This Focused Performance Weblog started life as a "business management blog" containing links and commentary related primarily to organizational effectiveness with a "Theory of Constraints" perspective, but is in the process of evolving towards primary content on interactive and mobile marketing. Think of it as about Focusing marketing messages for enhanced Performance. If you are on an archive page, current postings are found here.
I'm reading the 1000-page Infinite Jest this summer and my wrist is starting to cramp up on me holding the book. The Kindle could save me orthopedic surgery in September.
posted by Frank - Permanent Link -
|
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Chart of the Day: Turning a Corner? -- Check out this well done interactive graphic - Turning a Corner? - from the New York Times. Good depiction of data over time.
"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." - Isaac Asimov
Keeping Social Media Real -- This morning my feed reader served up a piece from Inside Facebook on established, but quickly spreading Facebook apps. The part of it that made me simultaneously smile and shake my head was a comment, in "emperor's new clothes" fashion, pointing out that the top movers in the list were essentially useless diversions.
It reminded me of another piece I had set aside earlier this week as potential blogfodder. Scott Berkun, in this piece - Calling bullshit on social media - brings some common sense contrarian commentary to the commotion and consternation* surrounding social media...
For starters: social media is a stupid term. Is there any anti-social media out there? Of course not. All media, by definition, is social in some way. The term interactive media, a more accurate term for what’s going on, lived out its own rise / hype / boom cycle years ago and was smartly ignored this time around - first rule of PR is never re-use a dead buzzword, even if all that you have left are stupid ones. I’ve been involved in many stupid terms, from push-technology to parental-controls, so I should know when I see one.
But he goes beyond the buzziness of the words, and digs deeper on a few often overlooked points and advice to further his case...
We have always had social networks...
There has always been word of mouth, back-channel, "authentic" media tools...
The new media does not necessarily destroy the old...
Social media consultants writing about social media have inherent biases...
Signal to Noise is always the problem...
All technologies cut both ways and social media will be no different...
Be suspicious of technologies claimed to change the world...
Always ask "What problem am I trying to solve?" The smartest thing to do with something new is to ask what is it you need it to do for you. Recognize good marketing will not make up for bad products or incompetent services...
As usual, the "..." in my snips indicate that there is a lot more good detail to read at the original piece.
And, of course, I'm passing this on not to denigrate the creative work in and application of these growing channels. But they are just channels, parts of the whole media/communication landscape. Those of us who work in them tend to get all hot and bothered about the possibilities, but we also run the risk of enabling clients' excitement about sometimes questionable applications. So we do need the occasional slap across the face by a piece like Burken's to keep us rooted in reality.
* Sorry about that. Every once in awhile I fall off the wagon and back into my alliteration addiction.
Surprisingly Uneventful -- Moved focusedperformance.com to a new host over the weekend. Surprisingly uneventful.
New question: What to do with the possibility of putting up 24 other domains? First (and only) on the list - a "Channel Frank" portal at fpatrick.com? Maybe.
posted by Frank - Permanent Link -
|
Banks haven't helped their cause by putting up static Facebook pages without transactional capability. The pages often redirect people to a bank's Web site for even the most basic product information, which analysts say is antithetical to the social networking premise. "In the mind of the consumer that is not helpful. Facebook needs to be a real outpost of the bank; it needs to be tied to products and service," says Andy Schmidt, the research director for global payments at TowerGroup. "Banks need to provide a reason to show up and stay, and banks haven't done that yet."
On the other hand...
"People don't log onto Facebook for banking, but for friends. I just don't think that Facebook will drive business profitability." At best, Jegher says, it's "experimental marketing," but not a viable business strategy. "There are better ways to build and solidify customer relationships..."
…There's also a lack of data to support a business case for Facebook. Jegher says he hasn't seen any data on "stickiness," whether the "friends" on a Facebook page ever come back. What's more, says Shevlin, the numbers that are available can be misleading. He recalls when Washington Mutual put up its Facebook page in 2008 and proudly announced that it had 250 to 300 fans in the first 24 hours. But he did a little digging and quickly found that at least two-thirds of those fans were connected to the Web design team.
And while there are logical limitations to banks and their social media strategies, there may be room to offer more functional services to customers on Facebook. MyMoney is a Facebook application created by Fiserv that lets you use your financial institution to view balances, transfer money, etc. without leaving Facebook. It currently has only a few active users, but as Facebook continues to roll out its payment system, demand for similar applications could increase. Just when you're about to purchase those Facebook credits, you may realize that you need some extra dollars in your checking account.
IMHO, that last comment could be a bit of wishful thinking on the part of folks invested in Facebook as a platform. I think that most people who want to have an online relationship with financial institutions and services are probably nervous enough about privacy and security even when working directly on the bank’s own website. Inserting another middleman layer like Facebook would feel a bit too risky. And like the first comment at the top of this note, money is probably still one area in which there’s a clear line between the "social" and the "personal" or "private" even in the current social "that's more information than I needed to know" environment.
The question becomes more of what a finance-related business can do to keep itself in the social hive-mind. What can they bring to the "conversation" that has enough value to be "followed" or "fanned?" Probably expertise and advice without overdoing the sales pitch.
"In launching txt2go, CBS Outdoor becomes the nation’s very first out-of-home media company to provide a complete text messaging solution for its clients. The add-on feature creates an affordable new avenue for advertisers looking to package into their media features like digital couponing, sweepstakes, direct response and point of purchase. The technology will allow advertisers to track responses to their marketing in real time, and do so on a scale they’ve likely never been able to before."
This combination of the oldest of old school out-of-home, on-the-road advertising and the newest ubiquitous channel should help solidify in the minds of marketers the need to include the unique communication benefits of mobile as part of a complete program of outreach to their target audiences.
You've laughed
At our signs
For many a mile
Be a sport
Give us a trial
Text Burma to Shave
NY Times Skimmer -- After several weeks (months?) of use, the New York Time Article Skimmer has become my regular first source of straight news online. Great navigation and interface. (If only the iPhone's NY Times app weren't so glacially slow updating, it might have been a close second, but now I never use it.)
Unfocused: Friday Fun: A Band from Brazil -- Great 60's rock from a bunch of contemporary 20-year-olds from Brazil - Garotas Suecas. Found them, along with some other interesting singers/bands on NPR's SXSW Wrap-up.
Creator vs. and Revisor -- OK. I'll admit it. As a project manager for creative endeavors, concerned with keeping the effort moving toward promised delivery dates, there's the occasional frustration with multiple reviews and revisions impinging on the schedule. Sometimes (?), even after the one or two or three contracted revisions and "final approval" has been granted, there's someone else who has a better (or maybe just their own) idea for a minor tweak to a few words or to the position or color of an image on a website.
Or sometimes, during the original production of the deliverable, the original copywriter or designer is of the perfectionist bent. Where I see output that is "good enough", the "creator" has changed role to become "revisor", as described in a recent Engines of Our Ingenuitypodcast(transcript)...
"There’s a scene towards the end of the 1984 movie Amadeus where an impresario demands that Mozart finish the opera he promised. "Oh, it is finished," Mozart replies. "Up here," he says, pointing to his forehead. "The rest is just scribbling."
"And that’s our "genius" fantasy, isn’t it? Einstein, poring over dreary patent applications while working out the theory of relativity in his head. Mozart, taking musical dictation from God, as a pathologically envious Salieri imagines it in Amadeus. The perfect product is somehow out there in the ether, perfectly finished at the cosmic factory. We just have to find it -- the rest is just scribbling.
"But it rarely works that way. Maybe it never works that way. A creator may work at a white heat, but there’s a cold shadow by his side. Let's call the shadow "Revisor." Revisor has no first thoughts, only second thoughts. Revisor also has a terrible case of OCD. He's always asking the same question: could it be better?"
"Could it be better?" Of course it could. Everyone involved askes that question throughout a project. But assessing and defining the incremental amount of "betterness" versus the impacts on the budget and schedule of the project are sometimes non-trivial exercises.
The thing is, though, my frustration is usually only a short-term exasperation and actually can serve a purpose. It gives me something to whine about so people keep it in their head that we're managing schedule and effort/budget as well as the quality of the product. (Although when (usually) the tweaks come from the client side, I don't whine too loudly. Just enough to lay some subtle guilt on the "revisor" through hints that these are unexpected changes and that there is not necessarily zero impact -- unless, of course, they are so significant that a scope discussion is triggered.)
Actually, if the project is appropriately sold, and expectations are realistic, the classic project management dilemma of delivering top quality versus delivering profitably and on time rarely ever really kicks in if I've been able to set up the project with appropriate schedule risk buffers. But that's a subjectI've touched onbefore, many times.
So, Mr. or Ms. Revisor -- revise on toward perfection. I'll let you know when you might be causing problems and have to start considering what's "good enough".
View Frank Patrick's profile
