Chance to win a $3,690 Front End of Innovation Ticket

You've been waiting patiently, and now the time has come...

We have one (1) $3,690 Front End of Innovation ALL ACCESS PASS up for grabs. The winner will get:

• access to all three days of the event (May 3-5, 2010)
  
• access to four additional conferences taking place simultaneously on-site
  
  • The Beyond "Open"... Summit
    
  • Eco-Innovation
    
  • The Annual VOC Summit
    
  • Service Innovation
  
  
• and more

To enter our contest and have the chance to win this ticket you must be on Facebook, but the rest is easy:

1. Head over to our new Facebook page and become a fan


2. Then answer the following question in your own words - What is the 'Front End of Innovation'?, by either:


• Clicking on the discussions tab and responding to the topic there


• Clicking on the videos tab and recording a video answer to the above question (or upload a video file)


3. Do this by midnight GMT on March 21, 2010


4. We will select and announce five (5) finalists on March 22, 2010


5. Everyone will then be able to vote for their favorite until midnight GMT on March 28, 2010


6. We will announce the one (1) winner on March 29, 2010

I will personally select the five finalists based on the clarity, passion, and potentially the humor of the entry (bonus points for video). So, pretty much anything goes, but anyone posting anything indecent or offensive will not only have it deleted but will be harrassed mercilessly by me and the rest of the community until the end of time.

The winner will be chosen from the five finalists by my tabulation of votes from you the Blogging Innovation readers across Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter @replies, and blog comments here on the five finalists announcement.

There will only be one (1) winner, but for those who don't win, you still can save 20% on event registration when you use our discount code "FEI2010BRADEN".


Editors's note: The ticket for the contest is being provided by the event organizers, not Blogging Innovation, and is conveyed at their discretion not ours. Winner is responsible for paying their own travel costs to the event and any other expenses.


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Contest Winner - The Economist's March Event

Through yesterday at midnight GMT we ran a contest for a chance to win a free ticket ($1,500 value) to The Economist's event - "Innovation Fresh Thinking For the Ideas Economy" at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley on March 23-24, 2010.

There will be a lot of great, top-flight speakers at this event, including a couple of new additions:

• Christina Romer, Chair, White House Council of Economic Advisers


• Juan Enriquez, Managing Director, Excel Venture Management

Contestants filled in the blank in the following statement on our LinkedIn or Facebook discussion:

• When it comes to innovation, I wish somebody would write about ______________.

Congratulations to the winner - Rick Smyers!

Please contact us ASAP with your e-mail address to claim your prize. Failure to do so before midnight GMT on March 4, 2010 will result in the ticket being awarded to the alternate - Melinda Lockhart!

The winner was chosen at random by my daughter, but here are my five favorite quotes:

1. "When it comes to innovation, I wish somebody would write about philanthropy." - Jenn Lew Goldstone


2. "When it comes to innovation, I wish somebody would write about how to cross the enormous bridge from creating an idea to the challenges of implementing a new idea and gaining acceptance from the people at large." - Melinda Lockhart


3. "When it comes to innovation, I wish somebody would write about vision building. Innovative ideas are no longer hard to find. However, people who can build vision are the ones creating blue oceans and making them a reality. We don't need more ideas....we need more vision builders." - Adam Dole


4. "When it comes to innovation, I wish somebody would write about the desperate need to clean up the current knowledge - of its fallacies and redundancies and help minimize the time wasted on unvalidated verbose" - Jeyaseelan J


5. "When it comes to innovation, I wish somebody would write about what it's necessary for every person start living consciously and caring for every human being. What about innovating on our way of living..." - Pedro Norte

As an added value for our loyal Blogging Innovation readers, we have negotiated a $150 discount when you register using our discount code - "BLINN" - register now.

We hope to see you there!


EDITOR'S NOTE: Winner is still responsible for all travel costs and the ticket is granted at The Economist's discretion not ours. There is only ONE (1) ticket up for grabs in this contest and it will be awarded to ONE (1) winner.


Don't miss an article - signup for our rss feed or our Continous Innovation group today!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

5 Ways to Prepare for a Social Media Disaster

by Mike Brown

I watched the @ThatKevinSmith and @SouthwestAir brouhaha erupt live on Twitter but didn't write about it last week. Bunches of tweeters and bloggers hashing out who was right and wrong based on second, third, or five hundredth-hand information simply wasn't interesting enough to warrant adding to the noise.

Getting ready for a social media presentation this week though, I've been thinking about service defects and service recovery in the world of social networking.

I sought an analogy to help think strategically about how a company prepares for an angry customer who wants to be heard and starts tweeting incessantly: handling a hostage situation is very comparable. Rather than a person though, it's a brand's reputation being taken hostage by a customer threatening irreparable harm unless demands are met. With the one-to-many communication capabilities of social media, this type of threat has never been more credible.

Here are five hostage negotiation principles and related implications for preparing to handle when your brand's good name is being held hostage:

1. Have a negotiating team ready - This means more than a single person monitoring Twitter and handling responses. In hostage negotiations, the primary negotiator, who is ideally the sole contact with the hostage taker, is joined by a coach/commander in charge of the situation and personnel along with a secondary negotiator to help monitor, listen, and offer input.


• Strategic Questions - Does your company have a pre-identified team and protocols for how it will work together in a social media-based service recovery effort? And how would you incorporate front-line employees when you're trying to recover from a service failure playing out both at one of your company's locations and online?


2. Gather as much solid information as possible right away - Beyond having standard questions to run through, there's added complexity in a social media-based service recovery effort. Suppose the customer issue IS taking place in-person. With social media monitoring removed from the scene, it may not even be possible from a customer's messages to determine where the issue is occurring. This creates an interesting implication for enacting rapid service recovery.


• Strategic Questions - If it's clear the issue is taking place in the presence of front line employees, what steps will you take to identify the location and establish communication with them immediately? Since multi-person communication with the angry customer is almost a given, how will you ensure your multiple contacts are speaking with one message?


3. Connect on a personal level - Social media throws a whole new wrinkle into this, especially when you want to move interaction with the customer to a private messaging stream. If it's even available, the company may have outdated phone information on the customer, making direct contact challenging to establish. A corporate tweeter may have to try to get a brand kidnapper to 'follow' the company so direct messaging can take place. And typically, the corporate tweeter is communicating under a corporate account without a personal avatar. It makes establishing a personal tone of, "I'm here to try and fix the situation," difficult when the customer is receiving tweets with the corporate logo.


• Strategic Questions - Are you following your customers on social media? Do you have multiple ways to reach out to customers? Do your company social media people have work-related, personal accounts they can use to reach out specifically in these cases?


4. Communicate openly and actively listen - When you have face-to-face contact, listening, and the silence that goes along with it, is easy to convey. It's a little tougher via phone. But in a medium geared toward short, back-and-forth messages, a pause associated with listening or contemplation comes across as being distracted or ignoring the other person.


• Strategic Question - Beyond having plans for migrating service recovery conversations to private channels, are you actively training your social media response team in dealing with the dynamics of these new service recovery situations?


5. Show empathy - One way hostage negotiators demonstrate empathy is by delivering on aspects of the demands that have been made. Granting small, detailed requests is done in real-life hostage situations to slow and drag them out, which is desirable. In a service recovery situation (especially one playing out in public), the last thing you want to do is extend it.


• Strategic Questions - Who is on your social media service response team? Have you included your best customer service people - the ones with strong understanding of what you can do to solve customer problems and are best at understanding issues from a customer's point of view?

No matter what your company is doing in social media, you have to address this reality. Even if your company doesn't want a proactive social media presence, there's a greater chance every day your customers will be talking about your brand via social media. When they do, and the discussion gets negative and brand threatening, you better have thought about your strategy, with a plan for what you'll do.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Mike Brown is an award-winning innovator in strategy, communications, and experience marketing. He authors the Brainzooming TM blog, and serves as the company's chief Catalyst. He wrote the ebook "Taking the NO Out of InNOvation" and is a frequent keynote presenter.

Social Media Expert or Wannabe?

by Mike Myatt

Determining whether someone is a social media expert or a just another wannabe can be a difficult task for the typical consumer. There is a tremendous amount of noise out there being created by a plethora of "consultants" professing expertise in what I refer to as the new social sciences: personal branding, social networking, social media marketing, etc. I just did a Google search for the term social media expert and had more than 96 million returned search results... give me a break. So my question is this: what constitutes a "social media expert," and how do you tell the posers from the players? Which of these professed miracle workers are true professionals, and which ones are simply attempting to gravy-train a rapidly growing market niche in pursuit of a quick buck?

Let me begin by dispelling a popular myth oft espoused online - It seems to be fashionable of late to state that there is no such thing as a social media expert. The thinking (albeit flawed thinking) of those who hold this opinion is that social media is so new, and so rapidly evolving, that there simply could not be any real experts.

My answer? Ridiculous... Every industry has experts regardless of maturity of life-cycle. In fact, many of the real innovators and experts are those early adopters doing the heavy lifting and the ground breaking. There are experts in every industry and at every stage of maturation. Some early experts mature as the industry grows, and others fall by the way side because they don't keep pace giving way to new generations of innovators building on what the first generation of experts created. The issue is not whether experts exist, as they most certainly do. The issue is finding them among the hordes of pretenders and wannabes.

I'm going to cut right to the chase and give you six things to beware of when attempting to discern the true professional advisers capable of delivering a certainty of execution, from the rogues and scoundrels simply looking to separate you from your money:

1. Beware the Part-Time Expert: My father has an old saying that I've found to be very accurate over the years: "part-time efforts, yield part-time results." If the person seeking your business has a day job that constitutes something other than the services he or she is pitching, run for the hills. If your potential advisor is moonlighting then they really have no business asking for your business.


2. Beware the Shoemaker without Shoes: Your position should be one of "don't tell me... show me." If your would-be social media guru cannot be found online, doesn't blog, tweet, or is invisible on the major social networking platforms you might want to rethink their qualifications. Important Caveat: the mere existence of a blog, YouTube channel, LinkedIn profile, Facebook account, or a Twitter page doesn't guarantee competence... any idiot can amass thousands of followers on Twitter just by following everybody and their brother, so look for someone who has amassed a quality list of followers, who has more people following them than they follow, and who actively engages with their followers.


3. Beware the Expert without Clients: No referenceable clients equals zero credibility. It's one thing to show you their own work, but quite another to show you demonstrated success on behalf of paying and satisfied clients.


4. Beware the Expert without Industry Recognition: If your so called expert isn't published, doesn't speak, lecture or teach, doesn't have a column, hasn't won any awards, etc., then they might not be a true expert.


5. Beware the Expert too Aggressive in their Pursuit: There is a big difference between professional follow-up and desperation. Let me be blunt... most professionals at the top of their game haven't made a cold call in years. In fact, even in this down economy they typically have more business than they know what to do with. If your world-beater of a consultant is chasing you down like a hungry dog after the meat wagon then you may want to take pause.


6. Beware of Bargain Basement Expertise: In most cases the reality is that you get what you pay for... True expertise doesn't come cheaply, but is well worth the investment. Few things in business will get you in as much trouble as not getting advice and counsel when needed, or worse yet, getting poor quality or incorrect advice. I would much rather pay an expert a larger fee for 30 minutes of their time and get what I need rather than pay someone $50 dollars an hour who is faking it until they can make it... Questionable advisors will take much longer to get from point A to point B (if they get there at all), and will likely cost you more money at the end of the day when contrasted with true professionals.

If you need help in integrating social media into your business I would recommend the following individuals (some you may know and some you may not) as they all pass the litmus test mentioned above. Those listed below are in no particular order of preference and you can rest assured they are not "info-product" sales people masquerading as social media professionals, but they are in fact the true subject matter experts who can get the job done:

• Chris Brogan (@chrisbrogan) - Chris is smart, approachable, innovative, has a high degree of integrity, probably the hardest working man on the planet, and a heck of a nice guy. I've enjoyed every interaction I've had with Chris, and he has earned my trust and respect.


• Mack Collier (@MackCollier) - I don't know Mack personally, but have enjoyed reading his candid and ever straight foward opinions online. Mack is well respected and his the loyalty of his followers more than speak to his capabilities.


• Lee Odden (@LeeOdden) - I've known Lee for several years (before he was rich and famous). In fact, in a prior life as a corporate executive Lee was the consultant I chose to place on retainer. He is smart, seasoned and delivers on his promises.


• Amy Martin (@DigitalRoyalty) - I guess the moniker Digital Royalty says it all... Amy represents some of the biggest names and fastest growning brands online. Nothing bodes as well for an agency as success, and Amy has plenty of pedigree in that department.


• Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) - Ashton combines his celebrity status, a fascination with social media, and a disarming and ever inquistive intellect to head one of the fastest growing social media agencies on the web.


• Liz Strauss (@lizstrauss) - Liz is well known for her approachability, friendliness and candor. She also happens to be one of the savviest bloggers and social media consultants online.


• And if you're slumming @mikemyatt - nuff said...

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Mike Myatt, is a Top CEO Coach, author of "Leadership Matters...The CEO Survival Manual", and Managing Director of N2Growth.

Aligning Social Media, Marketing and PR

by Matt Heinz

I'm moderating a panel on the alignment of marketing & PR in a couple weeks at Dan Greenfield's PR + Mktg Camp in Seattle. Should be a great day of discussion. Earlier this week Dan and I talked how marketing and PR teams have traditionally worked together (or not), and how those relationships are evolving now - especially with the maturation of social media as a cross-functional tool set. Excerpts from our conversation are below:


Question: Are PR and marketing more aligned or less aligned because of social media?

Matt: The idea of separating marketing teams and functions is a remnant of the "old way" of doing marketing. When most marketing was one-way (i.e. customers couldn't react, respond and create messages of their own), it was more acceptable to separate PR from product marketing, and even lead generation activities. Now, especially because the customer has so much control and such a strong voice, it's critical that brands act as one. That means PR, advertising, social media, lead generation - they all need to work from the same playbook in a coordinated fashion. Easier said than done, but that's exactly what today's most successful brands are doing.

Social media has enabled the consumer to talk back in a powerful way, which is accelerating the need for this consolidation and integration of marketing strategy by products, services and brands today.


Question: PR is generally about placement, reputation, messaging, impressions and storytelling. Marketing is generally about transactions, click throughs, key words and web applications. How is social media changing that, if at all?

Matt: Everything is about getting the sale. It always has been, but now it's easier to see and map the progression of a customer from awareness, consideration, intent, trial, purchase - then repeat, renewal, referral, etc.

Social media is blurring the distinction between customer engagement stages. Ten years ago, it was easier to segment the functions - PR talks to the customer at the beginning, then product marketing takes over and offers demos, free trials, etc. Then once they're a customer, your loyalty/retention team takes over. That approach doesn't work anymore.

The way we measure different marketing elements, by function, probably still works. But it has to be put into the context of a more immersive, cohesive customer engagement strategy that blends messages and tactics across stages of a customer relationship.


Question: What disadvantages (inefficiencies, lost opportunities, customer confusion) and advantages (integration, cost savings) are these shared tools like Facebook and Twitter creating for PR and marketing?

Matt: The sales cycle has always been far shorter than the customer's buying cycle. Five years ago, the customer buying cycle was a black box for marketers. We had no visibility to what was happening, what prospective customers were thinking or asking, who they were even considering. Now, thanks to social media, we have insight into how customers are thinking well before they engage directly with brands.

But this isn't an opportunity for selling. It's an opportunity to engage and become part of the community - add value, answer questions, provide valuable content. Earn trust, respect and credibility. Community engagement and social media are at the very top of the buying cycle, before the sales cycle, and it doesn't really matter which part of the organization manages and executes there, as long as the approach is right.


Question: Should social media ultimately be the responsibility of PR who manages reputation and conversations or marketing who is in charge of transactions and sales?

Matt: It doesn't really matter. Everyone in the organization needs to understand the customer, what they want, what they need, and how to address them - with or without a paid relationship current or pending. Every member of your organization should know how to address customers in a respectful, value-added way.

Social media has accelerated the tearing down of walls between customer and provider. There's more transparency, less formality. Brands need to be accessible, approachable and authentic to be accepted.

The social media strategy doesn't end when a customer enters a selling cycle. They aren't going to stop talking to their friends, and using Facebook, or commenting on Twitter, just because they're talking to a sales rep. Their interaction with and reflection of your brand continues across functional sales & marketing groups. That's why ownership of the social media "voice" within one marketing function or another is problematic. Today, that strategy (and especially the execution) is a job everybody has.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Matt Heinz is principal at Heinz Marketing, a sales & marketing consulting firm helping businesses increase customers and revenue. Contact Matt at matt@heinzmarketing.com or visit www.heinzmarketing.com.

Role of Social Media in Creating Word of Mouth and Customer Experience

by Paul Williams


What's the role of social media in creating Word of Mouth (WOM)?

You could say there are two parts to WOM - the analog and the digital.

• Analog is person to person... face to face. I'll also put written and print media into the analog category.


• Digital WOM is converted and stored in a format that can be sent and re-sent electronically.

Social media refers to tools that allow us to easily spread the story electronically, digitally. Like a pyramid marketing scheme I tell my network, and they tell theirs, and they tell theirs... Social media tools (blogs, Facebook, Twitter etc) make the spread easy.

In fact, I may have to contradict my earlier statements indicating that Malcolm Gladwell and Seth Godin are the father's of Word of Mouth (WOM).


The REAL Originators of Word Of Mouth

I think the folks who wrote the Faberge Organics Shampoo commercials in the 80s invented it.

Do you remember those ads?

If you tell two friends about Faberge Organics shampoo with wheat germ oil and honey, they'll tell two friends, and so on... and so on... and so on...

Sorry about the poor quality - this is all I could find.


(Feed Link For Faberge Commercial)


Has the focus of Social Media had a negative effect on the Customer Experience?

I'll say potentially, YES. Marketers dazzled by the shiny object that social media is, may think they've solved their communication problem - or are engaging in a 'meaningful' way because - for example - they've created a Facebook Fan Page for their business.


False Sense Of Security

Let me pick on one of my favorite brands, Starbucks Coffee, as an example. Specifically, their "My Starbucks Idea" website. Through this site, Starbucks welcomes everyone to submit product, program, design, service, or ANY idea.

The My Starbucks Idea home page declares:


"You know better than anyone else what you want from Starbucks. So tell us. What's your Starbucks Idea? Revolutionary or simple - we want to hear it. Share your ideas, tell us what you think of other people's ideas and join the discussion. We're here, and we're ready to make ideas happen."

• Starbucks thinks they are listening.


• Customers think Starbucks is listening, and taking action.


• Starbucks thinks they've "checked the box" (to some extent) in being a social media player by having this site.


• Power to the people!

However, if you look at the "milestone" of the 50 Ideas Launched and Still Counting! - celebrating customer ideas implemented - Starbucks has technically only implemented six (6) ideas submitted by customers. If you dig into it - as John has on his Brand Autopsy site in his Tough Love For Starbucks post - you'll see that most ideas were already in the works, would have been done anyway, or aren't even customer-facing ideas (e.g. Employee discount on work clothes).

A problem with social media is that companies may think - simply by participating in the trend - that they're meeting customer need. Starbucks has invested in this suggestion site and believe they are checking the "we care and listen to customers" box. They think they've fulfilled the portion of their strategy, that supports the objective: to "Develop enthusiastically satisfied customers all of the time."

Starbucks isn't being as democratic with ideas as they claim (and think) they are. It really isn't "power to the people." Social media (or maybe improper use of social media) is giving Starbucks a false sense of security.

Social media isn't for everyone. To "engage in meaningful conversation" may actually mean a conversation. A face-to-face, human-to-human dialogue. For example, the kind a barista can have with a customer at Starbucks.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Paul Williams is a professional problem solver at Idea Sandbox. He can help you create remarkable ideas to grow your business. You may read more at his website and find him Twittering as @IdeaSandbox.

Internet Future Driven by User Reputation Scores

by Hutch Carpenter

In a recent interview with EMC's Stu Miniman about the future of the web, I predicted that in 20 years, we'll all have online reputation scores. Little badges, numbers that communicate our level of authority, this sort of thing. And these reputations will have tangible impact.

Three different trends come together at some point in the future to make this happen. These trends have been underway for a while, but come together at some tipping point in the years ahead. Here's a visualization of the trends:


It's helpful to discuss each one, in the context of online reputations.


Rate performance of businesses

eBay, which went public back in 1998, played an important role in socializing the concept of people providing online ratings for online sellers. After we receive our purchase, we rate the seller. The collective wisdom identifies top sellers. Got your eye in that Donkey Kong game? Who are you most likely to trust...?


Amazon picked up on this, once it introduced third party sellers into the mix. You can see the percentage of positive ratings for the different sellers. Personally, I have paid premiums (i.e. higher prices) for the assurance that comes from a higher rated seller.

Yelp has taken this concept of rating a seller, and applied to offline consumer experiences. Want to get a burrito in San Francisco? You're likely to go with the highest rated restaurants.

These ratings make up for our lack of information about various providers of services. One could do a lot of online research, and asking friends, before buying. But these ratings do quite well as shorthand ways of assessing quality. They've made it easy to transact, without knowing someone ahead of time.

The rating ethos is expanding. On Facebook, you can 'like' people's entries. We 'love' music on Last.fm. We 'favorite' tweets. We 'digg' and 'buzz up' stories. Implicitly, we provide ratings when we share content via different social networks. Online engagement allows for this.


Migration of transparent work and information online

I found this recent Kaiser Family Foundation study fascinating. The amount of time kids spend online - smart phone, computer, television or other electronic device - is now at an all-time high. There's no denying this: future workers are going to be more accustomed to online engagement and information-seeking than any generation before. It's their lifestyle:


More generally, an important distinction from the web of the 1990s and early 2000s is that we aren't just reading and transacting. Individuals are providing the content. More every day, in fact. We have transferred some of the engagement and contributions from the offline world online. Actually, we're probably creating more content than we ever have,

For workers, the growth of Enterprise 2.0 continues. A key outcome of that? More and more work is making its way online. When it's available there, and not just in a Word document on the hard drive or email in an inbox, it's findable and usable by everyone. Your colleagues know quite well what the quality of your work and contributions are.

Do you think all of this stops, and we go back to message-relaying marathoners, smoke signals and carrier pigeons? No. Enterprise 2.0 and social media will continue their growth apace. And increasingly, this time spent online is through social media.

More and more people will be publishing their work, their ideas, their knowledge, their conversational bits, their creativity... online. It's just going to keep increasing.


Rely on social media for information

An emerging trend is the transition of where we seek information. Remember libraries, magazines and microfiche? Then the 1.0 websites where we got information? Then the portals that aggregated information from major media sites? Then search augmented all this information consumption?

Well, the next wave is to rely on our social connections to deliver interesting, relevant information to us. As was famously said by a college student in 2008:


"If the news is important, it will find me."


A recent Nielsen study confirms this growing tendency to use social media as a first stop to find information:


Admittedly, the leading social sites of today - blogs, Facebook, Twitter - have a ways to go before they become a large percentage of the population's first choice. And it'd help if Twitter could get their search working further back than a week or two.

But this survey and anecdotal evidence points toward an increased reliance on others to provide information to us.


Putting this all together

It's that last trend, still early in its cycle, that really points toward the development of formal, online reputations. When we started transacting online with complete strangers or small businesses we never knew, we needed a basis for understanding their credibility. It turns out, crowdsourced ratings are excellent indicators of quality. It also causes small businesses to be aware of the quality of their products and services.

In the years ahead, expect increased usage of social media for getting information and sourcing people, products and services. As an example, research firm IDC just released these survey results:


"57% of U.S. workers use social media for business purposes at least once per week. The number one reason cited by U.S. workers for using social tools for business purposes was to acquire knowledge and ask questions from a community."


As reliance on people for information increases, expect an increased need for knowing which strangers provide the top quality information. Note I said "strangers" there. One thing we will continue to do is to rely on our "friends" (social media sense of the word) for ongoing daily information. The people we connect with on the various social sites.

But that's the only way we will get information. Or make decisions. Great case in point? Google's real-time search results:


If innovation is the focus of your work, wouldn't you want to be included in those Google results? Here's the thing. Google doesn't just put any old tweet or other form of real-time content in there. As Google's Amit Singhal stated:


"You earn reputation, and then you give reputation. If lots of people follow you, and then you follow someone - then even though this [new person] does not have lots of followers, his tweet is deemed valuable because his followers are themselves followed widely," Singhal says. "It is definitely, definitely more than a popularity contest," he adds.


Note his words: "You earn reputation."

PR agency Edelman created a ranking algorithm called Tweetlevel, which analyzes people on the basis of influence, popularity, engagement and trust. Tweetlevel was recently used to create a list of the top analysts on Twitter. As the author of that post noted, one purpose for the list was to answer the question: "Should they spend their limited time interacting with analysts via twitter?" Presumably if you're an analyst in the Top 50, 'yes'.

Again, reputation being used for a defined purpose.

Ross Dawson wrote a good piece about the changes coming due to the increasing visibility of "people's actions and character." He notes the impact of reputation on seeking professionals for work:


"Many professionals will be greatly impacted by these shifts. The search for professional advice is often still highly unstructured, based on anecdotal recommendations or simple searches. As importantly, clients of large professional firms may start to be more selective on who they wish to work with at the firm, creating a more streamlined meritocracy.

The mechanisms for measuring professional reputation are still very crude, yet over the coming decade we can expect to see substantial changes in how professionals are found. This will impact many facets of the industry."


And Bertrand Dupperin sees a similar dynamic playing out internally:


"Use internal social networks to build a kind of marketplace that would put work capacity and competence on a given subject in relation with needs and allow those who can apply for an assignment instead of blind assignments to those who can't."


In a world where individuals emerge as important sources of information, products and services, people will need a way to break through the limited knowledge they'll have on any one person. Look for online reputations to emerge as a way to fill that gap.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Hutch Carpenter is the Vice President of Product at Spigit. Spigit integrates social collaboration tools into a SaaS enterprise idea management platform used by global Fortune 2000 firms to drive innovation.

Are Facebook And Twitter Bad For Your Brain?

Or Does It Actually Make You A Better Person?

by Idris Mootee

Here is an old vision of a high-tech future. It is old magazine illustration in 1969 a Japanese Sunday magazine, which show life in the future, pervaded by computers. This illustration "The Rise of the Computerized School," by Shigeru Komatsuzaki is an illustrated scenario of what schools will be like in the future. Sort of Webex type of online delivery and interactive learning via a tablet.

I always find it fascinating to go back to see the future, comics and movies are the best place to see the future. In those worlds, there are always concern of the computer taking over of the Big Brother is controlling everything. Funny I've never seen an illustration, comic of movie that have anything similar to the Facebook or Twitter of the world. I guess it is never easy imagining the future. There are things we simply cannot imagine. With kids and grown-ups spending so much time in the social networking world, we never really understand the full implications on us. Twitter is everywhere. And yes, Twitter is coming to the X-box.

Does Facebook make us better persons or more sociable? And the idea that our most of our private lives are now semi-public, at least to our friends. Everyone knows what I was doing this weekend, good thing or bad thing? With camera phone being a standard feature, with the tap of a screen your life story is now shared by tens of thousands of people, some you know and some you don't. Your thoughts and feelings are broadcasted to the world; I'm talking about the immediacy and accessibility of Twittermessages that make private conversations public. The space between public and private are dangerously blurred.

What about kids? Neuroscientist warns that social networks harm children's brains. He suggests that sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centered. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on the stream of messages coming in everyday. I don't think it is just young people, we all have Blackberry or iPhone addictions. I am always constantly my Blackberry just to see if I've missed anything from the 83 groups that I joined. I called it staying in touch.

Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively 'rewire' the brain. Computer games and fast-paced TV shows were also a factor, she said. We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist. My fear is that these technologies are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment. I don't buy it. I would argue it allows kids to adapt to the fast moving world of data overload and learn to make fast decisions based on multiple sources of data feeding to them. It is like training a fighter pilot when one is 16, it is a lot easier as they can handle all input and perform real-time sense-making.

Having said that, I strongly urge readers not to check your Facebook or Twitter during a bath. And if for whatever reasons you do, don't be like this 17-year-old Romanian girl and risk your well-being to Tweet. Maria Barbu was, in fact, in the tub while using Twitter when she likely reached to plug in her charger with a wet hand, electrocuting herself in the process. It is called Twittercide. Yes, social networking can be dangerous.

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Twitter Devices and Business Model Design

Industrial Design, Busness Model Design And Design For Change

by Idris Mootee

I was chatting with some members of our design research team just yesterday next to the cooler the other day. We were talking about how the iPhone is such a bad phone and a great media player, and the Backberry is such a great email gadget but a terrible browser. The conclusion was that phones were not designed to handle the 'social' functions and so they are just add-ons. What does a true 'social' gadget looks like? I will ask our design team to come up with some crazy ideas and I'm sure our clients will love to see them.

As more and more people use Twitter or Facebook as their core communications vehicle, what are the best gadgets designed for that? Is there a gadget that lets them tweet, reply, retweet, send direct messages, and connect with followers easily?

Here comes the Twitter Peek which sells for $99 or $199 (with service plan). But, users can also view TwitPics by clicking the "view content" option from the Twitter Peek menu. If users choose to pay $99 at the time of purchase, they will get the Twitter Peek device and six months of Peek service. After that, they need to pay $7.95 per month for network access. If customers plunk down $199, they'll get the device and service for the life of the product. In either case, Twitter Peek allows for unlimited tweeting. It has one key limitation - it can only support one account at a time.

An important industrial design discipline that they teach in school - Do we design something for a singular or more important function or something that does everything?

The preference is to design something with a purpose in mind. Is the Twitter Peek really necessary in the marketplace? Or do we need a Facebook device?


The deep satisfaction of design is when you find an elegant solution to a problem that has, until now, had a hindering effect on our quality of life (or experience or environment). The function should be super obvious - a straightforward solution to a meaningful problem. But, it is not that simple.

Industrial design is understood to be a part of engineering design, or as running parallel to engineering design (and increasingly interface design). However, when industrial design activity is engaged in the more aesthetic or style concerns of a product, it can be understood as running parallel with marketing and brand activity. And when industrial design is engaged and running parallel with business strategy activity, it becomes a very different game.

There is not a right or wrong or simple answer here, there is a lot of room for ambiguity and misunderstanding and many designers are confused about design themselves.

Many designers love to talk business model design, but I'm not sure how many are qualified to discuss this subject. My experience is that even among MBAs that I have hired, anyone with less than ten years of solid experience doesn't understand the real implications of these business model discussions.

My response to them is:


"How exactly do you change a business model without understanding the industrial and distribution economics and the individual players' competitive dynamics? There is always game theory at play in these moves."


One interesting thought is that traditional industrial designers came into being as mass production raised output and producers wanted to match market demand. This is still true, but not entirely the case. If industrial design comes within a marketing function and marketers buy the creative services of an industrial design consultant on an occasional basis for a special project, this is quite different than if industrial design is a part of the manufacturing function. And if industrial design comes within a strategy firm and executives buy the innovative services of a firm that has strategy + design capabilities (like Idea Couture), then it is part of the corporate strategy undertaking. That's design thinking in action, not design talking. Am I confusing you?

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Another Value-Driven Social Media Example

Click above to Enlarge
by Braden Kelley

Following up on my previous article - The Right Way to do Social Media - I wanted to share another value-driven social media example:

Wisk's facebook application called WiskIt.


"We thought perhaps we could take our stain-fighting heritage, and take it online to Facebook," according to Elisa Gurevich, Brand Manager for Wisk.


It's a great comment from the brand manager, and it is the way that every marketer should be thinking.


What value could we deliver to customers online that is consistent with our brand and our marketing strategy?


After all, despite what most people think, you don't really need a social media strategy that stands apart from your marketing strategy.

Though your approach to social media might be different than other communication channels, social media isn't this separate thing with mystical powers.

Social media should be an integrated part of your overall marketing strategy and something that every marketer has already educated themselves on how to use properly. Though it is never too late to learn!

What other examples of well-executed social media campaigns would people like to share?

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

The Right Way to do Social Media

Click above to Enlarge
by Braden Kelley

Unfortunately, more often than not I see examples of social media strategy gone wrong. So, it stands out when I see a company like Lufthansa doing social media the right way - at least with their MySkyStatus site. Let's look briefly at why this is a good execution of a social media strategy:

1. Easy to use


2. Gives the customer something of value with minimal effort


3. The value is something that people naturally want to share


4. Works just as well with the competition's product as with their own


5. Gives customer a visual idea of what they are going to get before they invest any time or effort


6. Brand impression is minimal, and no fear of mentioning the competition


7. It gives the user a choice of how much information they want to disclose

Now if we can convince the airlines that charging people for extra bags and other pointless fees are a bad idea (like Delta Airlines charging me $50 for the "privilege" of standing by for an earlier flight with open seats), then the world will be a better place.


What other examples of well-executed social media campaigns would people like to share?

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Building Innovation Networks

by Stephen Shapiro

According to David Strom, a web/tech expert...

"Burger King ran a promotion not too long ago where they asked people to defriend 10 Facebook friends in order to get a coupon for a free burger. They were swamped with thousands of requests, thereby establishing the value of a friend at somewhere around a quarter. That is pretty depressing. I always thought a friend was worth at least a couple of bucks, if not more."

This got me thinking. How do we value friends? And are all friends valued the same way? I have nearly 400 Facebook friends. I try to only befriend people I really know. But admittedly, some are friends of friends and I don't know them at all. In reality, there are only a handful of people that truly interest me.

My experience mimics that suggested in this fascinating article on how the virtual Facebook world mimics the physical world. Although we may have hundreds of friends on Facebook, there are indeed only a handful that we maintain intimate relationships with.

Dr Robin Dunbar once suggested that humans can only have a stable network of about 150 people, also known as "the Dunbar number."

The article shares some interesting statistics...

• The average person has 120 Facebook friends. This is interestingly quite close to the Dunbar number.


• Men generally respond to postings of only 7 of those friends by leaving comments on photos, status messages or "the wall." Woman respond to 10 friends.


• With two-way communication, men only chat/email with 4 people, while women communicate with 6.


• Among those Facebook users with 500 friends, these numbers are only slightly higher (but not proportionally higher). Men leave comments for 17 friends, women for 26. Men communicate with ten, women with 16.

I find this quite interesting. And it has interesting implications for building innovation networks and communities.

When working with an organization, I often put in place innovation "Centers of Excellence" and "Communities of Practice." We find these are very helpful in spreading the innovation gospel into smaller, more manageable sized groups. The research above demonstrates to me why it works so well.

While at Accenture (then Andersen Consulting), we used a similar model to build the skills of the consultants. My area was called "Process Excellence" and involved the building of innovation skills.

We created a Process Excellence Center of Excellence with 100 people. These uber-experts were dedicated 100% to our team. We had responsibility for their professional development and the P&L of the group. We even split these into smaller groups based on geography and specific competencies. This created even smaller, more cohesive groups.

We then developed a "Community of Practice Leadership Group." This group was comprised of 30 people. These individuals were dedicated to other parts of the business (mainly industry programs). We were only responsible for giving them to tools necessary to lead their communities. Leaders were selected based on their existing Process Excellence skills and their geography.

Each leader had about 50 people on average, giving us about 1,500 people in the Process Excellence Community of Practice.

At the lowest level, we had 20,000 consultants that were recipients of the training that was developed by the Center of Excellence and delivered by 150 experts hand-selected from the Community of Practice. These sessions were delivered in small group settings with a dedicated point of contact available for post-training follow-up and mentoring.

Using this approach, we developed a powerful 20,000 person practice in only a matter of months. Although this group accounted for almost 40% of the consultants in the company, it was one of the most active and sought after communities.

Instead of trying to create huge, faceless groups, look for opportunities to build smaller, more active communities. Find ways to create intimate relationships between employees, customers, and vendors.

Look at your networks. Is there an abundance of activity and dialogue? If not, you may want to look at the sizes of your teams. Yes, size does matter.

If you have not yet read my article published in the European Business Forum, be sure to read it now. It gives more insights into this "community" concept.

---

Stephen Shapiro is the author of three books, a popular innovation speaker, and is the Chief Innovation Evangelist for Innocentive, the leader in Open Innovation.

Effective Conversational Marketing

Business Strategy Innovation just published a white paper to its web site on
"Effective Conversational Marketing."

Here is an excerpt:

"Introduction

What is conversational marketing?

Conversational marketing is relationship marketing for the social media age. Thinking about your marketing efforts in terms of a conversation changes the approach and better integrates social media. Relationships are something that are formed, but conversations are ongoing and evolving and require both sides to participate.


How Social Media Fits In

It seems like I can't get through a day right now without hearing somebody in the media or on the street talking about social media. I think it is great that social media has captured people's attention, but will having more communication channels improve conversational marketing?

Only if properly integrated into the conversations between consumers and companies.

To do this, social media must be established both as part of your on-going conversational marketing programs (on-boarding, loyalty, retention, etc.) and also integrated into your ad hoc or seasonal marketing campaigns."


Download the complete "Effective Conversational Marketing" white paper in PDF form.

What do you think?

@innovate



Image Credit - NoLifeBeforeCoffee

Twitter Search to Challenge Kumo and Google?

I came across an article on TechCrunch that got me thinking. I have been writing for a while now that the main functionality of Twitter, really is just a product feature that can and is being copied Facebook, Plaxo, Windows Live, and probably everyone else out there.

For Twitter to survive they have to find a way to turn it into a platform. Finding a way to create value-added search is probably their best bet.

After all, what is the number one thing that people share, other than what they are having for breakfast?

Links...

Links tweeted by Twitter users are more valuable because they (for the most part) have been added to the search database by people who found their content to have value.

One of the biggest challenges that traditional search engines like Kumo and Google have is that they have to warehouse everything, and most of the Internet is full of garbage that is of no use to people.

For Twitter to maintain any value in search over and above Kumo and Google, they will have to constantly be looking for creative ways to block robots from posting 140chars automatically stuffed with links and keywords.

Without naming names, I have the feeling that one of the people I am following has found a way to automatically post tweets. This means that spammers can and will start attacking Twitter with automated tweets for their viagra and weight loss treatments for all kinds of keywords - reducing the value of Twitter search.

Are Twitter engineers up to the job?

@innovate

Charlie Rose Interviews Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn

Charlie Rose interviews Reid Hoffman, CEO of LinkedIn about the future of technology and social networking, and discusses with him the differences between LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace.

The most interesting point he makes is that while tolerance for risk and the ability to manage it are key skills for entrepreneurs, we are all entrepreneurs now. By that he means that each of us is now responsible for managing our careers and keeping an eye towards finding that next job opportunity to further develop our career.



What do you think?

@innovate

Email is Still the King of Social Media

A new study is out from ShareThis that shows that when users go to share a web page, they still do so most often by e-mail (57.1%).

I would have thought it was something other than e-mail by now, but it's not. Facebook was the #2 sharing method via ShareThis at 21.2%, while Twitter only made up 0.50% of the sharing via ShareThis.

Even more interesting was that since August 2008, the following services lost share (ranked by the size of their loss):

1. Digg


2. Email


3. Other


4. MySpace


5. StumbleUpon


6. Technorati

While the following services gained share:

1. Facebook


2. Twitter


3. AIM

You can see the results in more detail here.

What do you think?

@innovate

Facebook will Rule the World

I was looking at blog publishing alternatives yesterday to see what new developments are available, and after a stop at Twitter that led me to Facebook, I had an epiphany. Facebook is going to rule the online world, and here is why:

Before the invention of the automobile, towns were built around town squares or high streets. Town squares were gathering places, often populated by churches. Italy has the piazza, Germany the platz. Clusters of stores and restaurants often were nearby. In the UK, these clusters of retail businesses are called a high street, in the United States they became known as main street. In the United States, main street is dead or dying, replaced by shopping malls, strip malls, and big box stores. The negative consequence of this is the loss of community as these stores have larger catchment areas and lack that neighborhood feel, resulting in further isolation of individuals from each other.

Building upon the increasing isolation of individuals from each other, people are at the same time becoming more mobile meaning that people are more and more likely to have friend networks that span hundreds or thousands of miles. More and more people are 'hanging out with their friends' online and Facebook is one of the places that this happens in spades. 'Online Community Sites', as they are now referred to, like Friendster, Bebo, MySpace have exploded.

The reason I say that Facebook is going to rule the world, is that relationships are more important to us as humans than anything else other than food, shelter, and clothing. In the early days of the Internet, there was very little community and it was characterized as a patchwork of "properties" spread around the globe, and the result was that the "portal" became very popular and people flocked to sites like Yahoo! and MSN, and search engines like Live.com and Google. In fact four of the top five Alexa-ranked sites are the four I just named. But things are about to change. Spots six through ten in the Alexa rankings are currently all occupied by community sites (MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia, Hi5, and Orkut).

The Internet is becoming a lot more relationship-focused and Facebook is leading this enablement by treating their site more as a platform. It won't be long before people expect to be able to go to Facebook or their favorite community site and check their e-mail, browse their favorite news items and send text messages while still keeping track of what their friends are up to. These type of integrations will represent the next wave of innovations online. Instead of portals adding community as a feature, the innovation will come from a company like Facebook leading with relationships and then seamlessly integrating tasks and information into the community site in a way that allows people to customize these features to their needs.

My interaction with e-mail is already changing thanks to Facebook. I go onto Facebook to see what people are up to and a news item from one of my friends will trigger a contact, not through my Yahoo! account, but through Facebook. Yahoo! Mail can't provide this kind of contextual prompt. Google tries to achieve some level of this in GMail by showing you who is online for chatting integrated together in the mail window, but I don't know what people are up to. Nothing really sparks my curiosity or my likelihood to contact someone. Why is this important?

Money is allocated in the Internet economy based on the number of page views and the level of engagement. If people suddenly start initiating e-mails on Facebook or browsing classifieds or jobs on Facebook or who knows, maybe even news content, then the money moves with them. What happens if people suddenly stop typing in google.com or live.com directly into their browser and instead search off a widget in Facebook instead that drives revenue Facebook's way?

Facebook not only has the potential to move up the rankings tables, but the revenue tables as well. When you look at this way, Facebook was smart to turn down Yahoo!'s $1 Billion.

So what are the portal players and search engines up to?

Microsoft has Spaces on live.com and is invested in Facebook, Google has Orkut, and Yahoo!, well Yahoo! wanted Facebook but didn't get it and 360 is pretty lame. Now I'm no betting man or industry analyst but I would look for Yahoo! to do a deal in the next six months for a community site at an overinflated price. Facebook is about to overtake Yahoo! in the same way that Yahoo! overtook AltaVista. Now you see why I believe Facebook is going to rule the online world.

What do you think?