08 February
0Comments

Exploring the Fifth and Sixth P of Marketing

For years I’ve written about how the 4 Ps of Marketing, Product, Place, Pricing, and Promotion represented a dated perspective of customers and markets. In an era of connected consumerism, one could argue the merits of any of “Ps” and whether or not they’re still relevant. I suppose that’s a debate for another time. Instead, I’d like to introduce of two additional Ps that will propel a decades old concept and modernize it for a social economy.

Truth be told, there are many words that can find their way into this discussion. I’m sure we can find words that begin with the same consonant. But we now live in an era where customers are more connected, informed, and empowered, and as a result, their expectations amplify and modify. To adapt, new pillars are needed whether or not they start with the letter P. Rather than run through the dictionary, I would like to share two words that I believe are more important than ever before—people and purpose.

For those who’ve followed my work over the last decade, you’ll note that I’ve often referred to “people” as the “5th P of Marketing.” It wasn’t until recently however that I finally put all of the pieces together to consider a 6th P, in this case adding “Purpose” to the mix.

While on stage at the Pivot Conference, I had an opportunity to interview Leslie Gaines-Ross, Chief Reputation Strategist at Weber Shandwick, about the real world risks and opportunities of reputation warfare in a digital age. Somewhere in the middle of the conversation people and purpose emerged as key pillars to help businesses rally teams and build communities around common interests. The importance of purpose resonated with me. I’d always pushed leaders to consider purpose as they pursued innovation, transformation and inspiration. It didn’t dawn on me until that moment however that its place amongst the other P’s was in fact overdue.

In a social economy, it’s practically absurd that this requires explanation. People should be or should have been at the center of everything. It’s been argued though that people are already at the core of each of the existing 4 P’s. But I disagree.

If we measure actions rather than intentions, it’s easy to overlook the importance of people in the mix. See, for the most part people are largely lumped into market segments, spoken to as audiences, and serviced as tickets. Honestly, we can do better. We must do better.

Understanding the needs and expectations of people inspires an important element often missing in day-to-day business strategy…empathy. It is empathy after all that unlocks ambition to do something that goes beyond the ordinary. It offers clarity to help see beyond routine roadmaps and reports. Empathy also channels aspiration to help teams strive to always do better. The result? Businesses will possess the means to develop more meaningful products and services as well as the procure confidence and resources to truly engage customers to build thriving communities.

Once you feel, really feel what people experience and what it is they need or do not know to need, innovation follows. And this is a time for innovation as people and how they connect, discover, communicate and share, is evolving. Technology continues to influence behavior and as behavior shifts, decision-making, preferences, expectations, and influence also progress. Understanding and appreciating people, and the individuals that make up our markets, teaches us how to in turn become more human…especially at a time when brands are becoming people and people are becoming brands.

At the end of the day, we are the very people we are trying to reach. You, me and the scores of people like us form the 5th P.

Purpose as the 6th P

When you work in the business of change, you eventually notice that regardless of the technology you adopt or the trends you pursue, one of the key things that’s often missing is a sense of direction or aspiration. I’m not referring to a common vision or mission statement though. Actions for the most part speak louder than words. Here, motive, objective, and resolve are paramount and they’re manifested in the leadership and its decrees to bring about real change.

I spend my time in the throes of digital transformation and as you can imagine, there’s a great deal of politics, emotion, and anxiety at work. In many cases, efforts to lead change are done so in the absence of bearing or alignment. Steps are taken simply because that’s what is supposed to happen not because a course was defined. As such, existing processes, philosophies and communications channels sometimes work against the quest to pursue the 5th and 6th P. In order to unite teams and decision makers around a common vision, that vision must be defined and it must resonate.

I’ve done my fair share of developing business transformation initiatives and seeing them through for longer than I care to count. Part of that work involves helping executives visualize and vocalize the future of customer engagement and experiences and translate this new direction as a matter of purpose. It’s imperative that this edict and the mission come from the top. For without it, change is stunted. It’s at this very point where I often see the difference between management and leadership rear its true colors. The reality is that not every executive is a leader. But like empathy, leadership is also a fundamental pillar in articulating a vision for transformation. Someone must rise to the occasion.

It’s not easy of course. It takes courage to see what others can’t and do what others cannot or won’t. You’re setting out to shock and reshape your company’s culture and to do so takes leadership, vision, and alignment to bring about sustainable change.

Start by asking and answering a few important questions:

1. What does are business stand for and what does it mean to a shifting consumer landscape now and five or ten years from now?

2. How does evolution in customer behavior and expectations affect our current business priorities and investments?

3. What are the challenges that hold back the organization from pursuing our existing and emerging goals?

4. What initiatives are underway within the organization that we can plug into, align, or reassign to pursue transformation?

5. What does the future of exemplary relationships with people (employees and customers) look like and what it is we want them to do, feel, share, and love about us?

I often think about a conversation that I had one night with good friend Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos. When I asked him about his inspiration for “delivering happiness” to customers, he turned and in a calm but assertive voice explained, “Companies that focused on customers and on a higher purpose outperformed those that focused on market leadership and profitability in the long run.”

I then asked him about the importance of vision and creating a supportive culture as he set out to deliver happiness. “Your culture is your brand. Customer service shouldn’t just be a department, it should be the entire company,” Hsieh revealed. He then shared the importance of unity in bringing about change and marching collectively in a new direction, “Customer service is about making customers happy, company culture is about making employees happy, so let’s just simplify it and at the same time, amplify our vision for our customers, employees, vendors, and peers.”

Whether or not you agree that People and Purpose officially earn a place among the traditional set of Ps is certainly open to discussion. But the impact of these two pillars in undeniable. By investing in People and Purpose, we will spark a revolution in not only business philosophy and supporting processes but more notably in the shift from a culture of management to leadership.

Via Brian Solis: http://www.briansolis.com

19 October
0Comments

Digital Darwinism: Who’s Next?

This is the first part in a short series to introduce The End of Business as Usual

Change is inevitable, but it is rarely easy. Among the greatest difficulties associated with change is the ability to even recognize its need at a time when we can actually do something about it. Sometimes, when we finally realize that change is inevitable, the vision  or energy needed to push forward in a new direction is elusive. Or worse, when competitors recognize the need for change before us, we are by default pushed into a precarious position where our next steps become impulsive rather than strategic.

If you follow technology as avidly as I do, we can agree that the volume of emerging technology is both awe-inspiring and overwhelming. As new technology makes its way into into everyday life and workflow, certain devices, applications, and networks disrupt the norm and begin to impact behavior. It is this disruptive technology that over time, influences how people work, communicate, share, or make decisions. The question is at what point does emerging technology or new behavior become disruptive? And more importantly, what systems, processes, and protocol are in place that recognize disruption, assess opportunity, and facilitate the testing of new ideas? The time to answer these questions is now.

The reality is that we live and compete in a perpetual era of Digital Darwinism, the evolution of consumer behavior when society and technology evolve faster than our ability to adapt.

Nothing today is too big to fail nor too small to succeed. Disruption not only faces every business, its effects are already spreading through customer markets and the channels that influence decisions and behavior. What works against you also works for you. And, it is what you do now that defines your ability to compete for today and the future. You already recognize the importance technology plays in your business. That’s why you’re here. But recognizing the difference between emerging and disruptive technology and measuring its impact on your business, customer relationships, and products is a necessary discipline to successfully evolve.

The means to see the need for change is only surpassed by our ability to distinguish opportunities for transformation and innovation. This isn’t just a matter of survival of the fittest, this is a long-term commitment to earning relevance by consistently seeing what others don’t, listening to the needs of customers, and delivering experiences that are worth repeating and sharing.

So, who’s next…to either succeed or fail as a result of disruption? Share your observations, predictions, and reasons in the comments below as they will drive the creation of the next video.

#AdaptorDie

Via Brian Solis: http://www.briansolis.com

27 September
0Comments

Be careful what you ask for, you might just measure it

New media marketing is creating an undercurrent that is shifting the very foundation of business. Without a full understanding of what’s possible, a clear view to the future or an idea of the strength or extent of the market undertow, executives cautiously embrace emerging social and mobile channels based on guidance of internal champions and external pressure from competitors and customers alike. But, leaders can only lead when their vision is focused and direction is defined. The ability to execute becomes paramount and the gaps that exist between goals and capabilities must be identified and solved for quickly to stay the course.

Metrics are critical indicators of performance and progress yes, but when new media enters the fray, more questions than answers cloud the ability to see beyond the horizon. And, as new media becomes increasingly disruptive, innovation and a bit of clairvoyance are required to serve up new hypothesis that help leaders make decisions in the absence of history or precedence. It is in these times when competitive threat is equal to, or in some cases less than the threat of digital Darwinism. When technology and consumer behavior cause change faster than your ability to recognize and adapt (and lead), we surface the first and potentially dangerous series of slipping points that like the game of Chutes and Ladders, cause us to fall further away from our position or intention.

By the Numbers

These days, solutions are more experimental than they are evident. As a result, businesses rely on what they know. In this case, existing metrics and frameworks are applied to help ease testing and experimentation. Earlier this year Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the American Marketing Association published the results of its annual CMO Survey. Among the findings, we learn how executives are applying traditional metrics to new media to measure performance. Additionally, we can compare the current trends in measurement to this time last year to get a view into how businesses are adapting measurement against new opportunities.

At the top of the list, we see that traffic (hits/visits/page views) is the most important metric according to the report, increasing from 47.6% to 52.2% in one year. Naturally, repeat visits rank second at 34.9%. However, a less important metric, the number of followers or friends, commands the third spot at 34.1%. This represents a huge jump from 24% the year before. Clicks to action were surprisingly positioned in fourth with 29.3%, up from 25.4%, with marketers tracking conversion rates from visitor to buyer. I would have expected this in second or third. And, oddly enough, the importance of measuring sales fell from 17.9% in 2010 to 13.3% in 2011. The importance of measurements such as revenue per customer also plunged from 17.2% to 9.6%; customer retention costs dipped from 7.7% to 6.4%; and, profits per customer dropped from 9.4% to 4.8%.

At first glance, I can’t tell if these numbers represent the migration of an organization toward a culture of customer-centricity or a culture of compromise. Are these numbers falling because they’re difficult to measure or is it because they’re not important? Certainly with all of the discussions about ROI and the importance of proving the ability to meet customer needs while triggering meaningful outcomes, we could find a way to improve engagement strategies beyond the 3F’s (friends, fans and followers). To survive digital Darwinism, we must challenge ourselves and management to migrate toward relevance and significance. That means new metrics are necessary to measure a new direction.

Over the last several yeras I’ve met with countless business leaders seeking input into the insights and corresponding metrics necessary to listen, learn, engage, and adapt in a new era of empowered consumerism. In fact, I believe that a significant gap exists between existing metrics and those required to chart new courses toward relevance. For example, one metric that I hear more often than not is the reduction of inbound customer inquiries as a result of DIY or automated knowledge bases. Of course, if the customer can answer their own questions, they won’t need us. But, that same metric is carrying over to social media. If a Tweet can resolve a problem, the company has succeeded in reducing the inbound burden to the contact center. At a time when executives claim that getting closer to customers is a top priority for 2012 and beyond, how is it that we can employ metrics that continue to do what businesses have done so well over the last couple of decades – the ability to move further away from customer engagement through barriers of technology?  Customers just want to hit “0″ to talk to someone live. The same is true for new media. Customers are in control of their own experiences, what they share, and how they make decisions. Businesses can either accept this reality and work towards a collaborative business model of co-creation or simply choose to not be part of the long-term equation.

With the reduction of inbound metrics, we should explore acts of increasing customer engagement as a way of cultivating meaningful and productive experiences. It is through the generation of positive experiences that we can assure the materialization of other important business drivers such as sales, referrals, acquisition and retention costs, etc. More importantly, we can ensure relevance. Everything begins with understanding what it is that customers want and mapping these findings to what executives are driving toward. In the process, you may in fact find that a gap exists. But discovering the gap is what you’re supposed to do when the future is uncertain. It is what you do with this new found awareness that defines your place in the hearts, minds, and wallets of customers and prospects.

Ignorance is bliss until it’s not. After all, if ignorance is bliss, then awareness must be awakening.

Via Brian Solis: http://www.briansolis.com

14 June
0Comments

Exclusive: Who Won The E3 Buzz Battle? INFOGRAPHIC

Now that Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have sung their spiels at the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2011 (E3), let’s find out which company, publisher and celeb got the most buzz during the week.

Webtrends compiled these figures measuring buzz on Twitter, blogs and other social media sources, gathered from Monday, June 6 through Friday, June 10 at 10 a.m. PST.

Who won the buzz battle? Was it Microsoft, which didn’t have any new hardware to show off but flaunted some highly anticipated games? Or maybe it was Sony grabbing the big buzz with its reveal of the PlayStation Vita. Or could it have been Nintendo with its groundbreaking Wii U?

Do you think the amount of buzz each gaming platform got during the week was equal to the importance (and quality) of the products they announced?

Via Mashable: http://www.mashable.com

14 April
0Comments

30 Startups Ask Summer Interns To Apply Via Social Media

About 30 of the startups in Dave McClure’s 500 Startups portfolio will require their summer internship applicants to submit a social media component this year.

“Startups have a greater emphasis on cultural fit within their companies because they’re so small and also they’re moving very quickly — they need people who think creatively and are willing to break the mold,” says Nathan Parcells, the co-founder of InternMatch. “That’s not really identified in a traditional cover letter.”

Parcells knows the importance of quality interns. His company guarantees clients that they will find a good intern using its website, and it employs seven interns to help find those internship applicants on prestigious college campuses. InternMatch is organizing the competition, dubbed 500 Interns.

While it might be especially annoying to have an incompetent intern hanging around all summer in a small, startup setting, startups aren’t alone in using social media to help weed out the creatives from the mass of cover letters.

This March, ad agency Campbell Mithun chose its six summer interns after asking applicants to make their cases exclusively on Twitter. The Sierra Club, STA Travel and Charlie Sheen are just a few of many to use YouTube as an application tool.

What Parcells has in mind is less specific. He suggested that Quora, YouTube and Twitter could all be leveraged creatively, but the format is completely open. All that is required is a link to the media within the InternMatch application.

Twilio, Slideshare and Appbistro are a few of the startups participating in the social media intern search. McClure is also accepting applications for a two-week job shadow. Check out the full list here.

Via Mashable: http://www.mashable.com

29 June
0Comments

I Want NOW not New

the importance of now I was reading this post by Julien Smith and it struck me that I’d had a similar thought on the same day he wrote it. I left the seed of this post in his comments when I said, “I want now not new. Here’s what I was thinking.

Inboxes are set up to tell us when a new message comes in. It’s a distraction. Think about it: not all the NEW that comes in needs attention NOW. But that’s how our inboxes sort: by what’s new.

If I’m due at the airport, and you’re coming to pick me up, and there’s a change of plans, you’ll likely switch out of email into text (or voice) and contact me with that information. Sending it to my inbox means it’s not a NOW situation.

And yet, lots of times, people send messages to one’s inbox, or to Twitter, or other places, seeking a NOW response. (Note, I still think we’re doing a lot of our intentions of communication wrong, as I said in the Assault on Anywhen.)

So, in Julien’s parlance, if I had a better watchtower, something that knew when something was a NOW message versus something just being a NEW message, then I’d have a better way to consider my responses. What would that look like? I’m not sure. People have abused the email system’s “urgent” button for far too long. People still often use SMS text messaging when they really should be sending a quick email (because it’s not urgent).

In thinking of how I use AwayFind and my contact form, and in how I’m drowning in tweets and texts and emails, I’m thinking that it’s a problem that’s far more systematic and software-based than it is “personal time management” based.

I need to sort on NOW, not new.

You?

Photo credit twon

Chris Brogan is an eleven year veteran of social media using both web and mobile technologies to build digital relationships for businesses, organizations, and individuals.

17 May
0Comments

Adobe and Apple: Please Spare Us the Platitudes About ‘Open’

In the ongoing Adobe/Apple debate over Flash and its place in the mobile web, a curious term has been invoked by both companies: Open. Apple cited “open” as one reason that Flash isn’t allowed on the iPhone and Adobe has adopted a “we love choice” mantra in its response. One can’t help but laugh that two of the most historically closed companies in technology are now in a proverbial pissing match over which company has embraced openness more.

People that know me know that I’m in favor of calling a spade a spade, so let me be clear: Apple and Adobe’s use of terms like “open market,” “freedom,” and “choice” are completely dishonest and mendacious. Claiming openness as a virtue in this debate is disingenuous on the part of both companies, and arguments about the technologies in question can stand on their own without “open” muddying the waters.


Both Companies Are Only Open When it Benefits Them


Apple and Adobe want to talk about the importance of being open, adhering to standards and offering developers grand ideals about things like “freedom” and “choice.” But when it comes down to it, each company is only open when being open benefits the company itself.

I’m not criticizing that decision; the choice to support “open” on the basis of business and not idelogy makes perfect sense to me. It’s actually what most companies — even those that invest much more in open source tech than Apple and Adobe combined — choose to do.

However, it is utterly laughable for either company to argue from an ideological position about the power of being open. It’s ludicrous, and it just doesn’t meld with reality.

Let me explain why.


Open Web vs. Open Development Platforms


In the mobile application space, we talk a lot about web apps and native applications. Web apps are applications that run entirely inside the web browser. It’s the difference between accessing Gmail on the iPhone and using the built-in mail application.

The Apple/Adobe feud actually crosses over into both of these areas.

  • Apple disallows Flash as a browser plugin to run on the iPhone, it says, because of performance and because it wants to focus on open web standards, not on proprietary plugins.
  • Adobe is angry that Apple has banned the use of its cross-platform compiler in Flash CS5 in the creation of native apps submitted to the App Store.

These are two separate issues, but both are good indications as to why neither company can claim to really care about being “open” except when it suits them.


Web Standards


In the case of supporting open web standards, Apple’s position is one that many web standards advocates agree with: Technologies such as JavaScript, CSS3 and HTML5 have open specifications and can be implemented in a number of different ways on different platforms.

The W3C (the World Wide Web Consortium) is the international organization that works to create the standards for the web. Apple is a member of the W3C, along with Adobe, Microsoft and Google.

While Adobe can argue that elements of Flash (through its Open Screen Project) are indeed open source, Flash itself is not an open standard. While Adobe cites some open source implementations in its “truth about Flash”, like Gnash — the open source Flash alternative — those same runtimes cannot achieve parity with the closed-source alternatives because parts of Flash associated with DRM and other content controls aren’t available. Just ask XBMC users in the UK who can’t play BBC iPlayer content anymore.

Unlike HTML5 and CSS3 and related technologies, Flash is not an open standard on the web. Adobe might license some of its technology free of charge, and it may have some of its SWF spec available, but the entirety of the Flash ecosystem is not open, nor is it a web standard. It’s hypocritical for Adobe to say that they support freedom of choice when that freedom doesn’t extend to implementations of its own technologies.


Defining “Native” Code


However, Apple isn’t fault-free in this discussion either. Whether you agree with Apple’s stance on cross-platform compilers and compatibility layers or not, those very same provisions — rationalized just a few paragraphs after espousing the virtues of open standards — are also doublespeak.

Apple is against the use of tools like Flash CS5 in iPhone application development because those tools are ultimately controlled by one party — Adobe — and could potentially cause compatibility or performance problems for the iPhone.

This is understandable. It’s also understandable that developers who already have to pay $99 a year just to build apps for the iPhone can’t pick what tools they use to create those apps. Adobe’s own employees have made it clear how they feel about the issue, and the company is encouraging Flash developers to move to Android.

Even non-Flash developers are bothered by this move. Just this week, veteran Mac software developer Wolf Rentzsch announced that he would be canceling C4, a conference for indie Mac developers, in part because of Apple’s decision regarding cross-platform compilers.

So in this scenario yes, Apple is preventing developer choice. This in itself wouldn’t be that big of a deal — it might be upsetting and aggravating, but it wouldn’t be as hypocritical — if not for all the warm and fuzzy talk about the importance of being open in regards to web applications.


Screw Being ‘Open,’ Let’s Just Be Honest


Neither Apple nor Adobe is a poster child for open software, open standards or open development. That doesn’t mean either company is bad. It does mean that bringing those sorts of emotion-driven phrases into the debate only conflates the issue and makes things more difficult to dissect.

Adobe is in a difficult position in this debate because it’s an easy target. There aren’t any mobile devices that ship with full Flash support (‘coming soon” doesn’t count), and more and more content publishers are either moving to HTML5 for video or exploring native applications (not created in CS5) in lieu of Rich Internet Applications (RIAs).

The mobile web is not the same as the web on the desktop, and the sooner everyone realizes that, the better. I would much prefer Adobe show off more first-hand demonstrations of what Flash can do on mobile devices, why it is a suitable technology for touch interfaces and how embedded systems can use it rather than get into arguments about what is or is not the future of video and whether or not Flash is a suitable IDE for native mobile applications.

On the flip side, I would much rather Apple continue to show its support of the open web and web standards by furthering development of WebKit and building those features into its mobile and desktop devices instead of micro-managing its vast army of mobile developers.

In a perfect world, both companies could agree to disagree and move forward on their own path without attacking the other. Sadly, I doubt that’s going to happen anytime soon.



For more Apple coverage, follow Mashable Apple on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook


13 April
0Comments

Winners of the Donald Miller Project

I just ran a giveaway, because of my passion for Donald Miller’s book, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years. Entrants had to write a blog post about the importance of story. I’ve just compiled the list of the first 100 submissions, who will be receiving a book. You might enjoy this. There will be quite a lot of interesting posts at the end of the following links.

Here are the 100 people who will be receiving a copy of Donald Miller’s book (and their stories):

Sarah
Drake
Marek
Kim
Jack
Susan
Scott
tom
Doug
Ken
Siddhartha
Mark
Zach
Arminda
Cindi
Kathleen
Ed
Tracy
Jay
Michael
Ken
Andre
Dave
Bruce
Jason
Jule
Ben
Rebecca
Bayberry
Nancy
Debbie
Sandy
Kelly
Thomas
Christy
Susan
Angela
Lynn
Todd
Jose
Emily Ann
Nick
Paul
Julie
Anne
Dan
Gregory
sam
Nanette
Karen
Judy
Ladee
Jef
Amanda
Todd
Chris
Glenn
Rex
Lindsey
Mike
Michelle
Chris
Melanie
Mark
Rich
Maria
Lark
Mark
Sandra Lee
Sal
Peter
Melissa
Amber
Alisa
Sherry
Nathan
Alicia
Brandon
Mark
Mat
Erika
Heather
Sydney
joe
Andy
Krista
Charles
Chris
Josh
Jackelyn
Douglas
Emma
Jeff
Jason
Chris
jon
Joseph
Steven