Three Tips For Making Social Media More Effective

Everyone wants to jump on the social media bandwagon these days. Yet it takes a lot of care to be sure your Facebook page gets viewed and your tweets get read.

Here are three tips for making the most of social media:

- Speak to your customers’ core interests. Don’t rely on marketing gimmicks. If your customers are parents, talk to them about kids. If they are pet lovers, talk about pets. Know what your customers care about most and address those concerns.

- Put your audience in the driver’s seat. Find ways to get your customers involved in decision-making. Ask them to submit new slogans or ad ideas.

- Use media to deliver value and services. Social media isn’t just a marketing tool. The Mid-Atlantic Great Dane Rescue League uses Twitter to share descriptions and photos of dogs available for adoption. Which of your services could be delivered through a social network or online community?

To learn more, check out Alexandra Samuels article in the Harvard Business Review

The New Faster Face of Innovation

Here is a great article from MIT Sloan Prof.’s Erik Bynjolfsson and Michael Schrage. Its a great article that discusses the role technology is playing in innovation and aligns perfectly with what I consult my clients on. The only area that I have an issue with here and in the real world is execution. Conceptually, hypothetically, etc. I am 100% agreement with Erik and Michael’s position and article. But…. the biggest challenge here is getting clients and organizations to fully invest across the board with resources, time, effort, etc. to execute.

Most companies today talk a good game when it comes to innovation. They all want to do it or think they already do. But the reality is much different. In most cases, where practical innovation falls down is in the execution. Why? Because most organizations large and small dont have the time, risk acceptence, or resources to do the things Michael and Erik point out. They are to busy and frantically trying to close business, deliver product and services, meet customer demands. market expectations, etc. They can’t or are unwilling to experiment and potentially risk their business even though they know they need to innovate. So what they do is punt. The pretend to innovate by motivating people to think outside of the box, but in actuality really dont execute.

In some cases, the larger Fortune 500 companies or really small niche firms can afford to experiment. This is usually when they own the supply chain, distribution channel and market share. They can afford to tinker with ideas on segmented brands, products, services, isle placement, features, pricing models, even experiment in the store think Wal-Mart. But what about the rest of the world?

This is the crux of the matter with innovation. There are so many ways to distract your efforts under the guise of innovation. Real innovation is ultimately a discipline that requires experimentation, results and KPI definition and measurement, creativity, etc.. All of Erik and Michael’s points are valid, important and effective. But bridging the gap between conceptual and executional will always be the real challenge when trying to innovate.

Take a read of this article. I think it will be well worth your time. Also think about how to plan and execute the things discussed for your own business.

-DF

The New, Faster Face of Innovation
By Erik Brynjolfsson and Michael Schrage

Thanks to technology, change has never been so easy—or so cheap

CALL IT INNOVATION on steroids. Or innovation at warp speed. Or just the innovation of rapid innovation.

But the essential point remains: Technology is transforming innovation at its core, allowing companies to test new ideas at speeds—and prices—that were unimaginable even a decade ago. They can stick features on Web sites and tell within hours how customers respond. They can see results from in-store promotions, or efforts to boost process productivity, almost as quickly.

The result? Innovation initiatives that used to take months and megabucks to coordinate and launch can often be started in seconds for cents.
And that makes innovation, the lifeblood of growth, more efficient and cheaper. Companies are able to get a much better idea of how their customers behave and what they want. This gives new offerings and marketing efforts a better shot at success.

THE SPEED OF CHANGE

The Evolution: Technology is allowing companies to test new ideas at speeds—and prices—that were unimaginable even a decade ago.
The Effect: Innovation, the lifeblood of growth, is growing more efficient and cheaper.

What’s Ahead: Innovative companies will shift away from traditional research-and-development methods. Managers will change the way they solicit ideas. And much, much more.

Companies will also be willing to try new things, because the price of failure is so much lower. That will bring big changes for corporate culture—making it easier to challenge accepted wisdom, for instance, and forcing managers to give more employees a say in the innovation process.
There will be even better payoffs for customers: Their likes and dislikes will have much more impact on companies’ decisions. In globally competitive markets, they will ultimately end up getting products and services better tailored to their needs.
Already, this powerful new capability is changing the way some of the biggest companies in the world do business, inspiring new strategies and revolutionizing the research-and-development process.

“In the U.S., we do the vast majority of our concept testing online, which has created truly substantial savings in money and time,” says Joan Lewis, global consumer and market knowledge officer at Procter & Gamble Co.

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK THIS LINK TO MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW

The New Wave in Collaboration?

Have you seen the demo for Google Wave? If the answer is no, check this out at – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&feature=player_embedded#t=611

Or visit:

http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html

Google Wave is an online tool for real-time communication and collaboration. A wave can be both a conversation and a document where people can discuss and work together using richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.Very very cool. Has the potential to change the way people and organization communicate, collaborate and share information and content in real time. This tool is open source targeting Google’s large 3rd party developer pool. Lots of automated extensions enabling efficient usage and interaction.

Lots of strong application for internal organization usage, internal collaboration, connection to your clients, social networks and embedding into websites, portals, blogs, etc. Very very cool. Check it out and get on the list. A new wave is coming and it is definitely very interesting. Especially that it is completely browser based!

-DF

How Executives Can Make Bad Decisions

Oh boy! I love that title!! I could write a book on this subject and throw in a couple of case studies for good measure!! There is no shortage of bad decisions by bad executives. Dont even get me started! I could think a couple of “executives” I know personally who are real winners and what a fun book that would be to write. But, I digress.

Here is the point, with the proliferation of new social media mediums i.e. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Ning and many many more, most folks today are struggling personally and corporate wide on how to leverage this new technology. Worse however, is the fact that senior executives who don’t know how to use, analyze, leverage and engage this medium are setting themselves up for failure and mistakes, not to mention looking like knuckleheads. Thats why there are great firms out there that help specifically in this niche.

This article from Sloan Management Review is a perfect example. I would highly recommend a read.

-DF

How Executives Can Make Bad Decisions

July 1, 2009

Social networks provide greater access to information, which improves people’s judgment and decision making, right? Not always, according to some recent research.

The conventional wisdom is that social networks are good for decision making because they help people to acquire knowledge that then enables them to make better choices. In other words, the more extensive and active your social networks, the better decisions you’ll presumably make. But could social networks actually impair your judgment and decision making? Consider a recent study conducted by Francis J. Flynn, an associate professor of organizational behavior at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, and Scott S. Wiltermuth, a Ph.D. student in organizational behavior there. (Their paper, “Who’s with Me? False Consensus, Advice Networks, and Ethical Decision Making in Organizations,” is under invited resubmission at the Academy of Management Journal.)

In their research, Flynn and Wiltermuth asked participants for their opinions on different ethical dilemmas. For example, in one of the hypothetical scenarios, an employee is caught pilfering pens, paper and other small office supplies. Corporate policy requires that the person be fired on the spot, but she is one of the best workers at the company and is also a long-time employee. So her manager decides to give her a second chance. Was that ethical? The study participants were also asked to estimate how their colleagues might view those same dilemmas. Lastly, they were asked for information that helped determine their position in a social network of their peers. Whom, for instance, did they turn to when they needed advice?

Flynn and Wiltermuth conducted the experiment with three groups: graduate business students, executive education students and employees in the marketing department of a large manufacturing company. For all three samples, the results were the same: The more that people were centrally connected to their peers, the more they tended to overestimate the degree to which their judgments were in agreement with the views of others (a phenomenon called “the false consensus effect”). This was true even when the study participants held a minority opinion on an issue — but mistakenly believed they were in the majority. Simply put, social ties tended to exacerbate — and not mitigate — the false consensus effect. In essence, social ties strengthened the illusion of consensus even when none existed.

To Read More Of This Article, please click this link the Sloan Management Review: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2009/summer/50402/how-executives-can-make-bad-decisions/