OK. It's the Evening Standard, which barely counts anymore but it adds credence to my initial argument that social media = more noise than good business:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760596-workers-tweet-away-pound-325m-of-time-in-the-office.do
Monday, October 26, 2009
thought for the day
Love this from Clay Shirkey:
"IT doesn't typically help to forge new acquaintances; it mostly helps to commnicate with existing one's".
This should be applied to all business strategy in relation to their use of social media platforms. They should not rely on it or expect it to deliver new business and new customers. It can however be used as part of the mix to help communicate and strengthen relationships with old and established customers.
Good background research to this quote found here - http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3202
"IT doesn't typically help to forge new acquaintances; it mostly helps to commnicate with existing one's".
This should be applied to all business strategy in relation to their use of social media platforms. They should not rely on it or expect it to deliver new business and new customers. It can however be used as part of the mix to help communicate and strengthen relationships with old and established customers.
Good background research to this quote found here - http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3202
Sunday, October 25, 2009
thought for the day 2
Love this quote too from a random Tweet somewhere.
"We progress from being consumers to creators through the rise of social media" That's great then. "why bother reading anymore when we can all just write?!"
"We progress from being consumers to creators through the rise of social media" That's great then. "why bother reading anymore when we can all just write?!"
social media aggregator - comment technologies
A peer pointed me in the direction of this tool for aggregating all your social media conversations. Will assess the impact I think it could have on different lines of business.
http://www.commenttechnologies.com/
http://www.commenttechnologies.com/
what the papers say 4
Interesting article on the history and growth of the internet. Particularly struck by all the bravado from the those claiming responsibility back in 1969 for its creation, but, as a few bloggers have correctly pointed out, despite all this talk of how fundamentally the internet has changed our lives in just 40 years (quit a long time in innovation terms actually) the majority of us still go to work, drive cars, physically go to school or university, watch tv etc. Hardly fundamental change then!
Maybe, that change is now coming. As a result of social media and the semantic web? We will see.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/23/internet-40-history-arpanet
Maybe, that change is now coming. As a result of social media and the semantic web? We will see.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/23/internet-40-history-arpanet
thought for the day
Can't help thinking these feelings about Google's business model echo the initial thoughts about social media that I kicked this research off with. Ultimately, social media tools support malfunctioning business models and encourage 'loose relationships' between all businesses and their customers.
The The Guardian online 23 October 2009:
The The Guardian online 23 October 2009:
"
Murdoch himself has said he wants to bring in paywalls to fix the media's "malfunctioning" business model, while former Times editor Robert Thomson – now running the Wall Street Journal – has lashed out at Google on several occasions for what he says is a parasitic attitude towards mainstream media.
Yesterday, Thomson repeated his attacks - telling Google vice president Marissa Meyer that she encouraged a loose relationship between media companies and consumers.
"Marissa unintentionally encourages promiscuity," he said. "The whole Google model is based on digital disloyalty – about disloyalty to creators."
"
Word of the day
Love this picked up by clay Shirkey:
"technochondria"=fear of new technology, term from Nick Bilton, NYTimes designer/futurist.
"technochondria"=fear of new technology, term from Nick Bilton, NYTimes designer/futurist.
what the papers say 3
More hints that soon the taps of free online content will be turned off. Don't say I didn't warn you.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/23/television-television
Drive all the kids online with free everything then slowly but surely push up the prices. It's inevitable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/23/television-television
Drive all the kids online with free everything then slowly but surely push up the prices. It's inevitable.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
insightful research
A great source of US statisitcs revealing different sector uses of blogging and social media, the rising and falling trends and predictions for the future.
http://technorati.com/blogging/article/day-5-twitter-global-impact-and/
http://technorati.com/blogging/article/day-5-twitter-global-impact-and/
aggregators are the way forward
http://mashable.com/2007/07/17/social-network-aggregators/
people share my concerns. Can a truly effective aggregator pave the way forward?
people share my concerns. Can a truly effective aggregator pave the way forward?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
thought for the day. I must challenge him to a blog duel
http://www.originalanalogmachine.com/2008/08/20/why-twitter-will-win-big-in-the-social-media-sweepstakes/
Have I just lost the argument against SM?
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/50-ideas-on-using-twitter-for-business/
I'll experiment by applying the above rules to some business areas for a set period and review before and after sales and comparisons with non-tweeted business areas. Can I get research funding for this?
I'll experiment by applying the above rules to some business areas for a set period and review before and after sales and comparisons with non-tweeted business areas. Can I get research funding for this?
Some case studies
twitter:
Dell Outlet - offering limited new deals through twitter to its followers.
Is this really building new business or just replacing old email marketing techniques and direct mail?
Jetblue Airways - building a personal brand through asking customers what they want and providing updates on service changes to travelers while they are traveling.
It takes a significant amount of staff resource to provide this service. Is its impact on sales and profitability really measurable?
Teusnerwine - this is deemed a good case study for business use of Twitter but the brand owner him self proclaims 'this is not about trying to sell your product, but more building relationships with customers and potential customers."
The above sums it up well: Twitter and its like provide another tool to be used in the marketing and communications mix. Alone they are not good sales or business tools. You need to thin carefully about how to integrate them with your brand and business activity and to do this well takes considerable staff resource. Each case will be different and in some cases it may be worth the investment. In many cases such investment would not be justified.
What I will go on to do is draw up the ways in which twitter et al can be used to drive forward certain types of business activity related to Ravensbourne programmes and activities.
The Current TV example pasted below provides a good example of the future integration of TV with online and social media using simple ideas and simple coding:
Dell Outlet - offering limited new deals through twitter to its followers.
Is this really building new business or just replacing old email marketing techniques and direct mail?
Jetblue Airways - building a personal brand through asking customers what they want and providing updates on service changes to travelers while they are traveling.
It takes a significant amount of staff resource to provide this service. Is its impact on sales and profitability really measurable?
Teusnerwine - this is deemed a good case study for business use of Twitter but the brand owner him self proclaims 'this is not about trying to sell your product, but more building relationships with customers and potential customers."
The above sums it up well: Twitter and its like provide another tool to be used in the marketing and communications mix. Alone they are not good sales or business tools. You need to thin carefully about how to integrate them with your brand and business activity and to do this well takes considerable staff resource. Each case will be different and in some cases it may be worth the investment. In many cases such investment would not be justified.
What I will go on to do is draw up the ways in which twitter et al can be used to drive forward certain types of business activity related to Ravensbourne programmes and activities.
The Current TV example pasted below provides a good example of the future integration of TV with online and social media using simple ideas and simple coding:
Power to the people
Some examples of social media sites of benefit to the individual user, surfer, customer and business owner:
www.stumbleupon.com/
http://delicious.com/
http://www.flickr.com/
More for business:
http://digg.com/
http://www.reddit.com/
http://www.blogpulse.com/conversation
http://www.boardtracker.com/
www.stumbleupon.com/
http://delicious.com/
http://www.flickr.com/
More for business:
http://digg.com/
http://www.reddit.com/
http://www.blogpulse.com/conversation
http://www.boardtracker.com/
PREDICTION
The next wave of social media site: The next Twitter if you like! Will take direct information from your mobile phone without the need for you to even input in or make a Tweet or a post. It will report what you have purchased, what you have eaten, how active you've been, how long you slept, where you slept and what other and who's devises you were close to. Taken on a daily basis this information will be fairly bland and dull but collated over a number of months and years it would begin to tell some pretty interesting individual stories for individuals, for families, for corporations, for communities and for nations. Very interesting social and commercial opportunities begin to emerge from the above and companies should begin to structure themselves now to be ready for this next level of information they will imminently have available to them.
Questions: Who will own this information? What new legislation will be required to limit its flow? Is such information private or public if it is voluntarily reported? Should there be age restrictions on reporting and accessing such information?
Questions: Who will own this information? What new legislation will be required to limit its flow? Is such information private or public if it is voluntarily reported? Should there be age restrictions on reporting and accessing such information?
Content curation. Not content creation.
After the BTSR event I went back to 01zero-one to host a session delivered by Adrian Shaugnessy for level 3 graphic design students about how to start-up creative businesses.We discussed the opportunities which exist today in creating profit and opportunity from content curation over content creation and I would argue that this is where a lot of value is to be garnered from social media technologies and platforms. Today we live in an 'age of search' and the easier social networking tools and sites make ot for people to log and report their experiences and thoughts the greater the power of collective search can become.
This is the age of the content curator and not the age of the content creator.
If businesses can begin to curate information about their audiences behaviours, dreams, desires and predict their next moves through what they report and post on social networkign sites they will begin to be able to monetise this information. Arguably this will be done through them employing digital sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists to begin to analyse and report on what is happening in their digital territories. Social media sites will increasingly be designed with the above in mind and it will be these which go on to make millions in the future by delivering really valuable information to their business audiences. You may argue that Google, Twitter and Facebook were actually designed to achieve the above from the start. I would question this assumption.
This is the age of the content curator and not the age of the content creator.
If businesses can begin to curate information about their audiences behaviours, dreams, desires and predict their next moves through what they report and post on social networkign sites they will begin to be able to monetise this information. Arguably this will be done through them employing digital sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists to begin to analyse and report on what is happening in their digital territories. Social media sites will increasingly be designed with the above in mind and it will be these which go on to make millions in the future by delivering really valuable information to their business audiences. You may argue that Google, Twitter and Facebook were actually designed to achieve the above from the start. I would question this assumption.
more positive examples of social media for business
This week I spoke at the annual BTSR conference about how to improve profitability in the TV production business. I teamed up with Rick Williams of AKQA to spell out to a select group of broadcasters how they could / should begin to explore more than the making of just TV shows to remain relevant and profitable in the future.
Rick excellently put forward examples of AKQA content that are never intended for TV but will probably attract much larger audiences being pushed through the iPhone Applications and websites. Examples included Nike and BMW who between them have filmed hundreds of hours of content for online and mobile consumption. The content is potentially limitless being rolled out as the receiver wishes to consume it or through a series of ARG experiences tied into live events and TV ads. The conclusion of the presentation and ensuing discussion was that TV content as a stand alone entity has pretty much had its day. That is not to say that TV will not continue to be watched by millions but that to be successful and profitable it must have strong tie ins to services and extensions that consumers can access and interact with online and on their mobile devices. Those companies that do not diversify their content offerings into these areas will cease to exist and their content become less and less accessible and valuable. What we didn't explore in this session is how we then go on to monetise this mobile and online content beyond the initial payment of the brand owner in commissioning large amounts of it. In the case of Nike they commisioned in the region of 50,000 pounds worth of content for an iPhone application, which would have cost several hunded thousand pounds for the same number of hours to be used in a similar fashion for a TV production.
Rick excellently put forward examples of AKQA content that are never intended for TV but will probably attract much larger audiences being pushed through the iPhone Applications and websites. Examples included Nike and BMW who between them have filmed hundreds of hours of content for online and mobile consumption. The content is potentially limitless being rolled out as the receiver wishes to consume it or through a series of ARG experiences tied into live events and TV ads. The conclusion of the presentation and ensuing discussion was that TV content as a stand alone entity has pretty much had its day. That is not to say that TV will not continue to be watched by millions but that to be successful and profitable it must have strong tie ins to services and extensions that consumers can access and interact with online and on their mobile devices. Those companies that do not diversify their content offerings into these areas will cease to exist and their content become less and less accessible and valuable. What we didn't explore in this session is how we then go on to monetise this mobile and online content beyond the initial payment of the brand owner in commissioning large amounts of it. In the case of Nike they commisioned in the region of 50,000 pounds worth of content for an iPhone application, which would have cost several hunded thousand pounds for the same number of hours to be used in a similar fashion for a TV production.
19 oct 2009 update
The end of an interesting week of conversations, speaking events and research. The week began reading the news that Twitter will soon be carrying video content. Great for fun and creating even more online noise but will it offer any real business benefits?
The other pertinent Twitter news of the week includes the revelation that Sarah Brown's following of 840,000 is five time bigger than the entire Labour membership and that although the social networking site is yet to turn a profit or even outline how it ever intends to do so it is valued at a cool 630 Million Pounds.
Best Twitter uses of the week include Private Eye reporting from inside the commons about the gagging order attempted to be placed on The Guardian by dodgy oil firms and their lawyers and the mass mobilisation of disgust at a Daily Mail columnists far right rantings about Steven Gately's death being linked to his 'non-Christian' ways. Bother led to great outcomes for decency and illustrated the power of social networking for lobbying purposes. But neither illustrate positive business application.
The other pertinent Twitter news of the week includes the revelation that Sarah Brown's following of 840,000 is five time bigger than the entire Labour membership and that although the social networking site is yet to turn a profit or even outline how it ever intends to do so it is valued at a cool 630 Million Pounds.
Best Twitter uses of the week include Private Eye reporting from inside the commons about the gagging order attempted to be placed on The Guardian by dodgy oil firms and their lawyers and the mass mobilisation of disgust at a Daily Mail columnists far right rantings about Steven Gately's death being linked to his 'non-Christian' ways. Bother led to great outcomes for decency and illustrated the power of social networking for lobbying purposes. But neither illustrate positive business application.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
failed business model 1
1. eBay buys Skype for $3.1 Billion
2. Last week eBay offloads what it can of Skype, after its value had been written down by $1.4 Billion.
A classic case of two dot.com and social media based business giants failing to monetise the technology.
Other failed web 2.0 deals =
News Corp has halfed the value of Myspace since it purchased it
AOL is looking to sell Bebo already
CBS has recently had to accept a significant write down in the value of Last.fm since it purchased it less than two years ago
Perhaps the worst of all - ITV sell Friends Reunited for $25 Million after buying it for $175 Million.
If these social media tools head real or even potential business benefits their values should be soaring as bandwidths improve phenomenally and the online population expands at an exponential rate. But instead they decrease at frightening speed. There can be three possible reasons:
1. the leaders of these web 2.0 businesses are incompetent
2. the users and potential users leaders of these SM tools fail to utilise them to full social or economic advantage and therefor are unwilling to pay for them
3. the value of these SM tools beyond simply speeding up communication and enabling more people to create more noise is seriously limited.
Of course there are other reasons and explanations and I am massively simplifying the arguments here but the above sets the bar well for now beginning to consider the positive and potential successful application by business of SM tools.
2. Last week eBay offloads what it can of Skype, after its value had been written down by $1.4 Billion.
A classic case of two dot.com and social media based business giants failing to monetise the technology.
Other failed web 2.0 deals =
News Corp has halfed the value of Myspace since it purchased it
AOL is looking to sell Bebo already
CBS has recently had to accept a significant write down in the value of Last.fm since it purchased it less than two years ago
Perhaps the worst of all - ITV sell Friends Reunited for $25 Million after buying it for $175 Million.
If these social media tools head real or even potential business benefits their values should be soaring as bandwidths improve phenomenally and the online population expands at an exponential rate. But instead they decrease at frightening speed. There can be three possible reasons:
1. the leaders of these web 2.0 businesses are incompetent
2. the users and potential users leaders of these SM tools fail to utilise them to full social or economic advantage and therefor are unwilling to pay for them
3. the value of these SM tools beyond simply speeding up communication and enabling more people to create more noise is seriously limited.
Of course there are other reasons and explanations and I am massively simplifying the arguments here but the above sets the bar well for now beginning to consider the positive and potential successful application by business of SM tools.
what the papers say 2
The Observer. 06.09.09 - ARE NEWSPAPERS TRAPPED IN A TIME WARP?
"Brand-building and display ads belong to TV and newspapers far more naturally"
"The web does some things well and some things indifferently. Otherwise, why all the millions it spends on promoting itself via TV advertising" -i,e, meerkat.com / confused.com / ebay.com.
Yes, why indeed?, I ask if its powers of communication, brand building and selling are so effective!!!
I begin to think that Social Media tools 'alone' are totally ineffective in terms of generating sales, profit and success. The deeper question is whether they are effective when successfully integrated into your brand, marketing and sales strategy?
Already it is evidenced that the cost of online advertising is falling and not rising.
UK research reveals that even among the under 25's when asked which advertising format has the most impact 75% respond TV. Only 12% say internet search advertising is within their top 3 types of ads responded to and only 8% say the same about banner ads.
"Brand-building and display ads belong to TV and newspapers far more naturally"
"The web does some things well and some things indifferently. Otherwise, why all the millions it spends on promoting itself via TV advertising" -i,e, meerkat.com / confused.com / ebay.com.
Yes, why indeed?, I ask if its powers of communication, brand building and selling are so effective!!!
I begin to think that Social Media tools 'alone' are totally ineffective in terms of generating sales, profit and success. The deeper question is whether they are effective when successfully integrated into your brand, marketing and sales strategy?
Already it is evidenced that the cost of online advertising is falling and not rising.
UK research reveals that even among the under 25's when asked which advertising format has the most impact 75% respond TV. Only 12% say internet search advertising is within their top 3 types of ads responded to and only 8% say the same about banner ads.
thought for the day
If the digital revolution and the social media tools which ride the crest of its wave are so valuable to business then why is the digital revolution in Britain having to be subsidised so significantly by proposed 'telephone taxes' and the possible top slicing of the BBC license fee? Mmmm the business case looks fragile.
what the papers say
The Guardian. 26.09.09 - SPOTIFY EXPANDS FOR SUBSCRIBERS
New business model proposes social media business sells equivalent of 300 CD's for $10 a month subscription.
A great example of a sound business model in the creative industries. I sound negative but actually I'm not. At least if Spotify pull this business model of they will be a good example of a successful subscription based digital media business and to date, successful online subscription business models are few and far between with most consumers still used to getting and expecting their online content for free.
The Guardian. 26.09.09 - TOUGH TIMES AHEAD FOR THE BBC
BBC income now outstrips all of its commercial rivals of ITV, Channel 4, BSKYB etc by more than $1 Billion.
Considering the phenomenal social media tools our broadcasting industries today have available to them, surely if these tools were capable of helping to grow business the commercial broadcasters should be more successful and profitable than ever as they can now reach many more billions of people with cheap and even 'free' technology and their business models are ultimately about communicating messages to mass audiences.
The Guardian. 03.10.09 - WILL THEY SPEND IT?
Great case study about the Financial Times launch of a new website called 'How to Spend It' aimed at marketing luxury brand messages and advertising to the very wealthy audiences of the FT. Effectively the FT are attempting to recreate the look, feel and business impact of a luxury magazine online utilising digital and social media tools. See www.HTSI.com.
The business model here is sound enough in that the FT is a world recognised brand but its magazine is difficult to access in all corners of the world. At the same time the luxury goods market remains buoyant, even in recession hit times. At the smae time technology and design are seen as equal partners to editorial content. The design partner here is the company Razorfish, a London-based digital media agency who have ridden out three recessions! Other key factors behind this busines model are the offer of free content "while the site builds critical mass'.
Linked to this article, Conde Naste, publishers of vogue.com seem to be ahead of the curve in relation to publishers going digital. Jamie Pallot, their editorial director of CD Digital says "publishers have to let go of any illusions a website can retain the hermetically sealed essence of a magazine." He suggests that online magazines can do well but only if they fully embrace the digital medium. 'They are two very different media and they get more different every day."
How to spend it is trailing 'Brand Hubs' through the new online offering. Viewers can click on an item and go through to extra information and images about that item.
The value of luxury advertising doubled on FT.com last year and advertisers are responding to the fact that they can measure their online advertising effectiveness and can also follow their customers. However, how they translate this into actual sales and profit is still to be seen.
It's clear that as online quality and band width improve luxury brands can better communicate their brnad values online as well as in luxury, glossy magazines. However, I love the following insight, which sums up some of the challenges of using social media tools for business success:
The internet brings the spectre of mass participation and the kind of mainstream popularity that fashionistas term the 'Burberry Effect'. However for luxury brands (and many others) it's about being seen int he right environment and the stature of what that environment says about your brand or product. "It's not about reach. If it were people would just advertise in the Sun" Samual-Camps, Universal McCann.
New business model proposes social media business sells equivalent of 300 CD's for $10 a month subscription.
A great example of a sound business model in the creative industries. I sound negative but actually I'm not. At least if Spotify pull this business model of they will be a good example of a successful subscription based digital media business and to date, successful online subscription business models are few and far between with most consumers still used to getting and expecting their online content for free.
The Guardian. 26.09.09 - TOUGH TIMES AHEAD FOR THE BBC
BBC income now outstrips all of its commercial rivals of ITV, Channel 4, BSKYB etc by more than $1 Billion.
Considering the phenomenal social media tools our broadcasting industries today have available to them, surely if these tools were capable of helping to grow business the commercial broadcasters should be more successful and profitable than ever as they can now reach many more billions of people with cheap and even 'free' technology and their business models are ultimately about communicating messages to mass audiences.
The Guardian. 03.10.09 - WILL THEY SPEND IT?
Great case study about the Financial Times launch of a new website called 'How to Spend It' aimed at marketing luxury brand messages and advertising to the very wealthy audiences of the FT. Effectively the FT are attempting to recreate the look, feel and business impact of a luxury magazine online utilising digital and social media tools. See www.HTSI.com.
The business model here is sound enough in that the FT is a world recognised brand but its magazine is difficult to access in all corners of the world. At the same time the luxury goods market remains buoyant, even in recession hit times. At the smae time technology and design are seen as equal partners to editorial content. The design partner here is the company Razorfish, a London-based digital media agency who have ridden out three recessions! Other key factors behind this busines model are the offer of free content "while the site builds critical mass'.
Linked to this article, Conde Naste, publishers of vogue.com seem to be ahead of the curve in relation to publishers going digital. Jamie Pallot, their editorial director of CD Digital says "publishers have to let go of any illusions a website can retain the hermetically sealed essence of a magazine." He suggests that online magazines can do well but only if they fully embrace the digital medium. 'They are two very different media and they get more different every day."
How to spend it is trailing 'Brand Hubs' through the new online offering. Viewers can click on an item and go through to extra information and images about that item.
The value of luxury advertising doubled on FT.com last year and advertisers are responding to the fact that they can measure their online advertising effectiveness and can also follow their customers. However, how they translate this into actual sales and profit is still to be seen.
It's clear that as online quality and band width improve luxury brands can better communicate their brnad values online as well as in luxury, glossy magazines. However, I love the following insight, which sums up some of the challenges of using social media tools for business success:
The internet brings the spectre of mass participation and the kind of mainstream popularity that fashionistas term the 'Burberry Effect'. However for luxury brands (and many others) it's about being seen int he right environment and the stature of what that environment says about your brand or product. "It's not about reach. If it were people would just advertise in the Sun" Samual-Camps, Universal McCann.
What do we mean by social media?
My initial, quickfire, non-researched definition would be "global, digitally-networked platforms/tools, which allow users in any place, at any time to share information, content and opinion with one another". High profile examples include Flikr, facebook, twitter, youtube and myspace. There are then non-branded, social media tools available to us all like blogs and forums, which allow us to share thoughts and comments with our own, open or closed followers and audiences.
Researched and classified definitions include:
'An umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words and pictures' - www.anvilmediainc.com/search-engine-marketing-glossary.html
'Social media is content created by people using highly accessible and scalable publishing technologies'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
'Online technologies and practices that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with each other'
www.tvb.org/multiplatform/Multiplatform_Glossary.aspx
'Social media are works of user-created video, audio, text or multimedia that are published and shared in a social environment, such as a blog, wiki or video hosting site'
www.capilanou.ca/help/active-cms/glossary.html
Whatever your chosen definition there are three essential elements of 'people', 'interaction' and 'technology'
Interestingly the only definition I found even mentioning the word 'business' was this one:
'Social Media is the collection of tools and online spaces available to help individuals and businesses to accelerate their information and communication needs. [Axel Schultze]'
communitymanagers.pbwiki.com/Glossary-and-Reference
This quote is interesting in that it describes the main business use of SM technology being for accelerating information and communication. Good business strategy often relies on limiting, slowing down or iteratively releasing the flow of information and product rather than simply speeding it up.
Researched and classified definitions include:
'An umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words and pictures' - www.anvilmediainc.com/search-engine-marketing-glossary.html
'Social media is content created by people using highly accessible and scalable publishing technologies'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
'Online technologies and practices that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with each other'
www.tvb.org/multiplatform/Multiplatform_Glossary.aspx
'Social media are works of user-created video, audio, text or multimedia that are published and shared in a social environment, such as a blog, wiki or video hosting site'
www.capilanou.ca/help/active-cms/glossary.html
Whatever your chosen definition there are three essential elements of 'people', 'interaction' and 'technology'
Interestingly the only definition I found even mentioning the word 'business' was this one:
'Social Media is the collection of tools and online spaces available to help individuals and businesses to accelerate their information and communication needs. [Axel Schultze]'
communitymanagers.pbwiki.com/Glossary-and-Reference
This quote is interesting in that it describes the main business use of SM technology being for accelerating information and communication. Good business strategy often relies on limiting, slowing down or iteratively releasing the flow of information and product rather than simply speeding it up.
To really get to grips with the debate I've decided to adopt an initial negative view towards social media technologies and their evidenced, positive impact on design, media and creativity based businesses.
I'm going to look at examples in three key sectors of:
Media content and distribution
Design (product) and innovation
Knowledge - spanning training and higher eduction
Beyond these sectors I will also consider the impact of social media tools on promoting and building bigger business, profit, brand awareness and loyalty through clear and obvious advertising and more subtle or hidden techniques.
The main reason for this initial negative stance is in response to the incessant stream of news reporting a lack of coherent business models and of evidence of profit generation by even the most high profile, global businesses in this new digitally connected age. However, by taking a negative stance I expect to uncover at least a handful of examples of good practice whereby social media tools and opportunities have been identified and exploited leading to business success. The crunch will be whether this transpires to be the exception or the norm.
Thoughts: Are social media tools actually damaging more businesses than they are helping by creating constant noise and confusion?
If the tools and platforms can be used effectively for business what are the simple rules of successful use and deployment?
I'm going to look at examples in three key sectors of:
Media content and distribution
Design (product) and innovation
Knowledge - spanning training and higher eduction
Beyond these sectors I will also consider the impact of social media tools on promoting and building bigger business, profit, brand awareness and loyalty through clear and obvious advertising and more subtle or hidden techniques.
The main reason for this initial negative stance is in response to the incessant stream of news reporting a lack of coherent business models and of evidence of profit generation by even the most high profile, global businesses in this new digitally connected age. However, by taking a negative stance I expect to uncover at least a handful of examples of good practice whereby social media tools and opportunities have been identified and exploited leading to business success. The crunch will be whether this transpires to be the exception or the norm.
Thoughts: Are social media tools actually damaging more businesses than they are helping by creating constant noise and confusion?
If the tools and platforms can be used effectively for business what are the simple rules of successful use and deployment?
Friday, October 2, 2009
tutoral 2 follow up
kick started some initial thinking into questionning the real value of social media to SME's, large corporations and sole traders in the design and media sectors. Do new and emerging tools really add value and enable increased profit potential or do they just create noise and distraction?
It's clear that social media tools are of high value of you're directly dealing in content, messaging and their distribution but what if your business is based on actual physical product, is there any value and if so what?
Time to look at rounding up a few case studies of where the tools have been used to clear effect and where they have not.
Also need to clearly define what we mean by 'social media'.
It's clear that social media tools are of high value of you're directly dealing in content, messaging and their distribution but what if your business is based on actual physical product, is there any value and if so what?
Time to look at rounding up a few case studies of where the tools have been used to clear effect and where they have not.
Also need to clearly define what we mean by 'social media'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)