Three events this year have generated a lot of interest from consumers:
1. President Obama's Inauguration
2. Iran Elections
3. Michael Jackson's demise
There are interesting insights to be gleaned from analyzing patterns in data across channels that deliver news -or music, in the case of recent tweets over the Michael Jackson tribute song- to the consumer.
Kick off for Rigorous Analysis?
Keeping thoughts of rigorous analysis aside- how about plotting each of these event on 3 axes? These three events can be compared to other, more "regular" events like the NBA finals. The key point to note is that some of the delivery channels are pretty nascent and they may not have a large universe of comparison points.
The Objective?
The deep dive may help size the market for various solutions, like developing quick reaction advertising patterns that respond to breaking news, to more effective tools for the media and advertising industry. Of course, from experience, I would like to emphasize the sizing can only supplement your own acumen about the market opportunity.
What do you think?
Note: Updated with the 3 axes plot approach to kick of analysis.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Brands, Economics, Blink, Twitter & Facebook: Part II
Almost titled Part II: Economics, Brands, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, and Social Networking- Twitter & Facebook. Brevity is the soul of the blog... oops.
Part I of this Post:
Thanks to Twitter, I was reminded of an article on “Predictably Irrational” behavior:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906
Some more background can be found in my Part I post here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/06/economics-brands-blink-twitter-facebook.html
Marketing and Behavioral Economics.
The day care center experiment on the effects of social and market norms colliding provides interesting results. More importantly, it can serve as an interesting starting point for marketers to think about how to participate in conversations with their customers on social media sites.
Looking at the social media marketing vehicle as a "participant" on the social marketplace, it may help illuminate patterns that help the marketing vehicle navigate uncharted 'mindfields' with their experiential partners (read customers).
While this perspective should not be news to skilled brand managers, the key here would be developing patterns and tools that help brand managers make more effective decisions.
These theories could be used to:
1. Create markets with specific incentives (watch out for unintended consequences),
2. Make decisions that drive the market entity's/ brand vehicle's behavior within a marketplace, and,
3. Leverage various market players' behavior in a marketplace to your market entity's/ brand vehicle's advantage.
Points 2 & 3 can be interpreted as old school, carpet bombing, bulk-broadcast-media-buying strategy & social network or conversational marketing respectively.
Social Media and Behavioral Economics.
A potential application- could it help a brand decide which social media site to develop its presence on, especially if the brand could utilize all 3 approaches to negotiate? There are social marketers that would recommend using the third approach listed above as it is more "authentic". This seems to have become the prevailing thought in the B2C arena.
Where does Microsoft's strategic investment in Facebook, more a B2B deal that has B2C impact, fit across the 3 approaches listed above?
What do you think?
Update: To be even more explicit in my messaging:
1> Everything Must Go!?
As a marketer looking at the channels to reach out to your customer, you may need to understand how to leverage the new channels that have sprung up where your customer is not a "couch potato". As you learn more about the new channels and more about your customer, you will find new ways to apply your experience, knowledge and acumen in the new channels. You do not necessarily have to toss everything out of the window. :-)
2> Marketing Future 2.0
Marketing Future 2.0 arrives in baby steps- while there is an advantage to be being ahead of the learning curve, your best friend is still your ability to distill it into impact on consumer buying.
Now, what do you think?
Part I of this Post:
Thanks to Twitter, I was reminded of an article on “Predictably Irrational” behavior:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906
Some more background can be found in my Part I post here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/06/economics-brands-blink-twitter-facebook.html
Marketing and Behavioral Economics.
The day care center experiment on the effects of social and market norms colliding provides interesting results. More importantly, it can serve as an interesting starting point for marketers to think about how to participate in conversations with their customers on social media sites.
Looking at the social media marketing vehicle as a "participant" on the social marketplace, it may help illuminate patterns that help the marketing vehicle navigate uncharted 'mindfields' with their experiential partners (read customers).
While this perspective should not be news to skilled brand managers, the key here would be developing patterns and tools that help brand managers make more effective decisions.
These theories could be used to:
1. Create markets with specific incentives (watch out for unintended consequences),
2. Make decisions that drive the market entity's/ brand vehicle's behavior within a marketplace, and,
3. Leverage various market players' behavior in a marketplace to your market entity's/ brand vehicle's advantage.
Points 2 & 3 can be interpreted as old school, carpet bombing, bulk-broadcast-media-buying strategy & social network or conversational marketing respectively.
Social Media and Behavioral Economics.
A potential application- could it help a brand decide which social media site to develop its presence on, especially if the brand could utilize all 3 approaches to negotiate? There are social marketers that would recommend using the third approach listed above as it is more "authentic". This seems to have become the prevailing thought in the B2C arena.
Where does Microsoft's strategic investment in Facebook, more a B2B deal that has B2C impact, fit across the 3 approaches listed above?
What do you think?
Update: To be even more explicit in my messaging:
1> Everything Must Go!?
As a marketer looking at the channels to reach out to your customer, you may need to understand how to leverage the new channels that have sprung up where your customer is not a "couch potato". As you learn more about the new channels and more about your customer, you will find new ways to apply your experience, knowledge and acumen in the new channels. You do not necessarily have to toss everything out of the window. :-)
2> Marketing Future 2.0
Marketing Future 2.0 arrives in baby steps- while there is an advantage to be being ahead of the learning curve, your best friend is still your ability to distill it into impact on consumer buying.
Now, what do you think?
Economics, Brands, Blink, Twitter & Facebook: Part I
Almost titled Part I: Economics, Brands, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, and Social Networking- Twitter & Facebook.... As if that wasn't enough, did I mention Physics? I will, however, refrain from mentioning Star Trek... oops.
Some thoughts on Bob Pittman's perspective of the money making potential of the internet in this post, to give you some background:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/consumer-behavior-and-robert-pittman-on.html
Behavioral Economics: Isn't that an oxymoron?
Have you read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell? There is an economics' field that seems to agree with Gladwell that human beings are not all rational masters of their emotions.
Behavioral Economics around us.
Thanks to Twitter (Paula Drum RT), I came across an article talking about behavioral economics:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104803094
Most of us have helped implement a behavioral economics based solution to the pension enrollment challenge: If you want people to enroll in the pension plan, then automatically enroll them — and let them opt out if they want to.
The article also covers an example of how government intervened to incentivize teens against getting pregnant. Predictably, this will get you thinking about how this theme ties in with prevailing thoughts on financial market regulation. The article cautions that the government could itself become an "imperfect decision maker" as a market participant.
The physicists amongst us must be wondering whether economics and psychology got together to give birth to either the observer effect or the uncertainty principle.
Behavioral Economics and Game Theory.
The article got me thinking about the interplay between behavioral economics and game theory. How would an approach to less-than-fully-rational-decision-making impact game theory cases like prisoners dilemma where rational decision making leads to "seemingly sub optimal" outcomes?
I found a paper that talks about behavioral game theory:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hoteck/PAPERS/BGT.pdf
The tweet also reminded me of another article on "Predictably Irrational" behavior:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906
Now, what has all of this got to do with Marketing, Tweeting and Authentic Branding?
What do you think?
Some thoughts on Bob Pittman's perspective of the money making potential of the internet in this post, to give you some background:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/consumer-behavior-and-robert-pittman-on.html
Behavioral Economics: Isn't that an oxymoron?
Have you read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell? There is an economics' field that seems to agree with Gladwell that human beings are not all rational masters of their emotions.
Behavioral Economics around us.
Thanks to Twitter (Paula Drum RT), I came across an article talking about behavioral economics:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104803094
Most of us have helped implement a behavioral economics based solution to the pension enrollment challenge: If you want people to enroll in the pension plan, then automatically enroll them — and let them opt out if they want to.
The article also covers an example of how government intervened to incentivize teens against getting pregnant. Predictably, this will get you thinking about how this theme ties in with prevailing thoughts on financial market regulation. The article cautions that the government could itself become an "imperfect decision maker" as a market participant.
The physicists amongst us must be wondering whether economics and psychology got together to give birth to either the observer effect or the uncertainty principle.
Behavioral Economics and Game Theory.
The article got me thinking about the interplay between behavioral economics and game theory. How would an approach to less-than-fully-rational-decision-making impact game theory cases like prisoners dilemma where rational decision making leads to "seemingly sub optimal" outcomes?
I found a paper that talks about behavioral game theory:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hoteck/PAPERS/BGT.pdf
The tweet also reminded me of another article on "Predictably Irrational" behavior:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906
Now, what has all of this got to do with Marketing, Tweeting and Authentic Branding?
What do you think?
Part II of this post can be found here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/06/brands-economics-blink-twitter-facebook.html
Sunday, June 7, 2009
NYC Internet Week: Business Impact of Innovation
As part of a NYC Internet Week gathering, I got involved in a discussion on business impact of innovation in technology with two representatives from Pond5.com, Dana and Tom.
We discussed the poster child for technological innovation- the XEROX PARC center at Palo Alto. It was filled with the brightest minds who came up with amazing innovations in computing that are taken for granted today. Dana mentioned that the facility is a shadow if it's former self and is reflective of Xerox's current state of affairs.
The center had the first PC like workstation ready in the early 70s (the mouse was at hand in the 60s) and the Graphical User Interface available in the late 70s, but these brilliant ideas lay around within the walls of the facility. However, they captured the imagination of Steve Jobs, who successfully pushed them out to the market and created a successful company out to them.
The question is, was Steve Jobs alone responsible for the business impact of such innovation? Was Bill Gates the primary force? Would you also consider advancement in manufacturing technology, as well as the Palo Alto cluster of innovation bringing skilled individuals together as important factors in the business impact of innovation?
Another thought to consider- isn't Xerox also continuing to innovate in some way? Are there levels of innovation? Based on my brush with managing innovation at a beverage company, can a gated process truly manage innovation?
The impending release of newer versions of the iPhone, and the apparent dependence of Apple stock value on Steve Jobs' presence in the company, are interesting cases that make you probe the nature and sustainability of innovation.
What do you think?
We discussed the poster child for technological innovation- the XEROX PARC center at Palo Alto. It was filled with the brightest minds who came up with amazing innovations in computing that are taken for granted today. Dana mentioned that the facility is a shadow if it's former self and is reflective of Xerox's current state of affairs.
The center had the first PC like workstation ready in the early 70s (the mouse was at hand in the 60s) and the Graphical User Interface available in the late 70s, but these brilliant ideas lay around within the walls of the facility. However, they captured the imagination of Steve Jobs, who successfully pushed them out to the market and created a successful company out to them.
The question is, was Steve Jobs alone responsible for the business impact of such innovation? Was Bill Gates the primary force? Would you also consider advancement in manufacturing technology, as well as the Palo Alto cluster of innovation bringing skilled individuals together as important factors in the business impact of innovation?
Another thought to consider- isn't Xerox also continuing to innovate in some way? Are there levels of innovation? Based on my brush with managing innovation at a beverage company, can a gated process truly manage innovation?
The impending release of newer versions of the iPhone, and the apparent dependence of Apple stock value on Steve Jobs' presence in the company, are interesting cases that make you probe the nature and sustainability of innovation.
What do you think?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Innovation, Sentiment, Economics, and the Market
The thought “one company’s cost savings are another company’s lost revenue” below offers interesting economic insight:
{ On Private Equity: Scott Schoen, THL }
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-private-equity-scott-schoen-thl.html
As I have pointed out in this blog based on Shiller’s and Stiglitz’s articles, “sentiment”/ “perception” and other such “soft” or “behavioral” aspects play an important part in the economic engine of a region: {Financial Transactions, Trust and Keynesian "Animal Spirits"} & {Financial Markets, Economic Crises And Global Co-ordination}
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/01/financial-transactions-trust-and.html
Economic contraction would lead to a destruction of value through the destruction of existing market players, structures and relationships, before the economic engine restarts. This may lead to a slower recovery. This can be a good rationale for a central bank investing in an economy to keep it afloat in such a way.
However, once we accept that “sentiment” is a factor in the economic engine; could the effort to maintain existing market players, structures and relationships also impact the incentives for the economic engine to generate lasting recovery?
What do you think?
{ On Private Equity: Scott Schoen, THL }
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-private-equity-scott-schoen-thl.html
As I have pointed out in this blog based on Shiller’s and Stiglitz’s articles, “sentiment”/ “perception” and other such “soft” or “behavioral” aspects play an important part in the economic engine of a region: {Financial Transactions, Trust and Keynesian "Animal Spirits"} & {Financial Markets, Economic Crises And Global Co-ordination}
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/01/financial-transactions-trust-and.html
Economic contraction would lead to a destruction of value through the destruction of existing market players, structures and relationships, before the economic engine restarts. This may lead to a slower recovery. This can be a good rationale for a central bank investing in an economy to keep it afloat in such a way.
However, once we accept that “sentiment” is a factor in the economic engine; could the effort to maintain existing market players, structures and relationships also impact the incentives for the economic engine to generate lasting recovery?
What do you think?
Microeconomics, Synergies and Operational Portfolio
A case discussion link below would give you background perspective on this post { Private Equity Case: Dialogic Carve Out from Intel}:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/private-equity-case-dialogic-carve-out.html
Synergies
I checked with a technology industry focused private equity investor on whether his investment committee considers synergies across its operational portfolio in its investment decision making. After all, technology is a pretty broad term- do they see an advantage in narrowing their focus?
His rejection of the idea was couched in an excellent example. The investment team would not buy competitors. This was a pretty straight forward discounting of the potential of merger efficiencies, and we can list numerous reasons for it- from strategic ones like the hypercompetitive nature of the technology industry, to investment ones like the heightened risk of a larger company’s underperformance weighing down upon the rest of the portfolio.
Microeconomics
However, this should remind you, as it reminded me, of microeconomics. Does rejecting competitors also mean you would reject complements? Strictly as an investment strategy, wouldn’t investing in complements also increase the correlation across investments?
Investment examples in the technology industry would be:
1. Investing in Facebook and Fun Wall, or investing in Twitter and Twitterdeck.
2. Investing in the Transmeta Crusoe process and a windows power management utility for that processor
Would this mean that the investing team needs to have processes in place to monitor revenue correlations across portfolio companies?
The Venture Capital Context
Lets look at this in the venture capital context, discussed in my post here: {Venture Capital: “If it ain’t broke…” Does the VC Model Need Fixing?}
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/panel-venture-capital-if-it-aint-broke.html
Investing in startups, especially the very early stage ones, needs to account for some strategy shift. However, sometimes even late stage startups may need to adjust their strategy to account for monetization opportunities in tough economic times.
How would the venture capital firm react if this strategy shift made this investment a complement of anther portfolio investment?
What do you think?
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist/ speaker interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/private-equity-case-dialogic-carve-out.html
Synergies
I checked with a technology industry focused private equity investor on whether his investment committee considers synergies across its operational portfolio in its investment decision making. After all, technology is a pretty broad term- do they see an advantage in narrowing their focus?
His rejection of the idea was couched in an excellent example. The investment team would not buy competitors. This was a pretty straight forward discounting of the potential of merger efficiencies, and we can list numerous reasons for it- from strategic ones like the hypercompetitive nature of the technology industry, to investment ones like the heightened risk of a larger company’s underperformance weighing down upon the rest of the portfolio.
Microeconomics
However, this should remind you, as it reminded me, of microeconomics. Does rejecting competitors also mean you would reject complements? Strictly as an investment strategy, wouldn’t investing in complements also increase the correlation across investments?
Investment examples in the technology industry would be:
1. Investing in Facebook and Fun Wall, or investing in Twitter and Twitterdeck.
2. Investing in the Transmeta Crusoe process and a windows power management utility for that processor
Would this mean that the investing team needs to have processes in place to monitor revenue correlations across portfolio companies?
The Venture Capital Context
Lets look at this in the venture capital context, discussed in my post here: {Venture Capital: “If it ain’t broke…” Does the VC Model Need Fixing?}
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/02/panel-venture-capital-if-it-aint-broke.html
Investing in startups, especially the very early stage ones, needs to account for some strategy shift. However, sometimes even late stage startups may need to adjust their strategy to account for monetization opportunities in tough economic times.
How would the venture capital firm react if this strategy shift made this investment a complement of anther portfolio investment?
What do you think?
The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist/ speaker interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.
US Consumer Confidence, Economists' Optimism, and the Economy.
Chatting with a brand manager at a Consumer Goods/ Beverages company recently, I got the sense that the consumer was focused on value and was still buying. So I took another look at the news to put the conversation in perspective:
A. Did someone say "green shoots"?
1> US consumer confidence reports has interesting, and intriguing numbers, this week:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aYRGnAW70og8&refer=home
2> Economists are turning optimistic about the economy as well:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090506/ts_usnews/economistsoptimisticaboutuseconomy
3> Even Roubini has mentioned that we are in the trough phase of the U shaped recession. While he still stands by the possibility of a "perfect storm" in 2010, I am inclined to call this positive news.
B. Are we there yet?
For contrast to the signs of Spring we see above:
1> Dr. Altman recently demonstrated, backed by research, that corporate defaults had hit 8 percent in January.
2> He also pointed out that many creditors are in no position to take companies through a bankruptcy.
3> Additionally, on the consumer front, credit card defaults are still a concern.
Now that we have a contrast between most economists and Doctors Doom and Gloom, what does the impressive rise in consumer confidence mean? 70% of the economy is consumption- so a rise in consumer confidence may, at best, be good news in the short term. So, based on this recent news, we seem to have the right economic tools at work to "salvage" the situation and those tools seem to be having an effect.
However, I still think of this as a zero sum game when it comes to investing (bailout) in pulling the economy from the brink. Here are some thoughts:
1> In 2001, the US government took some steps to "salvage" the situation, that eventually led us to 2008. What are economists suggesting needs to be done to prevent us from ending up in an downward spiral of increasingly severe recessions? Could Roubini's W shaped "perfect storm" really be plain old speculation about "when", not "if", the next storm lands at out doorstep?
2> How will the world pay for this? Could an effect show up in international finance, where some countries pay more for this rebound that others?
While I hope economists continue to huddle to figure out options and tools that will solve some of the problems, these questions give you the context to make decisions that steer you and the enterprise through the storm.
What will you do?
P.S. This note is based on a post on a macroeconomics forum on the morning of 05/31/09.
I later found some interesting articles that provide more structured and well thoughtout arguments. The leader here is Nouriel Roubini:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/depression-recession-green-shoots-housing-jobs-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html
Also, Fareed Zakaria's GPS episode, dated 05/31/09, will give you more food for thought, besides the added bonus of seeing Kissinger talk about US options in NE Asia.
A. Did someone say "green shoots"?
1> US consumer confidence reports has interesting, and intriguing numbers, this week:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aYRGnAW70og8&refer=home
2> Economists are turning optimistic about the economy as well:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090506/ts_usnews/economistsoptimisticaboutuseconomy
3> Even Roubini has mentioned that we are in the trough phase of the U shaped recession. While he still stands by the possibility of a "perfect storm" in 2010, I am inclined to call this positive news.
B. Are we there yet?
For contrast to the signs of Spring we see above:
1> Dr. Altman recently demonstrated, backed by research, that corporate defaults had hit 8 percent in January.
2> He also pointed out that many creditors are in no position to take companies through a bankruptcy.
3> Additionally, on the consumer front, credit card defaults are still a concern.
Now that we have a contrast between most economists and Doctors Doom and Gloom, what does the impressive rise in consumer confidence mean? 70% of the economy is consumption- so a rise in consumer confidence may, at best, be good news in the short term. So, based on this recent news, we seem to have the right economic tools at work to "salvage" the situation and those tools seem to be having an effect.
However, I still think of this as a zero sum game when it comes to investing (bailout) in pulling the economy from the brink. Here are some thoughts:
1> In 2001, the US government took some steps to "salvage" the situation, that eventually led us to 2008. What are economists suggesting needs to be done to prevent us from ending up in an downward spiral of increasingly severe recessions? Could Roubini's W shaped "perfect storm" really be plain old speculation about "when", not "if", the next storm lands at out doorstep?
2> How will the world pay for this? Could an effect show up in international finance, where some countries pay more for this rebound that others?
While I hope economists continue to huddle to figure out options and tools that will solve some of the problems, these questions give you the context to make decisions that steer you and the enterprise through the storm.
What will you do?
P.S. This note is based on a post on a macroeconomics forum on the morning of 05/31/09.
I later found some interesting articles that provide more structured and well thoughtout arguments. The leader here is Nouriel Roubini:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/depression-recession-green-shoots-housing-jobs-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html
Also, Fareed Zakaria's GPS episode, dated 05/31/09, will give you more food for thought, besides the added bonus of seeing Kissinger talk about US options in NE Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)