes the oldest companies were actually using social media so well. It goes to show social media is the real deal. Aside from changing my view point of the Fortune 500, I was surprised to see how many companies use Twitter, and I also liked the idea of "absorption" by companies.
Both of these ideas go hand in hand. Twitter allows for quick and concise communication,  and absorption of this information by a company really determines how successful a social media campaign is. I imagine if a company really wants to engage customers, they also want to do so a simply as possible. Twitter confines comments, questions, and outbursts to 140 characters. By keeping all of this information short a company can easily analyze it and act upon is rapidly. Whether an online response, total company apology, or physical change is called for a company can do so immediately.

From the three cases, I found Coca-Cola using social media the best. They had several official outlets run by the company, but also had customer run communities set up with specific guidelines to keep usage in line. Coke also has a blog run by the company historian, which aside from being cool, is essential to their brand. Coca-Cola is one of the oldest and the most recognizable brand in the world. By having a historical based blog they really enhance their brand and stick to their heritage and roots.

In all the reading had a lot of older things we have discussed, but some great ideas inside. I would give it a 7/10

I'd like to know: Is absorption and responsiveness the most important trait for successful social media? And what other cool social media developments have you seen similar to Coke's historical blog?

Communispace's Collaborative Social Media Marketing

I found the Communispace case-study to be really interesting as this company has managed to take a pure social media tool and connect it into old world marketing practices. So often companies are based on social media alone, while Communispace uses is to enhance an already existing service. Two points I want to focus on are the what makes Communispace so successful and a great irony I found in COmmunispace's choice for future products.

Communispace was so successful because it initially possessed first mover advantage, but due to the low cost of entry into their market they had to survive based on their product quality. Their product was the communities that they formed and sold to companies. These communities were not unusual, yet theirs were the highest of quality. The groups were invitation only, and really engaged the members. By only inviting people to allow them in members felt valued, and the duration of their work really connected them to the service they provided. These communities became like special clubs that only a few were allowed into, and once one was in they didn't want to go. Also the communities were formed by people specifically outlined by the companies who were true users of whatever they were improving on or would use. Overall these dedicated members created dedicated groups that offered better results than any other group  feedback system in the industry. Thanks to all of this Communispace had to barely incentivize their members to keep them working for them.

The part of this case-study I enjoyed the most was the cliffhanger at the end where we aren't told what course of action Communispace took. I believe that they should have expanded as their networks were already set up, yet they were not being used to their fullest potential. I thought it was highly ironic for a company that does market research and brand image work to not use their network of customers to help them decide whether they should venture into the WOM branch of services. I think with such a low risk of testing out a WOM campaign in a network that Communispace is very good at operating they should definitely have tried it. Their market hold in the service they sold was solid, they had scale to absorb the small cost of trying WOM, so they should've gone for it.

I'd really like to know what you think Communispace should have done. Should they have expanded into WOM and why or why not?

Peace, Love, and Social Media.

Mass Markets, Mass Marketers

This week I chose to read "How to Develop a Social CRM Strategy" and "Case Study of Virsuas" because I figured they would offer some insight into leveraging social media to improve a business. The readings had some great guidelines that lead to the best social media experience possible. The two best guidelines I read were about availability as a company and data and intellectual property rights. Also I think that one guideline that was missing should be about the customer base a company is dealing with, because some customers simply just won't participate.
I believe that most important thing a company should remember when dealing with social media is their availability. A company should never be over engaging. A company needs to serve as a safety valve for customers, only being there when needed. As an outlet the company needs to only reach out when it is deemed critically necessary, in response to slander, lies, or false claims.
The most interesting guideline pertained to data ownership and intellectual property made through social media. I imagine as the popularity of social media continues to rise and more collaborative creation is done there will be a precedent setting legal ruling that firmly establishes who owns what in a social media environment. I also find it odd that the data which really helps so many social media functions to work actually belongs to the customer.
Finally I think that if a customer base is unlikely to respond to social media, then a company should avoid it. Certain companies also simply aren't right for social media. Imagine if the company I buy my tissues from was on social media, what benefit would I really gain from that?

Overall this was an interesting reading, I would give it a 8/10.

I'm interested to hear what companies you all think would be best suited and worst suited for having a social media outlet?

Peace, love, and social media.

The Davids Against Goliath

This week I read "Collaborative Minds" to delve deeper into how mass movements in media, tech, and consumer products industries are reshaping the terrain. The reading contained a lot, but what fascinated me was the attitudes of several different types of company. The three types of company I saw were represented by the telecommunications companies, IBM, and new companies like Skype. Each company has a different attitude regarding their standing amongst the collaborative masses.

The best way I can describe the telecomm companies in this section is childish and egocentric. The telecommunication companies are upset by their falling numbers as other media sources emerge that are bringing content more consistently into our lives. The telecomm companies used to be the sole guardians of all things media, but now as YouTube and other similar media sources have emerged they wish to stem the flow of their content in an effort to make up losses, ruin the internet, and bring suffering on their customers. Have the telecommunications companies failed to realize that they can and will be cut out? If they really want to play the snotty, scorned child they will certainly fall to the agile likes of the media giants.

IBM on the other hand has taken a stance opposite of the telecomms as they have adopted collaborative development and action despite their "old school" roots that limits many companies. IBM has been able to move its rheumatoid structure to adapt. IBM definitely has realized the power of the masses, and has actually harnessed it to benefit their bottom line.

Skype and other new companies are fortunate to have business plan flexibility which allows them to search for what people will pay for after they have consistent clients operating on their platform. I'm not entirely sure if I would prefer to be operating in Skype or IBM's position, both seem to have nearly unlimited possibilities, but Skype cannot wait forever to find a way to make a buck. IBM also lacks the freedom to almost entirely create a whole new market, service, and business plan. Despite all that I would hate to be the telecomms who will eventually have to buckle to the new media outlets or disappear entirely.

In the past months Comcast has been given the edge in the net neutrality, but once customer's have to pay more to get their old service quality something will have to change. Overall what will be the tipping point with these old entrenched companies who refuse to adapt and keep up with our media needs? Will Google begin providing us with internet? Will telecomms improve their services? What comes next?

I'd rate this reading 9/10

Peace, love, and social media.