Nothing is more interesting to me when it comes to social collaboration than the psychological aspect.
For example, if you have a quality piece of information to share, or question to ask, and all you have to do is type a few lines into a comment field and click “Post,” why wouldn’t you?
And yet people come up against this barrier all the time (and it applies to status updates, blogging, creating collaborative documents . . . any type of contribution). This goes deep at the personal level but even deeper when an org’s culture wants people to just “do what they’re told.”
That’s why I get so much delight out of gamification. It’s such an effective way to move past your resistance to contributing what you know (or don’t know).
When I use an app that’s been gamified, like Codecademy, I can feel it tapping into things that motivate me as a human, a bit beneath the level of my mind, things like, as gamification company Bunchball says, “reward, status, achievement, self-expression, competition, and altruism.”
Gamification, in other words, gently but persistently overcomes my perceptions about or experience of punishment, obscurity, failure, lack of self-expression, and so on. Isn’t that powerful when married with the flexibility and interactivity of digital/social/mobile? You know it.
(Below are my current Codecademy badges.)
What most interests me about social business is what happens when a single person connects with another person (or, second best, piece of content) who really inspires them. This is a remarkable thing to experience for yourself or watch happen to somebody else. It creates flow.
What also interests me is why people don’t reach out more in social business communities when they have the chance, when it’s all right there for them. What stops us from connecting?
Time to blog again. The way social business, community, and digital marketing are converging and amplifying one another is too rich to pass up.
This digital ad from Apple on ESPN.com from several days ago, whatever the technology or cost or format, was inspired. Apple was dancing on the page, exploding the meaning of “take-over.” What’s that worth?
(Chris Dixon is right: here comes display advertising, and beyond our expectations if we can reinvent it.)
Push to pull.
Stocks of knowledge to flows of knowledge.
Transactions to relationships.
Scalable efficiency to scalable peer-to-peer learning.
Paychecks to passion.
Incomes to outcomes.
What is the Big Shift?
Better yet, absorb the Big Shift – the somewhat unnerving and rapid move away from an economy based on transactions to one based on long term trust-based relationships – at today’s awesome opening panel at Supernova 2009.
I’d say grasping the Big Shift and its characteristics is going to be essential, and by grasping I mean deeply internalizing its meaning and movement and measurements, if we’re going to be able to create the businesses and institutions that first sustain us and then allow us to thrive in the next two or three decades.
How could you not be passionate about helping to create this shift? How could you not want to participate in a positive outcome? But to participate, you almost have to grow a new brain, a better skeleton and completely new muscles with some kind of bio-skin, but, if not that, one better at least take on a radically new outlook about what has value – what is value – and what creates it.
On that note, Lang Davison, who authored The 2009 Shift Index along with John Hagel and John Seely Brown, posted on Facebook today that he’s reviewing a proof of their upcoming book, “The Power of Pull” (out in March 2010). I’ll be gettin’ it.
(Watch this panel, yo.)
I met a developer in a coffee shop a couple days ago near 24th and Castro in San Francisco who works for Mozilla and was coding the latest version of Firefox (in C++). It helped that I was flying those colors on that particular day.
We were talking about marketing things on the Web, and she said “the best way to market something is to get people who love it to tell their friends about it.” We all know it, but it was clear to me she knew from experience what she was talking about.
If you should remember one thing when it comes to a healthy diet it’s probably: Sugar is bad for you!
And for Web marketing, that one thing: Create something worth talking about!
Right, right this has always been true. But the Web has brought the thing and the marketing of the thing closer than ever before. You can’t collapse one into the other, but in Web-life 2.5 they are deeply interpenetrating and symbiotic.
The Web is interactive from the core out through its many layers of hardware, software, and interface. And that holds true both between you and your audience and those people and their network. This is why your offering and the sharing of it (marketing) is much more intertwined than before the Web or Web-life 1.0. Interactivity is simply going to be much more integrated into what you make and the way people talk about it.
And that’s why you want to create something worth talking about . . . because marketing is built in.
Singers Amanda Palmer and Matthew Ebel created something worth talking about yesterday when they sang live for us on ustream.tv.
In a response to a live song Matthew had just done, Amanda tweeted:
So, I did, and it was completely original, and NOW, and awesome, and now I’m talking about it. You know it when someone has created something worth talking about. Now I want to know even more about them, now I want their music, now I want to tell my friends about them.
The marketing was built into the music, perfectly.
“Free” isn’t about giving away goods and services for nothing. Let’s not have that false debate. Really, it’s code for “we are now making a full transition to an information economy.”
“Free” makes no sense at all if you’re talking about stuff being exchanged for money. Through this lens or framework, stuff cannot be free (there are only freebies).
It makes perfect sense, though, if the stuff is being exchanged for something more important than money, and that something is attention.
I know, calm down, but let’s get with it.
In the world we’re now in, this young, healthy information economy, attention is more valuable than money, So, there’s little choice, if we want to work in our own best interest and with economic forces, to invest in it, cultivate it.
It works like this. I wanted a great way to send invoices and track time. Soon, I found out about and signed-up for Harvest. Harvest gave me full access to its app for free, forever (the deal is 2 projects, 4 clients, unlimited invoicing for 1 user). Additional projects, clients, and so on require a monthly subscription.
Harvest was so easy to use (not just good, but great) I decided to test it by actually invoicing a client (no demo this). Successfully, beautifully accomplished. As a result, I had real data in the system (a live invoice), which I was able to play with to figure out tracking, my use cases, and collaboration.
Harvest got my attention. And they invested a lot to get it, to get it prior to my money, and to keep it.
The fact is lots and lots of information creates a lot less attention. Or as the economist Herbert Simon put it, attention is consumed by an information-rich environment. Once that happens, it’s gold.
Fine, one might say, but I don’t want to make attention, I want to make money. Sure, do it, and remember two things.
First, the money economy is now a subset of the attention economy. Money isn’t threatened, attention transcends and includes it. The attention economy couldn’t survive without the money economy; it’s the foundation. Money is here to stay.
Second, because money is a subset of attention you’ll generally make less per customer (as a user I’m already paying you with something else, right?), but the number of customers you have, with networks spilling into other networks, will likely be greater, and, the real beauty of it all, your cost of acquiring those customers can be shockingly low.
Craigslist serves as the poster child for this phenomenon: free to most users, 30 employees, $5-10M in costs, 100M in revenue. Now, what kind of capitalist are you if you’re not excited about those efficient margins? No industrial-era company can touch it.
Okay then, let’s not deny, defend, or rail against the attention economy (or, on the other hand, claim it replaces money) – it doesn’t make sense. Customers, like me with Harvest, are ecstatic with the result (and happy to pay with both attention and dollars), and those of us creating the services/products get to be smaller scale and yet radically profitable. Rejoice.
Also see:
- “Flipping abundance and scarcity,” Seth Godin
- “Chris and Malcolm are both wrong,” Brad Burnham
- “The Looming Attention Crisis,” Fred Wilson
Hmm, doing advertising yourself, now that’s a novel idea:
. . . over the last eight years, companies have shifted $65 billion in annual spending away from traditional advertising channels and spent it on “page content, Web analytics, search engine optimization and site design.” Link.
One reaction, if you’re an ad firm morphing into something else, might be to try and get some of that business by adding a little analytics or design to your services. Which is okay.
But the problem with that is (a) it’s not easy to do any of them really well (b) it’s hard to package them all together so that your margin holds and (c) even if you get the first two things right the fees you can charge are always being deflated by the fact that the Web is ultimately a self-serve platform.
A better path (at least simultaneous) is to ask what all the businesses who were spending $65B on advertising, and who are now spending it on advertising of their own creation by ordering up specific services (. . . but $55B next year and $45B the year after that) actually want from that advertising. (What do they want?!)
Then, use everything about the Web that’s breaking your business model now (modular, real time, social, open, micro-transactional) to give it to them. Make it work for you. In other words, don’t chase the customer, surround them with their own reality. That’s the art of war.
HypeM is attempting something pretty cool. They wondered if it was possible to create a music chart driven by people for people, one that actually represents a diverse set of music and interests.
It’s not that HypeM doesn’t already do a pretty good job of this with their “popular” list of songs marked with big red hearts, those “songs scoring the most favorites on The Hype Machine,” by users like you and me.
But with Twitter, they thought, you could potentially have a music chart generated by anyone who links to a HypeM song, no need to have an account with HypeM.
This took a couple of brilliant decisions on their part. First, they needed to value each Twitter user, which they’ve taken a good shot at with this formula (. . . and already trying to better it by asking for feedback from the math geeks):
round(( 1/3 * (twitter_followers / 10) ^ 0.5 ) * (twitter_followers / twitter_friends) * 10))
The formula weighs individual influence and group influence and puts a ceiling on how much influence one or the other can have. But, the key point is that I have a Twitter score, you have a score, anyone can have a score.
And when you tweet a song that is on HypeM, you and your score are added to a group for that particular song on the Twitter Music Chart. It rises based on the sum of those scores.
Very cool, but HypeM also took another step to make this chart even better, deeper. They used BackType, which aggregates comments from all over the Web, to suck in and interpret all of the tweets out there before using them. The result is that when someone uses a URL shortener (like bit.ly) to link to a HypeM song, BackType recognizes it and includes it in the useful pool of tweets.
Why care about this way of building a music chart? Because what people like, love, and discuss on the open Web, all of those needles in the haystack, needs to be gathered up to create something that didn’t exist when those sentiments existed by themselves. HypeM just gave us a great example of how to do it.
I’m doing a test campaign in AdWords via Clickable to play with its functionality. My budget is $1/day because right now I care about how Clickable works not the results of the campaign.
But, come to think of it, what can you do for a $1/day?, a micro-budget.
So far, only a handful of people have clicked on my ad and visited this site, but the quality of the traffic ain’t bad at all. Here are a few metrics after two days:
2.23 Pages/Visit
00:02:03 Avg. Time on Site
69.23% Bounce Rate
If people coming from my text ad stay for more than 2 minutes on average, look at more than 2 pages, and only bounce out 69% of the time, I’m going to keep spending that $1, work on creating better ads and putting them in better places . . . then slowly but surely increase my spend.
Maps. Combining search with maps and reviews is one of the most interesting emerging areas of advertising.
What could be better than being able to identify and pinpoint something I want now, knowing what other people think about it, and where it’s located relative to me. What’s it called?, what’s it like?, and where is it? – the basic components of local business ads.
For instance, what if I wanted a great organic salad in San Francisco? How to get it? You can do a search on Google Maps (e.g., organic salad near San Francisco, CA) or do the same on a service like Yelp.
Yelp had better results in my experience for this particular search and slightly more interesting reviews, but the ones on Google Maps were also good, and it gave me a better sense of where the place was and how I could get there.
More and more I think when people want to discover what’s available around them, they’re going to think, “map,” which online now additionally means peer review and info on proximity. And that’s a pretty cool way to find and be found.
Update: And there I was . . .
Spotted this ad for Edward Tufte, the info guru, on the New York Times website.
It’s unique as a display ad because it’s all text (and quite a bit of it), but very specifically designed to communicate clearly through the font, spacing, and color. It’s no Google text ad.
It’s text that’s been designed. It’s graphical text. I think we’ll see more of it.
Okay, okay, there is still some great creative coming out of agencies . . . at least out of Wieden & Kennedy Amsterdam. I wonder, though, how they’re going to capitalize on the energy generated by these vids?
They’ve got our attention . . . now they should go for the kill, which means astonish me with an, yes, insight about how much easier/better my life is going to be with this car. You know, ’cause right now I’m impressed but not convinced.
For example, what what will the Insight do for me that Zipcar doesn’t?
Insight uses value words like “stylish,” “aerodynamic,” “fun,” and “right price.” Zipcar uses ideas like “wheels when you want them” and “meet your neighbors.”
Zipcar kills my resistance with these ideas just like AirBnB kills it with “rent by the night from real people.” Both give me a completely different way of moving in the world that’s environmentally friendly, unencumbered, cheap (but not low quality), and social.
What does the Insight give me?: insurance and a regular commute (with lower emissions). Oh, and a car payment. That’s mean but not far from the truth.
I grew up with Honda and love Honda, but if they want me to get into the Insight, the viral has to go all the way down to the car itself.
Now that you can add yourself to Google’s search results (as a profile link) when someone does a search on your name, what does that mean for advertising?
It means search has gone social or rather social media is now exerting a downward influence on search (and also display), and so Google has to define what it means to index the Web more broadly as pages and media and people, including the conversations people are having.
Today a search on “brooks jordan” only gives you one link to a profile that I’ve created (at the bottom of the page, and only if you’re logged into your Google account), which in itself feels like big change, but tomorrow it will be possible to do a more complex, multi-word search and expose my social graph and your social graph (i.e., connections and conversations).
It’s going to be us, after all, that are recommending products, people, and things, and whoever can expose those relationships in an unbiased way will be able to forget about the pretty much undifferentiated CPM and take CPC, CPA, and CPE to a new level.
If marketing has now become a game of relationshps, and individual people are best at playing it, then search, to have value, has to be social (as well as an index of information).