Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Social Media, Bosom Buddies, and Christmas Card Friends
Bosom Buddies
I try to keep up with the latest trends in social media. I’m especially interested in how my clients might use it to improve communications internally with employees or externally with customers and partners.
Over the years, I’ve seen the persistent criticism that the “social” in social media is Orwellian – it does the opposite of what it claims to do. Just as Big Brother promised freedom but offered enslavement, social media promise to create closely knit communities but actually insert an intermediate layer where none is needed. Rather than making us more social, it separates us further.
That’s the complaint… but is it true? As I use social media, I find that I need to segment the market to get real benefits. For some segments, social media doesn’t help me much at all. For other segments, it keeps me in better contact with people than ever before.
The two big segments for me are: 1) Bosom Buddies, and; 2) Christmas Card Friends. Bosom Buddies have two defining characteristics: 1) they’re close friends or colleagues that I want to keep up with, and; 2) I see them or talk to them or e-mail them often. I know what’s going on in their lives.
With Bosom Buddies, social media add no value whatsoever. I’ve never, ever learned a juicy new tidbit about a Bosom Buddy from a social media source. I’ve always heard it first from a more traditional source – a dinner party, a phone call, or just plain old-fashioned gossip. Social media add an unnecessary layer of communication that doesn’t get me any closer to my Bosom Buddies.
With Bosom Buddies, the grapevine is a powerful and prolific source of information. In fact, I sometimes hear that active participation in social media is an effective substitute for going to the office. With Bosom Buddies, the reverse is true: going to the office is an effective substitute for social media.
With Christmas Card Friends, things are different. I like my Christmas Card Friends just as much as my Bosom Buddies but I don’t see them nearly as often. They may live in another town. Or maybe they travel in slightly different social circles. Or maybe they have young children and don’t get around much any more.
Whatever the case, I don’t get to see them as often as I’d like. Nor do I hear from them (or they from me) frequently, even though I would like to. In some cases, I only hear from them though the traditional social medium called Christmas Cards.
With Christmas Card Friends, social media can add significant value. I can fairly easily keep up with people I enjoy but don’t interact with regularly. Social media are a source of new news. I regularly learn new things about Christmas Card Friends through social media. I enjoy that and I think it enriches our relationship.
As you think about social media – whether personal or professional – think about your market segments. You may find that targeting Christmas Card Friends rather than Bosom Buddies will lead you to richer, more enjoyable interactions.
What Do The French Know About Advertising?
Why change?
We lived in Paris for three years at the turn of the century. Being a marketing guy, I studied the advertising. I rode the Métro to work most days and became very familiar with advertising posters designed to appeal to commuters.
Like most advertising, some of it was great, some of it was obscure, much of it was in between. What struck me most (besides the lingerie ads) was how long an ad might be used. Companies ran their ads for much longer periods of time than I was accustomed to in the United States. Similarly, they would recycle and re-use ads that they had used in previous years.
Take rentrée advertising, for instance. Each year, all of France goes on vacation to the countryside for the entire month of August. Then, in early September, they ”re-enter” (rentrée) the cities and prepare to go back to work and school. It’s a steady rhythm and advertisers are ready for it.
In 1999, during my first September in Paris, I saw hundreds of ads geared to the rentrée. To get an idea of the scope, think of our back-to-school ads and multiply them by two or even three.
I had heard of the rentrée so the scope didn’t surprise me. What did surprise me was that, in September 2000, I saw exactly the same ads. I expected a new wave of advertising and a new wave of creativity. Instead, I saw the same ads repeated from the previous year. In September 2001, I saw them again.
I was reminded of this the other day when I picked up a current issue of a French magazine and leafed through it. I saw a full-page image for Galleries Lafayette – a major department store – that I had first seen at least a dozen years ago. (It’s the image shown above). It’s a striking image and very recognizable and I gather that Galleries Lafayette sees no reason to retire it.
This also reminded me of a CEO I once worked for. Every now and then, he would call me in and tell me that, “Our messages are getting stale. Time for some new messages.” Unfortunately, he wasn’t talking about high-level metaphors and ad copy. Rather, he was talking about the fundamental elements of the brand. He thought we were repeating ourselves and we needed to stop it.
So, who’s right? Well, Galleries Lafayette is doing better than my old company. The lesson for me is that the brand itself shouldn’t change (unless there’s a very good reason). For instance, Volvo’s brand is safety. Volvo changes the metaphors and images it uses to deliver the message but the message is always safety. So if you’re thinking that familiarity breeds contempt, you’ve got another think coming. Familiarity actually breeds trust. And trust breeds sales.
Teens Dump Social While Companies Rush In
Last month a Piper Jaffray survey asked 5,000 teenagers in the United States to identify their “most important social media sites.” Facebook was still the most important but it had declined steeply compared to Piper Jaffray surveys taken six months and 12 months earlier. Indeed, Facebook was barely ahead of YouTube.
Why did it happen? Well, teenagers are fickle. Additionally more and more old folks are invading the Facebook space, which may be driving the younger set away. Advertising may be partially to blame as well. As I learned with my brief foray into Facebook advertising, a lot of users react violently to the presence of ads in their news feeds.
Overall, however, I think the most cogent analysis comes from Cliff Watson’s blog on Medium. Watson essentially says that teens have better things to do and faster, simpler ways of doing it.
As the teens decamp, however, companies are rushing into social media. In March, McKinsey published its sixth annual survey on the business use of social media. The survey, conducted in 2012, received responses from 3,542 executives representing companies around the world. Some 83 percent of respondents say their companies are using at least one social medium (up from 72 percent in 2011) and 90 percent of those report measureable benefits.
Companies are using social media both internally and externally. The top benefits for internal use (in order) are: 1) faster access to knowledge; 2) reduced communication costs; 3) reduced travel costs. For external use, the top three benefits are: 1) increased marketing effectiveness; 2) increased customer satisfaction; 3) reduced marketing costs.
This also seemed to be the year that companies jumped on the mobile bandwagon. Sixty-five percent of the respondents said their companies were using at least one social medium on mobile technologies. As in previous surveys, the three primary uses for mobile were: 1) marketing; 2) sales; 3) IT.
While mobile is growing rapidly, the use of big data is more of a challenge. Indeed, executives don’t quite seem to know what to make of big data. According to McKinsey, “ … between 42 and 54 percent of respondents say either that they don’t know how their companies use the data or that these practices aren’t yet applicable to their companies.”
And the downside? A majority of respondents say that the major risk is that confidential information may be leaked. But 60 percent agree that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Teens seem to be moving away from “traditional” social technologies while companies are moving in. Coincidence? I think not. It’s like two animals competing for the same ecological niche. As one moves in, the other moves out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Companies can still get a lot of benefits from social media. They just won’t get the teens.
How Does It Feel To Commit Prematurely?
Is it too soon to get married?
In February, I wrote about premature commitment. According to Paul Nutt in his book, Why Decisions Fail, premature commitments all too often lead to debacles — decisions gone spectacularly and publicly wrong. The process is fairly simple: 1) we have a problem; 2) a beguiling solution is proposed; 3) we jump on the solution with undue haste and without considering our options or searching for alternatives. After all, we have a solution, don’t we? Why bother looking for another one?
As we read Nutt’s book in my classes, I can tell that students are grasping the general concept intellectually. It’s clear — intellectually and academically — that you shouldn’t commit too soon. Step back, look around, ask questions, survey the possibilities — then make a decision.
That’s all well and good in the classroom but will my students actually be patient when the pressure is on and everyone wants to be a hero? I’m not so sure. So, I’ve been looking for ways to show students what it feels like to make a premature commitment. By experiencing the process — rather than just reading about it — I’m hoping to imprint something on them. When you’re under pressure and a crisis is looming, it’s hard to think clearly. It’s easier to remember an experience than it is to organize your thoughts and respond to a novel situation.
I’ve discovered a video that helps students make the connection. Actually, I’ve known about the video for some time but I used to use it for a different purpose. Then it dawned on me that the video provides a good demonstration of a premature commitment. So, I’m re-purposing the way I teach it. Perhaps that’s an example of mashup thinking.
The video requires you to concentrate your attention for about 90 seconds and count the number of times a specific action happens. Here’s what I’d like you to do: Watch the video twice. The first time, focus intently on the task at hand (the video will explain what to do). Count the number of times the specified action happens and record the number. There is one (and only one) correct answer. Then watch the video a second time and don’t bother to count. Just observe what goes on. Don’t read on until you’ve watched the video twice. You can find the video here.
*************************************************************
Watch the video (twice) before proceeding
*************************************************************
Did you miss anything the first time you watched the video? Did you notice it the second time? (I’m not going to give it away here but, if you find this confusing, send me an e-mail and I’ll explain it).
About two-thirds of the people who follow the instructions miss an important element of the video the first time they watch it. Perhaps the key phrase here is “people who follow the instructions”. Basically, I conned you into making a premature commitment. I convinced you that — to get the right answer — you needed to pay close attention to the action and count carefully. You decided that it was important to get the right answer, so you played by the rules I imposed. Because you played by the rules, you missed something important in the environment.
What’s the message here? It’s easy to get caught up in the situation. It’s easy to buy into the “rules” that a situation seems to impose on you. It’s easy to let other people rush you to judgment. It’s easy to con yourself. The next time you’re at work and a problem arises and everybody is rushing to find a solution, just ask yourself: “Am I missing the gorilla?”
Gray Hair and Innovation
I’m just peaking.
How old are people when they’re at their innovative peak? I worked in the computing industry and we generally agreed that the most innovative contributors were under 30. Indeed, sometimes, they were quite a bit under 30.
Some of this is simply not knowing what can’t be done. I’ve seen this with Elliot. He doesn’t know how a computer is “supposed” to work. So he just tries things … and very often they work. On the other hand, I do know how a computer is supposed to work and I sometimes don’t try things because I “know” they won’t work. Elliot just doesn’t have the same limits on his thinking. That can be a great advantage in a new field.
While youth may be an advantage in software, it’s not true in many other fields. In pharmaceuticals, for instance, the most innovative people are in their 50s or even 60s. It takes that long to master the knowledge of biology, chemistry, and statistics needed to make original contributions. Comparatively speaking, it’s easy to master software.
Indeed, as knowledge gets more complicated, it takes longer to master. According to Benjamin F. Jones of the Kellogg School of Business, “The mean age at great achievement for both Nobel Prize winners and great technological inventors rose by about 6 years over the course of the 20th Century.” The average Nobel prize winner now conducts his or her breakthrough research around the age of 38 – though the prize is typically awarded many years later.
Aside from domain knowledge, why might you want a little gray hair to fuel innovation in your company? According to a recent article by Tom Agan in the New York Times, one reason is the time necessary to commercialize an innovation. As a general rule, the more fundamental an innovation, the longer it takes to commercialize. Ideas need to percolate. People need to be educated. Back-of-the-envelope sketches need to be prototyped. Lab results need to be scaled up. It takes time – perhaps as much as 20 to 30 years.
Who’s best at converting the idea to reality? Typically, it’s the person or persons who created the innovation in the first place. So, let’s say someone makes a breakthrough at the Nobel-average age of 38. You may need to keep them around until age 58 to proselytize, educate, socialize, realize, and monetize the idea. In the meantime, it’s likely that they will also enhance the idea and, just possibly, kick off a new round of innovation.
So, what to do? Once again, diversity pays. Mixing employees of multiple age groups can help stimulate new ways of thinking and better ways of communicating. Ultimately, I like Meredith Fineman’s advice: “Working hard, disruption, and the entrepreneurial spirit knows no age. To judge based upon it would be juvenile.”
My Social Media
