It's one year after my last note on this subject, and I went to the TFM conference again this week. It continues to surprise me just how high a proportion of the material was directly relevant to my work, and the organisers should be very happy with the quality of speaker that they continue to attract.
But another thing surprised me too, and this is not something for the organisers to be happy about. The organisation was in some aspects a complete fiasco. So many attendees wanted to see the more popular talks that there were lines stretching around the block; disgracefully, large numbers were turned away at the door of each one. This was especially the case for the keynote addresses but it was even the case for some of the specialist talks. Meanwhile a few of the speakers spoke to half-empty rooms. It was inefficient and pathetic.
This was a technology for marketing conference. The technology was largely about using the internet, eCommerce, databases and CRM to manage demand and supply. I would guess that most visitors registered online anyway. All they had to do was to allow us to register in advance for particular sessions. This would also have allowed them to monitor demand and potentially adjust seating plans as necessary. And this would make it clear to late registering people which sessions they could attend.
It was actually branded as technology for marketing and advertising. If they were advertising particular names as reasons to visit the event, then they had a corresponding obligation to allow us to see those names, or at least to make us aware that we would not see them.
It is not acceptable to justify the mess by saying the sessions were being recorded for later online streaming. People do not attend conferences to queue for their favourite sessions, to be turned away at the door, then told that the event can be viewed on the internet later.
One cannot blame the organisers too much on the first occasion, it is not easy to predict how an event will pan out. But what made the scenario particularly appalling was that exactly the same situation occurred last year.
About using technology for marketing, have they learned nothing?
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Social Media in 33 words
Neil Perkin asks: I'd love to know in one sentence - what is your maxim for how best to engage and facilitate an online community?
Within 3 hours he had 17 responses from agency digital strategy leaders, media researchers, account planners, media owners, creatives, and some of the most renowned thinkers on social media strategy. But not from me.
And a slightly broader question, could I sum up the whole principle and regulation of online communities in just one sentence? Like this blog itself, the answer goes back to Common Sense:
"An online community is produced by our wants, and censorship of that community by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices."
Within 3 hours he had 17 responses from agency digital strategy leaders, media researchers, account planners, media owners, creatives, and some of the most renowned thinkers on social media strategy. But not from me.
And a slightly broader question, could I sum up the whole principle and regulation of online communities in just one sentence? Like this blog itself, the answer goes back to Common Sense:
"An online community is produced by our wants, and censorship of that community by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices."
That is an update of the very first published paragraph of Tom Paine in 1776. Still true today.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The One to One map
I like maps. Wherever I go, I always like to get hold of a local map to see where things are in relation to each other, something that's not always easy to visualise when you're just looking round a strange country.
The scale used is obviously important, but some things on a map are not to scale - the width of roads on a national atlas is the obvious example. Even looking at local area ones, that same measure can be misleading. On a UK road atlas, you see a road marked as an A road and a newcomer might assume that it's a major route, multi-lane, high speed, free of traffic lights, etc. Then you actually travel on the road and realise it could be a road through London where average speed is 10 mph. In contrast, you could see a single thin line leading out from the thick green line of the US Interstate, then find yourself on another six lane dual carriageway ... driving up and down the highway looking for an exit ... you can see your destination, but just can't get to it. Sorry, I digress.
But an ideal scale would surely be one to one. When I was about seven years old, I remember reading of such a map in a fictional story, at that age I was probably reading Norman Hunter rather than Luis Borges; anyway the map could never be unwrapped because it would cover the entire country. So clearly an impossible dream.
However, today, combine GoogleMaps with SatNav, we're just about there.
The scale used is obviously important, but some things on a map are not to scale - the width of roads on a national atlas is the obvious example. Even looking at local area ones, that same measure can be misleading. On a UK road atlas, you see a road marked as an A road and a newcomer might assume that it's a major route, multi-lane, high speed, free of traffic lights, etc. Then you actually travel on the road and realise it could be a road through London where average speed is 10 mph. In contrast, you could see a single thin line leading out from the thick green line of the US Interstate, then find yourself on another six lane dual carriageway ... driving up and down the highway looking for an exit ... you can see your destination, but just can't get to it. Sorry, I digress.
But an ideal scale would surely be one to one. When I was about seven years old, I remember reading of such a map in a fictional story, at that age I was probably reading Norman Hunter rather than Luis Borges; anyway the map could never be unwrapped because it would cover the entire country. So clearly an impossible dream.
However, today, combine GoogleMaps with SatNav, we're just about there.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Virtually Profitable Newspapers
I need to thank Seamus McCauley at Virtual Economics for this one. Other bloggers have exposed the very dubious business models used in the Ernst and Young Report on the UK national newspaper industry, pdf here, but he brings a fine balance between derision and condemnation.
As a minor criticism, the report had based a half page spread (in a seven page report) on what appeared to a couple of simple questions to just 100 internal employees. Hardly seems appropriate for a national industry report.
But the major flaw appeared in the analysis that switching to a pay-per-click model would result in many times more revenue than the currently followed pay-per-page-view model - a fair guess perhaps, but order of maginitude improvements were justified by assuming that people would click through at the same rate on a news site as on a search site. Just ludicrous.
The report also predicts that in the real print world, paid-for newspapers will continue to decline in the face of rising free publications. That is true now, but I hope they are wrong. There are already moves to ban or limit plastic packaging - newspaper is quicker to biodegrade but look around central London in the evening and it seems clear what actually makes up the majority of street waste volume. The marginal cost of distributed paper should not be zero.
As a minor criticism, the report had based a half page spread (in a seven page report) on what appeared to a couple of simple questions to just 100 internal employees. Hardly seems appropriate for a national industry report.
But the major flaw appeared in the analysis that switching to a pay-per-click model would result in many times more revenue than the currently followed pay-per-page-view model - a fair guess perhaps, but order of maginitude improvements were justified by assuming that people would click through at the same rate on a news site as on a search site. Just ludicrous.
The report also predicts that in the real print world, paid-for newspapers will continue to decline in the face of rising free publications. That is true now, but I hope they are wrong. There are already moves to ban or limit plastic packaging - newspaper is quicker to biodegrade but look around central London in the evening and it seems clear what actually makes up the majority of street waste volume. The marginal cost of distributed paper should not be zero.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Good and Evil in the Webworld
The clearest exposition of banner blindness is at Jakob Nielsen's site. The simple truth is that most users do not even look at on-line advertisements, let alone click through them. The few people that do are not likely to be your targets anyway, as I discussed earlier.
It is not easy to develop engaging online advertising that is attractive without being intrusive. But it is easy to get loads of cheap hits. You just need to cheat or overwhelm the user. Spam.
However you would imagine that reputable corporations would resist the temptation to have pop-ups obscuring the content that you want to read. You would imagine that they would resist the temptation to deliberately mislead the user with false headlines and false promises.
There is a lot of diversity in today's interconnected world. But as Microsoft did with the home PC market, there is always the danger/opportunity that only one will gain critical mass.
And on the day that Mark Zuckerberg has been announced as the world's youngest billionaire, Virtual Economics reminds us where Facebook stands on this issue. According to Techcrunch today, Facebook believes the best ads are the ones users don’t know are ads. Look at what Mark said in his own words, quoted here:
"There is no opting out of advertising," Zuckerberg said. If it is any consolation, he added: "The ads are going to feel like content to a lot of people."
Is that a good thing? Is it evil?
It is not easy to develop engaging online advertising that is attractive without being intrusive. But it is easy to get loads of cheap hits. You just need to cheat or overwhelm the user. Spam.
However you would imagine that reputable corporations would resist the temptation to have pop-ups obscuring the content that you want to read. You would imagine that they would resist the temptation to deliberately mislead the user with false headlines and false promises.
There is a lot of diversity in today's interconnected world. But as Microsoft did with the home PC market, there is always the danger/opportunity that only one will gain critical mass.
And on the day that Mark Zuckerberg has been announced as the world's youngest billionaire, Virtual Economics reminds us where Facebook stands on this issue. According to Techcrunch today, Facebook believes the best ads are the ones users don’t know are ads. Look at what Mark said in his own words, quoted here:
"There is no opting out of advertising," Zuckerberg said. If it is any consolation, he added: "The ads are going to feel like content to a lot of people."
Is that a good thing? Is it evil?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Who checks your adverts?
I listened to a couple of senior marketers from Google last week. Their themes were consistent, how the developing models behind concepts such as AdWords were changing the nature of the industry. They quoted an old marketing favourite: "I know half of my advertising is wasted," John Wanamaker famously said; "I just don't know which half."
And senior management at Google are not the only people to use that and similar quotes as a sign of the changing times. I often say it too. The work-related portions of this blog constantly suggest the identical message - modern marketing should be measurable, we should know which half works.
However, yes you should learn the results, but you may not like what what you learn. The Virtual Economics site provides an excellent summary of the potentially uncomfortable results. I won't repeat everything here.
But as I see it - in the TV advertising world, those who you would most like to target with adverts for the funky new gadgets that you are trying to sell are precisely the people who are most likely to have the PVR that lets you skim past all the ads.
And even in the new web world, where these stats are more easily measurable, for example by WebTrends or Sophus3 or a myriad of other companies, still less than 1% of visitors to a site in a month click on an ad. Easy stats. Given enough visitors, still maybe ok.
But who are these visitors? I will quote directly from the first reference to the original AOL survey that I can find: Not surprisingly, they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers.
And three conclusions about these visitors drawn from the survey here:
And senior management at Google are not the only people to use that and similar quotes as a sign of the changing times. I often say it too. The work-related portions of this blog constantly suggest the identical message - modern marketing should be measurable, we should know which half works.
However, yes you should learn the results, but you may not like what what you learn. The Virtual Economics site provides an excellent summary of the potentially uncomfortable results. I won't repeat everything here.
But as I see it - in the TV advertising world, those who you would most like to target with adverts for the funky new gadgets that you are trying to sell are precisely the people who are most likely to have the PVR that lets you skim past all the ads.
And even in the new web world, where these stats are more easily measurable, for example by WebTrends or Sophus3 or a myriad of other companies, still less than 1% of visitors to a site in a month click on an ad. Easy stats. Given enough visitors, still maybe ok.
But who are these visitors? I will quote directly from the first reference to the original AOL survey that I can find: Not surprisingly, they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers.
And three conclusions about these visitors drawn from the survey here:
- More representative of lower income households than the average user.
- Less educated than the average user (or from less-educated environments in the case of minors).
- More likely to live outside of the major metro regions.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Technology for Marketing
Today I paused from daily project estimation to look further ahead.
The over-riding theme of the new media gurus is the racing pace of opportunity, the relentless surge of ever faster processing and ever bigger databases. Goodbye to the old snail's pace of Moore's law - doubling every 18 months. While the number of worldwide web users grows even faster, the network also becomes even more of a collaborative medium, so the number of content suppliers is growing faster still. And that content becomes ever richer with information. Within a few years, some believe that the volume of captured measurable usable information will be doubling every few days.
Meanwhile, in another strand of technology for marketing, we need more and more powerful algorithms to analyse all this data. All the ancient laws of CRM are being re-written. An oft-quoted ideal is to go back to the personal relationship of the local corner shop but with ultimate choice and flexibility. All that personal data, we just need to learn to use it in the way that best satisfies the customer.
So far so predictable.
But there is a parallel development, something that is not so welcome to the marketer. Something that is just glossed over by the futurologists. It is true that we are getting more types of information, but at the same time we are getting more careful about how it is used. Thanks to the legacy of the junk mailers and spammers and ID fraudsters, the customer is understandably cautious about leaving identifiable data. Marketing did jump ahead on the coat-tails of speeding technology, but legislators are catching up.
Meanwhile the organisations that are collecting the data are changing all the time - every year there seems to be a new social networking site of the moment. So the sources of data are becoming more fragmented too.
This still means that there is new opportunity. But it is a different sort of challenge. We need to be more sophisticated in our marketing. More careful with use and audit of data. Where we do not have all the personal information that we would like, we need to make greater use of probabilities and control groups and statistical models. It needs a new type of marketing. Maybe a new type of marketer.
The over-riding theme of the new media gurus is the racing pace of opportunity, the relentless surge of ever faster processing and ever bigger databases. Goodbye to the old snail's pace of Moore's law - doubling every 18 months. While the number of worldwide web users grows even faster, the network also becomes even more of a collaborative medium, so the number of content suppliers is growing faster still. And that content becomes ever richer with information. Within a few years, some believe that the volume of captured measurable usable information will be doubling every few days.
Meanwhile, in another strand of technology for marketing, we need more and more powerful algorithms to analyse all this data. All the ancient laws of CRM are being re-written. An oft-quoted ideal is to go back to the personal relationship of the local corner shop but with ultimate choice and flexibility. All that personal data, we just need to learn to use it in the way that best satisfies the customer.
So far so predictable.
But there is a parallel development, something that is not so welcome to the marketer. Something that is just glossed over by the futurologists. It is true that we are getting more types of information, but at the same time we are getting more careful about how it is used. Thanks to the legacy of the junk mailers and spammers and ID fraudsters, the customer is understandably cautious about leaving identifiable data. Marketing did jump ahead on the coat-tails of speeding technology, but legislators are catching up.
Meanwhile the organisations that are collecting the data are changing all the time - every year there seems to be a new social networking site of the moment. So the sources of data are becoming more fragmented too.
This still means that there is new opportunity. But it is a different sort of challenge. We need to be more sophisticated in our marketing. More careful with use and audit of data. Where we do not have all the personal information that we would like, we need to make greater use of probabilities and control groups and statistical models. It needs a new type of marketing. Maybe a new type of marketer.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The curious incident ...
Before yesterday's diversion around the super bowl, I was discussing the impact of technology, how this was creating an environment where many commodities were becoming "free". This still allows profit if you can find ways to create generative value, a strong concept that is broadly a re-branding of our "old" individualised marketing principles.
Unsurprisingly, the Economist seems to think these principles are pervasive and persuasive, global and inevitable. The magazine does not publish the names of individual journalists on articles, but a certain undercover economist is a strong suspect. Anyway, the article argues that despite the current credit crunch and fears of western recession, the people of the world have never had it so good.
Three main reasons were given, primarily affecting the emerging markets: social changes, globalisation, reduced wars. And the three were somewhat tied together by two factors: technology and free markets. The article admitted, even highlighted, the rise in economic inequality also associated with those two factors.
I particularly liked one phrase mentioned in passing. The title of this post. Countries like Nepal have dropped out of the news. The article notes this as a good thing.
But in the midst of the positive news, there were a few glaring exceptions - countries and regions that were failing badly. The article did not bark out a link between them. Tomorrow I will turn it completely around to demonstrate one ...
Unsurprisingly, the Economist seems to think these principles are pervasive and persuasive, global and inevitable. The magazine does not publish the names of individual journalists on articles, but a certain undercover economist is a strong suspect. Anyway, the article argues that despite the current credit crunch and fears of western recession, the people of the world have never had it so good.
Three main reasons were given, primarily affecting the emerging markets: social changes, globalisation, reduced wars. And the three were somewhat tied together by two factors: technology and free markets. The article admitted, even highlighted, the rise in economic inequality also associated with those two factors.
I particularly liked one phrase mentioned in passing. The title of this post. Countries like Nepal have dropped out of the news. The article notes this as a good thing.
But in the midst of the positive news, there were a few glaring exceptions - countries and regions that were failing badly. The article did not bark out a link between them. Tomorrow I will turn it completely around to demonstrate one ...
Friday, January 18, 2008
Bookdroplifting Revelations
I referred earlier to the phenomenal talents that can be hidden away developing software when sometimes these people have more vision, more creativity, and perhaps even better writing style than so many currently published authors. Another day I will explain my theory for the reasons that they stay and succeed in technology. But today just another eulogy to their genius.
The wasted Mark Abbott and the driven Stephen Lees were continuing a tradition started by the late great Paul Coombs, instigator of the cryptic creative epics that still confound that consultancy at the end of each year and author of well-respected guides to IT Project Estimation and IT Project Proposals.
Paul also wrote a novel. He described Revelations as "a cyber-novel packed with adventure, romance, jokes, brain-busting philosophy...". However all he got from every major publisher was a pre-printed rejection slip saying something along the lines of "we have read and enjoyed the book, but unfortunately did not feel it was worthy of publication".
I do not have the vested interest of the next Harry Potter hidden up my sleeve, but what is pathetic about those publishers is that they lied. Yes, that is a strong word, but various studies have shown that the publishers have neither the time nor inclination to read unsolicited manuscripts, fair enough, but they should just admit that. Though it would be a sorry state if new talent is forever stifled by this process. Paul paints an eloquent picture of a world where none of the biggest players in the industry actually ever read books, they just talk about them.
However he was not prepared to see his work disappear without a fight. So with typical tenacity and creativity, he instigated a process of "droplifting". That is the opposite of shoplifting. He invested his own money to get an ISBN and got a few hundred copies of his book privately printed and bound, then strategically left them in carefully selected bookshops. As each copy was in pristine condition and had a valid barcode, some were presumably rung up as normal by the shop assistants by the time that Paul went back to check a few weeks later. He hoped that word of mouth would gradually spread news of the novel, but sadly he did not live to see it.
However, somewhere at a store near you, his revelations may still survive.
The wasted Mark Abbott and the driven Stephen Lees were continuing a tradition started by the late great Paul Coombs, instigator of the cryptic creative epics that still confound that consultancy at the end of each year and author of well-respected guides to IT Project Estimation and IT Project Proposals.
Paul also wrote a novel. He described Revelations as "a cyber-novel packed with adventure, romance, jokes, brain-busting philosophy...". However all he got from every major publisher was a pre-printed rejection slip saying something along the lines of "we have read and enjoyed the book, but unfortunately did not feel it was worthy of publication".
I do not have the vested interest of the next Harry Potter hidden up my sleeve, but what is pathetic about those publishers is that they lied. Yes, that is a strong word, but various studies have shown that the publishers have neither the time nor inclination to read unsolicited manuscripts, fair enough, but they should just admit that. Though it would be a sorry state if new talent is forever stifled by this process. Paul paints an eloquent picture of a world where none of the biggest players in the industry actually ever read books, they just talk about them.
However he was not prepared to see his work disappear without a fight. So with typical tenacity and creativity, he instigated a process of "droplifting". That is the opposite of shoplifting. He invested his own money to get an ISBN and got a few hundred copies of his book privately printed and bound, then strategically left them in carefully selected bookshops. As each copy was in pristine condition and had a valid barcode, some were presumably rung up as normal by the shop assistants by the time that Paul went back to check a few weeks later. He hoped that word of mouth would gradually spread news of the novel, but sadly he did not live to see it.
However, somewhere at a store near you, his revelations may still survive.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Swings and Systems
It is not easy to find a stable solution. In the efforts to get things right, many processes swing too far one way then the other. In the theoretical world of control theory from college days, there are mathematical equations for this, and consequently the optimal solutions can be calculated. In the real world, we tend to swing well past the ideal point before we realise that we have passed it.
When choosing the England football manager after the honest long-ball bluntness of Graham Taylor, we got the urbane christmas trees of Terry Venables. After the enthusing Kevin Keegan, we got the suave Sven Goran Ericsson. After the smooth Swede, back to anyone English, even if under-qualified. Then back to experienced foreigner.
It is the same when developing any major new projects. Wherever you start, you will not spiral in towards perfection, instead you will oscillate. If you start with an outdated homegrown development that is becoming too complex, you will buy in a simple standard product. When that product becomes too inflexible for business requirements, then you will go back to big global development. When the global solution becomes too remote for individual market needs, then you will develop something local. When you have too many locally developed solutions, then you will go back to a central universal product.
Those principles apply everywhere. Not because any of the global corporations where I have worked have taken fundamentally wrong decisions, but because there is an inevitable evolution of business requirement and technological capability.
Wait long enough, your best decision will look odd enough.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Flight of the Phoenix
We watched a movie this weekend. To be more precise, one of the freeview TV channels finally showed the 2004 remake of the classic 1965 film. The plot is familiar, a group of survivors crash land in the desert and build a new plane out of the wreckage.
And while watching, I asked myself: could I do that?
Now I don't think that I would survive many days in searing heat and biting cold with minimal food or water. However, given time and tools and materials, I think I could build a working flying machine.
After all, it's not rocket science.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The Language of IT
As should be perfectly clear from much of the material here, I do not abide by many of the common distinctions between the business world and the world of information technology.
Many in the business do not delve into the information technology that supports us, perhaps because they think that they cannot understand the language. There may be a lot of data to absorb, but the principles are all common sense.
But as with natural languages, things that initially appear incomprehensible can usually be explained very simply - not by a thorough memorisation of extensive vocabulary, but simply by recognising how the language is built up - the basic components of grammar and a general understanding of how things evolve.
There may appear to be major differences. For example, in our daily interactions, someone who knows the vocabulary and syntax of more than three or four languages is quite unusual in the English speaking world.
But for those who work in computing, it is quite normal to be able to write fluently in far more than that. However the non-technologist would counter: compared to German or French or Russian, the language of computing is usually exceedingly simple, with very limited vocabulary and very few rules of syntax …
… and that is exactly why everyone should be able to understand it.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Bleeding Edge
There are plenty of people who are critical of academics and futurologists and towers of ivory. Despite what you may believe, I would support that criticism. The writers that I most respect have backed up their words with actions. George Orwell really did spend time down and out in Paris and London.
But I genuinely do work developing strange new mixtures of technology, statistics and psychology that together form the essence of this blog. I have been selling these ideas since my college thesis, and have been doing my best to implement them in real business applications ever since.
Even where I veer onto the more global and more controversial stuff, the really big issues that are destroying our world, I still sometimes stick my neck in where it hurts. Even if you are not a professional journalist, a broad subject does sometimes require unpleasant research.
So it is true that I did not volunteer to risk my life fighting in the Spanish Civil War. But I really have endured the Alpha Course. Sometimes we have to suffer for our art.
But I genuinely do work developing strange new mixtures of technology, statistics and psychology that together form the essence of this blog. I have been selling these ideas since my college thesis, and have been doing my best to implement them in real business applications ever since.
Even where I veer onto the more global and more controversial stuff, the really big issues that are destroying our world, I still sometimes stick my neck in where it hurts. Even if you are not a professional journalist, a broad subject does sometimes require unpleasant research.
So it is true that I did not volunteer to risk my life fighting in the Spanish Civil War. But I really have endured the Alpha Course. Sometimes we have to suffer for our art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
