Monday, September 29. 2014
I wrote a post on the Agile Elephant blog about some observations on UK/US vs European use og Social technologies, this is the first few paragraphs:
We attended the IoM conference in Cologne last week, at the same time London Social Media Week was happening. (David gave a keynote talk, the slides are over here). It was interesting to juxtapose the core themes of these 2 events (incidentally, it was our Patchwork Elephant Conference held during last year's Social Media Week London that persuaded us to set up Agile Elephant).
In a nutshell, I noted the following large differences in themes on my twtstreams:
Now to be fair, IoM is about "social business" whereas "Social Media Week" has a wider remit, but it's interesting to note that even "Social Business" conferences in the UK are often focussed much more heavily on the sales/marketing arena. (Which is why we are running a more operations & customer related conference in November - see last paragraph of this post)
When we were kicking around the "why" this might be so, we came to the following hypotheses:
Whetever the reasoning, it leads to an interesting conclusion - best practice on customer attraction areas is in our observation coming from the UK and US, best practice in operational areas from Europe. Customer service examples seem to be coming from everywhere (it was after all a Swede who invented the concept of Moments of Truth in the customer value chain).
I'm not quite sure of the "form" for a blog in 2 places - reporoduce in entirety, or "skip after the break" - anyway, I've gone for the latter so here is the link to the rest of the article
Friday, September 26. 2014
Ello is a bright and clean new social network that promises, in its manifesto, to stay free of ads, never sell your data, and not make anyone use real names. People are paying attention to Ello because other people are paying attention to Ello. It is invitation only.
Invite only, so only the In crowd get in - Google approach redux. If only one could rely on the no datascraping promises - it's like promising not to be Evil.
But, once it has several hundred million users, and a large infusion of funding, and needs to "monetise" before shooting for an IPO - I wonder what conclusions it will reach about user data and advertising. I'd suspect the words on the barn door will subtly change
Remember people, if you ain't paying, you ain't the customer.
Still, its a few years before those pressures will really come in so it's probably a better 'ole vs. those that are now under the cosh to monetise.
Friday, September 5. 2014
There is a new trend emerging, perhaps - these 2 posts from Nick Carr & Awedience blog's Chris Arnold are thought provoking.
In essence, Nick argues the that the big, imepersonal, autobotted and analysed social mediascape is becoming counterproductive:
These trends, if they are actually trends, seem related. I sense that they both stem from a sense of exhaustion with what I’m calling Big Internet. By Big Internet, I mean the platform- and plantation-based internet, the one centered around giants like Google and Facebook and Twitter and Amazon and Apple. Maybe these companies were insurgents at one point, but now they’re fat and bland and obsessed with expanding or defending their empires. They’ve become the Henry VIIIs of the web. And it’s starting to feel a little gross to be in their presence.
Now Nick is a fairly reliable curmudgeon, but much of his scepticism is based on hard analysis so this is an interesting observation. Nick is pretty good at setting current trends into historical aptterns, one cann imagine that big data driven SM may well go the way of pop-up Ads. (there is already a movement gaining momentum to limit how much user data can be picked up)
Map to that an interesting observation by Chris Brogan, who I've always seen as a "everything's rosy" kind of fellow, but note this piece from Awedience on the idea of Warm Data:
Have you ever seen that whole “we’ve got mountains of data on our customers” experience play out? In lots and lots of cases, most organizes aren’t really equipped to actually do anything with the data. And “big” data just means that there are mountains of information points that, in the right hands, can make interesting things happen.
If I were to pour cold water on this (as if...) I'd say this is just Personalised Data, reheated - and this message about the medium is a year or so old....but it's been striking a chord again recently and sort of fits in with Nick Carr''s observations. Awedience makes another interesting point, quoting Rob Hatch:
There’s a big counter-trend going on where people are pushing harder and harder to automate and dehumanize their use of communications tools like social media and email and the rest of the digital channel. Go ahead. Do that.
Now, 2 tropes do not a trend make, but seems to me the Social Media market is starting to recognise a distinction between mass produced commodity SM and high value SM as a value proposition, not an interesting theoretical concept. The limits to "big" social media automation benefits may be approaching, perhaps. Which stands to raeson - any market eventually shakes out into a commodity type offering. midrange offerings, and more added value/one off offerings so its clear SM will too (and faster than we think, perhaps)....
Tuesday, September 2. 2014
For those who are not aware of the unfolding story, this is a summary from Channel 4 News:
Bear in mind that in theory they have committed no crime that should trigger a Europeam Arrest Warrant either, yet one materialised astonishigly rapidly.
But that is the main story. However, there has been a very interesting secondary story to this, for those interested in Social Media. There was quite a lot of poor information disseminated at first by the "official sources" via mainstream media (for example unnecessary scare mongering about safety, and aspersions about the parents). The kindest conclusion one can come to was that there was initial confusion and now continuing uncertainty over what is permissable to divulge. The net effect was to paint a very negative picture of the parents for public consumption.
However, the parents used Social Media very well to get their side of the story across in the face of this mainstream narrative:
Clearly this will be an increasing trend - it's hardly new, after all - the medium may be the message, but with multiple mediums multiple messages can get out. But what the lesson is here is the high quality of the messaging that a fairly ordinary family is capable of today, and that the size of the "alternative medium" channels to spread it can trump the mainstream. Control of the message on the Old Media is a busted flush if these new channels pick up the story (If.....there are lkely many worthy cases that do not go viral, so its not a failsafe for the "little man" - but its a start)
Now there is probably information that the authorities cannot divulge, that would help explain their position and actions better, but right now they are coming off very badly by keeping quiet in this multi-medium model. Senior Government figures are now stepping in to halt the impending sh*tstorm before it gets fanned all over them, which will only increase the kicking these services get. Which points to the inevitable corollary to this event (all actions have reactions, 'tis the law....). If the services involved - medical, police, legal - did make available some of the confidential information they had, and it would help stop them inevitably being seen as the chumps in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, they will be under increasing temptation - and pressure - to do so. I can imagine that currently mores of patient confidentiality may well shift to more of a "dump if provoked" process - i.e. data will be let out if the other party starts to refer to it.
You read it here first....
(Update - as predicted, the senior poiticos got involved, and are now busy scoopng up the plaudits...and more interestingly, the hospital concerned has published some of its notes of the medical situation in its defence. )
Sunday, February 2. 2014
Great post over here by Tuttler Anke Holst on starting your own cult:
Because really, starting a cult isn’t a big deal. You need to find a theme, a dogma, write some scripture, invent a mythology, establish the old ‘us and them’. Then find some way to exploit people’s insecurities, ‘save’ just a few people with the right set of hangups to be your first disciples. Then you build a framework of rules and regulations and routines that is so difficult to follow that nobody is able to, and when they come to you with problems you can blame it on the fact they aren’t following your instructions.
There's more, but you have to go to Anke's blog to read it This is a really good post and should be read by all wannabe marketeers, movement starters etc - says in a page what other more famous pundits take a book or two to say. And when your cult starts to wane:
....you say to the newer ones ‘oh, they weren’t strong enough to withstand the power of the illusory energy, they have fallen by the wayside, ignore them, they have turned into enemies. This should be doubly easy because you can now busy yourselves exploiting the positions of power they left.’
Now, Anke doesn't go into the "how to monetise your cult" bit, so I thought I could Add Value there, as it were. Ideally there is something in your cult about renouncing all worldly possessions (but ensuring they go into The Cult's asset base, not FreeCycle). Ensure that at least Tithing (a 10% minimum tax on all followers incomes) occurs (or at least a healthy whack as a Membership Fee). Then there are the books, clothing, posters, events, whale music CD's, crystals etc etc that should all be money making opportunities. Ideally Cult members also give their labour for free, though you may have to invest in some form of accommodation to feed and house them - so make sure you own it and gain its capital appreciation benefits. And of course set it up in a place where you get tax breaks for being charitable/religious/not for profit
Anke pointed out over Twitter that "cash for karma" is as rife as it was in Mediaeval Europe, see this video
Wednesday, January 29. 2014
I wrote this article on the Agile Elephant blog, but as not everyone who follows me follows Broadstuff, it may be interesting to people here. In essence, there is more than 1 Dunbar Number:
Dunbar actually theorizes there are a number of Dunbar Numbers, based on a series of boundary levels of social intimacy and acquaintance. These levels reflect familiarity and emotional closeness, and each level has its own "cognitive constraints on sociality" (loosely speaking, how much you can constantly know about the people in the group). His work came from looking at group sizes of hunter gatherer societies, past and present. The levels he defines are broadly:
Core group - up to 5 people (family)
Dunbar notes a geometric progression, "a factor of 3" applies to these larger and larger (but increasingly less intimate) social structures. He was looking mainly at fairly primitive human social structures, but he also believes that these group sizes have impacts on how we structure organisations and social network technology.
Anyway, I go into it in more detail on that post, but here is the conclusion for social networks and organisations:
At each Dunbar's Number level, a new level of social transaction frequency and intimacy is required – it’s not a hard break as a change of state
This allows us to make two hypotheses for Dunbar's Number in a Social Network world:
Firstly, the technology removes some of the transaction time, so in theory the Dunbar number can grow for any one of these groupings that makes heavy use of digital comms. That means that a 6 person team is not going to see a huge benefit from social technology, buts a 150 person business spread across multiple locations is more likely to see benefits. Either it can handle a % more people as well, or the same number of people more richly. However, the state shift between these groups makes it very unlikely that the technology will allow a 150 person business to have the feel of a 50 person one - more that it can run to say 200 people before losing its 150 level Dunbar status.
Secondly, the transaction cost change makes it easier to keep up with people at a distance, as there is less "hassle" in dealing with them. The Allen Curve showed that intimacy tends to drop with distance, even using technology - but that was before the current crop of "ambient presence" services.
Thursday, January 23. 2014
Water, Sunset, Elephants....and Social Business
As some of you may know, we've been working on various Social Tech projects and putting on Social Business events for a while with two old Tuttle regulars, David Terrar and Janet Parkinson. Well, after the last event (see here) we decided to make this a bit more permanent and "structured", and so the Agile Elephant was born as a place where we could do our stuff and work with the many people who had expressed an interest in the same space. (It was interesting - we started it off conceptually as a .org NFP, but to do some of the stuff we want to do it's easier - read: more legally secure and insurable - to be a Limited Liability Company in this day and age).
Anyway, as one does these days, we set up a website, wrote a Manifesto (its quicker than writing a book....) and started a blog on matters Social Business.
Why Agile Elephants? Well, the conferences we did were called the "Patchwork Elephant" conferences, as we saw the emerging social business arena as one where everyone was seeing a different bit of a far larger thing and declaring the bit they were seeing was "Social Business". But the Elephant motif also has a number of other interesting resonances in business:
- Elephant in the Room - things that one could no longer ignore, but still was ignored or not being taken seriously. We thought this described social business perfectly today.
As to Agile - well, a dancing elephant is agile (and anyone who thinks a real elephant is not agile has never seen the real thing, in the wild*) and that ties in with what we think the major business impact of Social Business will be - helping existing as well as emerging businesses to become more agile, lean and responsive.
Hence, the Agile Elephant.
Broadsight continues as ever, its focus is on cutting edge technology consultancy and systems design, and will provide back end networking and integration technology for Agile Elephant projects where and when required (you knew that Broadsight built its first social media monitoring device in 2007, in the Days Before Twitter right?). Nothing like building your own social media technology to get to know how it all works...
The Broadstuff Blog will continue of course, with its somewhat sceptical look at the passing Tech parade - there are just too many large, and not very nimble Elephants still around to take pot shots at
(* Or in my case, in the South African game reserves in my youth - got charged by one once. By the way - did you know that the Elephant's nearest relative is the Dassie, or Rock Rabbit - which I can assure you is extremely nimble too. And bites!)
Friday, January 17. 2014
In the days of yore when I was doing my MSc, before Inter-Networks were called the Internet, and we were trying to get a grip on what this new New Thing was, I studied a lot of Information Theory. And a hot off the presses at the time was a book was written by MiT's Prof Thomas Allen, that talked about the Allen Curve (above). In essence, it says that the further apart people are physically, the less they communicvate - even over telephones and so on. In essnce, physical contact drives electronic contact.
(Incidentally, Allen also discovered Information Gatekeepers, those people who connected and conveyed vital knowledge from just the right people to just the right other people in the organization, decades before Malcolm Gladwell rebottled them)
Anyway, the neuron in my brain that had this fact was rudely wakened today when I came across his latest book (from 2006), which looks at the impact of Social Meedja on the Allen Curve. Given the massive reduction in comms transactions costs over the 30 years (good lord - is it really...) since the Allen Curve was first plotted and the ubiquity of agressively gamified inclusive social network architectures, you'd think the curve would have been attenuated somewhat, in multi-degrees of freedom, no?
He found that:
"rather than finding that the probability of telephone communication increases with distances, as face-to-face probability decays, our data show a decay in the use of all communication media with distance (following a near field rise)".
In other words, face to face still drives social contact.
Except, I know of an exception. Since the days of the textnet, I know I have reached further, wider etc etc in one area - my "communities of interest" - the other sad sacks who are interested in the more esoteric things things that I am. There, it was the other way around. I found them because they were interested in the stuff I am, and the digital comms were flowing thick and fast long befire the (inevitable) face to face meetings occurred.
So, I have formulated Alan's Corollary to the Allen Curve, on a whim, in this post. It states that the attractiveness of the topic being communicated can over-ride the "physical drives digital comms" formula. The power of content trumps the power of comms, for this case. For day to day dross (the content of the lions share of any Social Network content), the Allen Curve is correct, but when you're talking about, say, the music of cult geek bands of the 70's then we're all in the same place, sitting together - and this town ain't big enough*...
*Look at the spelling on the synth. Cool hey?
Monday, December 2. 2013
McKinsey 7S model - annoying alliterations and all
Ever since our last Patchwork Elephant conference, I've been playing around with an overall framework to think about Social Business, and have found the old McKinsey 7S model quite useful, as it forces thought about both the "soft" and "hard" areas I see in SB. Bad news it was somewhat shot down after its failure in "In Search of Excellence" but I think that was due to the authors looking only at the past, not seeing businesses as dynamic systems (a separate but probably related discussion for another post). Anyway, the model is shown above, some thoughts are below:
Strategy: What is the organization’s strategy seeking to accomplish, and how does the organization plan to use its resources and capabilities to deliver that?
Structure: How is the organization organized, and what are the reporting and working relationships? How are decisions made? How is information shared (formal and informal channels) across the organization?
Social tools/methods can potentially move information more quickly through an organisation than previous tools, and can connect to and from both formal and informal channels
Systems: What are the primary business and technical systems that drive the organization?
Social technologies are emerging, at present they tend to be “point of use” – the challenge is to integrate them to each other
Style: What is the management/leadership style like? Are there real teams functioning within the organization or are they just nominal groups? What behaviours, tasks and deliverables does management/leadership reward?
Social technologies/methods force a real change in behaviour, both from the managers – and the managed.
Staff: What is the size of the organization? Are there gaps in required capabilities or resources? What is the plan to address those needs?
Economics of modern work mean attention to multi skilling, multi location working, associates not employees etc
Skills: What skills are required to deliver the core products and/or services? Are these skills sufficiently present and available? How are skills monitored, assessed, and improved?
There is increasing evidence that Social skills are desired by customers, and can create competitive advantage
Cornerstone - Shared Values
Shared Values – What is the mission of the organization, and what is the vision to get there? What are the ideal versus real values and how do the values play out in daily life? How deeply rooted is this culture, and what real impact does it have?
Shared Values help to synchronise decisions, ensure that everything is “pointing in the same direction”/”on the same page” – they improve operating efficiency
We also see the benefit in Social Business in solving the following issues
Global versus local company culture, ensuring common understanding is key as the culture of global organisations may be interpreted differently by employees based internationally
A business that doesn’t “walk the talk” however, will soon lose any benefits the above accrues. The culture has to be ingrained, not grafted on for convenience.
Monday, October 14. 2013
Very interesting Chinwag "Psych" event last week, with 2 talks:
The first was on some research into prediction of people's actions from social media data. Social Media marketing company iProspect worked witrh Cambridge University to do a piece of research on the impact of Facebook Likes. They created a fake brand on Facebook (so hopefully no existing influence to skew results). They kept everything else the same, but varied the number of "likes" on the site and then tested it on a large sample (mechanical turk uers, as it happens) an A/B/C testing to see how it affects people's reaction.
The results were that:
1. Number of Likes matter (Especially in the absence of any other validation, as - Benjamin Ellis noted)
The "Tipping point" at which extra likes started to have minimal extra impact was c 100,000 likes. They could not predict how many likes were required to tip someone from trust into buying, but they do still think differing likes are needed to kick off different actions.
Its was good to see this reserach with hard data, though to be fair its what all of us believed was the case. Many Companies are already buying Likes, but are finding its just a chip to enter the game and are now trying to get to engagement (buying 100,00 Likes from a Like Farm in the Far East not being exactly conducive to gaining interactive fans).
There was a good question asked, - ie is it best to curate rather than create. Having 2.8 million likes is all very well, but if I but can't see what people like me actually like, how compelling is it?
Then came Adrian Cheok (@adriancheok), Professor of Pervasive Computing at City University London gave us a presentation on multisensory human communication.
In essence he argues that we read 2x more information from nonverbal communication than verbal, so there will be strong pressure (and big benefits?) to move from information to experience communication, and staring at screens is a trammnsient thing. Sound was the first augmented reality (he showed an all tha made katana noises when you wave your umbrell around), but in his view the endgame is to transmit touch and smell/taste:
Touch - Prof Cheok showed devices that can transmit touch over the internet to other devices, including the very icky "Kissinger" (to tranmit kisses), and a set of rings that transmit touch between couples who are separated
Smell and Taste - the issue is you need to stimulate correct parts of limbic system, but it's a chemical not electrical stimulation. So far the stats of the art is small chemical pods that can exude specific smells to command, some so sall they can fit on glasses. The real breakthrough though will be to generate smell/taste via electromagnetic signals.
Three things from this were obvious to me:
This is not new by the way, I recall my friend Dave Bamford doing tranmission of touch this for his MS at NYU over 10 years ago, but the bandwidth has rocketed, and costs and size of sensors and servo equipment has plummeted in a mere decade (this is also what is driving the overall robotics revolution)
Anyway, Kudos again to the Chinwag team for a great event.
(Page 1 of 32, totaling 312 entries) » next page
More Broad Stuff
Poll of the Week
Will Augmented reality just be a flash in the pan?
Creative Commons Licence
Original content in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License