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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
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.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Patagonia and Me
After reading the Twitterville articles about positive and negative experiences with companies, I immediately thought of my positive experience with Patagonia over the past week.
For the last months I had planned on buying another cold weather top for the school year, and last week I picked out a vest online from Patagonia. On Thursday I had no class, but a big exam to study for so I wanted to quickly run into the city to grab my vest. My only problem was that I didn't want to waste my time going there if they didn't have it in stock. I ventured to Twitter and found the Patagonia store Boston has an independent Twitter account that lists sales, new items, and store hours. I read their tweets about the week's hours, got their phone number and planned my trip so that I would arrive as they opened at 10 AM. Before I left my dorm room I called the store and found out they had my item in stock, and they even reserved it for me. All in all it took me one hour and fifteen minutes round trip from Walsh Hall to Patagonia, leaving me with plenty of time to spare.
I was so pleased with Patagonia not because they gave me a killer deal on my vest, but because they made my shopping experience so concise and quick. By using Twitter companies can alter and ease the traditional customer experience so that it suits the customer. I really appreciate Patagonia just being there. Surely I could have looked through their website for some in-store availability option, but nothing beats someone confirming it in person. My next step is to reach out to the Best Buy Twitter account to get suggestions on the best TV for a college house full of 12 guys.
I'd like to know if people find business with social media to be more appealing just because they are there and some what useful, or because they can occasionally provide a big deal?
Peace, love, and social media
For the last months I had planned on buying another cold weather top for the school year, and last week I picked out a vest online from Patagonia. On Thursday I had no class, but a big exam to study for so I wanted to quickly run into the city to grab my vest. My only problem was that I didn't want to waste my time going there if they didn't have it in stock. I ventured to Twitter and found the Patagonia store Boston has an independent Twitter account that lists sales, new items, and store hours. I read their tweets about the week's hours, got their phone number and planned my trip so that I would arrive as they opened at 10 AM. Before I left my dorm room I called the store and found out they had my item in stock, and they even reserved it for me. All in all it took me one hour and fifteen minutes round trip from Walsh Hall to Patagonia, leaving me with plenty of time to spare.
I was so pleased with Patagonia not because they gave me a killer deal on my vest, but because they made my shopping experience so concise and quick. By using Twitter companies can alter and ease the traditional customer experience so that it suits the customer. I really appreciate Patagonia just being there. Surely I could have looked through their website for some in-store availability option, but nothing beats someone confirming it in person. My next step is to reach out to the Best Buy Twitter account to get suggestions on the best TV for a college house full of 12 guys.
I'd like to know if people find business with social media to be more appealing just because they are there and some what useful, or because they can occasionally provide a big deal?
Peace, love, and social media
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
"Everyone Likes to be a Hero (HARO)"
Reading: "Tour de Source" Facebook Fairtytales
Let me start with addressing "first things first", first. I mean of course first things are first, as a civilized and cultured people we don't start with second things. For the same reason dessert is served last at every meal.
So second things second, I like this book Facebook Fairytales. In itself the book has some similarities to social media. It is easy to read in a start and stop manner, and I found it filling the lull between classes and the other things I do in my day. The only issue I could find is that I had trouble finding the t.o.c when I switched chapters, it's almost camouflaged or something, but that's just me.
On to the actual story of Peter and HARO. Peter addressed an issue I never knew existed due to my lack of insight into the news world, and turned it into a success when he initially never intended to. Peter really was the link between two social networks, his reporter friends and his clients from Geek Factory. Luckily for Peter his rolodex was so sought after that he eliminated himself and chose Facebook as his replacement. Peter should feel good in knowing that even Facebook couldn't replace him as he needed to give his group its own website.
In my opinion the things that really made HARO successful versus ProfNet and other competitors was the identity Peter brought to the website. Peter managed to maintain the personal feel and authenticity that he exuded when he was doing the connecting. That authenticity kept people on board as they switched from the Facebook group to the site. Users can sense the identity of the services and products they use and HARO certainly has it. They only send out three emails a day, recommend donations to charities versus themselves, and they ask the users to remain authentic themselves when they respond in order to keep the service useful. The one thing HARO did that showed me their identity remained was how Peter signed off with "Blue skies". All of these things I am sure were lacking in ProfNet, I mean even their name sounds cold, corporate, and revenue focused. So great job Peter you and your company represent the many good things about social media.
Before you leave think about all of the social media related websites and services out there. What makes them succeed like HARO? and I'm not looking for network effects, switching costs, etc.
Peace, Love, and Social Media
Let me start with addressing "first things first", first. I mean of course first things are first, as a civilized and cultured people we don't start with second things. For the same reason dessert is served last at every meal.
So second things second, I like this book Facebook Fairytales. In itself the book has some similarities to social media. It is easy to read in a start and stop manner, and I found it filling the lull between classes and the other things I do in my day. The only issue I could find is that I had trouble finding the t.o.c when I switched chapters, it's almost camouflaged or something, but that's just me.
On to the actual story of Peter and HARO. Peter addressed an issue I never knew existed due to my lack of insight into the news world, and turned it into a success when he initially never intended to. Peter really was the link between two social networks, his reporter friends and his clients from Geek Factory. Luckily for Peter his rolodex was so sought after that he eliminated himself and chose Facebook as his replacement. Peter should feel good in knowing that even Facebook couldn't replace him as he needed to give his group its own website.
In my opinion the things that really made HARO successful versus ProfNet and other competitors was the identity Peter brought to the website. Peter managed to maintain the personal feel and authenticity that he exuded when he was doing the connecting. That authenticity kept people on board as they switched from the Facebook group to the site. Users can sense the identity of the services and products they use and HARO certainly has it. They only send out three emails a day, recommend donations to charities versus themselves, and they ask the users to remain authentic themselves when they respond in order to keep the service useful. The one thing HARO did that showed me their identity remained was how Peter signed off with "Blue skies". All of these things I am sure were lacking in ProfNet, I mean even their name sounds cold, corporate, and revenue focused. So great job Peter you and your company represent the many good things about social media.
Before you leave think about all of the social media related websites and services out there. What makes them succeed like HARO? and I'm not looking for network effects, switching costs, etc.
Peace, Love, and Social Media
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Zero Degrees of Separation
Reading: World of Connections
It seems that once upon a time complete strangers being connected by ONLY 6 other people was a big deal. Now I feel like we are getting really close to having no degrees of separation. Today if I chose too I could make a very reasonable effort to contact a celebrity, or with even more ease I could connect to a complete stranger. While the connectivity and socialization of the internet is fascinating, I think that solving these high valued companies' cash flow issues is an even better chore to take up.
So here comes my idea to solve Twitter's income problems. My thought involves combining twitter, 4Square, and the fastest growing internet company ever, Groupon. I'm sure few of you have heard of Groupon, but it is a company that sells coupons for local shops, restaurants, and attractions online and it splits what people pay for the coupon with the restaurant. A restaurant may offer a coupon for $2 burgers when they are usually $6, and when Groupon sells a coupon they take a cut of the $2.The customer's are only charged for the coupons when a certain amount of them are sold, giving the restaurant or shop a new customer following who in the long run will cover the short term loss they take on the coupons.
My idea would be to funnel these coupons through 4Square and announce their purchase on Twitter. This way people see the coupons right when they could use them, and by announcing them on Twitter the group buying necessary to activate the coupons would take place rapidly. In terms of profits I would think 4Square and Twitter could take a cut of what the restaurant and Groupon make on each purchase. Also I think that imbedding a credit card payment button right on whatever program runs this service would make it really easy to use. Finally, I think it would be easy to get people to use this as mobile payment via smartphones becomes more and more prevalent.
In all I'd like to know what everyone thought about me tackling a problem addressed in the article, versus just discussing it? Also if you have any comments on my solution, or your own it would be awesome to hear them.
Peace, Love, and Social Media.
It seems that once upon a time complete strangers being connected by ONLY 6 other people was a big deal. Now I feel like we are getting really close to having no degrees of separation. Today if I chose too I could make a very reasonable effort to contact a celebrity, or with even more ease I could connect to a complete stranger. While the connectivity and socialization of the internet is fascinating, I think that solving these high valued companies' cash flow issues is an even better chore to take up.
So here comes my idea to solve Twitter's income problems. My thought involves combining twitter, 4Square, and the fastest growing internet company ever, Groupon. I'm sure few of you have heard of Groupon, but it is a company that sells coupons for local shops, restaurants, and attractions online and it splits what people pay for the coupon with the restaurant. A restaurant may offer a coupon for $2 burgers when they are usually $6, and when Groupon sells a coupon they take a cut of the $2.The customer's are only charged for the coupons when a certain amount of them are sold, giving the restaurant or shop a new customer following who in the long run will cover the short term loss they take on the coupons.
My idea would be to funnel these coupons through 4Square and announce their purchase on Twitter. This way people see the coupons right when they could use them, and by announcing them on Twitter the group buying necessary to activate the coupons would take place rapidly. In terms of profits I would think 4Square and Twitter could take a cut of what the restaurant and Groupon make on each purchase. Also I think that imbedding a credit card payment button right on whatever program runs this service would make it really easy to use. Finally, I think it would be easy to get people to use this as mobile payment via smartphones becomes more and more prevalent.
In all I'd like to know what everyone thought about me tackling a problem addressed in the article, versus just discussing it? Also if you have any comments on my solution, or your own it would be awesome to hear them.
Peace, Love, and Social Media.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
WikiWorld: How wikiPedia is the Same Old Encyclopedia, but Different
Reading: All the News that's Fit to Print Out
Also as a final question: Do you think Wikipedia could be on the way out even though it has only started to realize its news potential?
You tell me your thoughts, I'll tell you mine.
(9/10)
What a crazy article. I mean it touches on so many wild things that have been and are going on. I never thought of Wikipedia being involved in the digital vs. paper news fight, but here it is as a reliable near streaming news source. I also can hardly believe this crazy society that Wikipedia has created where friend, enemies, and factions have formed so solidly. So what I intend to do is talk about how everything that happens around Wikipedia happens in the real world, but only different.
To start Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just like any one papered edition Wikipedia has editors, stories, and sourced data. On the other hand these editors work for free and have limited academic knowledge. The stories are alive! Meaning that they are never set in stone, and many are constantly developing as events transpire. Just as the stories are live, so are the data which fuels these stories. In a regular encyclopedia stories aren't really dead, but more hibernating between editions. But who wants to spend the money every few years for a ton of books and a little new information?
In the same way academia has a societal hierarchy so does Wikipedia, but their's is different. Wikipedia has an internal promotion system based upon a contributor's prominence in the community. There is no power struggle in the community, only a sense of humility and duty. In my opinion if academia could throw off their enormous egos based on degrees from schools that many Wikipedia contributors will eventually get, then Wikipedia and academia could make something incredibly useful and relevant.
I said I was amazed that Wikipedia is now a news source, and I shouldn't be surprised as regular encyclopedias are news sources also. Only Wikipedia is faster as it is sponsored by interest, unpaid workers who have a dedication to a product instead of a lagging, paid obligation to a few books.
Overall I think this article about Wikipedia has increased my appreciation for it immensely. My favorite part had to be about the vandalism. I really liked the kind of comical good-guy bad-guy mentality when they mentioned "Willy on Wheels" who would place "on wheels" beside thousands of article headlines.
Also as a final question: Do you think Wikipedia could be on the way out even though it has only started to realize its news potential?
You tell me your thoughts, I'll tell you mine.
(9/10)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)