Thursday, 24 November 2011
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Thursday, 3 November 2011
From off-line to on-line: Benjamin Ellis at #dellb2b
What is the link between the on and the offline world. It's us. Or "two worlds bound by flesh" as Benjamin Ellis says. The uniqueness of the individual can be a help and a hinderence depending on what you want to achieve.
So we have to start with the question, how does virtual become real?
It could be something that gives us inspiration, moves a conversation online to the pub with friends, 3D printing or physically going somewhere.
And if we flip that, how does the real become virtual? That's done through recording, media capture - blogging, podcasting, pictures, etc.
So we have to start with the question, how does virtual become real?
It could be something that gives us inspiration, moves a conversation online to the pub with friends, 3D printing or physically going somewhere.
And if we flip that, how does the real become virtual? That's done through recording, media capture - blogging, podcasting, pictures, etc.
Top video tips
I wasn't going to lead a session at DellB2B but I decided that it would be good to talk about video. In the B2B space and even in the B2C space, it feels like there is a lot of content but is it any good? I was asked to give a few tips after my experience with Raptured (you can watch it on http://rapturedtheseries.com)
The question of Influence at #dellB2B
Influence is long recognised as being important. Back before this explosion of social media and micro-publishing, a small amount of people were considered to have a lot of influence. Or at least they were the ones that could be seen. PR teams would take them out for lunch. Wine and dine and hope they say nice things so people would flock to their brands. But this method, wasn't connected across the company or through communities.
Blogger outreach was used by a lot of companies to find the 50 people that would be influencers. But more and more professionals are now online so there are a greater number of people in the middle who may not have global influence but have influence within a specific community or area. With Twitter, LinkedIn, etc there is a movement of more individuals who are more influential in new areas and new platforms than ever before.
Companies now need to find who is relevent in your area and on the topic you are interested in reaching. This is about moving programmes from targetting 50 people to 500 or 1000. The good bloggers curate their twitter streams really well - just as journalists did in the past. Where they took from trades to put in nationals, they do this with Twitter now.
By the time it's reported, we've already talked about it online. Getting to the magic middle makes it easier to get to a larger, more targeted group. But if we think influence can't be scored, why are we interested? Someone in the audience uses it as a quick indicator and another uses it as it's embedded in some twitter clients.
But numbers? Why do we need one? For example, footballers are ranked on a Sunday in a score out of 10. If it's bad, you wouldn't have Alex Ferguson say "hey Wanye Rooney, you have 7.6" but to someone that is important - a way to mark the changes on performance. But are we moving to something that retail businesses may use a score to give an upgrade or special deals? Are they using you as you are influential in a community that they want to reach? Or, on the otherhand, call centres may not put you through to a VIP service if your score isn't high enough. Is that right?
Peer Index looks at areas of influence while Kred looks at influence and outreach - so they reward people for the generosity. It shows how authentic they are. The rockstars are the ones in local communities and not necessarily global.
500 influencers may have a reach of 5 million and they may be more influencial as they have a smaller network that trusts them.
I think the area of influence and scoring is an interesting one but it is still gamable and is still very much in it's infancy. The race is really to find the greater integration, the true data underneath it all - I can see the future to be more about credit scores and spending data being integrated with social footprint.
But until we can extract the full influence, I think we will be missing some of our greatest influencers and therefore our greatest customers. Influence is not just about chatter or overtweeting/autotweeting/spending our lives on Twitter. It links back to trust in a community and that's not just found online.
Blogger outreach was used by a lot of companies to find the 50 people that would be influencers. But more and more professionals are now online so there are a greater number of people in the middle who may not have global influence but have influence within a specific community or area. With Twitter, LinkedIn, etc there is a movement of more individuals who are more influential in new areas and new platforms than ever before.
Companies now need to find who is relevent in your area and on the topic you are interested in reaching. This is about moving programmes from targetting 50 people to 500 or 1000. The good bloggers curate their twitter streams really well - just as journalists did in the past. Where they took from trades to put in nationals, they do this with Twitter now.
By the time it's reported, we've already talked about it online. Getting to the magic middle makes it easier to get to a larger, more targeted group. But if we think influence can't be scored, why are we interested? Someone in the audience uses it as a quick indicator and another uses it as it's embedded in some twitter clients.
But numbers? Why do we need one? For example, footballers are ranked on a Sunday in a score out of 10. If it's bad, you wouldn't have Alex Ferguson say "hey Wanye Rooney, you have 7.6" but to someone that is important - a way to mark the changes on performance. But are we moving to something that retail businesses may use a score to give an upgrade or special deals? Are they using you as you are influential in a community that they want to reach? Or, on the otherhand, call centres may not put you through to a VIP service if your score isn't high enough. Is that right?
Peer Index looks at areas of influence while Kred looks at influence and outreach - so they reward people for the generosity. It shows how authentic they are. The rockstars are the ones in local communities and not necessarily global.
500 influencers may have a reach of 5 million and they may be more influencial as they have a smaller network that trusts them.
I think the area of influence and scoring is an interesting one but it is still gamable and is still very much in it's infancy. The race is really to find the greater integration, the true data underneath it all - I can see the future to be more about credit scores and spending data being integrated with social footprint.
But until we can extract the full influence, I think we will be missing some of our greatest influencers and therefore our greatest customers. Influence is not just about chatter or overtweeting/autotweeting/spending our lives on Twitter. It links back to trust in a community and that's not just found online.
Discussing Trust with Cairbe Sugrue at #dellB2B
So in the search for finding power and a seat, my typing fingers weren't as fast during this session but trust is an interesting one. It's something hard gained and very easily lost.
In crisis situations people want to hear from more individuals. We'll listen to friends, trust some bloggers and are going to more spaces for information but the CEO must also be a prominent voice. Examples like Dominoes come to mind but recently Sony and Rim have tried to follow suit (though the timeline led to the downfall of the success - they took too long to be transparent. Timeliness has to be as important as transparency).
Generally people need to hear things 3-5 times, but if they trust you they only need to hear it once or twice. I've never considered that, but it's true - I'll click through to a link, I'll head to an event, I'll try a product, if a trusted person or publication has recommended it. It's the same during crisis. I'm more likely to trust a company if they build up the trust with me beforehand. I'll be more likely to believe them.
So in order to gain trust, we need to have more substance and have long term planning - you have to show strong commitment. It follows the adage, do what you'll say you'll do.
Crawl, walk, run, fly. I think more companies should think that way.
To see the full slides or Cairbe Sugrue's presentation, head over to: http://www.edelman.com/trust/2011/
In crisis situations people want to hear from more individuals. We'll listen to friends, trust some bloggers and are going to more spaces for information but the CEO must also be a prominent voice. Examples like Dominoes come to mind but recently Sony and Rim have tried to follow suit (though the timeline led to the downfall of the success - they took too long to be transparent. Timeliness has to be as important as transparency).
Generally people need to hear things 3-5 times, but if they trust you they only need to hear it once or twice. I've never considered that, but it's true - I'll click through to a link, I'll head to an event, I'll try a product, if a trusted person or publication has recommended it. It's the same during crisis. I'm more likely to trust a company if they build up the trust with me beforehand. I'll be more likely to believe them.
So in order to gain trust, we need to have more substance and have long term planning - you have to show strong commitment. It follows the adage, do what you'll say you'll do.
Crawl, walk, run, fly. I think more companies should think that way.
To see the full slides or Cairbe Sugrue's presentation, head over to: http://www.edelman.com/trust/2011/
Lee Bryant talks Social Business at #DellB2B
Dell B2B kicked off with Lee Bryant from Headshift talking about Social business.
As we begin our digital and social shift, we, as businesses are expected to have an open and accessible network externally but what about internally. With cost pressures and increased competition, though our organisations can seem advanced, they are often too expensive internally in how they function so they can't be global. Corporate IT is ripe for re-invention & humanisation but we need to make a deep structural change to a network centric world. Then we can have the speed and agility that are needed to have continued success.
As we begin our digital and social shift, we, as businesses are expected to have an open and accessible network externally but what about internally. With cost pressures and increased competition, though our organisations can seem advanced, they are often too expensive internally in how they function so they can't be global. Corporate IT is ripe for re-invention & humanisation but we need to make a deep structural change to a network centric world. Then we can have the speed and agility that are needed to have continued success.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)