People are tired of “Corporate Design”

There are millions of boring websites with the stereotypes of visual imagery.  The visual content is more important than text content!

Increase your expectations from the professionals who help you and ask them to surprise you.

The web is important, but remember: “Mobile first” is vital for 2013. Mobile and tablet solutions have a long way to go before the design and user experience (UX) is fully explored.  Dare to play and explore – But remember, be relevant!

Do not remove attention from the core business.

“A picture tells more than a thousand words!”

What about “crowd sourcing”?

Last year Crowd sourcing was a ‘hip’ word. This year it starts making sense. But what is crowd sourcing and how does it work?

There is plenty of literature, speeches and opinions on the subject to find on the net.

 

To ask your users or other crowds is a great way to get feedback, to help improve your services and products.

And it is really something people want to do: To help you!

Crowd sourcing can provide tremendous value for you, because you have access to potentially a lot of, very motivated and talented people.

Brainstorming and specific proposals can be produced in large numbers and very quickly. Problems can be resolved quickly and you have greater accuracy in terms of being ‘spot on’ market needs.

Innovation, research, entrepreneurial companies are just a few examples of who / how to use crowd sourcing for improving your business or other activities.

One pitfall is if people feel “used” by you instead of happy for being able to help out. My advice is to do your homework before you make your next project a crowd sourcing project.

It’s extremely important to  give proper feedback to all who contribute! Crowd sourcing project is all about you delivering more value to those who helped you, than the effort they gave you!

“The more you give, the more you get back”

Did you attend to a Workshop lately? – Or was it a “cover-up” for yet a meeting?

What is the difference between a meeting and a Workshop? One could argue that a effective meeting is about making decisions between known facts, whereas a workshop is to sort out what is the best options between many yet unknown.

I’m not at all sure if this is a precise enough distinction, you maybe have thought about this.

Workshop methodology is not about the “sticky notes”. There is nothing wrong with  Post It , but there are many more appropriate tools and techniques to bring out creative ideas and possible solutions to problems.

I’ve listed some workshop methods / techniques / exercises I have worked with (Far from  complete as a list, but to inspiration for some of you?)

• Out of the box–  thinking ,moving viewpoint, discover new opportunities

• Brainstorming workshop – get the diversity of ideas up on the table

• Business process reengineering – finding alternative ways to deliver added value

• Kaizen – building lasting change

• Six Thinking Hats – challenge established thought patterns

• SWOT – Analytical approach to a problem put in context

• Benchmarking – comparisons and choices  in a “landscape”

• Scenario Workshop – part of strategy development, where alternative routes are enabled

• “The War Room” workshop – creating artificial crises to promote new decision opportunities

• Incentive workshop – positive involvement and “carrot” principle to produce solutions

• Lego Serious Play – depth understanding and complex problem solving

Taking a course in workshop management is a very good idea, because it is not a mechanical exercise to facilitate workshops. It requires pedagogical skills and that you love to help groups and diverse personalities. One needs to be able to reduce own ego and strengthen others self-esteem and confidence.

Know-how of workshop methodologies and expertise in facilitation of such is important in the context of digital strategy because digitization of most businesses is all about change.

“Several people create more together, than one by one”

Simplicity wins every time

It is really difficult to communicate complex messages in an easy and clear manner.

 

In any event – do just that!

 

 

Keep It Simple Stupid! K.I.S.S.

Advertising just in time

We are “bombarded by messages.” It’s said that we are exposed for 3,500 messages every day. The overload makes us filter out more than 90%. Adverts are messages that are quickly filtered out.

Yet, how great would it be to get the ad you need, just when you need it? Imagine that the sweet deal is there right in time!

In our digital world it becomes more and more possible to formulate messages targeting only those who have a need, where they are and when they want an offer.

Ads can be placed contextual. Commercial messages may be directed to singular users, based upon their behavior. The value of segmentation can easily be increased by geo- location services.

Amazon.com began to do such things long ago. Google and Facebook are also working on this and it is no coincidence that commercials on Facebook is bases on the search terms you have made in Google, and that the ads are tailored to your page profile. They are based on who you are, who your friends are, your interests and what you have done on your PC, or mobile. But all this is still in its infancy.

How much of these techniques are you ready to implement in your company? If your company focuses even more on the information you have about your customers,their actions (“big data”) and utilize this knowledge, you can pinpoint your message to those who want it, to those who are in a specific situation or in a given geographic place.

“Be in the right place with the right offer to the right person”

How do you interact with your online customers?

It may be painful when customers tell you what they think of your company or service. But is it really bad for you? When your customers complain, they are committed and will really like to help you – if you let them!

Feedback is a gift and of great value for your business. Do you let that value go to waste? You may turn negative feedback into: New and better products / services, improved customer service, improved communication, better visibility on the web, adjust what activities you focus on  in various  channels etc. All of this is very complicated and expensive for your business to find out by other means.

Invite and participate in dialogues in all the digital channels your customers are active on.

Make use of what you learn and establish internal systems that pick up knowledge, refine it and take action.

Be grateful for criticism and be thankful towards your customers for the help they give you.

What to pay?

Tell your customers what the prices for your products / services are. It may be cost, time or effort.

You are the only one selling something; the rest of us are buying. A purchase has to be of higher value for the customer than the asking price. Remember to tell the customer what the benefits are. And tell it in simple words.

Focus on the value your customer get, rather than the price tag you set.  

…did you read the tip of 1. and second of December below?

How do I get it?

Your customers needs to find the products / services you offer – do they? Do they understand how to purchase?  Where and whom to contact for more information?

Do you have a map to the store / office shown the opening hours, address, telephone and e mail? Do you have a connector to twitter / facebook pages, etc. visible on the front / landing pages?

Is on- line shopping/ ordering/ reservations/ subscriptions installed on your web  – or even better – via tablet or mobile phone – if not: just do it!

Before you hurry over to the web department: Who is responsible for online sales in your corporation?  Sales are, aren’t they? – including digital channels I presume? If not, why do you expect sales in those channels to happen?

Keep it simple: Provide as many options to buy, order, pay and get in touch with you as possible. Let People choose how, when to interact with your business.

What do you offer your customer?

What is the message  you have for your customers?

First tell your customer what you have to offer them. What problems can you solve for them, what needs you meet.

Do so in short and simple sentences. It is surprising to see so many websites anno 2012 (daily) that doesn’t. To be “fresh” one could suspect digital businesses to be a crowd of narcissists. Why do they talk about themselves?

People prefer a company that not only wants to increase their own profit, but that will do nothing good for you / others / society.

Tell me if you have digital activity that met this demand in a great way.

Beyond advertisement?

The media industries have to increase their revenues and can do so by rethinking why they are in business. Where would that leave the marketing and advertizing business?

The problems for the media industry finding sustainable business models may very well be with the point of view, from where most media companies are trying to solve the problem. In my opinion this problem is a huge challenge also for the marketing/ advertizing business.

Media companies keep asking: “How to monetize on our content?” That is the wrong question.
Content is an expense, not an income. Editorial (or for that matter user generated) content and commercial content are expenditures. It cost time, resources and money to produce.

Lack of innovation in the business of advertizing and marketing?
The advertizing and marketing business have been fortunate enough working in close relationship with the media industry for decades, without a need for innovation for years. Still the majority of activity and commercial approach on-line seems like a “plain” adoption of print. But we have seen that the business is challenged from various angles:

Nike has implemented a GSM chip in their shoes, registering location, running speed and so forth. This combined with an “app” let people get the data of their jogging pattern and enabled them to share this with co-joggers on a community portal called Nike+(2009).

Ford’s social media strategy is surely shifting from traditional advertizing to make use of social media and monitoring behavior “You need to listen, see how they behave and act similarly” (Scott Monty (Head of Social Media)

Musicnodes is a Norwegian start-up that offers contextual placed music for purchase directly (micro payment). This benefit the artist (higher income per sale), the media where it is displayed (income sharing’s for transactions) and the customer, because they can fetch the music they want, in a freemium/premium model by choice.

All three examples threaten traditional revenues from banner ads. All three examples are mostly driven outside of the traditional marketing and advertisement business.

“Don’t try to bend the spoon. Rather imagine there is no spoon!”
With a perspective where the real value is not in the product, but in benefits for users (and brands) gives media (and advertizement) companies an opportunity to rethink what their offer really is. What added value does one provide?

Furthermore it’s worthwhile to (again) ask the board: “What is the purpose of our business?” – Because: “… it’s not profit. Profit is the result of why this company is in business.” (Simon Sinek)

A purpose for a media company could rather be: “To improve the population’s capability to be an active part of democracy, by providing information and knowledge” For the advertisement business it could be: “solve customer problems, when they have them, where they are and in the most convenient way possible”

In other words: A business that improves people’s ability to take part in the public discourse for media companies, and ease the living for people for the advertizing business. With such a renewed perspective media companies and advertisers will have a whole new landscape of how to reach their goals. One can become a content store, an e-publisher or an online (and offline) knowledge centre, in addition to traditional “media activities”. And if media companies start doing their bit, where would that leave the advertising business, if they don’t start re- thinking?

The marketing and advertisement business will have to get in front of the development we see. In short the whole value chains for the media industry are changing. This leaves advertisers no other alternatives than to take control over the situation and increase their product/ service line far beyond what they used to do.

Cultivate knowledge about your users!
Media companies and the marketing and advertizing business should look closer at what values they are able to create from cultivating knowledge about their users. If so, media companies will be enabled to provide contextual, specific, targeted editorial products to their (singular) users/ commercial customers (brands), in all the channels available: Broadcast, print, web, “pads” and mobile phones. The marketing and advertizing business would get the opportunity to implement a whole new way of doing their business.

This is one way of making use of the term: “Big data“. The more knowledge there is about customers, the more one can monetize on that knowledge.

The key question is: What is the knowledge about our users profile, behavior, actions and location worth, -and for whom? The answers will have to go far beyond content presentation, subscription and advertising models only. “Social media” activities and believing that the “mobile revolution” will be the “savior” is at best a naive approach.

Both the media industry and the marketing/advertising business have to totally change their perspective from where the real values are made and how to monetize on knowledge about their users, far beyond traditional segmentation. They need to know what their customers’ needs and desires are (even before the customers know themselves), and to be able to deliver the answers in the channel/ device at the right time to the right person. The mass market is gone forever. We now have to be able to deliver superb services and products that solve individual, personal felt problems instantly. Tomorrows media companies have to become more than “digital news / entertainment portals? The marketing and advertisement companies that don’t have the answers will have a hard time surviving the next decade.

Who do you believe that will be the ones”owning” the value of customer insight the next decade? The media industry or the advertisement industry?

Måling av effekt i digitale kanaler og sosiale medier

Samtalene omkring «effekt» i digitale kanaler og SoMe (sosiale medier) er preget av forvirring, båstenking og til dels manglende kompetanse. I tillegg skal det sies at det også brytes ny mark og at det er ukjente faktorer som gjør det å påstå at det generelt er etablert en «best practice» blir direkte feil.

Ved å arbeide med måling av effekt i sosiale medier, kan man likevel gjøre mye med velprøvde metoder. Eksemplet i denne bloggartikkelen er fra et markedsføringsperspektiv og hentet fra en rapport av Forrester.  («Three steps to measuring social media marketing» 2009) jeg skal beskrive noe av innholdet og tanker omkring den.

«ROI» i sosiale kanaler er ikke så mystisk og spesielt som det kan virker som mange tenker. La oss bruke det kjente kvalitativt, før vi beveger oss ut i det ukjente!

Det er alltid vanskelig å si to ting på en gang, men jeg forsøker:
1) Det finnes kjente metoder som bør brukes i sammenheng med aktiviteter i digitale kanaler. Det er kjent metodikk som fungerer bra innenfor strategi, forretningsutvikling, innovasjonsprosesser, markedsføring, salg og markedsføring. Det er etablert god kompetanse på teknologier for internett infrastruktur, web, telecom osv. Videre er det mye kunnskap om integrasjoner med IT fagsystemer og forretningssystemer.
2) Det er, etter min mening, for lite vilje / evne i bransjen(e) å samarbeide på tvers av disse kompetansefeltene. Det er det internt i virksomheter – og det er det på leverandørsiden.

Overordneet om Return of Investment (ROI) i digitale kanaler.
Å skulle måle «ROI» ut fra ett sett parameter og èn metode er et absurd utgangspunkt. Rett og slett fordi målsetninger for aktiviteter er forskjellige. Det er stor forskjell på en statlig virksomhets målsetninger innenfor f.eks.et vidt spekter av kulturtiltak (G2C), en virksomhet som selger varer til konsumenter (B2C) og en virksomhet som leverer komplekse produkt/tjenester i et globalt forretningsperspektiv (B2B)

Vi er alle enige om at tilslutt er det man ønsker å oppnå er en gevinst i form av reduserte kostnader og/eller økt gevinst. Men ofte er det slik at når noen påstår at tiltak X ble gjennomført på eks. web, ga det kr. X i resultat på virksomhetens topp/bunnlinje, har man ikke dekning for påstanden! Det er mange faktorer som spiller inn og som oftest har man ikke tatt disse med i betraktningen. Eks. om man har regnet seg frem til at man har spart 10.000 timer i en større organisasjon årlig – på å forbedre søk og redusert tid på å finne rett informasjon – og mener kan måle “effektiviseringsgrad” og kroner og øre i ettertid. Har man da spart 10.000 timer X timelønn? Man har jo ikke det, dersom de ansatte omsetter denne «sparte tiden» til å tvinne tommeltotter. Denne type «regnestykker» er det for mye av – og virksomheter – og leverandører må bli bedre!

Måle effekt i sosiale medier?
La oss se på «problembarnet»: Sosiale medier. Hvordan måle effekt?
Det første man bør spørre seg er «hvorfor det?» Hvis man ikke vet hvorfor man skal måle en gitt effekt, vil arbeidet i beste fall bli tilfeldig og resultatet uvisst. I verste fall vil kostnaden ved arbeidet ødelegge for gevinstrealiseringen. Det neste man åpenbart må spørre seg er: Hva er “effekt” og hvilken “effekt” er det man vil måle? Det høres enkelt ut, men prøv å still spørsmålene og se hvor mange svevende svar man får. Akseptable svar på spørsmålene overfor MÅ være konkrete!

Forresterrapporten jeg nevnte i starten påstår bl.a. følgende:

• Markedsførere måler ikke den sanne effekten av sosiale medietiltak
• Det måles ikke ut fra hvilken hensikt man ønsker å oppnå, snarere ut fra hvilke teknologi/ måleinstrument man har for hånden.
• Man innhenter en rekke forskjellige type statistisk materiale som ikke kan brukes til å tolke resultat ut fra den hensikten man ønsket å oppnå og får derved feilaktige resultat.

Jeg vil gjerne legge til en påstand –  at man ikke utnytter sosiale medier med tiltak de er egnet til, men fortsetter med «tradisjonelle tiltak» – men det må nesten bli en annen bloggartikkel å gå inn i.

Forresterrapporten fortsetter med å beskrive en rekke feil som gjøres – som fører til en rekke feilslutninger som blir for langt å gå inn på her.

Kategorier
Det foreslås i rapporten å definere «effekt av sosiale markedsføringstiltak» basert på seks kategorier:

1. Utbredelse, beskriver hvor langt og til hvor mange ditt budskap når.
2. Gjennomslagskraften, beskriver hvordan ditt sosiale medietiltak forandrer kundens handling og/ eller holdning.
3. Volum av deltakelse, beskriver hvor mange som interagerer med ditt budskap.
4. Kvaliteten på deltakelse, beskriver styrken og dybden av kundens interaksjon med ditt sosiale medietiltak
5. Volum av energi, beskriver hvor mange kunder som snakker om selskapet og/ eller produkt/  tjenester.
6. Kvaliteten på energien, beskriver hva slags type holdninger kundene gir utrykk for i sine engasjement og hvilken innflytelse dette har overfor andre kunder igjen.

Verktøy og metoder
Konkrete verktøy vil, basert på denne type tenkning kunne inneha en matrise hvor en måler en rekke faktorer som eksempelvis : Økt andel deltakere, mengde deltakere, salg som er direkte generert, konverteringsrate, registrerte leads, økt merkekjennskap, volum av brukergenerert innhold, total av nye kundekontakter, click- rate, forandring i antall kundesenter/ supporthenvendelser, netto antall promoteringer, tilfang av nye produktideer/forbedringer, antall i kundes kontaktnett(påvirkningsgrad),  økning i brukergenerert innhold(kommentnarfelt, polls etc) på egne websider m.m., volum i videreformidlet budskap (linking, RT osv.)

Den andre aksen av matrisen vil kunne inneholde elementer som: Lytter, snakker/skriver, bruker energi (på å linke etc.), støtter og omfavner. Disse elementene beskriver type og styrke i «engasjement»

Videre må man vekte de forskjellige parameterne ut fra hvilken hensikt man ønsket å oppnå. Man må gjøre vurderinger av hvilken verdi de forskjellige parameterne har for å kunne definere suksess. Kompleksiteten blir ofte så stor at man mister hensikten av syne. Det kan være fornuftig å velge EN av suksessfaktorene under:

• Lytter: Fokusere på kvaliteten på energi
• Snakker: Fokusere på utbredelse og gjennomslagskraft
• Bruker energi: Fokuser på volum og kvalitet på energi
• Støtter: Fokuser på kvalitet på deltakelse og gjennomslagskraft
• Omfavner: Fokuser på kvalitet i deltakelse.

Det er en rekke tradisjonelle verktøy som er anvendbare for å måle og tolke svar på denne type metodisk tilnærming, og man må sette sammen og benytte forskjellige verktøy – målrettet. Man må regne med å leve med svakhetene slike verktøy har og man kan ikke love eksakte svar. Effekt av markedsføring er ikke (kun) matematikk!

Måle på riktige steder
Forslagene som jeg refererer til fra Forrester er bare en del av rapporten/ artikkelen. Ett annet aspekt er hvor måler man hva?  Twitter er kanskje ikke det stedet man måler antall salg? Det er derfor viktig å vurdere hvilke målinger som gjøres hvor.

Jeg kan jo nevne noen typiske kanaler/ plattformer hvor det vil være forskjellige målebehov. (noe som også illustrerer hvor kompleks område «sosiale medier» er)

• Sosiale nettverk som Facebook, datingtjenester, linkedin etc. etc.
• Blogger, som wordpress, blogg.no nettavisblogger, brukeres egne blogg domener osv.
• Twitter
• Brandede communities, som Nike’s , debattforum, temamagasiner, nettaviser,  etc.
• Egne: webtjenester, blogger, FAQ, kommentarfelt, chat, support/kundeløsninger
• Video/ fototjenester som Youtube, virale video/ foto delingstjenester som Flickr
• Widgets og Apps

Her er bare noen eksempler – Listen er lang.

Det er mye nytt å forholde seg til i digitale kanaler og sosiale medier, men det er sannelig mye velkjent å begynne å bruke bedre også.

“Endringspakker” ikke “krisepakker” !

Urolige finansmarkeder vil påvirke Norge. ”Alle” forteller oss dette. Her forskjellige eksempler: DN, E24, Dagbladet, Aftenposten, NRK, New York Times, osv.

Noen lukker øynene og håper at vi ikke får en ny krise, andre sier at den allerede er her. Krisepakkene som ble delt ut i forrige runde var ikke tilstrekkelige og man er nå redd for at det ikke finnes flere løsninger og vi bare må ta det som nå kommer.

For å møte finansuroen må både offentlig og privat sektor mobilisere. Det er mye kunnskap og kompetanse å hente fra IT og internettbransjen. Økt digitaliseringstakt vil gi kostnadsreduksjoner, effektiviseringsgevinster og mulighet til å organisere seg mer fornuftig. Bruk den kompetansen.

IKT bransjen har også mye kompetanse og erfaring innenfor innovasjon, endringsprosesser, nye tjenester, produkter og betalingsmodeller osv. Her kan IKT bransjen tilføre mye, hurtig. Politikere og økonomer må finne raske og hensiktsmessige grep som kan dempe de problemer som vil komme i kjølvannet av krisen. Da må det offentlige tydelig vise hva det er vi vil, hvor vi skal, slik at tiltakene blir målrettet.

Vil vi forsøke å opprettholde dagens system og ”redde” bank og finansinstitusjonene og sende regningen til befolkningen som sist? Vil man restrukturere måten vi organiserer og kontrollerer økonomi, slik at vi ikke ender opp i finanskriser hvor de ansvarlige ”slipper unna”? Peter Warren beskriver hvordan han mener ting henger sammen i sin blog.

Det er på tide at staten legger mye bedre til rette for at næringsliv og offentlige etater gis mulighet til endring. Vi kan ikke flikke på systemene. Nå vi må tilrettelegge for omveltninger og radikale forbedringer.

Vi trenger ikke ”krisepakker”! – Vi trenger ”endringspakker”!
Etater og næringsliv må gjøre de grepene de kan lokalt i egne virksomhet. Mye av dette vil selvsagt handle om å spare, redusere og å effektivisere. Samtidig vet vi at de som vil være styrket i etterkant av en krise, er de som våget å endre seg og våget å bygge for fremtiden. Det vil si de som våget å innovere.

Det snakkes mye om kundefokus, dialog med kunder og brukere, involvering, utnyttelse av sosiale medier osv. og ikke minst nytenkning. Dette kan IKT bransjen og digitale forretningsutviklere mye om: Hvordan digitale kanaler kan utnyttes for å oppnå kostnadseffektivitet og gi aksess til større markeder enn ellers. Hva som er realistisk? Hva markedene trenger? Hvilke satsningsområder er viktigst? Hvilke tiltak gir raskest gevinst?

Dersom vi kan levere tjenester og produkter som gir større fordeler for kjøperne vinner vi. Aktørene i markedet, dvs. kjøpere velger alltid de produktene og de tjenestene som gir dem størst fordeler. Dette gjelder for kjøpmannen på hjørnet, så vel som for store internasjonale aktører.

Trygghet og stabilitet er en fordel i urolige tider. Tilgang er en fordel, fordelaktig pris, kvalitet er en fordel. Dette er egenskaper ved tjenester og produkter vi må prioritere.

Dersom vi i Norge kan tilføre oss selv og også i andre deler av verden tjenester og produkter som hever folks levestandard, helsetilstand osv. vil vi bidra til en forbedret verden hvor risikoen for nye økonomiske kriser reduseres.

Derimot: Om staten velger ”redningspakker” og finansakrobatene slipper unna enda en gang ( se dette omdiskuterte intervjuet med en trader fra BBC ) forsterkes krisen ved at samtlige av oss mister troen på det politiske system og kapitalkreftene .

Dersom staten våger å gi tydelige signaler om at det er ”endringspakker” som er et av de viktigste virkemidlene, vil hver og en av oss med ideer samle oss og utvikle nye små og store løsninger som gir oss trygghet og leveranseevne gjennom og etter krisen.

Staten har nå en unik mulighet til å invitere hele Norge og internasjonale miljøer til den største ”Crowd- sourcing”  og ”Social Business” happeningen i historien. Grip den!

Oppdatert (link over): “BBC intervjuet mulig bløff?“

Næringslivet kan forbedre verdiskapingen ved bruk av digitale kanaler.

Norsk næringsliv har mye å hente på å øke digitaliseringstakten, men jeg er usikker på om ledere i norske virksomheter er fullt ut klar over at de egentlig vet mye om hva og hvordan ting skal gjøres også i digitale kanaler.

IKT undersøkelsen fra SSB viser, om man leser den litt grundig, at det er kun 25% av norske virksomheter som bruker digitale kanaler virksomhetskritisk. Det vil si bruker internett og lignende som sentrale virkemidler for å oppnå forbedret forretningsdrift. Tallene er riktignok fra 2010 men noe radikalt er neppe endret siden i fjor.

Det blir fort veldig abstrakt å snakke om disse tingene. Konsulentbransjen gjør det ikke enklere med alle sine tre-bokstavsforkortelser. ”Internettfolk” har etter min mening ikke fokusert særlig på de forretningsmessige aspektene, eller kanskje det er mangel på forretningsmessig kunnskap eller vilje til å snakke om det som egentlig betyr noe for virksomhetene?

I Norge burde vi være spesielt interessert i dette temaet. Vi er et høykostland. Kronen er for tiden veldig sterk (les dyr). Vi er et lite land som trenger økte eksportmuligheter av varer og tjenester. Og samfunnsmessig er det viktig å være bevisst at oljen ikke varer evig. Folk er ”overmodne” og etterspør digitale tjenester og digitale muligheter for å forenkle deres liv. Vi er i verdens toppsjikt i bruk av PC, lesebrett og mobil.

Likevel er det slik, om vi skal tro SSB at 75% av norske bedrifter ennå ikke benytter internett, eller andre digitale muligheter til å forbedre effektivitet eller øke sine markedsmuligheter, enda det da er åpenbart enkelt å oppnå forbedringer.

Spørsmålene som først må besvares for å sikre en hensiktsmessig bruk av internett og andre digitale kanaler er i retning av dette:
• Hva er din kjernevirksomhet og hvor mye av den er reflektert i din bedrifts digitale aktiviteter? (Aktivitet? Omsetning? Kostnadsbesparende tiltak?)
• Av dine kostnader, hvilke kan en enklest redusere ved å erstatte med digitale løsninger? (Printkostnader? Utsendelse av brev, digitale bestillingsmuligheter for å redusere lagerkostnader, Manuelle prosesser i organisasjonen som kan automatiseres ved selvbetjeningsløsninger og derved spare tidsbruk osv. osv.)
• Av din virksomhets inntekter, hvilke kan økes ved å nå markedet lettere, og ved å nå nye markeder? (Hvilke elementer i din virksomhet kan gi dine kunder forbedret aksess til dine produkter og tjenester? Hvilke elementer i din virksomhet kan tilbys i nye markeder? osv. osv.)
• Hvilke ubenyttede muligheter kan gi økte inntekter? (Har dine produkter og tjenester tilgrensende produkter og tjenester som burde være en del av kundetilbudet og hvilke bør man tilby? Kan man endre egenskaper ved produktene og tjenestene slik at de er mer markedstilpasset og lettere kan tilbys direkte eller indirekte gjennom digitale kanaler? Vil man kunne øke markedsaksessen ved å inngå allianser med andre suksessfulle aktører i digitale kanaler? osv. osv.)
• Hvordan kan man bruke digitale kanaler som salgskanaler innenfor ditt virksomhetsfelt?
• Hvilke markedsaktiviteter benyttes i dag? (Hvilke markedsføringstiltak fungerer best i digitale kanaler? Hvor mye gjøres i dag? Hvilke effekt kan man oppnå ved strukturert flerkanal og multikanaltiltak? osv.)
• Hvordan beregner man gevinsten av bedriftens omdømmebygging? (I hvilke digitale kanaler er dere og hvorfor? Hva kan forbedres? Hvordan vil man måle effekten? osv.)
• Kan organisasjonen arbeide mer effektivt ved bruk av digitale kanaler? (lønnskostnader er ofte en av de største kostnadene i virksomheter, besparelser her vil kunne gi stor effekt på årsresultatet. Redusert tidsbruk for å finne informasjon for å løse oppgaver, forenklede prosedyrer og administrasjonsoppgaver, automatiseringer av rutiner, redusert reisetid, møtetid osv. er typiske forbedringspunkter. Et sentralt spørsmål er: Har resultatansvarlige i virksomheten ansvar for aktiviteter i digitale kanaler, eller er dette overlatt til kommunikasjonsansvarlige i virksomheten?)
• Ved å endre forretningsmodeller, vil man da kunne øke inntektene?

Dersom man som næringsdrivende ikke er villig til å gjøre endringer og besvare spørsmål som de ovenfor, tror jeg rett og slett ikke at man er næringsdrivende om relativt få år.

Det er egentlig ikke stor forskjell på tradisjonell forretningsdrift og digital forretningsdrift. Digitalisering handler om å flytte elementer av kjernevirksomheten eller endre dens innhold fra den måten man har pleid å gjøre ting på til en ny måte å gjøre ting på slik at man oppnå ønsket effekt. Det er noen forskjeller som handler om virkemidler og utøvelse men la nå ikke det stå i veien for å gjøre det viktigste grepet riktig:

– Skaff deg hjelp til å få sortert det du allerede kan og få orden på forretningen din!

Network economy and digital economy are inseparable

The concept of a digital economy emerged in the late nineties. Nicholas Negroponte (1995)  used a metaphor of shifting from moving  atoms to moving bits.

With the globalization, increased mobilization, decreasing economies in the western world and the position the Internet  a digital economy have emerged. A network economy in combination with a digital economy is not limited to business trading and services only. It encompasses every aspect of life from health to education, from business to social awareness and geopolitical changes.  We have all become eCitizens.

How does this influence how we do business? The customer base is the company’s you are able to connect to and provide value for. -No connections, no values.- We are moving from an industrial economy (now fading out) into a network- /Internet- /digital economy. (That has started to fade in). Stewart Brand points out that commerce is being accelerated by the digital and network revolutions and that the role of commerce is to both exploit and absorb these shocks.

Open economy
This means that there are a lot of things that need to change, rapidly if one want to take part in, and conduct business into the near future. In network economies one party doesn’t control the value chain, property- and copy rights are under pressure, the drop of production and distribution costs reduces the prices one can charge and put profit creation under stress. Information and knowledge, products and services aren’t scares resources anymore. “Everything has become commodity”. You need to know how to provide added value for something that’s free and you need to know what is considered value for your customers.

Relations / networks are pairs of the main assets for enabling added value for customers. Knowing how to create added value for customers creates an economic flow where we have the opportunity for a fair share of the value created.

Decentralized organization
In a network economy it’s vital that the decisions are made as far out in the organization as possible. One important reason for this is the “need for speed”, if we aren’t able to decide quickly enough, our customer have no need for us. Their need is to be dynamic, and rapid towards their markets, and shifts in them. We cannot afford to report “to base, await a decision and act when we finally have a go – no-go from HQ. Not only is the network and relations we build our selves the sum of our network economy, also our customers network and relations are of value for us, since we have the possibility to take part in their networks. The relations our customers have between themselves are added values for us and increase the opportunities we have.

The elements of network economy
So what are the parts these kinds of networks consist of?  First it’s the customer which is the core of all business. It shouldn’t be necessary to name it, but surprisingly often a firm forgets this simple fact. Secondly it’s your partners. Partners are other companies that contribute to add value for the customer, either directly with you, or indirectly in some manner. In any event, you should look upon these entities as partnerships. Thirdly you will need “Node Management”. A node is the connection points where the network/ relations are interconnected. The last, but most important element in the chain of a network economy is the services and products delivered, implemented and maintained. This is typically consultants, experts and solution implementers.

Node Management
The Node manager’s task is to develop and grow relations and networks relevant for the customers and the firm the Node Manager is working for. The needed skills for a Node manager is, beside having excellent social skills, to have deep and real insight in the challenges the customers are facing and providing the correct means to convert those challenges into added value for the customer. A Node Manager needs to have a profound understanding of how network economies and digital economies work because this are fundamentals for solving customers challenges in the present and the future.

Do we need the firm?
The connection to the firm needs to be strong and have clear objectives to benefit from the creation of value and accumulate the gained knowledge from the ongoing processes at the customers. This is where the economic flow is ensured for the firm.

The “Hub”
The focal point for the firm is to establish itself as a “Hub”. On the one side the “Hub” need to “depersonalize” relations and networks in order to “secure” the value of the network and make it independent from a singular person.  On the other hand the “Hub” needs to provide Node Mangers, consultants, experts and solution implementers with added value. Employees need to see the benefits for them otherwise they could might as well be self employed.

The “Hub” needs to be able to provide day to day assistance, have all the assets a given project needs and can direct partners, skilled people, information, know-how and administrative support, easily to the one with a need in order to solve a customer project rapidly.

The elements for the firm are to offer added value for the employees: Excellent collaboration options, extended networks and partnerships, collective awareness of customer needs and collective insights in customer’s challenges. In addition the “Hub” needs to create and maintain a brand that is attractive, that signalize a culture where working for a better environment and a better world is the essence. In short this is the replacement of what was defined as “the production apparatus” (“means”) in the industry economy era.

UPDATE : Read what Capgemini Consulting says here

Wikileaks is a test of our democracies in the digital era

It’s disturbing what happens with Wikileaks and how governments worldwide react. Lately it’s Twitter that’s “under attach”, as these two articles from the Guardian and Telegraph points out.

To me it seems like politicians, governments and bureaucrats worldwide are seriously perplexed and mislead by their own fear.

Can leaks be stopped?
Politicians and governments does everything in their power to stop Wikileaks, including putting pressure on Twitter and also major private corporations, such as Visa, PayPal, Apple, Bank of America, Amazon.com and other companies running server parks around the world.

It’s like they haven’t realized that the Internet is here. There are no ways to stop the digital era and the spread of information such as misuse of power,  except for one thing: Act within the national and international laws, be transparent, embrace the ethic and moral standards we are so proud of in the western societies. Then there will be no need for fear of scandals.

Why attack Wikileaks?
The central question is really this: If Wikileaks didn’t exist, would confidential material still have been published? My bet is – yes it would, and I may add – it should! All material that has a public interest should be published.

Wikileaks is nothing but a mediator. The leaks have come, as it always has, from whistle-blowers with access and motifs, not all of them noble. The only new is the amount of revealed documents and secrets. More than 250 000 documents is said to be in the hands of Wikileaks, only a few thousand documents have been revealed to the public, and most likely even fewer published in the news till now.

Why refuse to comment on the leaks?
What is a radical trend is that governments in several cases refuse to comment on revealed information because it’s a leak via Wikileaks (mark: Wikileaks is NOT a source- it’s a mediator) this statement from the Norwegian foreign affairs is an example:

“- We are generally reluctant to comment on internal reports that are published by WikiLeaks and believe that such leaks are unfortunate. Confidential communications and contacts are a vital and necessary part of diplomacy,”“said Imerslund.”

Even the United Nations officials refuses to comment on Wikileaks revealed news:

“The United Nations says it will not comment on documents leaked by the whistle-blowing website, Wikileaks.” The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, also declined to comment on the documents.

The real problem
This is not only clumsy; it’s a democratic problem of dimensions! Shouldn’t we not take leaks like the killings of journalists in Iraq, the leaks concerning the Israeli Government and their strategy towards Gaza and a lot of other dramatic facts seriously  because it came from the mediator Wikileaks?  And shouldn’t we all worry when the US department of justice issued a subpoena against Twitter to obtain personal details of five individuals connected to Wikileaks? (Including a member of the parliament of Iceland!) – And even worse, have tried to keep it all secret! People are now starting to question whether Facebook, Google or others have been ordered the same kind of subpoenas.

This article by Jon Wessel Aas in the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen explains excellently a wide range of reasons why Wikileaks have to be defended. Of course we should get worried, and we should embrace that we have a very powerful information flow via the Internet, that we still have a well functioning critical media that dares to reveal what goes on behind the curtains of power.

A dilemma
On the other hand there is a dilemma with Wikileaks. They seem to want to control the publishing of the leaks. Sarah Ellison wrote an article in the Vanity fair about Julian Assanges meeting with the Guardian concerning who is to control publishing of secrets from the Wikileak files. To me it’s the amount of secret content, unclear motifs and that one small organization have the control of what, where and when to publish that represent a major democratic problem. I think that media organizations have spent very little time, up till recently, discussing this aspect. This seems to have been resolved by the ironic fact that Wikileaks themselves had a leak – according to the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. Another aspect is that other whistle- blowing sites are popping up according to Wall Street Journal. This makes the dilemma with Wikileaks less troublesome.

” The spirit is out of the oil lamp”
Politician’s and governments have no choice anymore.. Refusing to comment on allegations is not the answer. Whistle- blower websites aren’t going to go away. It has become radically more difficult to keep secrets. The Internet is a part of the digital era. It is great news for the democracy and terrifying for those who act behind the scenes with hidden agendas and “ugly motifs”. This new global transparency and speed of sharing information will hopefully help reducing corruption, genocide, global governmental mismanagement and a lot of other kinds of abuse of power from people, organizations and nations with substantial power. My advice to politicians, governments and officials is to act pro- actively, answer openly and willingly to allegations and to take serious and swift actions to correct faults made. Otherwise it’s our democracy that’s at stake, and the one to blame will in fact be our own politicians and governments.

Its iPad day, what to do?

For those of you reading my blog for some time you know my opinions. It’s complicated! During the next weeks we will have ‘euphoria – of some kind; the iPad will be released in Norway. The dilemma is that we all “love” the:  The ipod, the iphone and now the iPad. On the other hand we don’t. Nobody wants to be situated inside the pocket of someone, being without control.

This is happening on many levels now, for the end user and for unwilling ‘partners’ of the ‘Apple Empire’. Look Here for an article of the journalists “dilemma” when the iPad is on its way to Norway.

Apple has become too much, for those of us watching what they do. The Brand of being an underdog, a fighting power – is lost. This is not what  people seem to think of Apple anymore. What we see of Apple now is too much wealth, too much arrogance, and that they are acting out of what is reckoned to be accepted behavior.

Norwegians still loves the product, despite the fact that we have been neglected for more than a half year; Norwegians have bought their iPads abroad (50.000  purchased items is a guess – and the total population of the whole of Norway is only 5 mill people). It’s not only the product, the reading list, it’s the concept we love. We love the freedom, to be on the move, the simplicity, the ability to read, listen, watch and act, write, communicate in the one and same device. Norwegians loves Apple, Apple might not show the same affection toward Norwegians?

This creates a dilemma; should we embrace Apple once more, or should we react on the fact that Apple controls the freedom of speech? – by controlling whom, what, and how an editorial product should look, and what it may contain. Should we become angry of the cost of the device, the profit Apple have decided that it will collect from the content providers of the world?( Apple demand 30% of the brto. Sales price, hardly without any costs.)

You and I, as citizens, want freedom, content producers want to be capable of living from their trade, and media houses want to continue playing their role. The acts of Apple over the last years shows me just one thing; They want to become even more filthy rich (it seems), and shows no interests for the world at all, beside enriching their stock holders even more. This is not a sustainable business model into the future. Providing consumers and partners with nothing thing else than what will end up being seen as a rip off, aren’t. This is not what the people of the world wanted from Apple in the first place. This is not what the people in the world would like Apple to be – for the world.

Nevertheless, under the Christmas trees in the western world, and in Norway, there will be a huge amount of iPads, for fathers, for mothers and for teenagers. The content we can purchase, there will be a bitter ( but still) purchased order put to the Apple system. I just don’t think it will last for long. Very soon the boomerang will hit Apple. My hope is that the structure of the free Internet didn’t die along the route of greed. (take a look on this related blog posting of the possible death of the free Internet )

Social Media in a [business] perspective

Social Media is such a new term, that I reject the possibility that there already could exist something that could be said to be a “Social Media guru. “ There is no such thing!  You have to sort it out for yourself, and for your business

If you are a manager, or need to get your manager or customers to understand why one should get involved with Social Media activities, this blog posting might come handy. (a PPT presentation HERE) Maybe the buzz word itself might stand in the way to understand how to make business in Social Media? Social Media have had a sound to it that gives the associations towards the social aspect, as if that is a waste of time in a business context, yet another “cocktail party?” Another way of phrasing it might help to give a different immediate association: How to benefit from making the most out of “Relational Business” – is this going to improve the revenue streams, it this something the executive board would like to listen to?

We are all online. There’s a huge amount of statistics showing the mass of people being occupied in these Social Media, and I’ll not bore you with too much statistics. (if you want more THIS youtube video should be ‘it’ ) The important bit is to understand that in order to reach out to your audience, to the market you needed to be where they are and communicate in the language they are speaking. In Norway almost 2/3 of all Internet users (a penetration that’s approximately 85% of the population) are visiting and engaging in the popular community Facebook, weekly. That gives a huge market reach in the small nation of Norway. (Facebook has  2.262.820 registered members in Norway!  Youtube (1.637.178), Wikipedia (1.508.333) and Twitter (228.444) to name a few. (source TNS Gallup, Interbuss Q2, 2010)

The Native Internet generation is going offline? Another research from Germany is very interesting (Spiegel.de).  The research tells us that “The Native Internet generation” is logging off! What? Logging off the internet?  – Well not quite so, but it shows that young people that have never lived without the Internet aren’t interested in it at all; It’s become; just a part of life – nothing to talk about. The time spent in digital media is still high and it’s very clear where their interests are. It’s to be involved with friends and their network, on- or offline. Being “online or offline” is an absurd term for them. Being in contact with their friends isn’t. The youth have Internet internalized, that means that it’s taken for granted. It also means that social relations and entertainment are more relevant terms for them. At the same time youngsters aren’t as digital competent as we might believe. How to gather information, or increase their level of knowledge, filter or evaluate, isn’t something they neither are competent nor interested in.  From a business perspective, this is valuable information, indeed. It means that services, and offerings toward people that want to relate, that want to have easy answers without having to struggle, not to have to interpret the possible values, most likely will be the kind of offerings that will be preferred – internalized,” invisible” services.

Does this mean that Social Media have changed the rules of business – forever? I think yes, and no at the same time. I’ll give you a couple of concepts that are typical for what we will see a lot of the next months and coming years.  – All new cars got an installed GPS these days, to help us navigate. We all have cell phones, some even synchronized with a cell phone device in the car. This means I have knowledge of who you are, and where you are. In other words I know the demographics, and I know your location. Furthermore, the new cars have a car computer, to help the service and maintenance of the car. This means that I know the state of your car, how much gas there is on your gas tank, and for how long the car has been moving. By this I can assume some desires you as a driver might have, even before you think of it yourself. (Remember what I said about the native internet generation? Their internalized relation to the internet, make them expect to be connected and that they are in touch and have their needs fulfilled without having to search and actively find out things by themselves) By combining the information I have ( in this example) I can provide syndicated solutions, options to solve unmet, and sometimes unconscious needs. In this example; to give you (on the screen of your GPS, or voice) the information of how little gas you have left, and suggest that you stop at “your” gas station (since I know what relation you – or rather your membership gasoline company card – have to which gasoline company). At the same time, I know that you have been on the road for almost four hours, and could benefit of some food. What I just set up is a Relational Business concept by syndicating existing solutions, providing target advertisement, Contextual and behavioral marketing. Another example could be “The internet connected running shoes.” No- it’s not science fiction, it’s there, ready to implement. – With a GSM, GPS and USB / wireless in your running shoes Nike/ Addidas or competitors easily can provide added value to their existing communities. By the way, it’s more likely that it would be marketed as: “The shoe with the chip that connects you”. In addition to being connected to an online training club, you can let your shoe “find” people to run along with, in the park (more fun to run with someone, than alone) The shoe can give you a hint, when it’s time to replace them with a new pair. Most likely you can subscribe to a rescue / insurance service that will find you if you go missing, while hiking. To be able to adjust the shoes sole pressure, depending on which surface you are running on to ensure that you don’t harm your feet, and also this set of connected shoes will be able to transfer the information  about your running sessions to the Nike/ Addidas training club.

New value chains, or reorganizing the ones we have? What does this Relational Business, or Social Media as we have labeled it till now, do to other parts of the larger value chain? Newspapers used to be a distribution channel for advertisements. Newspapers experience a decreasing market of maybe as much as 10 – 20% drops in annual subscription revenues, 10- 30% in annual advertisement revenues. In the digital environment news organizations have only been able to “take back” this by approximately 5%.  Along the value chain this also effect the companies dealing with advertisement, commercials and public relation, due to the fact that they have kept the traditional concepts of marketing and tried to “transfer” print advertisement business models into the digital environment.( read more about future advertisement, by Helge Tennø, HERE) about marketing in the digital environment) In the end this have resulted in corporations lost opportunities; reduced sales opportunities, and marketing effects. Everyone sees this and is trying to find solutions, and answers to the fact that the world have moved from a mass communication form to a communication form between the masses.

Show me the money? Surprisingly few are talking about, or explaining how to build the business cases for Social Media – or Relational Business as I prefer to define it. Everyone seems to think that it’s something “new”, we have to find – or “New economy” as the buzz word was back in the Dot.com years. Other people are sitting still, hoping this is yet another Hype, and that everything will come back to “normal” again. As I mentioned, I believe it’s a – yes, and no.  Establishing sustainable business models and business cases for Social Media (– sorry –): Relational Business is like building any other business case where you have to follow the rules of the game you are in. And the rules of Relational Business are those of the internet!

ROI of Social Media The participants (customers) on Social Media channels, communities and the internet itself have stated (from the Cone 2008 Business in Social Media study fact sheet) that they would like companies to provide problem solving options (virtual customer services), they want to be able to give solicit feedback (fan pages, branded sites) and they want new ways to interact with brands. Nothing comes for free, Peter Kim / Business communication group. LLC, 2010, puts it this way: “while Social Media technologies seem to scale ok, “the programs – especially those with a labor-intensive component – don’t.” “There’s no real shortcut when it comes to holding authentic personal dialogues. That’s the point.” It will require a shift in how to use human resources in order to benefit from a Relational Business focus. In corporations, sales, marketing, support and call centre functions, Business intelligence, analytic personnel and so forth will have to act differently and get different work tasks done in their everyday life, much of it will be online activities. Advertisement companies, the news and broadcasting industry also will have to change in accordance to this, due to the fact that all are part of the same larger value chain, where the market have moved toward new arenas. Depending on what you want to achieve, each separate area /goal of business needs will demand their specific business cases. Some will follow the set up for a sales business case, others for increasing efficiency along the value chain.  To show how radical the organizational change might have to be this might give you an idea:

Some of the activities you want to establish, might not have enough material, knowledge “best practice” and so forth, to enable you to build a “classical business case”;  in that case – don’t! I would suggest that you make an audit of the situation today. This status is going to be used to evaluate success/ no result/ negative result in accordance to the goals you set up. Then take the three, four best “guestimates” of ideas and concept that you want to test. Measure effects during your test period, frequently. And stop the project if you start becoming sure that it won’t lead to the desired result. This effective, rapid development method, ensure that you quickly adapt to facts gathered during a testing phase. Keep in mind, some concepts doesn’t give positive results as quickly as you might wish for. Be realistic, and give your “babies” a fair chance! When doing something new – testing and failing is essential and every “failure” is of value – it help you from continuously doing the wrong thing. Another tip, ensure you have someone outside your organization watching what you are doing. It could be a mentor, a coach, a consultancy firm, just anybody you prefer, if they are able to help you “kill your darlings”, ask you the uncomfortable questions, and give you positive feedback along the road. Organizations have a tendency to look at everything from inside ( and not the point of view your customers have),keep to “old habits”, and by that being less able to act differently,  staff also have a tendency to provide uncritical answers, due to the fact that their job and success factors depend on the managements thoughts of them and so forth.  

Is there really anything new here? As I’ve said before; people haven’t changed much the past 28.000 years. It’s really not likely that people will do so the next coming few years either. The marketplace, such as the Farmers market has been around, most likely since we started farming. There is nobody arguing that the old marketplaces weren’t a Relational Businesses, where bargaining, split revenue models and so forth was in the core of how to conduct business those days. Furthermore the concept of Tupperware and home parties are more “modern” versions of Relational Business, and we are very much familiar with the effect they have had and revenues over the years. I’ve written a blog posting about www.musicnodes.no before and that is in essence a “Tupperware” concept – or as we would like to put a buzz word on it nowadays: “Viral marketing”.  It’s “new” because it isn’t done this way before, but there is in reality no “New economy” in it. In other words, my statement is: “There is no Social Media – Internet is social and business on the Internet is social too!” (To be more accurate, Social Media Channels are one of many channels in a digital environment, frequently being a part of a larger digital value chain)

But the challenges aren’t over by this. There’s always a “But” isn’t there? The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies have stated: ”Everything that can be digitalized will be digitalized – and the value goes toward 0.- $”. – How to make business when the value is cero? Well if the cost of producing products and services are approximately cero, then there is a low risk in the cost aspects too? To provide a profit it has to come from “elsewhere”? Furthermore there is a promising statement by Kevin Kerry, the editor of Wired magazine: “The value is beyond free”. This means that we need to create added values for the customers in other manners than via the product/ service itself, doesn’t it? A few generic key words where “value beyond free” might be created from, is maybe worthwhile contemplating over:

People would like to pay for:

• Accessibility
• Navigation
• Security and consistency
• From “Good enough” (free) – to High quality (paid)
• Exclusivity (added by me) (Source: The Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies)

The benefit of sharing. This very blog posting is an example of what I’m talking about. I share this information, my viewpoints, free of charge, free for all to use, and to benefit from. Where’s the value for me, and the company I work for by doing so? Well information itself isn’t of great value, the ability to transform this to added value for my customers, requires something that is a scarce recourse; me and my colleagues network, competence, experience and our personality. This shouldn’t be confused with giving away strategies, the differentiators or business secrets; it doesn’t mean to give away any confidential customer information, of course. It means to share the information and common knowledge, and open up for conversations and discussions we all can learn from. The real value we offer our customers is what we learn, at work from our discussions and by that develop a mindset suitable to enable customers to create real value for their customers. (note: all of a sudden I went from “I” till “We” in my sentences, that’s because sharing means that Relational communication cannot be a individual process – it’s a social process shared between those involved)  We have the tools at hand to enter a given scenario at our customers, coach and help them with all aspects of the transformational process that’s needed. We are at the moment working on a handful projects with customers, none of them with identical challenges, where our competence is stretched to the maximum. Sharing our knowledge as  above, with as many as possible, will give us valuable discussions and we will gain more knowledge about other people’s / consultants achievements and will bring us as well forward into new projects and challenges providing our customers with real added value for their businesses.

Funding of public service broadcasting in the future?

The other day I commented on Twitter that a Norwegian party AP (Arbeiderpartiet) and their media committee had a suggestion that I mean was a  sidetrack and a bad idea.

The idea was that AP’s media committee suggested that the license model we have in Norway  today (paying a separate tax for NRK broadcaster, and also paying a tax when buying  a TV set ) should be replaced/added with a similar tax for PC’s and Cell phones.

The feedback of my statement was immediate. Why did I have that opinion? And why didn’t I argue for my statement? Why isn’t this a great idea? The twitter nick @fenilsen gave me a challenge: Argue for my statements. And that’s fair.  Well Twitter isn’t a great channel for discussing complex subjects, and to be fair towards the complexity I didn’t want to go there – in that format. Instead I suggested to meet and debate it – and that I just might write a blog posting about it.

So here goes: Broadcasting in Norway used to be a monopoly public service company (from 1945) – first established in 1925 (became the brand “NRK” in 1933) and had(from the beginning) the main financing model by commercials. It was the Nazi Germans that introduced censorship and prohibited commercials in Broadcasting in Norway (1940). NRK continued the policy of not financing their broadcasting by commercials and established the public service broadcasting model more or less identical to the model BBC had established. Norwegian public service broadcasting became as we know it such after the Second World War. This gave the legitimacy for the funding models and enabled the Norwegians to get a high quality and free broadcasting system (first Radio, later TV) with a sustainable financing model from the government and by the separate broadcasting tax. There were no commercials in radio, and later TV, and the focus was to inform and educate the population.

NRK had a monopoly up till the 80’ies. Further reading on this can be found HERE. Since then, we have gotten competition from cable TV and wide range of Norwegian commercial broadcasters (radio and also TV) and since then the license model has been under debate. Nevertheless the idea and political decisions have been to protect the system with a public service broadcaster, due to the value of having a commercial independent voice in our country. The legitimacy gets under attach as the development of Internet itself, and the digitalization of content becomes the standard and the infrastructure of transporting content such as TV programs just as well are via IP and the internet. The models legacy was in short: Independent broadcaster and producer of content, responsible (together with our governmental Telecom company – Televerket) distributor of broadcasting signals (read infrastructure) – these arguments are about to disappear for the future.

The question is: How do we want to finance TV and Radio in the future? One of the suggestions are, as mentioned above to start taxing PC’s and Cell phones instead (or in addition to) TV and Radio sets. I believe that this is a bad idea and a sidetrack since it doesn’t answer the challenges broadcasting is facing, nor do I believe that the consumers will understand or accept that a PC, a cell phone or the Internet as a broadcasting / TV equipment where our public service broadcaster has infrastructural responsibilities worth paying tax for. In addition there are lots of practical aspects of this equipment tax idea that makes it impossible as well. Buying a TV set abroad is far more complicated (heavy) than buying a lap top or a cell phone. Is a Kindle e-reader subject for such tax? And how to make sure that people register their electronic equipment (bought on travels abroad) just to be able to pay a tax to our public service broadcaster. It’s hassle, and if most people don’t understand why – they won’t do it. An even more interesting question is – what is broadcasting and TV into the future? As we know broadcasting is evolving and changing so much these days that everything we grew up with of what TV -is in dramatic change.

The Norwegian media politic is as well. In Norway we are discussing, and no doubt the government’s media support (funding) will change. It will change because the world is changing from an analogue world to a digital world – where the Internet will be one of the major infrastructures, -not paper,- not separate broadcasting transmitting systems.

I believe that it’s not sufficient  to define a public service broadcaster as we have done up till now for the future; it has to be a wider definition, maybe a “public service content provider” is a better definition? A “public service content provider” will be able to serve somewhat other objectives than today, in other platforms and in other manners. Trying to finance that via separate taxes on equipment seems like an absurd idea, and I don’t think the government will get support from their population by this approach.

I believe it serves us better to go to the core of; why is it we would like to have a governmental funding of communication (text, audio, visual) in the future? How do we want to organize that? What kind of participants do we want to support? Should NRK be in a special situation, or should we let several companies be able to apply for funding for public service broadcasting funding? The answers aren’t given for any choice our government has to make for some sustainable models for the future. What is certain is that any model will need support from the population in order to be implemented.

As a conclusion: I believe it’s better to answer these core questions and challenges before jumping into a “quick fix” idea of taxing the PC’s and cell phones.

Click HERE to read an older blog posting on the future of broadcasting

A ”dogfight” between giants have started. Will Apple.inc have someone taking big bites of their apple?

Apple launched iPhone 4.0 in Norway today. I have to say the show isn’t what it used to be. Yes people sat in line till midnight to get their hands on the very first ones.

But also an increasing number of people on twitter was shaking their heads over Apple’s attempt to create yet another mass hysteria, without anything else new to show, but a new model of a cell phone. Speaking of branding problems, Apple recently lost a lawsuit concerning their policy to stop ‘apps’, they’ve met resistance about their censorship policy, and there’s a wide range of lawsuits concerning patents going on between the giants.

All of this is hurting Apple in a different way than back at the days where Microsoft was the “enemy” and Apple was the underdog. This is a new situation where Apple seems to have become more arrogant towards their customers and partners. But something is about to happen, customers and partners aren’t going to be as dependent on Apple and their iStore anymore. Get me right, I like Apple, I like Google too. I like Facebook, and the good old IBM as well. I like Twitter and I like Amazon.com. In short; I like the new world we got with the Internet. But I don’t like that the giants all seem to have become greedy and all have tried to lock in their customers in their own one-stop-shops. It’s like trying to maintain old school business models into the future.

The “dog fight” isn’t on behalf of us as consumers; it’s a battle of big bucks and control! Google, IBM, Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HP, Facebook, Apple, Amazon.com and the like all want to make sure that the competitors doesn’t grow to strong. This is a sad, unnecessary fight that seems inevitable. The threat for Apple isn’t only the battle of market shares.

The media industry is undergoing a dramatic age of transformation. None of the media industry participant can stand by the side passively and have Apple, Amazon, Youtube or other players control their ability to renew their business and business models.TV, Film, News corporations, publishing houses can’t afford it and have to go into the battle too. It’s really an easy calculation to make: Can some of the existing content platforms (iStore, Amazon, youtube) provide a solution that’s cheaper than if the corporations in the media industry cooperate and produce their own open content platform? In Norway some of the major publishing houses have done parts of this already and are in serious negotiations with the “giants” of how to get access to their marketplaces.

There is no way the worlds publishing houses will accept that Apple conduct censorships, like they did with the book Ulysses – or determine the cost of an e-book. Yesterday I read that Apple has denied Times.inc to sell subscriptions in their store, I’m not sure if this is true, it seems too unbelievable.

What I’m saying is that there’s an upcoming “dogfight” between giants of the internet AND amongst content providers. And it seems like Apple sits in a spot where they are far too easy to attack – from all angles, and I can’t see how they possible can win this – without doing the obvious: Open up for all to place their content in their store, let anyone buy it (whatever device, hardware or software) and let the market decide what business models that works. Make it easy and smooth to be a partner and to be a customer. It’s really not so complicated.

Update: Eirik Newth and I was interviewed by E24 conserning Apples censorship policy. You can read the article Here

It’s very clear for me that something is wrong in the media industry. Don’t know what, but it’s clear that the confusion is huge. Or is it? Well anyway, too many subjects are talked about at the same time. It’s a mess! Why it is that clever journalist doesn’t see this, after all this is what journalists are trained to see.

Let’s reduse what we are talking about. We are not talking about the film- , music- or the gaming industry, let’s do that another time.

 Business or journalism?
We are talking about the newspaper houses today. That is, we are talking aout the owners of newspapers, and the newspaper organizations. But this is also a far too wide discussion. Think of it; that would have been to mix a discussion about the new dramaturgy of a story, because that has changed in the new age of news. And mix that with the topic of business models of news? It’s impossible, isn’t it?

So what to discuss? As long as there is money in the market – the owners of the media houses will remain in the business. Still there are lessons to learn – how to make sure you have sustainable incomes in that business. And as long there is an urge for stories, someone to tell us a “truth” Why do journalists AND media house owners argue that there is a problem? That’s maybe because of the introduction of the internet fifteen years ago, that have lead to new business models, and to new markets. Yes the so called “Social media” is a new marketplace. You see – it’s moved! – And that is the problem, a change that isn’t welcome.

The market It used to be down the street – let’s call it “Mass Media Street”. That was the largest marketplace I’ve ever seen. It was bigger than the camel market in Marrakesh, Bigger than the bazaars in New Dehli and bigger than the cattle auctions in Texas Forth worth! But now Mass Media Street is getting emptier by the hour. They’ve all moved down to the Social Media Quarter. You know it’s really not one market any more. It’s more like small cozy jazz clubs, blues joints and dark night clubs in New Orleans, Stockholm and Casablanca. Smoke is coming out of the door openings. Its dark inside and a very different environment. People are either up- beat or laid back. If you want to shout at them, and tell them the truth, they might choose to listen to you, or not – and continue their conversation with the friends they just met. It’s not like on Mass Media Street anymore. Some find it sad, and some don’t.

 The new journalist
No one can adapt the old business models of Mass Media Street any more, and it’s silly to try to pretend to. The owner of media houses knows this, but of various reasons some of them seem to want to hide it. Journalists seem to be the naive ones, since they are buying into this odd idea that they no longer can conduct their trade anymore. A journalist’s trade is to do what they are good at and that is not in danger. The problem is really the business model, and who is going to “own it” And journalists need to accept this fact quickly, or else they will be running the errand of the owner of the media houses. In short Journalists need to focus; The value of their trade is not in danger, if they accept that they will have to adopt to a new reality, where building a storyline is different than before. Now, and into a future a journalists work will have to look at the fact that it’s in a close relationship with everyone. A story develops rapidly and it needs to be published at once, and from there developed, by hours and days, until the story is told. Not as before, where the gathering of a strong story, before publishing was the success criteria. Social media has made that impossible, the competition is not your other clever journalist out there in the dark night club anymore, everyone is clubbing nowadays, so you need to publish while being out there, you need to develop your story online.

A new business line
For the owners of a media house it’s also a new game. They have to realize that their business has changed. The revenue streams have changed and the journalism have changed. The workflow is changed. That means that the way a newsroom is organized have to change. That ends up in a more cost effective production line. Still this will not be enough. The revenue stream will have to be ensured, in an effective way. The business models are available, and the owners, stock holders have to re- think how they believe that their added value will emerge. It’s really not that difficult, they just need to let go of old ideas of how it used to be. We have to remember that any owner of any concept of business have one aim; Earning money, provide a sustainable business model. I believe that from a profit motif the future world is wonderful, but it requires that the stakeholders starts leaving an old environment, and accept a new one. Acceptance for both journalism and business ideas in the media business Mostly it will require accepting what already function. In my eyes a key is the term multi channel thinking. It’s not “old” nor “new” is it a combination. Understanding the “new” is not so difficult, it exist already in the digital environment, so it’s not all that new. Remember what I said, the internet is 15 years old, how to conduct business in a digital environment is well known. Make your business aligned with both the analogue and the digital environment, make sure that your companies focus on added value for the end customer and make sure that you have established a business model that support this. To give a hint –for the business level of things; divide content, and product! There is no such thing as a content of things and product of things that aren’t separated!
For the journalists; There is no such thing as a product, the onlynthing that count in any sense is to be able to tell a story that change someone’s life, no less, no more. My point is that journalism and media house owners might have different objectives. That’s an old model. It’s older that the T-ford, it’s silly , so why keep the differences? Non of us standing out side of it cares, all we want is a well told story , and we have shown for decades that we would like to pay for the value it has – so show me the value, and I’ll show you the money…

A new digital business model that works

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We all just love to be helpful and share. In social media today people are sharing everything and feel great about it. We tend to share knowledge, ideas and emotional experiences.  I found something very interesting that’s going on in Norway these days. I got to know this, by “accident”, some weeks ago, and I’ve thought about it, looked at it and wondered if this is just another idea, or if it is an idea that could move business models in the digital area one step further. And I think it might!

It’s called musicnodes.com . Still in an early stage of developement and it looks very promising. To get to the point of what this is: It’s a embedded player, where you can listen to a tune. There’s nothing new in that.
You can buy the tune as well and you can share the tune with your friends and network, nothing new in that either. 
The new is that the content is placed contextual. Another aspect is that it’s not a website, where you go to and find your music and then buy what you want. 
Musicnodes is a play bar that can be located on any website with relevant content. Since this is music, the daily news article, about music is a great place, the online music sites is also a great place to share music. The spread happens when people start sharing the play bar in their respective networks.(e mail, Twitter, Facebook and so on)

Business model
The business model is very interesting. As we know; creators of content holds copyrights. As far as I know all countries have organizations that take care of the business aspect of using someone’s music. Radio/TV, film and others are using music produced by others and have to pay for the usage. On the internet this is also the case, but has become very difficult to manage, since people love to share.  This have created a problem for musicians, for record companies and so on.  Revenues are dropping dramatically in the business as a consequence. 
Musicnodes have set up a model where the musician gets a large part of the revenue created. The publisher also gets a large part. The least part of the income goes to musicnodes. Furthermore when people listen to the tune, and want to share it, the embedded tune is sent by e.g. e-mail, “share on Facebook” and so on – the revenues split follow the tune and the all involved continue to earn on the sale of this tune, each time!
Online publishers will just love this model, and so will the musicians, and other copyright holders. This might provide the music business with a sustainable business model that take care of all involved parties in a manner no one have done up till now.

Contextual advertisement
When is it most likely that you will be the most interested in listening to a tune? Isn’t that when you are in the mindset, like when you’re  reading an editorial story about the genre, the artist or a news article about the music you love? And then, there it is.
For the publisher, it’s not even an advert, it’s just added value for the reader. The best part is that the publishers earn money sharing this added value. For the reader it’s not a “banner ad up in the face”, it’s a neat way to get the tune there and then, no hassle finding a music store (down town, or online), searching for the right tune. It’s right there, easy accessible.
The motivation for the reader, to convert into a buyer is very high, just in that moment. This is in fact a real and functioning example of the semantic web, and behavioral advertisement!  A very strong concept indeed. I’ve written about this in a former posting; HERE.

Network sharing
We are social, this idea appeals to our pattern of behavior. To give someone something makes us feel well and sharing makes us connected with others. Creating a business that “run” by the natural rules of human behavior is very likely to be a strong business model. I believe that this is the case with musicnodes.com .
It’s the same principles that’s behind “six degrees of separation”, viral marketing and whom we trust the most. Social media and networking arenas has grown immensely the last few years and there is no doubt that conducting business are about to get new rules to play by.
I’m looking very much forward to see what happens next, and in which ways this innovative concept will spread. The concept, is as lot’s of you already have started thinking is that it’s not limited to music. There is a whole range of products and services where this will apply.

While waiting for the script (to embedd on my blog) to be approved by www.wordpress.com you may have a look at the new concept HERE 
The tune is by Ingrid Olava, won’t be silenced – catchy title?

Update: I did some statistics: in one hour I had 51 unique visitors on my page. That created 90 Clicks on the node, and 62 that downloaded the tune for free (payed by sponsor) Ingrid Olava earned cash on this, and so did I. Amazing, the network sharing effect really works. Remember this test is with no player (just a primitive link) and I’m not running a music blog, nor is the content relevant for the player/tune

What’s to do for the media business in turbulent times?

 The media business has struggled greatly, worldwide. Advertising and circulation revenue have dropped greatly. Throughout 2009 we heard weekly about the problems, cutbacks, reductions and layoffs. Are we looking at a dying industry, or at best, a sharp change of the industry? 

 

 

There is an ongoing change, a paradigm shift between print media/ digital media. Traditional media houses have still not managed to sort out how to transform themselves, which last year’s poor results confirms. 

The real challenge is to manage the existing business model, and at the same time to build sustainable business models for the digital markets. 

It is important to be realistic, but realism has to be based on future expectations, not the history of a great past. Organizations that manage through tough times do not focus only on the problems they have with the existing business model. Successful businesses are able to focus on innovation and re-structuring as well. The winners are those who are able to position themselves in a favorable spot – quickly. 

Increased demand and a lack of willingness to pay at the same time?
There is no evidence to suggest that that the demand for knowledge and stories will drop – – in fact, we need easier access to more information.  At the same time media companies do not get paid for content in the digital world. Isn’t that a paradox? 

To answer this we must look at what customers traditionally feel that they have already paid for. Is it the content itself, or is it a combination of delivery media (paper), the transport of the content (to the news stand or at the door) and the trust of the supplier (that you can trust that the content is of quality) In the traditional business models, where these elements have been “inseparable”, the question has merely been of academic interest. On the other hand, digital consumers experience that they have already paid for digital services such as the news online by having paid for the PC, software, Internet subscriptions, etc. At the same time consumers are willing to pay for the ability to send SMS, to download “apps”, games and music to their PC and mobile. The point is that the willingness to pay for services online is there, consumers just don’t want to pay for the content itself. 

But in the digital world well functioning business models already exist — just look at what Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have established. What scale of users they have gathered and the value this represents in ad revenue alone. If we look at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kelkoo, Restplass.no to name a few, we notice that the business models are based on interaction, behavior analysis, profiles and user statistics in order to maximize sales. The business models vary, but one common feature is often “split revenue models”, where several players sharing knowledge and parts of the value chain.

Our recommendation would be learn from this, and evaluate what is the real value of the media business at hand. We believe that it is essential to connect traditional instruments with new ways to manage content. There are great opportunities to establish commercial services and products towards both advertisers and users.  

Perhaps content isn’t the future value for the media business. Perhaps the real value is the knowledge and management of users / participants and their behavior.  We believe the media industry as a whole has already been subjected to “Disruptive Innovation” and the only way to survive in the industry is to adapt very quickly. The main point is to create added value for the sum of buyers in the digital universe, through business models that also provide revenue to media houses. The most important prerequisite for success in this is to have the right combination of business strategy, organization, competence, and not least technology platforms, that can realize the goals 

Technology is part of the product
 Products like Apple’s new iPad will be a very important force to change the way we use PCs, Internet and handheld devices. When the major players (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Sony, etc.) facilitate easy deployment and use of digital content, it is obvious that the demand is increasing dramatically – and fast. 

Technology is the most visible instrument of the business model that until now has succeeded. Pervasive and holistic thinking assumes that the technological platform is part of the product being sold, and includes suppliers, distributors and consumer’s own infrastructure. The most important change is that technology is no longer just a tool to produce the goods, but an important part of the product itself. The development of consumer technology has both driven and been a part of the new successful business strategies, and has – in our opinion – matured the digital media market. At the core the major players have a complete set of technology platforms that implement the business model’s financial structure, production and distribution lines in a holistic strategy. 

The development of mobile phone and laptop computers are the consumer technologies that have contributed the most visible for the consumer for this development. Now, these devices meld together, and become smart-phones and reading lists that give users a unique experience. At the same time the digital distribution channel – the Internet – both increases their availability and opens the opportunity to deliver better quality, and ease of access, to the consumer. The development of broadband and mobile broadband will continue to contribute to increased quality of the services. 

The digital distribution has created many questions about the copyrights that both the business and organizations have tried to answer. Due to the fact that the internet characteristics are ‘open and free’, this will be a continuous discussion that will ultimately lead to answers. 

Our conclusion is that the willingness to invest in technology and include technology in hardware/ software/ infrastructure as a part of the business model is an important success factor in the development of new media products and services.  

Change Management
When the technology and framework conditions change, when value chains change and new players arrive and threaten the industry’s traditional players the only way to survive will be to defend their position by being willing to change the way the organization works, the processes of workflow and the perspective of how the market functions. The digital world is in its nature interactive. “Readers”, “listeners” and “viewers” are descriptions of users who will vanish from our vocabulary in a digital environment. We see a huge, rapid growth in use of social media that turn “users” into “participants” and “co-producers” of content and discourse. 

By this, the media businesses have gotten a new set of challenges in terms of how content is established, produced, presented and managed. In addition to completely new ways of defining products and services, media organizations have to change the production lines and workflow. As the manufacturing process to produce a book, news story or a magazine, has become irrelevant in the future digital media world it will affect, workflow and requirements of professional competences and organizational conditions. It will also be necessary to break down the strict distinctions (silos) that have been in different companies within a media group. 

It’s needed to establish a close relationship between the various divisions, products and services, in order to cultivate and manage the knowledge about user patterns, and transform that into added value towards the market of advertisement, subscriptions and services provided. 

Next step
We believe that quite a few media houses will need external expertise in business strategy, change management and technology. We know that coming from the outside of the organization and facilitating processes that help media corporations discover new perspectives will enable them to create profitable solutions. To make the move from “traditional” to “new” reality is a mission where a holistic perspective is one of the needed assets to ensure a strong strategic foundation to make such a transformational step. Media houses must implement innovation processes, replace business models, develop new concepts for products and services, invest in appropriate technology, ensure smooth organizational processes and implementation, and simultaneously develop criteria for success and value propositions. Establishment of  new, digital value chains and multi-channel strategies are essential elements in future business models for all media houses. Some newspaper has taken some steps along the road, while parts of the publishing industry (book / textbook / magazine) still have some distance to go before the necessary technological elements are in place

There must be a sharp distinction between content on the one hand, and the products and services on the other. This is the only way to profit by what structured data provides in the way of opportunities. There is no other way to take advantages of the semantic options in the triangle of editorial content, profile and participant’s content and commercial content.  A key point is to “Produce once- and deliver it on as many surfaces and channels possible”. This will be eReading lists, mobile devices, web, PC desktop applications, etc. It includes the ability to integrate content of various formats merged into a total user experience of text, sound, image and video.

Some tips concerning the mix of business models we would be able to help establish:

•           Behavioral & profile targeted advertising
•           Contextual marketing
•           Product/ service and contextual advertisement
•           Classified/ Community/ social media advertisement
•           Demographic, Geo – demographic, Techno graphic
•           Subscriptions mobile/ desktop/ ’apps’ prod and services
•           Traditional DM activities, banner ads, campaigns, branding
•           Multichannel & SCRM  action
•           SEO & SEM, Conversion rates

In combination with the knowledge of these business models the media industry needs to keep a strong focus on where they come from, and what is valuable in today’s experience. They need new sets of competence in new areas, such as change processes, digital value chains and multi-channel strategy.

By Geir Stene, Bjørn Hole
This article is written on our own initiative.

The fall and rise of the media industry

The fall and rise of the media industry is happening in front of our eyes, just watch. The speed this is happening in is surprising for all of us. And we have only seen the start of it, so buckle up people, this will hurt. It’s 40 years since it all began and we know the famous message is sent and lit up on a screen to test if the system works: “Hello World” I’m sure some people nowadays just hate those two small words.

The reports are coming from everywhere, decreasing in the daily newspaper circulation and subscriptions, decreasing revenues from advertisements, and in many opinion; decreasing quality. The drop in the last six months of 10,6% , we now have a circulation lower than before Wold War II according the blog Reflections of a Newsosaur, and the blog posting;  Newspapers, the mass-less mass medium  Another  great report “The big Thaw” is worth a deep study.

The media industry isn’t one thing, there are diverse challenges for the film, music and broadcast industry, the publishing industry and the news industry, but the writings on the wall are the same; “transform or vanish!”

Professionals are scared for their jobs, for the future and for their profession. I’m more concerned for the managers and owners. Why? Well we have never spent more time and craved news, knowledge, entertainment in the history of man, and it’s not likely that we will stop now. The profession provides quality to all of this, and we will need people who are able to tell us histories, to teach us stuff also after the fall of mass media as we know it. But the TV producer, the radioman, the journalist could very well end up better than before, more free to do what she wants and reaching out to an audience more interested not only to listen, watch and read, but also participating in the discourse. But she might not work for a paper or TV channel. She might work as a freelancer, at an internet company, at a worldwide dominating search engine company, she might work at a company providing a browser and so  forth.

The media owners and managers are the one that now have started to feel the impact, and where should they go, since nobody need them anymore, and as it seems they refuse to change? That path leads only to one destination R.I.P. on their way it seems like panic, quarrels, politics and a dream of old dead ideas is haunting to many of them.

How will the creation of art, news, entertainment, TV, radio, music and so forth find business models that support sustainable revenue streams? I don’t know, most likely nobody really do, but I have some ideas.

Look for what works today, at the internet and telecom industries. The multitude of revenue streams and the combination of concepts out there today will support also revenuestreams for content production. Just remember that we have seen the end of mass media as we know it. What we are seeing is the mass interaction, the mass creativity and the masses interacting between themselves. My advice for the time being would be to produce once, deliver at as many places and to as many devices you are able to. Make a very clear split between content production and products! Make sure you collect and culture as much knowledge about users, participants and their behavior as you can, that’s your real value. Make a mix of revenue streams, share knowledge in-house and brake any silo thinking in-house you possibly can. And be ready for further change, this is not over, it’s barely began. Take a look at the  at C3 for further understanding of a new media house set up, I’ve been blogging and discussing with the CEO Chuck Peters for quite some time now, and they have done some great work.

I think it’s high time we look at that screen again with the, maybe most important two words in our lifetime; ”Hello World”  and interact with the message and answer back “Hi, Wasup”

Should we be cloning the marketing directors?

To me it seems like we first took advertisement into the web ‘as is’, then we discovered that the web have som neat add-on’s, like measuring what’s going on.

Rapidly someone found out that retail is a business that works on the net. And then, classified, or was that the other way around? In any event, not much changed. Maybe Social media will ?

I’m not going into traditional Campaigns, commercials, ads, banners and so forth. What they all have in common is that they are “old style push advertisements” and function as such. I’m not sure what effect they have (less, similar or better than in the traditional advertisement world of radio, TV and print media) but I would expect that traditional measurements would tell. The “new” in the digital world is that you can measure “exact” by web statistics, click rates and so forth. And we got SEO, SEM and more…

I’m not going into online retail-, travel- /booking- or various sorts of classified of solutions either. There are many well proven concepts of how to bring products to market and make revenues. Amazon.com is one of the oldest “best practice”. The gain these businesses have had “going digital” is mainly in the speed up of decision making  and transaction solution enabling a sale there and then, with less hassle than having to get the customer from an advert to the shop. Further developments have been to interact with the customer by polls, evaluations, suggestions and recommendations. We have also seen new businesses comparing products and prices and offered customers a “product search” and businesses traffic.

The usage of interactivity in marketing isn’t new, but the options provided by new digital tools and/or channels/ media are interesting.

Some have taken the campaign strategies a step further by establishing communities like Libresse or Nike. The interactivity, discussions and so forth help building a stronger relationship between the brand and the customers. It’s a kind of concept that also is used for product development, support improvements and so forth. Some others have gone into the gaming business and used campaign where virtual /role-play games are combined with introducing a product e.g. a new film, book and so forth

Usage of YouTube is interesting because anyone can post a video promoting, in some manner, products or services. So far this is a pure Push commercial, nevertheless we have seen viral activity, where people start making their response by own versions, as an ironic (or sarcastic), comical or plain commenting  videos. Some companies have understood this and taken advantages of it and used it in their overall campaigns.

There are a lot of other examples that mostly have made concepts that are more or less the same as always (read print and push mechanisms) with some digital add on functionality. Some of the “new” thoughts have been: “Don’t try to attract the audience to you – go to where your customers are” And now companies are pouring into Facebook, Twitter and so forth, and what happens? Too much push mentality, to little new concepts or too little reflection on what to do in these social media.

A marketing strategy in the digital world will have to look into all of these options and make use of the, in order to reduce cost and/or increase sales. More important in the coming years will be to implement multichannel strategies that includes the real world, and make some work flows of; where, what, how, why and when the company and their customers are interacting and conducting the purchase process.

Another aspect is that it seems absent for the moment that I believe will become very central is not to have everyone in your company going into social media by “cloning” them into many” small marketing directors” doing the same as usual; spamming the audiences with commercial messages in every channel possible. I believe that a key to success is to listen and engage within the frame of the profession and tasks people have in their organization and use the gained knowledge to develop the company, its products and services. That means that product development dep. Listen to trends, engage in how a great product should be. Designers looks into design and discuss function and aesthetics, the support division listen to what people have of trouble and provide answers and so forth.

And I’d like to see more of Business intelligence, structured data, tagging and semantic web strategies put into effect and combined with solutions of providing the motivated customer with the wanted offers. This will enable a whole new way of not doing factual measuring by looking backwards, but rather forward. If you know what your audience/ customer wants you can give it to them, instead of looking at history and try to figure what you did wrong.

If you want you can look at a PPT presentation about this subject at slideshare.net

Seven” right things” to do in digital business today

As I’ve seen around the world, in blogs, whitepapers and  in discussions with clients everyone realize that we are in a transformational age. But the transformations aren’t isolated to the area of internet and computing business. The world is interconnected!

Seemingly everyone want to be prepared for the ongoing changes, but too many doesn’t know what to do.  Quite a few know what they need to do, but doesn’t know how, and some know what and how, but haven’t found the means or the business models ensuring that it will work. It’s essential to understand that your digital involvement isn’t detached from the rest of the world. There is no “virtual” OR “real life” it’s both virtual AND real life at once.

Your business might be in a situation where there isn’t a choice; it’s either change now or vanish? Your business might be in a situation where the challenge is if you should wait or not?  History shows that those who doesn’t act in times of recession have lost market shares when times are great again. The winners are those who act in times of ressession.

What windows of opportunities do you have in your surroundings? There’s always an option that can be taken advantages of. As readers of my blog would know there are some hints that could guide you to do “the right thing” and find your window of opportunity.

Seven “right things”to do in the transforming world:

1)      Clarify your purpose of the business!
Ensure that your business has a purpose beyond just providing profit for the stockholders. Ensure that the benefits for your customers, and also the society as such, are clearly understood. If your business has an ethical perspective on their activities it’s more likely that you will have a strong position in a transformed society.

2)      Be social!
We are all social beings. That means that your business needs to be social too. We would rather like to identify, connect and interact with a company that has an interest in their partners, customers and their wellbeing. If your partners, customers have a great dialogue and experiences with your company and services/products, they will tell their network and do very effective marketing for you. Old marketing solutions doesn’t work as well as it used to.

3)      Embrace freedom!
Don’t try to control others, including your staff. If you do the right thing, everyone else will. Give your staff, partners and customers freedom and options to involve in your business. They will all help steer your company in accordance with the purpose of your business anyway. (this doesn’t mean that you don’t put up clear expectations and goals)

4)      Be focused!
Make sure that what ever you involve your business with, that it correspond with your purpose. Do not spread out and partisipate with whatever comes along. This will save you e.g. marketing costs that doesn’t support and enhance the purpose of your business.

5)      Be adaptive!
The challenges in the world, in societies and in business haven’t changed much, but the solution and ways of solving a challenge changes rapidly in transformational times. Make sure that you can change in pace with your surroundings.

6)      Be realistic!
You can’t do everything, everywhere at all times. Start with what you can do today, and go from there, but go as fast as you can, remember things have a tendency to change fast in transformational times. Investments (you can afford) done today are the increased income tomorrow.

7)      Be bold, surprise everyone!
Do things that surprise yourself, your partners and your customers, do something above expectations. There is nothing as wonderful for us than seeing someone doing more that what was expected.

I’ve listed sevengreat examples of companies that have done most of the 7 bulletpoints above, and you can read, research and figure out if there are elements you can make your own, that you can adapt or simply get ideas from. (this is just a very brief list as examples)

Virgin and Richard Branson.
It seems like there is no limit to what this brand can hold. Richards drive and determination makes tings happen.
Choice hotels in Norway and Petter Stordalen
Look at his engagement in the global heating and how he implements this in the chains of hotels he owns.
Sun, Microsystems and CEO Jonathan Schwartz blog – look at how he’s able to connect with the market, by being honest about what he wants
Tesla motors
Look at how they managed to get a year long waiting list of people that wanted to actually buy a electric care, long before the car was produced. (And the quality of the web page compared with other car manufacturers)
Gazette Communications and CEO Chuck Peters
Look at how they are really prepared to transform their news and media companies.
Stormberg and Steinar J Olsen
Look at how they are able to incorporate a purpose that goes beyond only profit for themselves.
Englegård and Celine Thommesen
Look at what happens if your purpose and heart is alligned. You don’t need to be big to be sucessful, but you do need to want to do it right, and put a lot of hard work into it.

What’s the business in news nowadays?

There’s an ongoing discussion in- and  outside Norway. The invention of  Internet has challenged how to run a newspaper, media- and publishing  house.
Sales of papers are dropping, so  is the advertiser’s budgets. The  willingness to pay for news on the net  seems like zero. The profit in the business is decreasing. And everyone is wondering what to do?

UPDATE: PPT presentation of this posting at Slideshare.net
Rupert Murdock wants to let people pay for news online. I don’t think he will be successful. Others want to keep news online short, superficial and written”for web” whereas the analogue paper should develop into more “deep digging journalism”. Some believe that the internet isn’t suited for “real critical journalism” This is proven wrong as well.

So the question remains; where is the business in news nowadays? News (in any channel and/or media) has had its basis in ownership to the content. Internet challenges this because the sharing of content is so rapid, and so fluid that you can’t have a story for yourself anymore. The monopoly is gone.

The “old triangle”

The news content and the creation of it, enabled a news organisation to gather a crowd of readers/listeners/ viewers. This gave the business model of selling the paper, subscriptions, classified and not to forget – ads.  But remember the core value has always been the ownership of the content. The connections between content, readers and advertisement has never been strong, because it has never been necessary to develop strong connections between the elements in this triangle.

A“new triangle”?

What if the content isn’t the real value for a media house anymore? Well it isn’t! That’s why media and news organisations now have the decreasing income both in the analogue and the digital environment. Some suggestions have been “go hyper local” become “niche news” I think both are great ideas, but it’s not enough, due to the fact that the idea of what is the core “ownership” haven’t changed into something of real value.

The business needs to have a foundation in a real, functional business model. On the internet there is one business model that is established, and that remarkably enough already is at work also with in the area of journalism, and media, but without the news organisations taking advantage of it – not yet. By deciding that content is no longer the core value, but the sum of participants (and their activities) in the environment is! Social media gather people; their participation creates content and feed journalism in totally new manners, and the connections are already shown to be able to be close, and strong.

Businesses like My space, Facebook, Twitter and so forth has it’s value in the amount of active members. The value of the knowledge about users has barely started to be explored, and for the news and media business this is a unique opportunity to dig deeper into this.

What if the real value for the news and media industry is seen to be the knowledge about the interactive and action oriented behaviour of Participants (readers/users)? I believe that one can connect participants, content and advertisement in far better ways that clarify and justify: what’s in it for me for all involved parties. Or, in other words “what’s the purpose?” can be better answered for all involved parties. (see also the blog posting below)

An approach to a new digital strategy?

I’ve started writing on a white paper, where I look at methodologies for creating  improved  digital strategies.

I feel that business strategies focus to little on the digital conditions where the business will have to operate.

I also see clearly that marketing strategies, sales strategies and web strategies doesn’t fill the needs in a highly interactive and action oriented digital world.

Putting together a digital strategy will, by its nature be an iterative process, where the overall business idea may have to be changed in order to achieve an optimal digital environment, that in its turn benefit the business idea. Where the overall business strategy will be the main steering document for the business, the digital strategy document will determine what to be the focus in the digital environment to achieve the overall business strategy. Next step in a development will be that the business-, and the digital strategy will merge and become one. Since the digital environment is so complex and interconnected I suggest a very holistic approach. Since the business world have moved direction and become so dependent on the digital environment, I suggest you take the digital strategy very seriously and what you learn by making your digital strategy should reflect back on your overall business strategy.

I’ve started to investigate if  terms like  “Purpose”, “Participation” and “Conditions” as some alternative angles to “vision”, “mission”, “values” and “goals” will improve the final result on a  development of a digital strategy. One reason for this is that operating in a digital environment is very action oriented and interactive,  and I believe that some of the “standard phrases” in a business strategy often becomes a bit to “vishy washy” and not as action oriented and measurable as you would like it to be.
I’m thinking along the lines: What if your business doesn’t have a purpose people understand? Why should someone bother buying it? How can people help you? Have you given people an opening to involve? And if you haven’t looked into the conditions the purpose will live, and how someone can participate, why should it succeed?
Take a look at your business, what is really the purpose? who is (or could) participate and in what way? Does it have optional conditions?

Purpose
What’s the purpose for what you are doing? What is your motivation, the owners and the staff working in your organization? What’s the purpose of what you have to offer? What is the purpose for the digital engagements you have or wants?  What’s the purpose for those who buy your message/service/products? My thesis is by investigating this thoroughly you might find that, your purpose isn’t all that well anchored in the actual business you are running or the market you want to reach? Then it’s no wonder if your business isn’t running smoothly!

Participants
The participants in making your purpose come to live is also a perspective that has to do with having a  dualistic perspective toward what you are doing, and the dependencies you have in others inside, and outside of your business. Because both you and your staff, partners, co-dependents and customers participate in making your purpose happen. In other words everyone that has a part in making your purpose real are participants. One are frequently speaking of stakeholders in the business world. We shouldn’t stop doing so, but still – if anyone would want me to buy a product, idea, service or whatever I’d like it to be of benefit for me and the surrounding world, with no, or as little, risk as possible.  Defining the customer/ client / partner and you as participants enable us to better find out how to fulfill the purpose and get our business better connected with the core of how we all participate in the digital world. Since the digital environment is highly action oriented, you will see that participants act. And in your work with the digital strategy you will discover that enabling action and interactions will be one of the essential elements in a successful digital strategy.

Discover Conditions
Under which conditions is your purpose and participants existing? By investigating the actual conditions the methods to implement the purpose and the way participants will engage is discovered. The structures of power in your digital business world, defining condition in the value chain, business models  and so forth. Evaluating limitations and options in infrastructure, hardware, software and in  the Internet business environment will be important analytic tasks to conduct during your work with the digital strategy. Correlatives between existing relevant purposes (others), participants and conditions can be taken advantages of to fulfill the purpose, with the right participants under the right conditions. The idea is to broaden up the more narrow common approach, that often is using tools like a SWOT analysis and so forth in business strategies. I believe that investigating how to get the best conditions to function together, you will end up changing your overall business strategy. Maybe you discover that what you believed was the core of your business, what drives your business, just maybe isn’t the same into the next decade ?

What have you done for me lately?

When did any web page answer this for you – lately? Long time ago? Never happened? – you don’t say…

It’s amazing. Just take a look around on the world wide web. So few web sites seem to be able to really offer their visitors what the visitors wants. It is as everyone wants to TELL you something – SELL you something. The “news” about the web 2.0 or social web doesn’t seem to have had an impact at all. What have you done for me lately?

Web 2.0, Social web or what label it has seems  to be the rebellion of the users, trying hard to find other ways to help each other out. Forums, chats, communities, dating services, Sharing sites,  Facebook, Twitter and so on,  all have huge amounts of users finding ways to connect, interact and communicate. This is great.

On the other hand; Public services, companies, PR,  advertising companies, IT providers, retailers, health care institutions and so on – what have they done for me lately? – Mostly nothing in the digital universe. Still shouting  in a confusing language, very unclear about what they are, and what they want to be there for. This is NOT great.

What have you done for me lately? As a user I want to know what your organization, your company can do for me.  I don’t want to know your business idea or who manages the company ( I might want to know that – when I do NOT get what you have to offer me) And you know what? I am, as a user, very helpful, I would love to help you get better – if you only gave me an opportunity. So why is it still hard to find “contact” on more than half of the web pages I visit during a day? Or:  How did you like our services? What could we improve? What is your idea of what else we could have offered you?

As a professional organization, corporation I really expect you to know what you are doing, and how to do it. I expect you to have a goal for your presence in the digital universe, and you know what? I’d rather join you, buy from you, return to you – if you do. What did I do for you lately?

Iran and Twitter or social media?

Just now, there are very important events in Iran. This isn’t a social media event going on , it’s real life. People are dying in Iran.That is also a fact in  Africa, Europe, Asia, the US and Australia without twitter peoples being occupied with it, people are dying daily due to various forms of injustice. What  this has to do with social media? could be a very arbitrary connection, only interesting for the very few in the world?

I cannot help myself but  thinking that  what the work of social entrepreneurs like Charles Leadbeater discuss  is very important in the discussion of what social media is about. In the subject of Iran these days, it’s just damn important to be awake.  That doesn’t make any other unjust topic in the world less. It’s just another example of how we people are, we are social, we interact. The ways in which we do so is irregular, it simply doesn’t make sense. Logically we should have been as concerned with any other conflict, deaths and problematic aspects in the world, but we don’t. The murders in Darfour didn’t get as much attentions as the Palestine / Israel conflict.

What does this has to do with my blog topic? Internet, innovations and so forth? Quite a lot. There’s no reason for having a industry, like internet, unless it’s connected to “the world” internet as itself have no value. Social media, has no value in itself.  It’s said that (just these recent days) Twitter has an impact on the Iranian news topic. And it just might have on the result but there is some “but’s” . I believe there will be written long white papers on the subject, and I might be one of them doing so. The social engagement is of importance, twitter itself  isn’t.  

This is not a blog posting on pro/con either the one , nor the other one topic, the examples above shows that very important topics find their way into “social media” a last example is terrifying, in Norway ;a young girl had  a horrifying traffic accident these  days, she might live after this, as we know from the media at this date. At facebook it emerge “hate groups”  that attack the drivers involved.(for now, no-one kan know the facts, nevertheless as “social individuals” we tend to “want” a conclution fast)  Social media can also be used to create a mob. Just mind you, yourself and what’s going on. Social media, seen from an innovation standpoint, and IT viewpoint isn’t  all that easy. It’s social, in all it’s effect, that means it also creates e-g- a mob.

In the topic of ongoing serious politics, Iran it’s great , some of ous are able to speak out – on (what ever) now shown by twitter ,  by the way, twitter didn’t know, nor wish for this effect, facebook didn’t expect their community used for creating a mob. The very reason for all of this is that the focus seems to have been on the “media” part of social media – not the “social” part of social media, such as facebook or twitter. Again i’de like all of you wanting to understand what sicial media is about to read the basics; Bordieu, Facault and so fort

Did I make myself clear or not? (knowing that there’s a pile of topics in this one posting…)

How to drive business in social media?

There’s an ongoing discussion about how to drive business in social medias. And as you might have guessed I have an opinion on the subject.

It’s like beginning with the end of a story to ask the question how to drive business in social medias. It’s better, I believe, to start asking what you sell. “How to” will  depend on what your business is all about. What is your business model? What is it you produce and sell? And foremost “social media” isn’t one thing, it’s a wide range of arenas. Did that sound complex? It is. Neither of the elements can be forced to function in contradiction to itself, so to try to force a non fitting business model into a social media where it doesn’t belong – won’t work.

Let’s forget about social media for a little. My thesis is that humans haven’t changed much lately(last mill years or so) , the new digital media enable communication between the masses, in a speed and spread we haven’t seen before, but little else have changed. (when I was a teenager it was a sport for the young boys to look thru the keyhole into the girl dressing room at school, now young boys can look it up on the internet, but it’s the same phenomena?)

Is there anything around that has been sold for a long time, where the social aspect is involved? Do I need to say more than the brand of Tupperware? The memberships of cooperative chains? Benefit programs as a member (car, travel clubs, airline mileage programs) and so forth. A VIP access to a nightclub contain the essence of a “social sale”. You get a certain treatment, because you belong to a certain group. To be able to sell something in a social media, you have to blend your business model into the group, code and motifs for the group we are speaking of. In other words it’s more of using the right (and fitted) sales strategy, and then find the channels and arenas to conduct you sales, than “forcing” any sale into a social media.

It’s even interesting to ask the question why? Why sell anything in a social media? Why not give something to the users? With the strategy to build a strong brand, and build a loyalty towards your brand?  Libresse is doing such a thing. Nike too. Or, why not do as 3M have done for years, using the customers complaints as their best innovational input, for producing better products, new products and customers support?  NextGenTel is using twitter actively to look for negative comments on their products, and reply them directly and offer them a solution, before the one complaining even got to make the phone call to them asking for support. That’s giving value to their customer, building loyalty and an ambassador for their brand and products.

In my opinion there are a big stack of available tools, techniques to sell, promote, build brand and get new ideas from your customers in the social media environment.

 

Obama Team @ Webforum2009 in Oslo

This was interesting. And people waiting for the “revolutionary new”, maybe got another aha experience. I did for sure!

 

If you’re trying to be an internet scout ( like probably the crowd of some hundreds felt listening to the staff around Obama today) you might discover than when you get back to the everyday life you see that what’s up front there – is much the same as what is here already. You won’t discover a brand new land, or planet for that part. You will discover a lot of what you already have seen before. Still the Obama Campaign did something that really made a difference. What might that be ?

The Obama team implemented and made a system of knowledge we already have, but in an environment where it ‘s new to think like that. Data mining, segmentation, Direct mailing knowledge, Does this sound like Direct mail strategy?) combined with a great sense of what sociology is all about. The mix, in a political campaign, speaking directly to people, instead of  “from above” has the effect any social activity, well done, has. Dialogue, connected to the real world!

Dialogue craves for participation, influence, the possibility to make people re- think and possibly change their origin opinion. That is what the American people all of a sudden thought possible, and responded to – and  – not only the American people. The population of the world could all of a sudden e mail, comment on facebook and twitter – to the “maybe next President of the US America”.

All done by a large team all over America using well known techniques of e.g. a great car salesman, and a sociologist and storytellers, telling real stories from real people to real people. Just what we want politics to be all about.

Using Buzz ords such as multichannel strategies

Lesson one: Do not use a buzz word unless you can explain what it means!
Lesson two: Listen to what has become a common meaning of a buzz word.
Lesson three: Be willing to learn more, and adjust what you state.

Multichannel what is it ? what does it mean ?
Multichannel is NOT only using several channels…  if it is  some message (advert, campaign, branding – or whatever) is used in some sort of inter- chained way it’s still NOT Multichannel – it might be, and could easily NOT be.

Mostly the term is used to describe  retail- or e-commerce strategies where several channels are put in effect to reach – and connect with their target groups.
The idea is to let the consumer be more in charge of the transaction process, than before, and to let the consumer be exposed to an opportunity to become aware, interact and finally buy a service or product via several channels. In order to make this happen the various channels has to be coordinated, influenced by each other and provide a flow (memory between them) so that the customer experience a seamless connection with the sender of the messages. It’s sort of a artificial intelligence experience for the customer, where one message is followed up toward the customer in other channels, that give an opportunity to act, start a process and finalize it via several channels used.

But these principles could also be put in use for other areas?  
Like delivering our tax declarations, – getting information of car registrations, depths owners registered on a specific car is only some examples.
It should involve several channels, interconnected in some sort, have interaction with the “customer” of some kind and give a desired result fo the end user – like a service provided, and so on.

Still – A commercial – or public campaign- or branding activites using several channels is not a multi- channel strategy – it’s still an old fashioned Channel mix.

Digital collaboration in three steps

To get where you want, you need to know where you are heading

The three most important steps are,  to define your needs, what is it you want to achieve? and how to implement it? Does this sound easy? Well it is – sort of, then again this is where most organizations fail.  If you want to get a deeper understanding of my viewpoint you can look at my presentation at Slideshare : Here

The main point in my presentation is that we have collaborated as long as we have been around, but now more than ever. There have been collaborative tools around for a long time, but now we have new possibillities as the web have developed, the introduction of broadband, web 2.0 and so forth.

Integrating what we know already will make digital collaboration more effective, and very soon a commen way of conducting any work tasks as we know them.  There are three levels of digital collaboration:

1 – Digital collaboration fitted to meet internal challenges is an improvement from the situation today
2 – Digital collaboration that involve the organization with partners and customers is an even better idea.
3 – Integrated digital collaboration with social media enables organizations to achieve an optimal environment where you, your organization and the market itself are so woven together that you might not be sure about who came up with an idea, innovation, service or product you can put in effect. Was it you, or your market?

What did Barack Obama do on the internet?

I haven’t had the time to dive into it so if you wish, fill me in! But the phenomena’s  are there in all directions. And beside everything that’s outside what I’m writing about – it seems like he gets credit for a lot and have a lot to live up to.

My topic on the other hand is internet an innovations that make sense. Did he? I don’t know. He – or what he stands for just might have. In the sense of being (becoming) an icon of possibilities, he was active on the web, no need to discuss that, and I reckon that there will be many studies to come from what happened, so I’ll let that rest here.

But having a public sector that can look at the possibilities of making a difference in a real way is fascinating. Opening up, politics and democratic processes are real options. We do have a time in history where we (yet again) can make a difference. The phenomena Web 2.0 have to me at times seemed meaningless and just another “buzz” word – until it’s given a meaning.  In the private sector it’s seems to go slow, but not at all everything is meaningless. In the private sector the most benefitual for people could be claimed to be virtual dating services. That provides opportunities for love. Something that is not to be overlooked!

In the public sector this might be a little too personal?  What could the public service do, and why? If we start with the latter, the public service has a purpose – which is to serve the population. What does that mean in terms of the internet, and digital opportunities? In my opinion, it means that services should be provided as needed for a cost as low as it can – but with a quality as high as it can at the same time. Internet services are perfect for that! We have tools at hand to measure what people use. We are able to make solutions that are making things easier, and we can, by internet solutions sort out, and find out, how to produce functionalities that are providing public services that has a real impact on people’s lives and make it easier. All at a cost that is far lower than how we do things today. Isn’t that great in a time with economic recession?

I didn’t forget the “what” part. What can the public sector do? Both politicians and administrations can do a lot! A self service solution in all areas is one angle. Digital collaboration is another one, gathering input, and open up for discussions and idea creation is a third one.   The amount of idea creation and benefit from these three options alone is amazing.

So if you’re in politics, what are you waiting for? By opening up, by embracing your community (what gives you all your votes) you will win! By working in the administration, saving cost (or better put; gaining more from the budgets you have) you will win. By being simply a citizen you win. I cannot see anyone not winning – and that is what Barack Obama also saw, and this made him win the election!

NOTE: all material on this blog is written by and belong to Geir Stene https://gstene.wordpress.com the http://davinciguy.wholinkswho.com has unlawfully copied my material, and will be stopped.

Change is painful

It seems like we all try the best to avoid change. Change demands to face the uncertain and very few of us like that. Nevertheless, however hopeless, to dare to face change also represent the option to come out stronger. This is very much true in the Internet business at the time we are in.
But now there is no way to avoid it, change is here.

Times are difficult in so many parts of the world these days, for so many people, and are so in most areas of work. What did happen is one question. Another possible question is: What will happen? Both are important to gain knowledge to get out of the state we are in, but still the most important question we all have to ask is what do we want to happen next? and start work towards that goal.

In my line of business I want to use my skills and creativity to improve things. Things in my life and things for the customers I work for. Since change is something happening for all of us as we speak, it’s easier to get change to happen. How can I help others to improve things is the focus of what I want to do at the time. Businesses nowadays have serious topics to solve: How to avoid going bankrupt? How to not have to let people go from their work?

In the public sector there’s a lot to be done, that will ease the workload, and thereby provide more resources available to get more done. Public service need to get most out of the budgets in order to do what the public services are there to do: provide services needed to the public. In the private sector it’s not much different, besides providing a profit for the owners; companies in the end of the value chain are doing that: delivering valuable services and products for people. My part of all this is to contribute as well as I can to provide solutions for customers, to find their best way to contribute to make change happen as fast as possible so we can get back on track again. What’s your best way to contribute? What do you want to happen next?

Innovative digital collaboration?

Being innovative doesn’t mean that you have to invent something totally new. Innovation is being creative and make it happen! Most innovations that works is by connecting some known factors together in a creative way and make use  of it in a new way, and very very few new ideas came frome solitude and a vacum, its almost allways made by groups.

I came across this Blog article at Tech Pulse 360 about collaboration today. Have to say there is very little new in it. The news is that people now start getting it. Collaboration is useful in order to get whatever you do, done!

Cisco have gotten this and are prepared to offer large solutions to large enterprises to a high premium price. Great for Cisco! They have seen what people in the business have seen for a long time. It’s a huge market, and the demand is rising fast. Cisco estimates a 34 billion dollar market, yearly! But they are sticking to “telepresence, and webex conferences, not taking full advantages of collaborative possibilities, both synchrone, and a- synchrone. For most of us, it will be unneededly expensive. Connecting what we see is happening in the “Web 2.0” area, with various collaborative applications can be far more efficient for most of us in all kind of collaborative tasks. The applications are there, security and broadband challenges are solved. The global ressicion is a driver to speed up this developement as well, due to the need to look at cost/benefits and reductions on costs.

Well this is the ‘basics’. Another driver for digital collaboration that becomes innovative is You & I. Yes it is. Open innovation, in collective groups will drive forward a combination of innovation itself, and collaborative solutions as a result motivated by each other. Further reading on this ideas is a great idea. Charles Leadbeater book “We think” is a great start, but if you are as lazy as I am, a link to his blog would maybe be of help? Well just click on his name or the name of the book. In any event thinking alone hasen’t gotten anyone anywhere, action and results are needed in order to get innovation, so what are you waiting for? 

We are all ready, We have the knowledge, the overview of products and services to set up concepts and solutions that are innovative, and we have the fun mix of providing a quick ROI, being quickly adjustable to meet changing needs, easy to produce and most important easy to use. Anyone guessing its not Cisco’s solutions Im thinking of ? It’s more in the line of integrated software/applications, or this clever thing calles SaaS, that enables modern, innovative digital collaboration. All for a cost you earn back fast enough to dare to get started! Not convinsed yet? Well you now have the tools to get independent by large corporations, and can choose between social groups of your choice to get inspired, to get new knowledge and to balance risk between providors of all kinds.

“DIY” Innovation by real people

One of the largest industries on the internet are meeting new challenges. People aren’t buying porn on the web anymore, they are making it themselves and share it for free. Finally some innovation from us, the people, Wow!

This is interessting, just read what Sergio Messina says. Another interessting book on the subject is “The Porn report” from Australia. The names for the innovative engagement of real people is “DIY” ( Do it yourself) and “Realcore”. Got this knowledge from the newspaper Dagbladet. Well, the porn industry used to be innovative (just remember the struggle of home video format), maybe not so anymore. The positive side of ordinary people taking power of the internet porn is that it’s free, it’s democratic, it present real humans with normal bodies, in all ages and shapes, with “normal” actons and/or more kinky stuff presented, and the audiens find this more interessting than the “pro versions of porn” It’s also an interessting phenomen because this helps “destroying” a lucreative and cynical business that has exploited far to many people. Its like the burning of bra’s in the seventies, but with a modern twist, or is it?
It’s not only a shunshine story; we’ve all heard about private videos and images, that was never ment to be published, and tragic stories of people that got their most intimate parts of their lives exposed on the net. Well, everybody knew that Sex and Porn are two of the most seached words on the internet, or didn’t everybody know this ? For the qurious of you I have placed a free video clip on my Miscellaneous page. Was that evil of me ?

Google vs. Microsoft

Who to believe? Does Microsoft want to serve the market with great products or services, or do they want to survive? What about google, are they here to let multitude grow ?

 

To much power hasn’t done anything good for anyone. It seems like it’s a human pattern, that also goes for companies and organizations. Microsoft has been said to be the “bad” due to the market power it has. But is google the “hero”, that take power away from the big powerful MS? Maybe google has come to the point where they just have to much power to handle it?

I’m not thinking of the introduction of their browser, or the gadgets they spread, nor the income from adds alone or the search algorythm or the buy ups, I’m thinking of the sum of it all, the size, the presence all over the plaze, the hunger for growth. And i’m thinking of the ignorance and carelessness of all of us users. google have done one amazing thing, the have become a verb in our languages, that’s something! But is it good for us ?  The answers i have on my lips aren’t to difficult to guess, is it? there are a huge amount of articles, blogs out there about this subject like this article in “Dagens næringsliv” my point is that we as consumers, as companies should be aware of consequences for us and  ou clients!

Why is the web flat?

I’ve been wondering for more than ten years now; why does web sites on internet seems so “flat”? It’s like transferring paper to the screen.

Updated comments below article

When I ask this question to designers, they often get very defensive. Its like we all believe that a web shall have a global menu, sub menus, a logo on top, a lot of informative text and if creative some great images to follow. Isn’t that recipy like a soup in a bag? Just add water…. But do not misinterpret me, there is a lot going on and internet and the web is still only in the early phase of evolving into what we will see in the future. There are a lot of interesting blogs out there discussing and talking (writing?) about this kind of topics, one interesting is this one: 360

Inventions, phenomena’s and ideas tend to keep a pattern we have to accept; they all tend to be loyal to the origin they came from. “The world is flat” we all know this postulate, and it took centuries to evolve from this idea to the one we have now (what ever that is these days..), even after the fact was stated people continued wanting to believe that the world is flat for decades. Web sites (pages!) has a lot of it’s idea created around the idea of print. I always found this interesting, since the computer screen is digital, and factually resembles the TV set more.

Even designers used to defend the fact that designing web pages frequently seems like a “forced electronic paper version” instead of a medium of visual communication with  another fact:  “3D is to expensive in most cases” or “live images can’t get quality due to lack of broadband capacity” This statements are now less true than before, and designers are working hard to evolve the web.

The idea of (and knowledge to) create a perspective in an image was developed during the Renaissance , you don’t need 3D technology to draw diagonal lines to a center point! You need knowledge, and you need a basis for your idea world. Lot’s of interesting things are happening, but far to much of it seems to me to be “experimental”…. And I don’t get it. Experimental?? what is so experimental by implementing what art, cinema and, radio/TV has done for years? What’s so experimental by doing what PR and commercials have been for years? There is less experimenting on the web, than in most new media the last centuries!

Since the “history” of the web is, in my opinion, based upon an “electronic paper”, and the idea has been to provide knowledge and information spread, it’s hard to get out of the thinking patterns that we have to use a lot of text, mainly a form of one way communication, we will still have that as a major direction of how a web page will look, and function. Even web 2.0, social media, interactive solutions keep producing “flat web sites” If one wants’ to get out of this, one will need to take the bull by its horns, and questioning the basic of the idea of what a web site really is, for whom and to do what.

• It came to my mind that Itera group uses the term “the world is flat” from the book: “The World Is Flat – The Globalized World in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas L. Friedman
  There are two major points in my opinion on this use of term. First, using such terminology; To me it sounds typical American (excuse me my US friends) to simplify a phenomena by the wording that much so that the complexity disappear, it’s in fact a dangerous rhetoric trick of (amongst others)politicians to do so, and thereby avoid that the public focus is at more troublesome sides of the case.
  Thomas L Friedman’s book, tries to speak of a “flatter” (read less hierarchic world) but argue in fact of new business models, new technologies and how to achieve this – but, in my opinion naively overlook that it’s not very likely that e.g. poor / common people in the world (so called third world) are the one to enable this. Maybe the commercial corporation Itera group didn’t overlook this and see possibilities for profit in this term ?
  I would rather have a far more Holistic world, than a “flatter” one.
  

Police dep. wake up!

It maybe sound unbelievable, but NTB in Norway report that the police data systems are outdated and should have been replaced years ago, in order to be up to date.

Security threats and network stability is at risk. The Norwegian Police data Dep. even state that ordinary police work is at risk at all times due to the old data systems.

The saddest part is that this is not only a fact for the police dep. but for a lot of official authorities. Health dep. social dep. and so forth are frequently reported to have outdated technical systems, or/and outdated solutions when it comes to take advantage of information and communication systems as a whole. (IKT)

There is an old saying that you can “save yourself into poverty”. This is very much true for the news article mentioned above. Police work suffer, cost per hour rise, results comes slower or doesn’t come at all. The result is an inefective police core, which gets de-motivated as their competence is not put in effective use.

Everyone in the Public sector should examine their systems and organizational procedure and invest and reorganize in order to become more effective, and work smarter. It’s not only the equipment and technical investments that solve problems and give smarter solutions. It’s very much an human challenge to use IKT systems effectively.

When it comes to the systems of the police force in Norway, there is only one thing to say to those who provide the budgets; Stop it!

Analyze your needs, and get what you need to enable you to do your job! Look at cost/benefit and look after that the investments, increases effectivity, provides increased motivation for the police so they can make full use of their competence in their daily work. The goal should be that the police force doesn’t save money on their budget; but that crime rate drops!