So, Kevin Rose (founder of Digg) and Tim Ferriss (wrote ‘The Four Hour Workweek‘) sat down on the couch to talk about the brainstorming and more importantly the TESTING of names for companies. Its a really fantastic discussion, from two guys who have a great track record of building brands on the web. Here’ the Embed:
Big thanks to Kev and Tim for doing this video and I’m looking for more great conversations that can help budding online entrepreneurs. I’m really curious as to whether any of you guys out there have done due diligence when it comes to naming a company, or whether your company name or dotcom came to you in a dream or on the back of a cocktail napkin. Discuss….
I had a great lunch discussion with some co-workers about the fate / future of newspapers and other major content providers on the web. And its hard to know what is going to happen in the coming months as more and more newspapers go under or entirely online. For me, I think the online business model is sustainable at least for newspapers based on the unlimited space for content (and thus ads) as well as the potential to have a much larger audience consume you content than do with the daily rag. Afterall, if the presses stop, will people stop consuming news….especially LOCAL news? Unlikely.
But there does need to be a business model. Currently I see a lot of media sites that obviously are placing pre-roll ads before video content, and even some more obtrusive ads (roadblocks, peel over, etc) instead of traditional banner ads. Many of these also have a ‘skip’ or ‘close’ button on them as well that will allow me to jump right to my content.
So how to make a sustainable business model without undermining the foundation of the web which is content sharing and hyperlinking… I’ve heard arguments about how we need a universal micropayment system, that could deduct cents for each piece of content consumed. That way, the provider gets paid, with no huge price tag for users. But what if I don’t want to pay a nickel to read that article on CNN or my local paper that you just linked to? Will that prevent people from consuming content that may not be in agreement with their existing viewpoints, or will it limit the kind of content that is consumed at all. Would more people only consume PerezHilton instead of the BBC because they are now paying for it and they weren’t before? I think of the amount of content we digest every day, and that could potentially add up to a hefty price tag.
I know I know, content producers need to get paid. But would having to pay on a per-piece basis scare off users, or would it push content producers to create better content, content of value that users would pay for? The underlying problem here, is that we don’t have a micro payment system, and the implementation of something like that is probably wishful thinking for a while. Plus, it undercuts people’s ability to share information across the web and consume whatever content they wish.
At the end of the day, publications and media in general, has been reliant on advertising to stay afloat. And spending on targeted online ads or sponsored content still is growing faster than any other medium out there. But what if larger media outlets all started going freemium.
What I’m about to say is by no means popular, but a system like this may be able to help maintain the integrity of hyperlinks AND create more revenue for content providers.
First, websites could do what they already do – preroll video ads as well as standard banner ads that are intermingled with their own content. But what if whenever someone enters your site from an external page (or I suppose internal) there was a kind of roadblock ad. With no close or skip button. While this is a pain in the ass for users, it does guarantee higher view rates, and possibly more engagement. This would apply to every article on a site.
The downside from a user’s perspective is content no longer becomes ‘free’ I guess. You’re FORCED to pay with your eyeballs and your attention before you get where you want to go. I know it sucks. But it may be part of where things are headed with major news outlets. And this still isn’t blocking anyone for consuming the content, it just may take a bit longer.
But here’s where the ‘mium’ part of ‘freemium’ comes into play. What if there was an option for a subscription based service to each major site, sans login, which would allow you access to all content, video and otherwise, for a small monthly fee with NO ADS. Would reading the NY Times or CNN online, ad free be worth a buck or two per month? If they’re not in print anymore I’d say definitely ‘maybe’.
Open up more possibilities. What if I could purchase these same kinds of content packages ad free in chunks, such as access to ad free content from the top 50 news sites in the world at a discounted rate.
Scale it to TV. What about paying Comedy Central directly for their programming that would let me watch what I want, when I want, on whatever platform I want (TV, iPhone, Laptop, etc). Is that worth $5 a month? For me it is. Bravo to the cats at Boxee for working towards a model of internet TV, even though the channel itself isn’t getting paid cash money for the content.
Again, not popular arguments by any stretch, but the traditional way of doing business on the web is going to change. Not for everyone, but new business models will have to be built, and I’m very curious as to WHO will take the plunge first and what they’re going to using to deliver great content, engage users, and make a profit.
What do YOU all think the online models will be for newspapers and other media outlets? Show some love in the comments and leave your .02.
This is a tremendous post by Seth Godin on firms using salaries as a one axis marketing tool. Here’s an excerpt, but be sure to read the full post, its brilliant.
After a million dollars or so in salary, the absolute amount that a person is paid has no real impact on their life. They can’t eat more meals in a day or wear more shoes. What matters to the manager is the relative amount. How much more would I make over there? Why does that company pay its CEO more than my company pays me?
(Aside: should the guys who drive an armored car that carries millions of dollars in bonds get paid more than the guys that drive an armored car that only carries thousands of dollars in cash? Does the amount of money handled change the difficult of the work?)
Twenty years ago, financial industry salaries were a tiny fraction of what they are today. Did lesser people do the work? Did they try less hard? Think smaller thoughts? Of course not. The reasons salaries are high is that the number is a signaling mechanism, a very expensive marketing campaign.
There’s been a lot of talk in the blogosphere about how important it is that you build your personal brand. This is an idea that I first heard about from Gary V. and Chris Brogan and its also something that I’m very much in agreement with. Its vital. (if you haven’t checked out Chris’ posts on this hit it here)
And when I think about the term “Personal Brand,” I think “didn’t we used to have a name for that?” I think we called it your Reputation. Back in the day, your reputation was essentially what other people had to say about you, what kind of a person they thought you were. These things were mostly grounded in reality but were always coming through someone else’s filter.
Reputation was what politicians used to run on. It helped you get a job, it helped your business. And I was taught that having a good reputation was one of the things that mattered most in life. How has having a good rep hurt anyone? It is the key to opening countless doors in business and beyond.
But let’s get back to Personal Brand. How is it different from what we would consider our reputation? My take is that Personal Brand is Reputation for the Web 2.0 crowd. Its digital. Its public. Its sharable.
Take your blog content, your LinkedIn Profile, your Tweets, your Facebook profile (embarrasing pics and all), the many other digital interactions you have on a day to day basis, add that to your Reputation – and you’re looking at your personal brand. The bad news? If you suck, everyone will know it. The good news is that if you’re kick-ass, everyone will know that too.
And with the advent of so many online communities, there have never been so many opportunities to go out there, interact, and build your brand. Be an expert, share information, help others, be nice, BE USEFUL – and you’re on your way to rebuilding your Personal Brand Equity. Own it.
Seth Godin had a great post on Personal Branding in the age of Google. A snippit
A friend advertised on Craigslist for a housekeeper.
Three interesting resumes came to the top. She googled each person’s name.
The first search turned up a MySpace page. There was a picture of the applicant, drinking beer from a funnel. Under hobbies, the first entry was, “binge drinking.” Read full post
With all of that being said, its also fundamental to know that this information about you is out there. What are people saying about YOU? And how will you use digital technology to build upon your Reputation to craft own brand?
What are your thoughts on Rep. vs. Brand? Any difference?
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to talk to businesses and get them on board with really going out there and using to social media tools as well as traditional online tools to interact with there community. And its tough because I think a lot of people want to be able to see results of their actions in easily quantifiable chunks, or more specifically in dollars and cents.
But I think social media doesn’t work that way (at least not from the outset). And I’m trying to plug in and get some opinions as to what other SM ‘Experts’ or businesses use as Currency when determining the effectiveness of a certain campaign, tool, or series of interactions.
Obviously the amount of followers on Twitter is not the end all be all (in fact I’d argue that its one of the lesser important numbers to go by out of the gate). But is there a perfect Following to Follwer ratio that we should shoot for? Just shooting from the hip here, but I think in terms of Twitter at least, the Re-Tweet is a big one. It shows that you’re participating, and most importantly BEING USEFUL by putting out content that people are digging.
Is that enough? Or does it need to translate into pageviews and clickthroughs? There’s so many ways to measure your online impact that are more important that clicks to your website and I think that’s the challenge of marketing social media services. Making it tangible.
But isnt’ SM interaction just as valid as the way you treat a customer when they hire you or come into your store? When you’re in person, its all about the customer. You want them to have a kick-ass experience with your business from start to finish (or at least you SHOULD). Even if they’re coming in with a complaint. What’s the best thing you can do? Fix it fast, fix it right. So that being said, why wouldn’t it be advantagious for you to interact with your customers in that way online – engaging, talking, and LISTENING? At the end of the day, its only a different tool.
Lots of people think of SM as a ‘marketing tool’ and while it can be that, I think maybe it should start as being a customer relationship tool. Leave marketing out of it to start. If your business’ SM goals have to do with marketing you need a community to market to. And once you generate the community, its vitally important that any marketing be Permission Marketing.
But at the end of the day… If your service or product sucks, you lose.
So a question to you all out there. If you participate in SM marketing or customer managment, what is your CURRENCY? How do you define success, and are you taking a short term or long term strategy in building community? Would love to hear your thoughts.
I’ve been reading a lot about how you can use social media to help manage your brand and was on a great conference call with Chris Brogan and Awareness Networks. Actually, if you want to check out the slides from the presentation hit them up here.
A lot of the metrics I see and the stories I hear talk about how larger corporations are jumping into the social media sphere (perfect example for better or worse was Skittlegate, or JetBlue’s embracing of Twitter) to interact with their customers, solve problems and get feedback. But I haven’t heard a ton about how small businesses are utilizing SM besides having a MySpace page. I do see tons of entrepreneurs really engaging in the medium but so far I haven’t seen a ton of small businesses (at least in my geographic region) get involved (I KNOW there are some of you out there though).
But I would argue that small businesses have just as much to gain by interacting and monitoring SM conversations, as large corporations do. The thing that rocks about Twitter, Blogs, etc, is the accessibility, speed, and most importantly AUTHENTICITY that they help to foster between a brand and customers. That being said, small business owners have just as much to gain in SM because people are always craving accessability and authenticiy – which is something that most small businesses should be built on. Its a natural fit.
I have to ask, who is in charge of the online presence for most major corporations? Is it an agency? An existing front line employee, someone from marketing, or the CEO (and I know this will vary widely)? And is it always someone on the inside?
Todd Defen and Seth Godin had great posts on how Social Media is less like advertising and more like PR and the difference between PR and Publicity. So if you buy that argument (which I do, to a point – I think Customer Service is a huge part of it), does that mean that whoever handles a company’s PR should also handle their SM presence? This is a bone of contention. I posed this question and got a response from @Chris Brogan saying that he’s not a fan at all of Ghost Tweeting (Sending out Tweets for someone else) because it decreases transparency.
And I have to say that I’m on the fence with this one. Is there a market to monitor small businesses online, by helping to run their Twitter Accounts and interacting with customers for someone on an agency level? I would think so. And if that ‘online brand manager’ keeps the client abreast of the feedback coming in (both positive and negative), advising them on how to help and engage customers, are they doing a disservice to the community or serving it? Does that take away from the whole purpose of using SM tools as a method of interacting authentically with others?
Or do most SM ‘experts’ take more of an educational role, getting clients used to using these tools on their own, and hoping for the best. It certainly makes it authentic. But I wonder if a bad online presence is better than NO online presence.
I’m really torn on this and would love to have some feedback from you all.
This YouTube clip is courtesy of ReinventingErica.com – Great Clip of Louis CK on Conan O’Brien that had me rolling while also making me think about how cool EVERYTHING is when you stop and look.
I was fowarded (and reminded of) a great blog that I used to read quite regularly, called Girl At Play, run by Alex Beauchamp. I always enjoy her writing style and have an immense amount of respect (bordering on envy in some cases) for her experiences in blogging, traveling, and general outlook on life, all expressed with elegance and eloquence. If you haven’t checked her out, you certainly should.
In any case, Alex had a great post about Negotiating Technology and talks about how with all these social networking tools to navigate, have we shifted from using technology to ‘do more’ to simply ‘monitoring.’ And its true, its really easy to get swept up in participating in the digital conversation, posting to a blog, keeping track of friends on Facebook, etc. When do we unplug? And how much of the information that we consume over these different networks is REDUNDANT?
Alex says it better than I ever could, so here an Excerpt:
With the addition of Twitter, RSS Feeds, and Facebook, I’ve found myself receiving the same bits of information several times over. For example, I used to just subscribe to a blogs feed and access their info that way. But if that person is on Twitter, they’ll also tweet about their new post and link to it. If they’re on Facebook, chances are their Twitter hits their Facebook profile and I’ll get an update there, too. LinkedIn now offers the same. So instead of getting one piece of information one way, I’m getting the same information 3 or 4 different ways which results in an overload.
But what happens if you then remove that person from your Twitter feed? Will they think you aren’t their friend? This has happened to me. People have equated my Twitter removal with a friend removal even though in real life I did a lot more and gave much more support than just clicking “follow” on Twitter. So once you incorporate technology, removing it becomes really hard because of social and sometime business consequences.
So that makes me ask how and when we should unplug, and to what degree? I was thinking the solution may be similar to solving our energy crisis…. I’ve read different articles and heard statements by the likes of Al Gore who talk about how instead of waiting for the next groundbreaking technologies to arrive at our doorsteps, we can solve so much of our energy problems through efficiency.
I wonder if that’s one of the keys to keeping up with the ever expanding sphere of social networks. I know there’s not a huge incentive for networks to ‘standardize’ their information or services, but I think there’s a huge business opportunity for someone to build an app that eliminates digital redundancy.
For instance, as Alex said, I obviously want my network to know about this post, so I’ll send a tweet, which will also dump down to my Facebook profile, and I may supplement that with an e-mail blast (I won’t really, but let’s say I wanted to). Now if I have friends on all three platforms, they’re consuming the same information three times.
I want a service that will know what networks I use and if I’ve read the tweet, delete the update in my Facebook Feed, or delete the e-mail. Or if I get the e-mail with the update, don’t put the tweet in my list, or send me an RSS notification. Its the same problems that were created by having AIM, MSN Messager, ICQ, GoogleTalk, etc. I know there are clients that aggregate all the IM networks, so why not one that would take care of all my social networks?
I think this would go a long way towards helping people be smarter about the ways they publish content and communicate digitally.
What do you think? Would something like this work, and more importantly, is it a viable business model? And what is the breaking point for you? Is there a cap on how many social networking tools you will use or participate in at any given time? Would love you’re thoughts.
