Wednesday, October 8, 2008

PR/Marketing Fluff in 140-character doses

Writing in Silicon Valley Insider, Dan Frommer reports on an emerging Twitter tool:

Twittertise lets you schedule Twitter messages in advance to go out at a specified time -- handy for companies that want to cue up PR-approved messages ahead of time; and track traffic to links you send on Twitter through Bit.ly, a URL shortener.

It's a cool idea that can have uses outside to PR/Marketing. I'd be bothered by the implications if receiving tweets wasn't an opt-in deal. My follow list is already too crowded with information I actually want.

 

Read the story: Twitter Marketing Tool Twittertise Catching On With Big, Small Companies

 

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Obama campaign iPhone app

In yet another example of the smallification of politics, ZDNet's Apple Core column reports that the Obama campaign has released an iPhone app:

The app has a Call Your Friends feature that organizes your contacts by key battleground states and adds a field for notes on who you called, who they are supporting and if they want a reminder call on election day. The information remains private [and} doesnt leave your phone although the total amount of calls made are tallied to track progress.

Smart move.

This brings to mind concerns about the accuracy of polling data that focuses solely on landline phone service.

Technology continues to reshape the political landscape on a cataclysmic level.

Read more: Obama campaign unleashes iPhone app | The Apple Core | ZDNet.com

 

NPR to Open-Source Debate Fact Checking

According to a post on National Public Radio's Vox Politics blog, NPR will use Twitter to allow listeners to participate in grassroots fact-checking of candidate claims during tonight's VP debate between Senator Joe Biden and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:

As you watch the debate, we invite you to be on the lookout for any questionable claims made by Sen. Biden or Gov. Palin. For example, if one of them says something that runs counter to something you've heard them say in the past, you can help us out by tracking down a primary source for the original quote, like a transcript or video. Same thing if one of them cites a statistic: you can track down the original source and help us verify if it's accurate.

This is a cool move, and amounts to open-sourcing the fact-checking process. Those interested in participating are instructed to send the URLs for information sources to Twitter using the tag #factcheck.

Get the details here: NPR: Help NPR Fact-Check Tonight's Debate on Twitter

Thursday, August 21, 2008

New ways to be big

Writing in his Enterprise blog on ReadWriteWeb, Bernard Lunn displays remarkable insight into how powerful forces, including social media and the changing of the guard as Boomers leave the workforce,  are changing the structure and organization of the firm:

That is huge opportunity for a lot of start-ups. There has never been a better time to be an entrepreneur. It also a huge challenge for the incumbents. Big companies need to re-define themselves in fundamental ways to find new ways to be big in a meaningful way.

In ten years, what will a "big" company look like?

Read: Enterprise 2.0: The Nature of the Firm - ReadWriteWeb

 

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Personal Innovation

The recently launched New Age of Innovation blog is obviously a marketing vehicle for the new book by C. K. Prahalad and M. S. Krishnan, but that doesn't mean that the blog or the book aren't worth reading. I first heard of Prahalad when he spoke at an IT industry event about a year ago, and his ideas on the changing nature of competition and on innovation as business survival skill are as fascinating as they are important. I can't wait to read this new book.

A recent post on the blog, by guest blogger and venture capitalist William Glynn, mixes a bit of flag-waving encouragement with some harsh but not-undeserved criticism of those who cling to dead and dying business and economic models:

If the U.S. and its people would only wake up to the fact that we are the world's largest, most sophisticated fuel supply for innovation … and it isn't stopping or running dry. It's this identity crisis that holds us back, bound to rotting unions and auto plants, the working man, farmer, steel worker, plant worker, etc. We need an FDR-level plan to get people out of the industrial-age ghettos and into the light. We have to. I think we can all agree, we don't have a choice

(Read Glynn's entire post: New Age Of Innovation | Innovate in Real Time with Me -- Billy G | C.K. Prahalad)

Remarks like that will be a bitter pill for many in Cleveland and other Rust Belt cities. But there's no denying that times have changed, the world has changed, and that change will continue at a dizzying and ever-accelerating pace. It is important to recognize that change as an opportunity, rather than as a threat.

As I write this, NPR is running a John McCain soundbyte in which the candidate warns that he can't promise that manufacturing jobs will ever return, but promises that he will focus efforts on providing people with the education necessary to move into the new economy. As campaign promises go, that one's not bad -- at least his assessment of the situation is realistic. (That's not an endorsement.) So while I agree with Glynn in principle, and I firmly believe that we need the kind of "FDR-level plan" he suggests, doesn't the ultimate responsibility for adapting to changing times rest with the individual? 

Each of us is an individual participant in the global economy, in a very real sense a one-person company, regardless of who we work for, where we work, or what we do. That carries the awesome but unavoidable responsibility of remaining individually competitive and marketable.  If the market for your particular skill set evaporates, it's time to acquire new skills.

One very important aspect of this, particularly for those of us with Rust Belt roots, is to accept that the notion of secure, life-long (or even long-term) employment is as dead as 35-cent a gallon gasoline, 8-track players, and smoking in bars.  Real, long-term financial security isn't going to be handed down from any company or any government. If you want that security, you're going to have to figure out how to remain viable and marketable participant in an ever-changing economy. 

And that comes down to personal innovation. As individual participants in a changing global economy, innovation must become a personal survival skill. It won't be enough to simply accept change. We must manufacture our own individual security by embracing change, by leveraging change, and by driving change. Each of us must become an instrument of innovation.   

 

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Innovation or Extinction

I don't make a practice of self-bloggulation, but a post I recently wrote for one of my other blogs is relevant to Smallification:

The irony is that by making it increasingly easy to do remarkable things, modern information technology is raising the bar on remarkability. Survival in the global business environment is becoming ever more dependent on the enterprise's ability to innovate at will -- on the ability to out-innovate competitors. That can't happen if, as Basu and Jarnagin observe in their Wall Street Journal article, "there is still a tendency to think of IT as a basic utility, like plumbing or telephone service."

Phone service and plumbing are important, of course. But is investment in your company's phone service or plumbing going to keep your competitors awake at night?

"That's right! Automatic flush! Boo-Yah! Who's your daddy?"

Read the rest of Be the Purple Ninja Cow

Friday, March 28, 2008

Web 2.0 and the Evolution of Marketing

David Pogue's column in yesterday's New York Times (online) offers a concise explanation of why Web 2.0 tools are so important in a connected more transparent world.

We all know, intellectually, that no matter what image a corporation tries to project, it's made up of ordinary people with personalities, insecurities and lives. But because the marketing and P.R. teams work so hard to scrub, control and package a company's image, the public ordinarily sees none of that human side.

When a company embraces the possibilities of Web 2.0, though, it makes contact with its public in a more casual, less sanitized way that, as a result, is accepted with much less cynicism. Web 2.0 offers a direct, more trusted line of communications than anything that came before it.

Read the entire column: Are You Taking Advantage of Web 2.0? - New York Times

 

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Separating the Medium and the Message

Maybe it's a Boomer thing (shout-out to my peeps!), but even ten or fifteen or however many years we are into the Internet Age, it can be  difficult to shake outmoded but deeply ingrained concepts that fuse and confuse content delivery with content consumption. 

I consciously understand the difference. Hell, I make my living producing content that is often consumed in a variety of formats. But the fact that the final paragraph in Randall Stross's New York Times article about Amazon's Kindle e-book got my attention says something about my unconscious frame of reference. 

Stross writes:

The object we are accustomed to calling a book is undergoing a profound modification as it is stripped of its physical shell. Kindle’s long-term success is still unknown, but Amazon should be credited with imaginatively redefining its original product line, replacing the book business with the reading business.

Stross's article brought to mind a recent Wired article in which David Byrne discusses future of the music business. In that article, Byrne offers this:

What is called the music business today, however, is not the business of producing music. At some point it became the business of selling CDs in plastic cases, and that business will soon be over.

Both articles address, to varying degrees and from different angles, how changes in the tools of content consumption continue to change the both the experience of that consumption and the business models built around that experience. What I find fascinating is that the pace of that evolution for music has been so much faster than that for books.

Market forces may be a part of that difference, given that people who buy recorded music, in any form or format, far outnumber those who buy books. But that's nothing new, is it?

The most striking difference, the reason that consumers have been far more willing to accept changes in the tools of music consumption than changes in the tools of the consumption of book content just might be that books were already well ahead of the curve.

By the time tiny, inexpensive transistor radios arrived on the scene in the 1960s, the book, as a tool of consumption, had centuries before achieved comparable levels of portability and user-friendliness. The advent of the paperback in the first half of the last century only increased the book's low-tech technological advantage.  What was the evolution of music delivery technologies, from brittle 78s to vinyl LPs to eight-track to cassette to CD and finally to today's MP3, but an attempt to catch up to the book?

So the struggle to introduce the various new technological tools for reading may have less to do with book lovers' stodgy, bespectacled refusal to let go of the familiar experience of reading a paper-and-ink book, and more to do with the idea that the format had long ago achieved some level of perfection.

Of course, that argument completely ignores the idea of storage. My collection of some 8,000-plus songs fits on one small USB drive the size of a single hardcover book, whereas my modest collection of books occupies ("overwhelms" is more accurate) three long shelves in my den, and six small bookcases in my living room.  So I can see how a well-designed reading device and a digitized library might improve my overall reading experience.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Revolution, coming around again

Nicholas Carr, in his Financial Times article , A revolution is taking shape, says this about the evolution and increasing use of "software as a service":
What is happening to computing today is a revolution, the biggest upheaval since the invention of the PC in the 1970s. But it is not without precedent. It bears a close resemblance to what happened to mechanical power 100 years ago.
True. But elsewhere in the article he adds this:
The transformation in the supply of computing promises to have equally sweeping consequences. Software programs already control or mediate not only industry and commerce but entertainment, journalism, education, even politics and national defence. The shock waves produced by a shift in computing technology will thus be intense and far-reaching.
I'm not sure that I'd agree with Carr's prediction of the extent of that impact. If anything, SaaS is IT catching up to itself, and to the Three D's -- democratization, decentralization, and distribution -- that blogs, social computing, peer-to-peer file sharing, telecommuting, and other concepts have brought to bear on long-established business models and practices, politics, and pretty much everything else. With disruptive concepts like "the long tail," "the flat world," and "the wisdom of crowds" already ingrained elements of the Web-driven global socio-economic environment, I don't see SaaS as having that much of an impact outside of the software industry itself.

Yes, it will allow devices to become smaller and more mobile by eliminating the need to install software on those devices. And yes, that will have an impact on when, where, and how we use the Web. But that's an incremental change to a landscape that is already familiar to technology consumers (which is to say, damn near everybody in the developed world).

The real issue here is that SaaS is to the software industry -- at least in one respect -- what the MP3 was to the music industry. The software industry will soon be out of the business of selling silver disks. It will be interesting to see if the software industry does a better job of adjusting to this new reality than the music industry.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

In a global music market, what's in a name for a local band?

David Byrne's recent article in Wired describes six different business models for musicians seeking to make money in a rapidly evolving music marketplace. Among those is the self-distribution model:
Finally, at the far end of the scale, is the self-distribution model, where the music is self-produced, self-written, self-played, and self-marketed. CDs are sold at gigs and through a Web site. Promotion is a MySpace page.
The significance of access to a global audience that MySpace and similar sites provide for musicians can't be understated. But along with that access come certain unique realities, as I recently discovered.

When I'm otherwise unoccupied with the business of earning a living, I play rootsy Americana music in a four-piece band called The Elderly Brothers. Our aspirations are modest: we enjoy performing live, and like to do so on a semi-regular basis at selected local Cleveland venues. If we make a few bucks, fine, but we're not looking for fame, fortune, or a record contract.

But even those limited goals require some legwork -- virtual and real-world -- to promote the band to local club owners and make information about the band available to those who might actually want to see us perform. The real-world legwork involves talking to club owners, a task that poses little problem given the limited number of venues we target, all within a few minutes drive.

Online promotion is a horse of a different color, and the unique nature of online promotion has created a genuine identity crisis for this band, one that has obvious repercussions for anyone doing business of any sort online.

The problem is that while our band's name is unique in the Cleveland area, it is all too common in the global marketplace. This was a source of amusement early on, but it has recently become a serious issue.

The band has had a MySpace page for a little over a year. That page has proven to be far more effective at promotion than our original static web page -- and it's certainly a lot easier to maintain.

But a few days ago a Snocap widget appeared on our MySpace page, offering songs for sale from a band called The Elderly. Snocap is a fee-based service that allows artists to sell their music via MySpace pages. So while The Elderly paid for this service, their music, which is very definitely not the music of The Elderly Brothers, is being promoted on The Elderly Brothers' MySpace page. Given the similarity in names, visitors to the Elderly Brothers MySpace page are going to wonder if we've undergone some kind of bizarre transformation. And the members of The Elderly -- if they are even aware of the issue -- are very likely wondering why the Snocap service they paid for doesn't appear on their MySpace page.

In trying to correct this issue, I searched MySpace to try to locate The Elderly. It turns out that there are fifteen different bands using the name "The Elderly," and five other bands using "The Elderly Brothers," not to mention other variations. So far I have been unable to locate the right The Elderly. I've contacted MySpace support, but I have yet to hear from them.

So while this situation is a headache, it illustrates an important and exciting point: the redefinition of what it means to be a local band -- or a local anything.

My band may be competing with a limited number of other Cleveland bands for stage time, but we're competing on a global basis for the attention of those seeking information about who we are, what we do, bookings, and so on. If a user types "elderly brothers" into a search engine, the search engine doesn't care if we're a bunch of weekend warriors playing at the corner bar or a national touring act playing Madison Square Garden.

So when it comes to promotion, at least, we have to think beyond the confines of the local market. In a smallified global music marketplace, success, however you care to define it, requires a big, global mindset.


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.