Have just seen this video, which is just amazing, on the GE site. Am trying to think of some tenuous link with the last post over "visualisation" but in reality I just think its great and should be watched.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
01.11.2011
The power of visualisation and wiring diagrams
I found this great presentation on new business models, which makes fantastic reading.
The thing that really hit the button was how Board of Innovation visualised each model. I am a great fan of this and often refer to it as "wiring up" an idea.
Most organisations have been challenged at some point by the fluidity of digital and how tough it is to keep in one place. For many this is the wonder, for some this becomes the organisational nightmare. Trying to get your head round where it goes, could go and vitally should go is half the battle.
Wiring Diagrams - its not a new concept but it works. (paper, pen and 20 spare minutes required)
1. Put your idea at the centre and give it a name
2. Write in the box a description of the basic idea /content / desired interaction
3. Arrows in where people will come from. Go broad and wild !! Look at existing bought, owned and earned activity. Everything from on pack to in store, at event as well your whole comms plan
4. Arrows out to where people will go to. How can the idea get out of the box and where will it go and spread. See above for going wild...
5. Turn the arrows around to point in different directions and ask the question "How would that work"
6. Put people numbers on your arrows and costs if they apply
You'll probably be somewhere wild and extreme at this point, but with a common sense edit you quickly come up with how your idea lives and breathes and actually something very robust.
More importantly everyone involves gets it very quickly and becomes excited by the movement created by technology vs putting it in the too hard basket.
10.21.2010
What are you post rationalising?
My Dad always loves to tell me how when you stop to ask for directions in Ireland you still get the "Well I wouldn't start from here", at which point you will be given clear directions to said preferred start point and then additional directions to where you wanted to get to.
How many times do businesses think about "is this the best place to start?", vs post rationalising or included something already in place. The common one is driving traffic to a website that no-one can really remember what it was there to do and is so detached from any strategic (or tactical) objevctive that you can just see the marketing pounds flying out the window.
The number of smart people who will still say "We have spent a lot of money on it ...." ... pause ?!. In fact they will even put someone in charge of it who will love and protect it like the doting keeper of Jabba The Hutt's underground monster.
Is this the best place to start? Is including the website or taking people via that route really the best thing to d? Maybe - but maybe not and it shouldn't be assumed.
Chris Anderson's The web is dead. Long live the internet shows how websites are becoming less and less involved and his chart pretty much nails that point.
This is starting to resonate with the product and commercial market but perhaps still needs to be embraced by the marketing & comms teams.
09.14.2010
The Times paywall
The Times paywall flags up a lot of the challenges facing the publishing industry and its ability to get back on some kind of even keel. There have been lots of stones thrown at The Times for what is seen as some blind, desperate attempt to put the old pay model on the new world, but I believe it represents a major shift.
1. They are doing something
Many businesses and publishers are in fear and denial about what is going on with their business. One thing you can be sure of, the team down at The Times will be onboard with the fact that something advertising alone won't work and thats why they are having to do something. They are starting to address the problem.
I was at an IAB event recently and there were a number of publishes talking about initiatives that were driving large traffic levels, but you knew that traffic volume is not their problem. Its how do you sell the traffic. Innovation with platform, technology, ad format, content strategy, structure is all good but when was the last time you saw someone innovate with their commercial model? (and please don't talk about behavioral - not to be harsh, that wasn't their idea)
2. They are talking about users
Customer, customer, customer. No more talking about the intergalactic figures that no one understands
Publisher:"We have 3.2 million unique users and 129 million impressions, with even more ad impressions and we are far bigger than everyone else, who we know are confused and challenged like us"
Adevrtisers: - "That’s great - can I buy those 3 million people? with an ad"
Publisher: "Don't be daft, you can buy impressions though"
Advertiser: "?!"
The Times are thinking about people (albeit a small number). They have set up a model that gets the business thinking about users and the revenue they generate. Publishers are going to have to start to take some reader money directly (through subs) or indirectly (through commercial deals) at some point and the sooner everyone (ad sales and editorial) start to talk about their revenue per user the quicker things will start to improve.
I would bet that more people at The Time are getting their calculators out and working out what the ad revenue per user is vs. subscription - that in itself is quantum leap.
There are some great pieces of analysis that are worth a read - Beehivecity has had a good dig round the numbers and really look at what the possibilities are.
99% of publishing businesses have editorial one side and commercial on the other. They don't meet until they report into the CEO. “churches, needing each other, but very different. I believe the journey that The Times has started on is cultural and for once a business has potentially unified the business under a common cause and goal.
09.08.2010
Publicis falling short on its ad deal with Microsoft
So news is out that Publicis may be having problems meeting its spend commitmment with Microsoft. When the original deal went through last year for an estimated $530 million, it was viewed that together with cash and shares there was also a media spend commitment put in place. Publicis (or its media agencies) would agree to move money across to Microsoft's media busines (predominatly display and search) to sweeten the deal.
I imagine the media negotiators were suddenly cock of the pack. The only downside is that trading on big commitents works well with TV, press, radio and some elements to online. The issue comes when direct response comes into play. Probably 75% of display and more or less all of search budget is feeding off direct response cash.
The simplicity of direct response is that it self strategises. What works works and gets more money and what doesn't doesn't and gets cut (this being the reason why Google's could scale beyond any previous model seen - it worked!!).
This being the case Microsoft had to perform if it was to remain on any media schedule - if it didn't the media agencies would be having some fairly awkward conversations with their clients why Microsoft stays on the plan when it isn't washing its face and as such making a commitment with direct response money a fairly high risk business.
A tough one and its really beggars belief looking back that any media commitment was openly admitted.
Now I don't know the whole picture and it may well be that Publicis would have brought a couple of clients into the deal "We use our money and your money and we both share in the upside", now that would be innovative and honest and transparent.