Disruption to #Facebook?

In a post on my other blog this week I made the argument that the acquisition of WhatsApp… and the earlier purchase of Instagram by Facebook is an acknowledgement that the FB is really the champion of Web 2.0. And there is a new platform taking over.

Mobile is overtaking Web 2.0 and Facebook and Zuckerberg are choosing likely winners in mobile. This is a compliment to founder Mark Zuckerberg — CEOs are usually unaware as disruptive new products consume market leaders.

  • Do you think the disruptive innovation model applies to Facebook?
  • Do you think Instagram + WhatsApp are classic Christensen disruptions?

For more see the other post:

WhatsApp is the future; Facebook is history

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New #Blogs by Students

If you have a few moments you may want to review twelve new blogs created by students for a social media class! Some interesting tastes and ideas!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Innovation in #Blogs?

This might be slightly off topic, but take a look at the twelve new blogs created in my SMM class!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Thoughts on a Theory of Innovation

Do you have thoughts about a theory of Innovation?

Over the past 50 years, researchers have learned a lot about innovation, including:

  • Classifications: there is incremental, innovative, radical and also disruptive innovation,
  • Collaboration: Innovation should be open and collaborative with suppliers or outsiders, 
  • Customer or user collaboration is especially effective (VOC, Lead Users, Co-creation),
  • Another form of collaboration is to bring a product (minimum viable?) to market and learn real-time from market reaction (experiment, probe and learn, lean innovation or effectuation)
  • Product innovation and process innovation are not easily separated in services, and most product now have a major service component,
  • A formal innovation process seems to help incremental innovation but may inhibit, radical or disruptive innovation and may also hinder organizational learning.

But what would be the central theory or theories of innovation?

I see three key pieces of innovation:

  1. Discovery or recognition of a solution to a customer problem or need,
  2. Evaluating the potential of a solution (regardless of source), and
  3. Orchestrating a collaborative effort to bring the solution to market.

The last two pieces match famous Steve Jobs observations:

  • Good artists copy; great artists steal.
  • Real artists ship.

Why am I asking for your help today?

Suppose that you volunteered to talk for 10 minutes to a conference about my thoughts on a theory of innovation… And suppose you realized that the audience would include:

  • Innovative leaders from several industries,
  • The former and current editors of the leading academic journal of innovation,
  • Leading academic researchers, including the authors of Serial Innovators, Will and Vision, “Voice of the Customer”, and other key innovation books and articles.

Wouldn’t YOU be asking everyone for their thoughts?? So…

Do you have thoughts about a theory of Innovation?

Posted in Customer Research Methods, effectuation, experiential innovation, Experiment, Innovation education, Process Innovation, Slow Burn Entrepreneurship, Stage-Gate® | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Tsunami in #HigherEd: Social Media and Peer-to-peer

BTW: A post related to the ongoing discussion of the Tsunami in higher education was posted on my other blog:

Social Learning and Online #HigherEd

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Going Broke by Degree – #Higher Ed Tsunami?

Jeffrey Phillips wrote a good post last week about his insights into HigherEd problems from his college tours with his daughters: HigherEd Insight from college tours 

Insights from his trips and discussions of college include the high costs from inefficient use of capital such as classrooms to meet capacity from 11 am till 3 pm eight months a year and spending on plush dorms, workout facilities and student unions. He also discussed whether the use of online course shouldn’t permit students to put together a combination of the best online courses with traditional courses – eventually forcing universities to allow packages similar to iPod music mixes.

I have been planning to post a series of articles on the “Tsunami in HigherEd”. I have written before about the problems with innovation in the business models of Universities, for example a post: HigherEd: Who is the Customer?

In my upcoming posts I plan to look at four big issues facing universities: (1) continuing ballooning costs, (2) a possible bubble due to loans, government policy, and high expected returns, (3) disruptive technology (online MOOCs), and (4) internal resistance to change.

One of the great things about working in academy is the change to talk with experts. I had the opportunity yesterday with a small group to have lunch with Richard K Vedder, who has been writing about HigherEd cost pressures and other risks for years in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Wall Street Journal and other outlets. I had read his book, Going Broke by Degree,some years ago.

I asked Dr. Vedder about the four forces I thought threatened HigherEd. He was in strong agreement and even added a fifth, (5) unfavorable demographics ahead as potential users decline and seniors argue for reallocation of government money to keep Medicare solvent. He agreed that another cost pressure was the growth of administrative overhead at universities (increase in “Ass Deans”) which had been discussed in another book, The Fall of Faculty (Meddle Management) .

Dr. Vedder questioned the usefulness of accreditors as well as administrators. Overall I found him to be more complacent about the future of higher education than I would have expected.

Outsourcing Football

A cool insight that I would have liked to hear more about was how my university benefited from being near a major football power without having to pay the incredible costs of such a program. (Our students go to the games, but the ludicrous coaching salaries, funds siphoned from academic programs, and legal problems from athletes – such a when a “student-athlete” decides to steal drugs at gunpoint – are borne by the school across the river.)

Dr. Vedder says he is looking into pairs of schools in similar situations…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Flawed Tools – Focus groups and brainstorming for ideas

My article about group methods for ideation, including focus groups and brainstorming was published in the May issue of the Journal of Product Innovation and Management. Regular readers of this (irregular) blog will know the key findings about the use of groups to generate innovative ideas. Individual interviews with users as suggested by Abbie Griffin in “Voice of the Customer” will outperform group methods (even adjusted for time). Compared to the group brainstorming, individual ideation will generate:

  1. More ideas,
  2. Better ideas on average, and
  3. The most innovative ideas. (Trifecta!)

The full paper is here: Using focus groups and brainstorming for user ideas.

Osborn introduced Brainstorming in a book in 1957, claiming that he had empirical evidence that a group brainstorming by his four key rules—(1) criticism not welcome; (2) freewheeling welcome; (3) quantity of ideas welcome; and (4) combining/improving ideas welcome—could produce twice as many ideas as individuals brainstorming alone and also produce better ideas.

However within a year, Taylor et al. (1958) conducted experiments, finding that the combined results of individual brainstorming outperformed groups in terms of the number, quality, and uniqueness of the ideas generated. As noted, subsequent research has strongly supported the inferiority of group methods.

Why then are brainstorming and focus groups still so widely used for product innovation ideas? (That question is the second half of the paper…)

Any thoughts??

Posted in Ideation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

New Klout – An Innovation Strategy?

“You have eyes: Plagiarize!”   – Product Development at Salomon Brothers (Liars Poker)

“Good artists copy, but great artists steal.” – Steve Jobs

Borrowing ideas from your competitors has a long and esteemed history in innovation, as noted in the quotes above. Therefore it should not necessarily negative to note that Klout’s ballyhooed new version and business model seems to be lifted entirely from a competitor, Kred.

When I summarized popular, retail influence-measuring services to my SMM class last semester I noted that Kred had created some buzz and excitement about its pledge of transparency and noted several differences from Klout including:

  1. Kred enhances transparency by clearly displaying events, called activities, that lead to Kred points,
  2. Kred goes back further to compute your score, up to 1000 days, so a temporary event such as going on holiday or celebrating a birthday on Facebook should not have as much impact,
  3. Participants can award each other +Kreds, which will contribute to a score, and
  4. Kred has an option to include evidence of real world influence “offline Kred” in your total score.

Of course differences remain, but substitute “moments” for activities, “90 days” for 1000, “+K” for +Kred, and “automatically” for has an “option” in these four former differences and you have the key innovations Klout just announced!

Kred seemed to be getting some traction, so Klout said “I can be like them.” Is this a winning innovation strategy??

In fairness, Facebook has been using this strategy successfully to thwart competition from Google+. However I am reminded of another example…

Coca-Cola reformulated its product, dropping the vanilla and adding sugar, to make it taste more like Pepsi in reaction to the Pepsi taste test promotions. The “New Coke” was a near disaster until management pivoted and went back to the historical formula.

Is Klout just tactically fending off Kred or is it endangering its service by introducing “New Klout” – what do you think?

[I will discuss my thoughts and your ideas in my next post…]

Posted in Social Media Marketing | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

Crowdsourcing a New Marketing Course: Social Slam Presentation

From 2012 Social Slam in Knoxville, TN

Video | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

3 Quick Lessons from Bernie, Jon, and Russell

Investors lost money in three recent frauds: Madoff, MF Global, and Peregrine. Are there lessons for a careful investor from these debacles. Three quick lessons come to mind.

Don’t trust the SEC – they are clueless. Barron’s had run an article calling Madoff a Ponzi scheme, an analyst had contacted the Boston and NY offices of the SEC repeatedly, and yet the fraud went on. Do your own homework.

Don’t trust the CFTC or NFA – they may be even more clueless. How hard is it to check segregated funds? Do your own investigating.

Check the auditors. Both Madoff and Peregrine were audited by obscure, one-person, accounting firms. Seems sorta strange for major concerns, right? It may not concern the regulators, but it should concern you.

There are many other lessons as well, but these are three to start with!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

ROI – Misleading title, great read!

Mark Schaefer’s new book, Return on Influence or ROI, is an interesting and very readable overview of Klout, the rise of Klout, and its importance going forward. I recommend it to all avid tweeters and students of social media: Return On Influence: The Revolutionary Power of Klout, Social Scoring, and Influence Marketing

Despite its title, ROI is NOT a discussion of metrics for social media marketing or the return on investment from SMM efforts. Klout has gained such clout over the individuals tweeting and posting that it merits this book length treatment. I worry from the tone that Mark has bought into the Klout Kool-Aid: However the book is even-handed in its treatment of the issues.

Read the Tao of Twitter first if you haven’t: The Tao of Twitter: Changing your life and business 140 characters at a time

Continue reading

Posted in Social Media Marketing, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

SMM4Biz

I have started a second WordPress blog, http://smm4biz.com/2012/02/16/class-infomercial/ .

With teaching the new course in SMM I feel that I will have more ideas to share about SMM. I continue to believe that there is a great synergy between experiential innovation and social media, so there should be some overlap between the two blogs. PLEASE CHECK THE NEW BLOG OUT!

I posted a video that I showed my class to try to get them excited about being buried under 3 major projects…  http://wp.me/p1reuk-9

Consider subscribing to the new blog as well! – Gary

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Top threats to the Internet and SM!

I believe that the two biggest threats to the wide open Web and social media as we know it are the potential dominance of:

  1. Facebook as a social media platform and
  2. Klout as an SM-rater.

Facebook is an evolving closed system that threatens to overtake the WWW as the world wide information space. Further evidence of this trend was the launching of the WSJ facebook site this week: WSJ Social, For a World Where Facebook Is the New Internet – Forbes http://onforb.es/rniic2 (thanks @laurelschirr)

The Klout threat is even more insidious as it can change the behavior of social media participants. As people seek higher Klout scores for K-rewards, status or even job screening tricks reminiscent of commercial website SEO will come to twitter, FB, etc. For example someone would likely increase a Klout score by:

  • More frequent postings,
  • Hot topics (“what if Justin #Bieber and Lady #Gaga hooked-up?”)
  • Following people with high scores, and
  • Only following back half of followers.

Does that sound like a social world? See this article, also from Forbes: How Do You Like Being Publicly Scored? http://onforb.es/phDoeX

Do you agree that these are THE two big threats?

[A couple earlier articles of mine on Klout: Why Klout is dangerous http://wp.me/pdSfz-dQ; Will Klout Kill Community? http://shar.es/HM1Sm ]

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Community-sourcing a new course!

When I first considered a new undergraduate social media marketing class I started with a few ideas and a half page outline. The outline in the previous post is the one I am now using in the course. It has benefited immensely from input from twitter, LinkedIn and blog friends.

Would I call the course “crowdsourced”?

Most of the help came from experts who consult to companies on social media marketing, have led seminars on SMM, have written books, or taught pieces of SMM in their university classes. (Although good suggestions came from students and others as well.)

So should I instead call it “lead user” innovation?

I think the process is best called “Community-sourcing.” I believe that this is a case study in why you should develop a focused twitter and blog following and community: the benefit from such a community is obvious at times like this but is also present day-to-day.

The incredible help I have received on my SMM course reminded me of an aha! moment after I moved to Hong Kong. When I was in Chicago I was good at generating trading ideas; after being in Hong Kong for a couple months it was getting harder. I at first blamed the long hours. Then I realized my infrastructure had changed: in Chicago I rode the morning train with an economist focused on fixed income and currency markets; when I got to the office I talked with the floor people before they headed to the bond pits and had pre-market calls with major institutional traders. The decline in ideas was not due to lost sleep, but my lost community

Why do people help?

Why did I receive such an outpouring of help and support from the online community? This is always an issue in crowdsourcing and lead-users as well -WHY DO PEOPLE HELP???

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

(The current full outline is in the following post)

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The imperfect Social Media Marketing course

When I was soliciting ideas for the new course I used the title “The Perfect Social Media Marketing course”. Now that we are a couple weeks into it, I already am thinking of changes for the fall, so the following is the detailed outline of my imperfect social media marketing course…

Social Media Marketing – Spring 2012

Objective – The objective of SMM class is for each student to understand and apply: the principles of social media marketing, the use of the key social media platforms by organizations, how SMM differs from standard marketing and internet marketing, key issues and changes in social media, and to demonstrate the capability to use social media to support the mission of a professional, business or non-profit organization.

Social Media Marketing is not Internet Marketing. In internet marketing promotional tools such as direct selling, coupons, advertisements are brought online and established success measures include SEO, click-throughs, etc. Social Media Marketing is really social networking online: reaching out and advancing real relationships with customers, prospects, and stakeholders. Promotional tools used in SMM can be jarring and counter-productive if not used carefully.

The “big four” SM platforms for professional SMM (per @michellegolden) are:

  1.  Facebook [And FB fan pages]
  2. Blogs
  3. Twitter
  4. YouTube
  5. And… LinkedIn for anyone interested in networking or B2B or professional advancement…

 Reading: This is a rapidly changing field with many questions and few answers. There is a lot of reading including books, blogs and articles.

Books: We will use 4 interesting business-oriented paperbacks.

  • Tao of Twitter by Mark Schaefer and
  • Crush It! by Gary Vaynerchuk

are easy reads and should be read quickly as they will be discussed in the first two weeks. These two books are key to project 1 – your passion. Mr. Schaefer will address our class via Skype in one of our first four class meetings.

  • Social Media Marketing: An Hour a Day (Dave Evans) and
  • The New Rules of Marketing and PR (David Meerman Scott)

are available in the bookstore or can be purchased through Amazon or a bookstore. I urge every student to get a copy of An Hour a Day; you can share the Scott book if you wish, but must keep up in reading.

Recommended books  include: Engage (Solis), Likeable Social Media (Kerpen), Social Media ROI (Blanchard)

Websites: I hope you follow many websites and blogs. These should definitely be included for this class:

Articles: As assigned by instructor

Class Projects: Projects are the focus of Social Media Marketing class. The instructor will post sheets with more detailed information about each project

  1. Personal Campaign – each student designs + executes a social media campaign for a personal “passion.”
  2. Turn an author into a best seller – each group will generate ideas and a SMM plan for a new book author.
  3. Organizational SMM – each group will generate ideas and an SMM plan for an organization.

Student Content: There is so much to understand and so much changing that no one person…but the each group will help with two videocasts for the entire class to view.

Student reports – each group will create a video-cast for the class on one of these topics:

  1.  Presenting pictures: Flickr and its competitors
  2. Blogging on WordPress, BogSpot or Tumblr; video-blogging
  3. SMM on singles sites: OKCupid, Casual Kiss, Plenty of Fish
  4. Google+, What’s happening, what’s coming…
  5. Promoting blog content: StumbleUpon, DIGG, Technorati, Delicious, etc. & Syndicating a blog – B2Community, Triberr, etc.
  6. Influence measures: PeerIndex, Tweet Grader, Klout, etc.
  7. Video – winning on YouTube, vimeo, blogs – merits of platforms and techniques
  8. Internal social media – Yammer, Ning, etc.
  9. SM ads (FB, Linkedin, etc.) and compare to Google Ads.
  10. Guerrilla marketing for small businesses with social media
  11. Forecasting with social media

Best practices – Contrasting a good and bad organizational social media effort – video-cast from each group.

Course Topics Outline

  1. Types of social media: blogs, microblogs, networking, media sharing, special interest
  2. The “Big Five” – Facebook (& Fan Page), Blog, Twitter, YouTube… and Linkedin
    1. Other SM platforms –Flickr, Google+, Tmblr, Digg, etc. Other important social media and benefits (presentations by students

    3.  Word of mouth marketing and theory
    4. Niche marketing: the long tail
    5. Engagement: Building a community
    6. Creating CONTENT

    1. Social issues in online communities

Organizational Application of social media

  1. Traditional vs. new media; organic vs. amplified word of mouth
    1. Networking – what it means and how it is done; Networking vs. Marketing: conflicts and synergy
  2. Brand narrative, storytelling, and brand community
  3. Innovation: Wikinomics, lead users, and crowdsourcing
    1. Co-creation and prosumers
    2. Netnography and SM customer research
    3. Forecasting with social media data
  4. SMM for intra-organizational communication & collaboration (& supply/distr chain)
  5. Mobile Marketing and location-based social media
  6. Successful and unsuccessful firm use of SMM
  7. Organizational Applications of SMM: Setting organizational goals and tracking them. Measures / metrics of influence –
    1. Google Analytics, Klout, etc. What do they measure? Do they really matter?
    2. ROI of social media efforts.
  8. Selling, service and social media – Leads, pipeline, customer service and CRM
  9. Developing an organizational social media plan – Integrated marketing, C-S, internal
    1. Integrated with organizational Marketing and Strategy

Workshops

  1. Engagement and creating content: Blogging and Micro-blogging
  2. Creating a great Fan Page
  3. Mobile marketing and Location-based SMM
  4. Determining ROI of social media
  5. Benefits of Social media clubs and groups
  6. Video-pods and presentations
  7. Using video
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Groups kill ideas… especially the good ones!

A good NY Times article http://nyti.ms/zIp8l9 provides further support to my research on group ideation and groupthink. There is a benefit to solitude: http://dld.bz/aGMaU

When it comes to ideas, especially CREATIVE ideas: Groups Kill!

See my previous post: http://wp.me/pdSfz-dC

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Help: The Perfect Social Media Marketing Course

This course will debut at Radford U in January. In the planning and proposal stage the course has benefited from crowdsourced ideas from my online friends and colleagues. So I have come back for more! What follows is an outline of the topics, planned workshops and group-led discussions. I appreciate any thoughts on additional topics (for example we need four more group-led topics).

Course Topics

  1. Types of social media: blogs, micro-blogs, networking, media sharing, special interest
  2. The “Big Four” – Facebook Fan Page, Blog, Twitter, YouTube, (and Linkedin)
    1. Other SM platforms – YouTube, Flickr, Google+, Tmblr, etc. Other important social media and benefits (presentations by students)
  1. Word of mouth marketing and theory
  2. Niche marketing: the long tail
  3. Engagement: Building a community
  4. Creating Content
    1. Social issues in online communities

Organizational Application of social media

  1. Traditional vs. new media; organic vs. amplified word of mouth
  2. Innovation: Wikinomics, lead users, and crowdsourcing
    1. Co-creation and prosumers
    2. Netnography and SM customer research
  3. Brand narrative, storytelling, and brand community
  4. Networking – what it means and how it is done; Networking vs. Marketing: conflicts and synergy
  5. Mobile marketing and location-based social media
  6. Successful and unsuccessful firm use of SMM
  7. Organizational Applications of SMM: Setting organizational goals and tracking them. Measures / metrics of influence – Google Analytics, Klout, etc. What do they really measure? Do they really matter? ROI of social media efforts.
  8. Developing an organizational social media plan

Workshops

  1. Engagement and creating content
  2. Creating a great Fan Page
  3. Mobile marketing and Location-based SMM
  4. Determining ROI of social media
  5. Benefits of Social media clubs and groups
  6. Video-pods and presentations
  7. Using video 

Student reports

  1.  Presenting pictures: Flickr and its competitors
  2. Micro-blogging: Tumblr
  3. FB competitors: Google+, Ning, MySpace (emphasis on G+)
  4. Location-based: Foursquare and its competitors
  5. Promoting content: StumbleUpon, DIGG, Technorati, Delicious, etc.
  6. Influence measures: PeerIndex, Tweet Grader, Klout, etc.
  7. Video tricks – winning on YouTube

Please post suggestions here or at the FB fan page: www.facebook.com/SMM4RU

Happy 2012 to all!

An earlier post that generated “crowdsourcing” help for the course design is here: http://wp.me/pdSfz-aF

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Real Innovators Ship: Innovation versus Invention

Most people have heard something of the incredible story of the PARC division of Xerox and the Apple MacIntosh computer but it is a wonderful story to illustrate the difference between innovation and invention.

Xerox invented the Mac

That seems a strong statement. But read the excellent account that I have ripped from the WSJ:

“At Xerox in the 1970s, a group of brilliant researchers invented the personal computer—they called it the Alto—complete with onscreen windows, menus, icons, graphics and the mouse, all more-or-less as we know them today. Alan Kay was foremost among these genius innovators. Mr. Kay built, in turn, on the 1960s inventions of Douglas Engelbart. Mr. Engelbart was first to develop the mouse, the onscreen window, and the whole idea of computers that did more important things than compute. He wanted computers to solve everyday problems, do word-processing and make pictures and graphs instead of (only) performing complex numerical calculations, controlling intricate machinery, and keeping inventories and payrolls up-to-date.

Corporate Xerox was unimpressed with the Alto. It was expensive, and who needed a personal computer anyway? “Personal computer” sounded like “personal aircraft carrier.” The market had to be smallish. Xerox accordingly made a deal with Apple whereby a group from Apple was ushered into the top-secret research boudoir in Palo Alto and allowed to look and ask questions. Jobs led the Apple group, and he understood right away that the Xerox researchers had done something tremendous. They had made an easy-to-use computer that spoke pictures instead of numbers. Jobs saw that a cheap version of this elegant computer might be gigantically popular and hugely important. And he ran the project that rolled out the Apple Macintosh in 1984.” (see full WSJ article by David Gelernter at GelernterArticle )

Xerox saw no potential in the device so they let the Apple Engineers come in and see their wonderful invention!

“Real artists ship” or Real innovators go to market!

Steve Jobs and Apple did not invent the GUI, or the Icon, or the mouse, or really any of the features that made the Mac revolutionary – the guys at PARC did – but Jobs and Apple brought the Mac to market. As Steve jobs said in the Atlantic link below: “Real Artists Ship”. Xerox invented; Apple innovated.

Coolest Show on earth (WSJ)   GelernterArticle

Praise for Bad Steve – The Atlantic http://bit.ly/pDJ6Tw

Posted in entrepreneurship | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Innovation in Higher Ed: Who is the customer?

For my dissertation I conducted multiple interviews with managers involved in innovation in 40 service organizations. Two types of organizations stood out as different from all the others in terms of innovation: hospitals and universities. I concluded that universities and hospitals had three key traits in common that hindered innovation:

  1. The organizations were not “user-centric” – they were instead “doctor-centric”,
  2. Both had distinct “silos” and difficulty with cross-departmental cooperation and innovation, and
  3. Government and third-party payers.

Despite the incredible growth as Higher Ed moved from an elite luxury to a middle class requirement, the dominant business model and primary delivery process hasn’t changed much in 400 years. Ironically, organizations that serve as centers for scientific research and innovation have not innovated despite incredible growth and skyrocketing costs.

Customer- and user-driven innovation

Readers of this blog know that I believe that innovation starts with a deep understanding of user needs and ideally draws users and customer into co-creation and collaborative innovation.

Customer-centricism drives innovation in many industries, but in education it is not simple to define the customer. Are customers current students? Employers? Alumni? Parents and government (who pay)? Each of these groups may have different views on needs and what would improve the service.

Most colleges now have students evaluate their professors. Some universities (especially teaching-oriented schools) weigh the ratings in pay reviews and tenure or promotion decisions.

Are current students the customer? Students have a wide range of reasons to be in college including: parental pressure; credentials for a job after school; a relatively safe and enjoyable place to continue their high school experimentation with sex, drugs and liquor; and (hopefully) studying something that they are interested in.

Scholars have argued that attempts to focus on current student feedback have resulted in dumbed-down courses and less focus on cheating. See:

For how student evaluations and course selection dumb-down courses: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775703000256

For how student evaluations taught a professor not to enforce the honor code:  http://t.co/tt9ppan via @rogerschank

Math is hard and writing papers are a drag. Through course selection and student evaluations rigor and demanding assignment decrease. As the saying goes “a college education is one of those very few goods for which the less the buyer gets, the more he likes it.” Once again: Are current students the sole or even primary customer for Higher Ed?

Who do you think universities should consider the customer? Who can they use as innovation partners?

Posted in Innovation education, NSD Process, Process Innovation | Tagged , | 14 Comments

Why Klout is dangerous

I have posted two previous articles here and one at SMM Magazine on the Klout menace. Mark Schaefer has recently posted a number of warnings on his excellent blog, Grow. But I think the topic deserves another visit.

Mechanically measuring someone’s influence using an algorithm is going to be imprecise and quirky. Does anyone really believe that Justin Bieber is the most influential living being? or even the most influential online American?

I check my ratings on PeerIndex, Klout and TweetGrader and my rank on SMM marketing professors list, but don’t get distraught when I have slipped a point or another highly followed marketing professor has emerged. It is kind of fun to see how I and my online friends are rated and ranked.

What is the problem?

I am not looking for a job, selling my consulting services, desperate for a free giveaway or in need of approval. But others on twitter are. Recent WSJ and NY Times articles have shown that job hunters were screened by influence scores and some have begun putting them on resumes! Hiring decisions have been based on scores. Companies have offered previews or free goods or services to “high influencers.”

Klout is preying on these trends as it tries to make its site more “social.” Special offers for tweeters with are highlighted. And everyone can award 5 +Ks a day. For now the +Ks don’t mean anything in the Klout rankings but they give us a chance to pat each other on the back (FollowerFriday every day!) and keep us coming to the site. Watching the site daily we should get caught up in the trend of our score and worry about it. [I confess that I now visit the site more often…] Increased focus on influence measures matters since:

  • Measuring an activity changes it.
  • People will try to behave to the measure.
  • Many will cheat. (See Atlanta Public Schools)

In some of his recent columns Mark Schaefer has reported the despicable ethics in SEO: How long till they spread to SM influence? How long till a large number of tweeters decide:

  • To follow or follow-back based on solely on influence scores,
  • To increase frequency of their posts significantly
  • Choose post content based on RT rates, and
  • Hire fake re-tweeters?

Twitter will be a different environment!

What can we do?

Some actions to help save SM include:

  1. Don’t focus on our Klout score
  2. If we refer to influence scores refer to two or three measures instead of just one.
  3. Try to remain true to our interests and relationships on twitter.

Other posts see:

Will Klout kill twitter?: http://t.co/pD6HAsy from me
Klout: An Infographic http://bit.ly/nBFhtV from @markwschaefer
Social media slut http://bit.ly/p2Tj0P from @markwschaefer
Will Klout Kill Community? http://t.co/K2Ax7dj SMM Magazine
Big fat Klout scores http://bit.ly/paCZqj via @markwschaefer
Posted in Social Media Marketing | Tagged , , , | 25 Comments

Group Brainstorming is fun… but kills good ideas!

I am interested in innovation in services and goods. Much still has to be learned about the (Fuzzy) front end of innovation: Where do good ideas come from? How do you gather information from users? How do you evaluate alternative ideas?

Not group brainstorming or focus groups — they kill

One technique that has been rigorously researched for over 50 years is the use of group brainstorming and user focus groups to generate and evaluate ideas. The evidence of these studies is consistent and conclusive:

Group methods (compared to individual ideation):

  1. Produce significantly fewer ideas
  2. Generate ideas of lower average quality
  3. Produce fewer of the very best ideas, and
  4. In addition, groups are not effective at evaluating or ranking generated ideas.

Why then are focus groups and group brainstorming still employed to generate ideas from users? I used to believe that charlatans ignored the research and oversold their expert skills at running such groups. But I now realize that there is more to it than that: these group processes create an illusion of effectiveness to everyone involved.

Group Brainstorming and Focus Groups are FUN

Participants enjoy the process, believe that they individually are personally responsible for most of the ideas produced, believe that the group was creative and very effective, and leave the effort committed to the ideas generated. There actually is value to an organization of this positive illusion: it is often hard to sell innovation or new ideas to an organization – this enthusiasm can help innovations go forward.

How to combine the bad and the good?

Participants don’t come up with the best ideas but they believe in the ones they do come up with… People already employ techniques to help overcome group idea-cide: for example it is common to have participants individually brainstorm and write down their ideas before starting a group ideation effort.

If I were leading a group brainstorming or focus group for innovative ideas I would start with individual brainstorming, collect all the individual ideas, and then have the brainstorming session. I would either ignore the group ideas or more likely collect them as if they were the ideas of another individual and then separately evaluate all the ideas.

[Of course this puts off the questions of how to evaluate the ideas for another day… research also indicates that groups do a bad job at evaluation…]

Earlier posts on idea-cide from group efforts:

I also have an upcoming article in the Journal of Product Innovation Management on this topic. I will post that article when the editor gives me permission. [See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00918.x/abstract ]

Posted in Customer Research Methods | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

How to serve Customers

Interesting story in last week’s WSJ:

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. has been fighting accusations that it took advantage of clients while trading currencies… BNY Mellon priced 58% of the currency trades within the 10% of each day’s trading range that was least favorable to the fund, the analysis shows. As a result, the trades cost the pension fund, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, $4.5 million more than if the average trade occurred at the middle of the trading range for each day, the analysis showed.

A BNY Mellon spokesman confirmed the accuracy of the data and… said there was nothing improper about the practice. It said clients like the Los Angeles pension fund knew—or “should have known—that the bank doesn’t act in their interests when pricing the trades.”

How to Serve (Wall St) Clients

Less sophisticated clients of Wall Street firms such as BNY Mellon, Goldman or Morgan should know that there is a standard procedure for dealing with them, reminiscent of a famous Twilight Zone episode. Aliens invite humans to visit and have their hospitality pre-planned in a book that a scholar has tentatively translated as “How to Serve Man.” [Spoiler] Warm feelings turn to horror when the scholar figures out that the book is actually a cookbook! Similarly Wall Street firms have standard rules of “How to serve Customers.”

Best pricing is for large trades with sophisticated clients who check prices with multiple firms. Prices get further away from market prices as: (1) clients are less sophisticated, (2) clients are perceived as loyal customers who don’t price check (or as stupid), (3) the client position is known, so traders can guess which side they will trade from, and (4) for smaller trades. Since the municipal clients are less sophisticated, loyal, clear their positions with the bank, and trade in odd lots, they get really bad prices. To quote Animal House - a classic movie about investment bankers in college – when a distraught character sees what happened to his brother’s car, his partners, er-frat brothers say:

You F***ed up: You trusted us!

Next quarter when Goldman again reports that they made money trading every single day of the quarter bear in mind that much of it is not trading in the sense of taking real market risks but instead “Serving Customers” (well done, no juice left).

WSJ article:                         http://dld.bz/abhDn

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Top 9 Clues that you MAY have followed the wrong tweeter

I am sure you think carefully before you follow someone new on twitter. You look at the #FF list of someone you trust; or take a look at someone wise enough to RT one of your great tweets or blog posts. Yet occasionally you get a quick signal from a tweet or DM of the newly followed that you may have erred…

I have collected my top nine quick indications that I screwed up below.

Number one of course is the DM we all hate:

Hey, I just added you to my Mafia family. You should accept my invitation! Click here: http://t.co/thedon

What can I say? I would like to urge him to go back to Facebook and help tie up the world’s internet during the afternoon playing Farmville, but a quick unfollow is best.

The remaining indicators are in reverse order, ala David Letterman:

9. Make some money tweeting, sign up to for Sponsored Tweets! http://bit.ly/spamu

Bet I’m going to really enjoy reading your tweets! Let’s sing the SPAM song…

8. BBW lovers join me on my webcam. I can travel to help you relax on business trips. http://warmup.com

Even if the #FF list is from a trusted twitter friend you should still check out the profiles before following. You don’t know everything about your twitter friend or what he does away from home…

7.  Home Teeth Whitening – What is the Best Teeth Whitener?: http://bit.ly/whiteisright

Everyone on twitter should have gleaming teeth by now!

6. Get followers fast! Today’s giveaway: 5,000 followers!

I bet that they are a fascinating group of tweeters! In The Tao of Twitter, Mark Schaefer discusses advising a friend to close a twitter account after he had “enhanced” it with one of these services.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Entrepreneurship and Marketing

In August the 25th annual Global Research Symposium on Marketing and Entrepreneurship will be held in Rio. There is a journal known as the Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship that has been around for a couple of decades. And there is an active and well-run Entrepreneurship SIG in the American Marketing Association. Yet these are exceptions: generally in academia when entrepreneurship does not have its own domain it is included in Management, not Marketing. Why?

Why management, not marketing?

I have known and studied a number of entrepreneurs. I have yet to hear one say: “I wish I had studied more about strategy.” Or “I wish I had studied HR.” Or “I wish I knew more about transactional leadership!” What I have heard is “I wish I knew more about selling” or “I wish I knew more about marketing.” So why isn’t e-ship often included in marketing?

Some of it may come from the leadership of management scholar Drucker (who also wisely noted that ALL that matters for firms is marketing and innovation). And some of it is likely due to some of my Brethren in Marketing who see themselves as applied psychologists and are somewhat hostile to crude capitalists such as salespersons and entrepreneurs. However, in a world of lean startups and effectuation, it is clear that understanding markets and clients are key skills of entrepreneurship.

So I would like to tip my hat to Marketers such as Gerry Hills, David Carson, and Glenn Omura who are studying entrepreneurship and trying to keep it in its proper domain!

Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship @J_RME  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=jrme

2011 symposium:       http://2011rsme.com/author/2011rsme/

Posted in effectuation, entrepreneurship, experiential innovation, Slow Burn Entrepreneurship | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Just Do It!

Since I had been involved in new service development as well as in several startups before becoming an academic I was skeptical of formal product development models such as stage gate. But still there an attraction to research and planning, so much of the recent research on product innovation is disquieting.

Just Do It!

Agile development, lean startups, probe-and-learn, and effectuation all describe a rapid-prototyping-like process of simply (1) putting a “minimal” product into the market, (2) observing results, (3) learning, and (4) doing another iteration. In other words: Just Do It!

Nuances include keeping the “bet” small, so that you can afford failure and future iterations. And having a vision and discipline so that the iterations are more like controlled experiments than random evolution. 

Marketing’s role is thus to be agile, to collect and understand data, and to adjust product vision. Forget the formal market research and business plans.

Brave new world for marketing and product innovation!

An aside: Origin of Nike Slogan

As an aside, do you know the origin of Nike’s slogan Just Do it! ?

Hint: It was inspired by the phrase “Let’s Do It.”  Not the Cole Porter song made immortal by Ella Fitzgerald; that would hardly fit the edgy image of Nike! (This is the company that was still running commercials using the imagery of dog fighting after their spokesperson Michael Vick had been arrested.)

Let’s do it! were the final words of career criminal and serial killer Gary Gilmore before he was executed by firing squad in Utah.

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, Customer Research Methods, effectuation, experiential innovation, Experiment, Slow Burn Entrepreneurship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pioneers get arrows in their backs…

Apple’s great timing

Two recent articles have heralded Steven Jobs’ excellent timing of innovation:

  • David Aaker’s article on his blog asked “Why wasn’t the iPod a Sony brand?”: As David relates, Sony had launched two digit players two years earlier, but the technology was not yet right. Apple waited then launched when affordable flash memory was available. Article: WhyNotSony
  • “How Apple Foot-Dragged to Victory” by HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. (WSJ), notes that: “Mr. Jobs’s slowness is the key to Apple’s success. His focus on the device, his emphasis on perfecting the user experience, meant holding back, not overreaching. The iPod would only be a music player. The iPhone and iPad would be Web-browsing devices that wouldn’t play most of the video on the Web… And notice that each of these device categories had been around for five or 10 years by the time Apple entered (clobbered) them.”

First mover advantage?

Is Steven Jobs the exception to the well-known “first mover advantage?” We all know how pioneers such as Apple Computer (in PCs), Gillette (in safety razors), Hewlett-Packard (laser printers), and Microsoft (PC operating systems) commanded long term market dominance by being first…

However in reality none of those firms in the previous list was first…or second…or third to market! Most entered the market 3-5 years or more after the first entrants. Bill Gates bought DOS on the cheap after he sold IBM on the product! As Tellis and Golder point out in their book Will and Vision, most of the companies we assume were first to market have simply benefitted from “survival bias” or “the-winners-write-history” syndrome.

If it weren’t for the movie The Social Network within a decade or so we would all probably have come to believe that at least some key attribute of Facebook was introduced by Zuckerberg; and would have forgotten Geocities, Friendster, MySpace, and ConnectU (Winklevoss twins). [And of course even the W twins weren’t the first to think of marrying MySpace features to elite college .edu addresses…]

Will and Vision

It turns out that Pioneers often do end up with arrows in their backs and latecomers win the categories. What factors decide winners? Tellis and Golder explore key factors. Two of the biggest are persistence and continual innovation in response to market feedback. Tellis and Golder provide further support of principles underlying:

  • Probe-and-learn
  • Experimentation or rapid prototyping
  • Lean Startups
  • Effectuation
  • Agile development

Strongly recommended:

Book by Tellis and Golder: Will & Vision: How Latecomers Grow to Dominate Markets

Posted in effectuation, entrepreneurship, experiential innovation, Experiment, Ideation, Slow Burn Entrepreneurship | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reflections on two years of tweeting

Actually it was two years in March, but I sometimes procrastinate a bit…

I had two purposes when I signed up for twitter: (1) to promote my year-old blog and (2) to try to understand the twitter phenomenon. My first tweets were classic newbie tweets – “trying to figure out what this is all about” and “read my blog at www.servicecocreation.com “. I was slow to figure out what it was about, but benefitted from early connections to people like @waynemarr, @kenthuffman, and @markwschaefer who tried to explain it to me.

I connected to marketing professors and consultants. Kent’s list of “top marketing professors” inspired me to continue to connect with people so I could make his list which had a cutoff of 500 followers. The habit of seeking out interesting tweeters and then looking at who they followed and who twitter said was like them, caused my numbers to grow.

From Broadcasting to Social Engagement

But the most important discovery was from @markwschaefer and a new tweeter who I originally helped a bit, @ckburgess, who showed this “broadcaster” that twitter was actually a social media. Why not converse on twitter? Virtual friends can become real friends… I have made friends and linked to really interesting people as I began to interact not just broadcast.

My initial objectives were met: blog viewings went from 10/day to 50 or more with over 100 subscribers and many more comments and tweets from the site. One article was recently viewed by over 1000 persons in 3 days and tweeting almost 200 times. I think I now also have some idea of twitter’s potential.

Virtual world spills into the real world!

The coolest discoveries were benefits to my real world life: when I decided to enter a last minute grant proposal for a social media marketing course a couple tweets and a blog posting resulted in a lead user community to co-create the proposal.

Just a few weeks later I needed a proposal for a conference presentation and in 48 hours combined a couple blog articles into a conference paper!

My online efforts are now spilling over into my daily life! For a more thorough review of twitter see my earlier post on Mark’s excellent book, The Tao of Twitter.

Posted in Social Media Marketing | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Computers in the classroom: no surfin’

On the first day of class I announce that there are to be no computers open during class discussion or lectures. (Of course they are permitted or encouraged during group work or for some online exercises, but that is an entirely different issue.) My pronouncement generally elicits horrified looks from 20-25% of the class and a student or two may choose to drop my course at that point.

Some of the strongest reaction has come from colleagues or profs from other schools. “If I didn’t think I could compete with the internet, I would give up teaching” is a common refrain, often uttered by someone who has trouble communicating one-on-one. As if his fascinating talk on advanced auditing was more interesting than the beer pong pics just posted on FB! Never mind that current research on learning indicates that attention is the most important factor in learning and multitasking of any sort kills attention and learning. Multitasking

In the book, The Shallows, studies are cited showing that  hyperlinks to citations in the text of a paper impair learning: imagine having Facebook and YouTube in your control bar while you are trying to take lecture notes! As Aaron Herrington, founder of Modea, said in a recent lecture: “online you are always 1-click or 3 seconds away from cute kittens or porn.”

Even after a keynote speech on Brain research and learning that focused on attention and the risks of multitasking at a recent conference on pedagogy, I get the standard pushback from other faculty when I said that I banned open devices. “If I didn’t think…”

However two young women who had recently graduated from the well-known research university across the river from my school were there. They both said that they wished their professors had banned computers from their large lecture classes because of the third-party effects: even though they kept their own computers shut the noise from the student next to them playing WOW and the embarrassment at the guys in front of them viewing porn affected their concentration.

So profs be honest. Open computers, students communicating on FB and viewing YouTube movies and free porn, may help keep your class happier and more docile – especially in large lecture classes, but it does not aid learning by them or their neighbors!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

Is “Lean Startups” a misnomer?

In an article last week, I showed that the careful-experiment, iterative, innovation process called “Build-Measure-Learn” by Eric Ries had earlier emerged in a dissertation research by Gary Lynn as “Probe-(study)-Learn” twenty years earlier. Dr. Lynn studied goods-producing firms. There are good reasons to be aware of the earlier studies

  1. Thought pioneers should receive proper credit. But more importantly…
  2. The experimental iterative has been known in the product development literature for over 20 years, so it should be a robust theory.
  3. The process originally emerged in studies of discontinuous hardware, so the principles should apply universally, not just to web-based businesses or software.

Lean or Not?

One interesting contrast between the “Probe and Learn” article and the writing of Eric Ries on Lean Startups is that the former actually go to great lengths to contrast their procedure to the Lean Process. Lynn et al. cite The Machine that Changed the World several times and note that their Probe and Learn procedure is for discontinuous innovation not for the mundane innovation described in that book (which is one of the original works on Lean). Ries also stresses that Lean Startups are doing discontinuous innovation…

Interesting issue! The authors of “Probe and Learn” viewed it partially as an antidote to Lean Thinking while a promoter of the process for startups views it as a Lean process…

I have thought about it and conversed with a friend at the Lean Institute and I think Lean Startups is OK and that “Probe and Learn” could have been called lean innovation: What do you think???

For more information I recommend:

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, Customer Research Methods, effectuation, entrepreneurship, experiential innovation, Experiment, Slow Burn Entrepreneurship | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Crush It! A Review

My review of Crush It! by Gary Vaynerchuk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl8WazUWlks

YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl8WazUWlks

Amazon link: Crush It!: Why NOW Is the Time to Cash In on Your Passion

Feel free to buy, borrow or steal the book anywhere! Using the Amazon link above merely abets my Amazon addiction…

Posted in Social Media Marketing | Leave a comment

Before “Lean Startups” there was “Probe and Learn”

I have written about Lean Startups, both the phenomena and the writings of Eric Ries and Steven G. Blank in a recent article and will continue to do so. I would suggest that anyone interested in innovation and entrepreneurship read Ries’s blog and consider his upcoming book (links to both are at the end of this article.)

In his articles Eric Ries describes how web entrepreneurs launch “Lean Startups.” He focuses on the need for a new style of management and metrics to conduct careful experiments on “minimum viable products.” Bringing radical or discontinuous innovations to market can be described as:

  • Build a “minimum viable product” to take to market as a controlled experiment
  • Measure results
  • Learn
  • Iterate with followup experiments

This experimental, iterative process is ideal to bring discontinuous products to the market. Most examples Ries cites are web-based services or software but he asserts in several articles that the process can be applied elsewhere.

TWENTY years ago…

Gary Lynn published his dissertation in 1993. He had collected data from manufacturers of high-tech business and medical devices that had or were bringing a discontinuous new product to market. He found that the process was vastly different from incremental product innovations that depended on traditional marketing research. He and his co-authors found a process they called Probe and Learn defined as:

  • Probe – bring an “immature” product to market as a controlled experiment
  • [carefully study the market results]
  • Learn
  • Iterate with new experiments 

Do you feel you have seen the “probe and learn” process before? I certainly do!! (Of course both also strongly resemble Lean improvement, E.W. Deming’s change model, and the scientific method…)

It seems fair that Gary Lynn and his co-authors get credit for the process that they discovered, but even more importantly for our purposes it is useful to note that he found the process by studying goods-producers. Therefore iterative “Build-Measure-Learn” using “minimum viable products”, or iterative “Probe and Learn” using “immature products” are indeed generalizable far beyond the world of internet services and software.

In a future article I will look at the subtle differences between Probe and Learn and methods of Lean Startups and the contribution that Ries and Blank are making beyond the Probe and Learn model.

For more information I recommend:

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, Customer Research Methods, effectuation, entrepreneurship, experiential innovation, Experiment, Slow Burn Entrepreneurship, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Social Media Strategies for Professionals

My review of Social Media Strategies for Professionals and their Firms by Michelle Golden:

YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV7b-hLfR14

Amazon: Social Media Strategies for Professionals and Their Firms: The Guide to Establishing Credibility and Accelerating Relationships (Wiley Professional Advisory)

Feel free to buy, borrow or steal the book anywhere! Using the Amazon link above merely abets my Amazon addiction…

Posted in Social Media Marketing | Leave a comment

Book Review: The Tao of Twitter

My review of The Tao of Twitter by Mark W Schaefer:

YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaOFmA4XA68

To order from Amazon:

The Tao of Twitter: Changing your life and business 140 characters at a time

Feel free to buy, borrow or steal the book anywhere! Using the Amazon link above merely abets my Amazon addiction…

(Thanks to my twitter and other SM “friends” who gently pointed out to me that 5 minutes is too #$@% long for a video review!)

Posted in Social Media Marketing | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Social Media and User Research Methods

Social media and online communities of users are increasing and changing user input into new product and service development. We are all familiar with crowdsourcing and monitoring of user input online.

If you haven’t already, consider reading my feature article in the current issue of Social Media Marketing Magazine: http://dld.bz/SUdJ In that article I used a deep knowledge / engagement framework to categorize user research methods.

Getting at deep (or “sticky” or “contextual”) user information is the motivation of such research methods as ethnography and voice-of-the-customer.

Engagement is another dimension that draws users to tap their own creativity to improve the product or service. Examples of methods that both access deep knowledge and engage the users would be crowsourcing, open-source software development and the lead user method of Eric Von Hippel. The following diagram shows is my effort to map user research methods by deep knowledge / engagement AND show how social media is already having an impact.

Continue reading

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, Customer Research Methods, experiential innovation, Ideation, Social Media Marketing | 3 Comments

Lean Start-ups or Slow-burn entrepreneurship

In addition to the mountains and the mild 4-season climate,  a great benefit of living in the New River Valley of Virginia is the NCTC – the technology council of the NRV and Roanoke. Due in part to Virginia Tech, Radford U., and the Carilion Clinic, the area has vibrant technology and startup communities. Last week Doug Juanarena of Rackspace and David Catalano of Modea , both mentors at DayOne Ventures, a local venture seed group,  led a discussion of “Lean Start-ups.”

Lean Start-ups

Due to cloud computing and services available from online vendors it is possible for online and web-based firms to keep costs low in their early stages. DayOne will seed a new venture with $16,ooo and help them find cheap space. Ideally the next stage of financing can also be moderate and be done by a seed or angel firm, perhaps using convertible notes. There are two major benefits of avoiding venture capital funding in their early development:

  1. The founders retain control and avoid dilution of ownership, and
  2. The firm retains the ability to be flexible and change business model in reaction to market experience.

Not surprisingly both start-up speakers at the event, David Poteet of  Nomad Mobile Guides and Frederick Cook of Heyo, described an effectuation process: a small initial investment, rushing a “just good enough” early product to market, and changing the product and business model in response to market lessons. (Both firms seem to be making great strides – check out their links at the end of this article).

Continue reading

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, experiential innovation, Experiment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Perfect Social Media Marketing Course!

I am putting together a proposal for a social media marketing course to be taught as a hybrid – online and in person. I have already benefited from great / generous help and suggestions from the members of my SM “family” including @dstevenwhite  @chuckmartin1  @andressilvaa  @AlanSee @joebobhester @CraigEYaris @aboyer and others.  Of course none of them are responsible for the oversights, errors and silliness evident in the tentative plan, which follows.

My preliminary thoughts on the SMM Course follow. Please comment, twitter (ProfessorGary) or email me (garyschirr@gmail.com) with any corrections, suggestions or thoughts.

Only pre-req is Principles of Marketing. It is suggested that students ultimately take the offered courses in Internet Marketing and Integrated Marketing Communications.

Objective: To understand the principles of social media marketing, how SMM differs from standard marketing and internet marketing, and to be able to use social media to support the mission of a professional, business or non-profit organization.

Social Media Marketing is not Internet Marketing. In internet marketing promotional tools such as direct selling, coupons, advertisements are brought online and established success measures include SEO, click-throughs, etc. Social Media Marketing is really social networking online: reaching out and advancing real relationships with customers, prospects, and stakeholders. Promotional tools used in SMM are often jarring and counter-productive.

The “big four” for professional  Social Media Marketing (per @michellegolden) are:

  1. Facebook
  2. LinkedIn
  3. Twitter
  4. Blog

Course Topics

  1. Networking – what it means and how it is done
  2. Networking vs. Marketing: conflicts and synergy
  3. Using the “Big Four”
  4. Other important social media (presentations by student teams)
  5. Measures of influence – Google analytics, Klout, etc. What do they really measure? Do they really matter?
  6. Organizational Applications of SMM
  7. Setting organizational goals and tracking them

Continue reading

Posted in Social Media Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Catch the Wave

Can users help with the technology trajectory???

In an excellent blog post that I have cited before SonyiPod , David Aaker asked the interesting question: Why Wasn’t the iPod a Sony Brand? His conclusion was that Apple timed the technology:

“The answer is timing. Apple got the timing right by entering the market when the technology came together. Of course, the Apple design flare, its brand, and its iTunes store were all important, but the timing was the key.”

Last weekend, inspired by Watson’s Jeopardy win I pulled out Kurweil’s “The Singularity is Near” – his take on the eventual triumph of machines over man. On page 3 famed inventor Kurweil notes that:

“I realized that most inventions fail not because the R&D department can’t get them to work but because the timing is wrong. Inventing is a lot like surfing: you have to anticipate and catch the wave at just the right moment.”

I shared that  quote with David Aaker and he said: “I love the catch the wave metaphor. It suggests also that there needs to be a way to predict when the wave will occur.”

How do you catch the wave? For those of us who study co-creation and user engagement:

Continue reading

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, Customer Research Methods, experiential innovation, Experiment, Ideation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Effectuation in Action: Consulting as Search

I have written several articles about Sarasvathy’s conception of effectuation by entrepreneurs. Effectuation is a theory of entrepreneurial activity based on experiential learning by organizations.

Effectuation is a prescription for innovating when the risk is unknown and unknowable. Effectuation comprises four principles presented in contrast to the causal model of marketing strategy (Sarasvathy 2001): 

  1. Affordable loss rather than expected returns,
  2. Strategic Alliances rather than competitive analysis,
  3. Exploitation of contingencies rather than exploitation of preexisting knowledge, and
  4. Controlling an unpredictable future rather than predicting an uncertain one.

In other words: just do it! Get in the ring and start fighting… But how does a budding entrepreneur actually use this procedure? How can you enter a market on a shoestring, effect its development, and develop a product? Many people find it hard to visualize how effectuation can be put into action.

How to effectuate?

Continue reading

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, experiential innovation, Experiment | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Catch a Wave: Innovate life surfers!

 

According to John Hagel at Edge Perspectives, executives can benefit from six lessons derived from studying innovation in big wave surfing.

  1. find the relevant edge. 
  2. attract motivated groups of people to these edges to work together around challenging performance issues. 
  3. recognize that the people who are likely to be attracted to the edge are big risk-takers.
  4. recognize that the edge fosters not just risk-taking, but very different cultures that are also “edgy”. 
  5. find ways to appropriate insights from adjacent disciplines and even more remote areas of activity.  
  6. bring users and developers of technology closely together at the edge. 

Check out the article (now a couple years old) at:

http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2008/01/innovating-on-t.html

Hagel cites von Hippel’s two books. After his original work showing user innovation in B2B markets like scientific instruments, von Hippel did a number of studies on open source software and then extreme sport enthusiasts. Perhaps all lead users try to “catch a wave”!

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, experiential innovation, Experiment, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Klout kill twitter?

I am eager to be on top of social media trends. Accordingly I sign up for influence measuring sites as I see them including Klout, PeerIndex, and Twitter Grader. I am skeptical of all of them and do not put much stock in the scores.

For personal purposes I generally compare myself to twitterers who I admire such as @ckburgess, @kentfhuffman, @davidaaker, @chuckmartin1 and my other twitter friends: as long as I am in their range I figure I am doing OK. I am well aware that I am no Justin Bieber (Klout 100) or Barack Obama (K 90) for online influence…

My concern is that parties are taking these fledging measures seriously and making marketing target and even hiring decisions based on them. See a recent WSJ article about the importance businesses are assigning to Klout scores: GetKlout  In reality, I am not worried that my tenure committee will pass me over for Justin B. or Britney S., but I am worried about how the growing influence of the influence-measurers might impact the SM communities. If twitterers believe that their online status or even employability may be affected by their twitter behavior they may well adjust how they act.

Continue reading

Posted in Social Media Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments

It’s hard to be a Cannibal!

I strongly recommend David Aaker’s blog post on the importance of TIMING to the success of Apple’s iPod, “Why wasn’t the iPod a Sony brand?”: WhyNotSony

As David relates, Sony had launched two digit players two years earlier, but the technology was not yet right. Apple launched when affordable flash memory was available.

A follow-up question is why wasn’t Sony still trying? The company had been built on successful waves of portable, personal music: (1) the transistor radio, (2) radio Walkman, (3) cassette Walkman, (4) CD Walkman. Sony knew that the digital flash player was inevitable, had been willing to change to new technologies before, and must have viewed personal portable music as a core business: shouldn’t Sony have continued incremental improvements (ala Microsoft) until they finally had a decent offering?

Continue reading

Posted in experiential innovation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Contextual Knowledge and Sticky Information

One of the reasons why this blogger and many innovation researchers are skeptical of traditional market research methods, such as surveys and focus groups, is the importance of contextual knowledge and sticky information. Users sometimes fib on surveys but more importantly they don’t know what information is relevent. Hence a long history of suggested approaches that more completely involve/immerse the researcher such as site visits, ethnographic techniques, probe and learn, experimentation and effectuation.

Studies by Gabriel Szulanski, Eric von Hippel and others have shown how difficulty it is to verbally transmit key information: even within the same firm. I had personal experience with this phenomenon when I moved to Hong Kong.

Continue reading

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, experiential innovation, Experiment, financial services | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Servant as Innovator?

A message from the idea of open innovation is that traditional transactional or even transformational leadership may not be sufficient to draw innovation from EVERYONE. A leader who wants to draws on the creativity of the entire organization must be empowering.

Several types of empowering leadership are practiced: one, servant-leadership, has been promoted and practiced since 1970 and has been heralded in such companies as Service Master and Starbucks (see good book by Howard Behar). The main message of servant leadership can be summarized in a few lines from Robert K. Greenleaf’s 1970 essay:

The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons?”

Does servant leadership lead to innovativeness?

Continue reading

Posted in experiential innovation, Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Effectuation and Innovation I: avoid market research

Effectuation (Sarasvathy) is a theory of entrepreneurial activity based on experiential learning by organizations. Efffectuation is a prescription for innovating when the risk is unknown and unknowable. Effectuation comprises four principles presented in contrast to the causal model of marketing strategy (Sarasvathy 2001): 

  1. Affordable loss rather than expected returns,
  2. Strategic Alliances rather than competitive analysis,
  3. Exploitation of contingencies rather than exploitation of preexisting knowledge, and           
  4. controlling an unpredictable future rather than predicting an uncertain one.

In essence under “Knightian uncertainty”– where outcomes and probabilities are unknowable — an entrepreneur: enters a market based on his/her knowledge, experience and networks; keeps investments small to retain future options; and plans to shape the development of the nascent market with the help of customers and stakeholders (Sarasvathy 2008).

Continue reading

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, Customer Research Methods, experiential innovation, Experiment, Ideation, Social Media Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Student excuses – Not much innovation

On Wednesday I listed some innovative and some of my least favorite student excuses on twitter. Here is a summary of mine and other examples that were offered…

First, Innovative:

  • Update on a classic: The dog chewed my hard drive and my project was lost (from a colleague)
  • Once got a blank paper e-submission – the student claimed it was virus problem! (from @steveshu )
  • ‘My daughter is caught up in a mud slide in Guatemala’. (@Kip_Jones)
  • Does your attendance policy apply to FRIDAYS? (@laurelschirr)

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 15 Comments

Limited Wisdom of Crowds?

Nicholas G. Carr wrote an excellent article, “The Ignorance of Crowds,” about the limitation of crowd-sourcing or open source software. He focuses on the experience of Linux and Wikipedia. The masses primarily serve as bug-fixers for Linux, whose development is closely managed by a small team; Wikipedia is attempting to bring in similar control to address issues such as “The Flintstones” having twice as long an entry as Homer.

Carr argues that the choice is not “The Cathedral” or “The Bazaar” as presented in a seminal paper by Eric Raymond, but how to use both approaches. Further he argues that really radical or disruptive innovation is more likely to emerge from the Cathedral model led by a few elite leaders. 

Anyone involved in innovation should read the full article at:

http://www.strategy-business.com/article/07204

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, experiential innovation | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social Media Marketing will Drive Product Innovation

Note: This blog was written for the inaugural issue of Social Media Marketing Magazine and was originally posted at  http://bit.ly/smm169

Too much of what is being written about social media marketing (SMM) these days still has the ring of futurism. Wake up—the SMM era is already here! Companies are increasing their SMM budgets today, and their sales are being driven by customer-to-customer buzz at this very moment.

Much of the current focus on SMM by companies, as well as the business press, is about 1) designing marketing and PR to affect the C2C buzz, 2) monitoring how much and what is being communicated about their products and services, and 3) influencing the conversations about their products and services online. These direct efforts to create, monitor, and influence the online narrative of a company and its products will continue to be the focus of SMM strategy for most organizations.

However, SMM will also have a huge impact on marketing research and innovation in organizations. It’s no secret that many of the traditional marketing research tools (focus groups, surveys, brainstorming, and phone interviews) are woefully ineffective at uncovering the deep knowledge of customers and users that organizations today seek to enhance innovation.

More effective research methods, such as ethnography or individual interviews, have become more widely used but are viewed as excessively expensive or time consuming. SMM will change these economics. For example, online ethnography is already a growing area of study by anthropologists and marketers alike, and individuals are being engaged one-on-one synchronously, using Internet tools. These evolving online qualitative methods will provide better user insight and information to drive innovation.

Continue reading

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, communication, Customer Research Methods, Ideation, Service Design | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Group Ideation does not work…

 Group methods (compared to individual ideation):

  1. Produce significantly fewer ideas
  2. Generate ideas of lower average quality
  3. Produce fewer of the very best ideas, and
  4. In addition, groups are not effective at evaluating or ranking generated ideas.

Add-on ideas building on others ideas were generally lower quality than individual ideas. In short group ideation stinks.

My summary may be too kind… Stop killing ideas and wasting time!!

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Ethnography and Product Innovation

 Does Ethnography make the front end of innovation less fuzzy?

I have written several posts about the use of ethnography to gather good data from users. A recent article in the Journal of Product Innovation Management explores the topic in detail, including likely advantages from using ethnography and advantages of using in the early stage of innovation.

An abstract of the article can be read here:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118563685/abstract

Past posts have included:

http://servicecocreation.com/2009/06/22/in-search-of-innovation/

http://servicecocreation.com/2009/06/22/in-search-of-innovation/

Posted in Co-creation or User collaboration, Customer Research Methods | Tagged , | 1 Comment

More Zombie Theory

In my previous post I talked of two theories/ideas that are popular in marketing despite having a preponderance of evidence that they are inneffective or untrue:

  1. Group brainstorming or focus groups for idea generation
  2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Several readers either posted or e-mailed suggested additions to the list (I did not vet their assertions):

You only use 10% of your brain. It seems the evidence for this claim came from an experimenter who slowly peeled brain material from a pigeon and looked for cognitive impairment(!)

Cost-cutting from preventative medicine. A friend in healthcare says that accept for a few conditions, evidence indicates that prevention costs money.

Product life-cycle. A marketing professor challenged me to find a study that predicts a life-cycle unless it is deliberately managed. If the model doesn’t predict it may be a tautology or even and ad-hoc justification for mismanagement.

Any thoughts on these or would you propose more???

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments