Wisdom of crowds?

I'm not sure why this story in the Wall Street Journal, "Writing a Book? Amazon Offers a Crowdsourced Critique" makes me a teeny bit uneasy.

Amazon, through its "Write On" service allows authors (or would-be authors) to receive feedback from the wider crowd of Amazon users. In the words of the WSJ, to turn manuscripts into 'salable titles'; in Amazon's words 'to make good stories great and great stories better.'

I know writer feedback groups (creative writing workshop, anyone?) and audience testing have been going on for ages, and this is just a way to use technology to do the same thing but with a wider reach.

And I know crowd-editing and direct publishing sites exist already for writers, such as Wattpad and FastPencil.

And yes, it would be great if this allows writers to discover new audiences, and new ideas can flourish.

And yet.

If too many authors disregard their internal drive and seek wide feedback before publishing, do we risk hovering around the median of consensus, rather than uncovering the unconventional voices? Isn't the internet meant to be just the thing for the long-tail, the unknown?

Then again, if you walk into any bookstore today, you can see the publishing world narrowing around blockbuster 'brand-name' authors, as it has been for years now.

So at least if a few more unknown authors can use these platforms to develop independent works and reach new readers... well... hopefully my unease will prove misplaced...

As Mark Ritson says... It's good to TALK (er, or was that BT?)

How often do you hear a brand talking about 'putting the customer first' or 'built around our customers' needs'... but how often are those same brands actually talking with (or to use the more digitally-friendly word) 'engaging with' their customers. Frankly, openly, and with no agenda other than understanding.

As usual, Mark Ritson puts his finger on it in his latest Marketing Week column, and the answer is 'not often enough.' And, as he says,

'People come up with all kinds of excuses not to talk to consumers: they don’t have time.; it will cost money; it will stifle innovation; Steve Jobs didn’t do it. The excuses are endless.'

He goes on to say:

Forget about content marketing and bloody Facebook for a minute. They are mere cake decorations on the top of the massive gateaux of market orientation.

And yet (and perhaps this is semantics) -- shouldn't we be even more interested in talking 'with' our customers? And isn't that something digital interaction can allow on a greater scale than ever before? 

So by all means and absolutely go talk with your customers in person. And at the same time, use social media, which can certainly be more than mere decoration.

What makes both of these interactions valuable? Intelligent listening. It's not enough to talk to your customers -- how often have we seen customer views discounted by someone who's *convinced* their idea is the right one, and their customers just don't know it yet (which of course then gets bolstered by the Steve Jobs example.)

So, talk with your customers and listen intelligently -- using *all* channels at your disposal. And then distill that information, sometimes conflicting, sometimes disjointed, into a cohesive strategy that *also* takes on the knowledge you as a producer has built, but in a way open enough to new ideas.

Easy-peasy, right?

The 'online rebuttal'

Interesting story from NPR's David Folkenflik and Audie Cornish about 'The Rise of the Online Rebuttal' -- discussing how the immediacy of online, especially social media, is increasing the interaction between the 'old' print world and its subjects, another example of -- though the word wasn't used, I'll pull it out anyway -- disintermediation caused by direct access to media channels.

The story takes its lead from George Clooney's rebuttal of a Daily Mail story about his soon-to-be-mother-in-law... but more interesting to me was the corporate angle - especially Walmart's comments, posted on their website, about a recent New York Times editorial which the company found less than accurate.

What struck me as the real impact the social world has had on us all was *not* the quick turnaround time -- pretty standard in corporate PR crisis communications; nor the direct post on the Walmart website - again, companies have posted statements on their corporate websites for years.

Rather it was the tone that is new -- something Folkenflik refers to in his story.  As with just about everything the lightening rod that is Walmart does, the company has taken hits for its digital efforts (faux 'WalmartingAcrossAmerica blog, anyone?) - but here they take a more conversational as well as transparent approach.

If this means the beginning of the end of legalese and impenetrable jargon -- well done Walmart.

And where does native advertising fit in this transparent world? That's a story for another day!

Digital changes everything?

Yesterday I attended London Business School's 'Global Leadership Summit' 2014, titled "Generation Tech: The Impact on Global Business".

There were fantastic speakers, thoughtful insights, and highly engaged and energised audience.

And I hope to write about all of those in due time.

In the meantime however, thanks to Professor Costas Markides for this share.

Digital may affect many things... but not everything.

On the 'usefulness' of marketing

Interesting piece here  by Sean Hargrave on Media Post about Paddy Power being the first winner in the World Cup, by linking up with ITV and providing snapshots of key goals.

In summary:

"digital moves the game along from shouting about how great you are to truly understanding the customer and being useful. [my italics]"

It is true that digital -- when done in the grown up way -- is about more than shouting, it's about understanding and utility. 

When I first started building sites and other digital communications, I remember our mantra 'if it's not easier than what it's replacing, it just won't be used.' 

But the digital world shouldn't pat itself on the back too much -- it's not the first marketing channel to talk about usefulness, just the most recent. 

Take PR at its core. It's not just fluffy parties and puff pieces (though of course that exists). And when done correctly, it's also not "shouting about how great you are" to a journalist and hoping they'll believe you and write something.  

At its best, it combines an understanding of the customer (aka, 'public') and how to relate your client's offering to their need. 

For example: take a national chicken farmers association (yep, a real client). Did they simply send out press releases saying "Chicken is great, eat it!!!!!" and hope for the best? No, they used customer research to understand most people know that already -- what they want to know is how to cook it, and cook it differently, so they're not eating the same 'chipper chicken' every night. 

So we had recipes, contests, chicken tours... you get the picture. Not earth shattering or super groundbreaking. But useful. And pre-digital. 

Fancy that. 

Should you do a digital detox?

It seems like every day there's a new story about the harmfulness of today's digital world, with social media often being singled out as the worst:

Facebook is bad for you - Get a life! says the Economist

Teens are reading less, says Time, "most easily explained by technological advances"

Nearly 6 years ago Nicolas Carr asked in The Atlantic "Is Google Making Us Stupid".

And just today, NPR asked for listeners' stories of digital detoxing attempts -- how, not if, because clearly everyone knows such a detox is needed.

So why did Richard Dennen's piece in Sunday's You Magazine, "Note to selfie: #I must give up social media" catch my eye?

In the article he reveals a bet he's made with a friend that he could give up social media "no Instagram, no Facebook, no Twitter -- for a whole month.

He then references common concerns about social media, in particular the addictive nature and the 'detachment' from our real selves that comes from only presenting your more 'perfect' version to the world, and spending more time looking at a screen than being 'in the moment'.

Yep, stuff I've seen before, same story, different publication. And -- full disclosure -- things I've tried to be conscious of myself. I've laughed at myself for being excited about the number of 'likes' I've received for a single post, or deliberated at length over just the right filter.

But in the end what I appreciated most was that he (spoiler alert!) LOST THE BET. He gave up 48 hours in. And even better, he had no shame about doing so. There was no rapture over the brilliance of even the 48 'quiet' hours he'd had. Just acceptance.

I loved the honesty, and hey, I'd be posting selfies as well if I made it to the Vanity Fair Academy Awards after party.  Congrats, @richarddennen, you've got a new follower - so keep those selfies coming, I won't mind. (and if you want to know when I get around to alphabetizing my lipsticks, just feel free to follow me back,   I wouldn't want you to feel left out!)










Npr - http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/23/324892657/digital-detox-step-one-step-away-from-the-phone

Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2662764/Note-selfie-I-social-media.html#comments

#welcometotwittermaccyd

Welcome to the twitter world, McDonald's UK!

Having worked on the first McDonald's UK website many many moons ago I'm feeling a bit nostalgic... suppose that's what Throwback Thursday is all about!  (thanks Way Back Machine...)

Given the hullabaloo over #McDStories, I can understand their caution (though do read the comments on the Forbes article as well, for more context from McDonald's themselves -- there's always more to these stories than first meets the eye.)

As if Google didn't even exist

For me, the key point of Daniel Threlfall's article about the impact social 'signals' (likes, retweets, etc.) have on your Google SEO rankings comes near the very end:

You should be engaging that audience as if Google didn’t even exist

Sure, all the detail (and subsequent interpretation in the comments) about what Google's Matt Cutts said (or didn't say) is interesting, but is getting into the weeds.

While I know Google (and to be balanced, other search engines, but c'mon, no one says 'Just Bing it and find out') is important, and I'm not naive enough to think 'If you write it, they will come', ultimately his comment goes back to the first principles of communication, and supposedly the real purpose of search engines -- helping people find just what they need.

So if you act as if Google doesn't exist, and instead of 'optimizing your search terms'  and 'keyword planning' you think truly about your audience, their relationship with you, their voices, their interests... and communicate to match -- then if the search engines are doing their jobs, you and your real customers should be able to find one another.

Or am I just overly optimistic?

Reality check

I was doing a little mumtrepreneur playground networking recently (as you do!), when I was hit with the reminder that not everyone sees the wider potential of digital engagement, especially when it comes to small businesses.

It's easy to forget when you -- and the colleagues around you -- are immersed in it daily that terms like adwords, SEO, and content marketing are impenetrable jargon to a small business owner grappling with the day-to-day.

"We have a website. And we're on Facebook," said this mum. "And besides - our product is very visual, so this glossy brochure is what we need. Anything more seems too expensive, complicated, and time consuming."

Micro businesses (0-9 employees) making up more than 95% of all UK private sector businesses;  politicians regularly laud small business as the 'engines of growth'; 'lifeblood of the economy', and attempt policy changes to support them.

These are the very organisations that would most benefit incrementally from digital activities, but until the practitioners can talk about these in practical, non-jargonistic terms, business is being left on the table.

And as this playground conversation reminded me -- it's not about 'Adwords for small business' courses -- it's about getting someone to look at digital at all!

hashtag.com

Troll Beads may be perfectly lovely... but my eye couldn't help but stop at the .com following the hashtag...huh? typo? Or #confusion?

Financial Times - customer insights gone awry...

I just received a link from a friend to read an article on the FT. 

Often paywall-protected news organisations allow their registered customers to send links to unregistered friends, and do *not* make those new customers register to read the recommended content. They are in essence entering on their registered friend's coattails.

The thinking behind this must go:

Publisher: We don't want to annoy Jane Customer's friend for a single article; rather, we hope that John Friend trusts Jane Customer enough to click on the link, and then likes the free taste of our content enough to register themselves. Plus, we've already got John Friend's contact info from when Jane Customer sent the link - so we can try to track him that way.

The FT doesn't think that way -- rather, they seem to think:

FT: WE are the FT. Everyone knows who we are anyway, so if Jane Customer has sent a link to John Friend, it's not fair to Jane Customer (or Jim Customer, or Rufus Customer, etc) to let John Friend have a free ride. So before John Friend (or in this case, er, I) can read this article, they must register.

And not any quick email registration - no! They must choose a subscription level and provide additional mandatory information.

And this is where Sign-UpFAIL 2 comes in -- the mandatory fields. There's already questionable value in forcing the capture of this information, vs. annoying potential subscribers, but I can see why the FT might want the customer insights that could be gained. 

So WHY, FT, do you narrow the choices allowed -- to assume they are working or an MBA student. Do no unemployed people subscribe to the FT? No homemakers? No retired? 

As a result of forcing entry and then restricting choice, I bet you get a lot of subscribers with random descriptions like mine below:

I *might* be the owner of an aerospace firm with trader responsibilities. Erm, sure. 

FT advertisers, think twice about those subscriber stats you're getting!