I’ve often described social media as a cocktail party– there are various types and levels of interaction, and there are some basic rules of etiquette.  As host of the party, facebook has a tough balancing act: give out all that functionality for free while keeping the lights on. Well, it looks like they just sold the guest list.

We’ll see what effect this has, but I think it will be marked as an error after a while. I’ll have to think on this one some more: it’s a step toward a more connected intarwebs, but it also exposes the relationship between company and person. It all comes down to your personal delusion of privacy.

Thanks Harry for the link.

Cocktail party by Mike Jones

When you’re at the pub, what do you talk about?  Your car? Your weekend?  Your golf game?  Your new tasty favorite indie band?  FSM help you if you talk about work– boring.  When you’re online, what do you chat/write/blog/tweet about?  Sure, we geeks talk about the biz and tools and sites and Steve Jobs gossip– but that’s part of our job.  If it really were free time, what would you really write about?  And where would you write it?

Watching the online online communities mature, I’ve noticed that people progress along a path:

  • First, they blabber anything just for the sake of blabbering.  This is really just experimenting with the toolset for most.
  • Second, they share everything they see and read and link, until they realize that everyone else is linking/sharing the exact same stuff.
  • Third, people settle into their “thing”: constant updates of their children, their home business, political rants, mindless blogospam.  Here’s where people’s idiosyncrasies start to show up.  To quote John Worfin, “Character is what you are in the dark.”
  • Eventually, people resort to the same topics they like in the pub: politics, their children’s sports, luxury vacations, and making up historical  facts.

That covers Facebook and twitter for most people (twitter is more gossip-y, but whatever).  But what about an online community based on a catalog ecommerce site, or a specifically-themed site?  The one thing all the visitors to that site is the stuff that’s for sale, so this becomes the dominant topic for the online community.  At some sites, this works, other sites bomb miserably.  Why?  What is the difference?  Where is that line?

Likely:

  • Woot.com – wins because all visitors are bargain hunters, and are happy to share juicy details on the deals.  We see this in real life where people brag about the coupons they clipped or the steals they got at Try-n-Save.
  • SteapandCheap.com – wins because of the same reasons that woot.com wins, but even better because these people all share a leisure activity: they ski (or snowboard or hike… er… they go outdoors)
  • Any catalog that is basically a technical sale: consumer electronics, exercise equipment, software, new cars, gardening tools.  If you think you’re the neighborhood expert, congratulations on becoming the new King of the Online Community.  Online dashboards are great for this.
  • Politico.com – wins because all those ranters who alienated their friends on facebook with their hatred of Presi-senato-gressman Blankenstien now have a home where they can win Free Internets with the other crazies (just like the bars in Dupont Circle)  Online dashboards are also great for this, but only to show who is the biggest d-bag.

Not Likely:

  • VictoriasSecret.com – Who wants to brag about their lingerie?  TMI.  Questions & Answers generally wouldn’t work for personal apparel.  The most obvious question “will this fit me?” has the most obvious answer: “I have no idea who you are, so how the hell would I know?”
  • Vehix.com – mostly used cars, which means that deals are not repeatable– it does no use bragging about your good deal, no one cares. The same goes for any one-off item.
  • fandango.com – tickets to movies (which people _do_ discuss at length in pubs), but Fandango is a ticket site– nobody has seen these movies yet, and they certainly don’t want to hear the ending.  BTW, Inception is all inside Leo DeCaprio’s head because he’s insane!!

So, will your website be able to build a community successfully?  Will you really be able to plug it back in to increased user-generated content about your products?  I would suggest that the ‘tell’ is rather simple: would people talk about your goods in a pub?  Would they mention your stuff at a cocktail party?

Last week, I did a little Spotting for the company.

Just search in Katakana

UPDATE 4JUL2010: The ICANN board has now approved Chinese character URLs. I doubt this will change the marketing strategies for Japanese companies, however.  I think we’ll just get a bunch of redirects.

Americans invented the Internet, and it’s going to stay nice and readable to Americans as long as they have anything to say about it (daggumit). Most people in the Americas, Western Europe, and Australia are blithely unaware that a battle has been raging for several years among the internationalists over the format of the URL (the web address you type to go somewhere on the web). Why? Because these countries all use the roman alphabet. Our slavic friends would love to use cyrillic URLs; Chinese want Chinese characters, Koreans want hangul, etc. The ICANN (the international standards cops) are still only testing and allowing non-roman alphabets in limited trials.

Last month in Tokyo, I noticed something about all the adverts on the trains: the Japanese companies have found a way around the common restriction: they simply tell you (the customer) what to search for, using Japanese kanji and gana, nevermind what the actual proper URL may be. I’ve highlighted two examples here (forgive the low photo quality– lighting on subways isn’t so bright).

On the good side, by asking the commuter to search for a specific keyword, they’ve immediately screened out all the content from the English-language Internet (which can be overbearing in volume). Every mobile phone has this rudimentary web search capability, so the call-to-action is immediate.

Solar backpacks-- just search for

On the bad side, however, this strategy assumes some risk: if I ask for my customers to find me by searching for “スマート外国人” (smart gaijin), what happens when someone else comes along with a better SEO value for that term? All my advertising now goes to benefit someone else.

Mitigating this risk are three factors: 1) campaigns on the trains cycle pretty quickly, so keyword hints can be updated often; 2) the keywords are pretty specific, and the campaigns only bring more traffic, which then reinforces the lead position; 3) Rakuten has an almost monopoly-level stranglehold on web publishing in Japan. If two companies conflict over a desired keyword, Rakuten can probably work it out between them (ah, the Japanese sense of controlharmony). It’s kinda like when AOL or Yahoo could get away with this back in the day.

42

Nice answer. Do you know the question?

Okay, I’m likely going for triple-word-score here, but I’d like to discuss what I call “Qualitative Feature Polarization” in terms of how to read data.  I’ve talked about this before in the specific case of how to rate a sushi restaurant, but I think the principles apply to any situation where people are asked to make a judgement/evaluation.

The problems with most evaluations are as follows:

  • ranking things in a straight good-to-bad list throws out too much information
  • all data points are contextual, but we rarely understand the context
  • the real question– and therefore the real answers– are often not present

That last point is perhaps the most important: many times we are asked to make an evaluation from data that is based on assumptions in the goals or undefined context in the business model.  For example: If Zappos were to match its prices against WalMart, it would “lose”, but in terms of service, it would “win”.  Conversely, wait times on the customer service line to Zappos are “much better” than when I call WalMart.  In an evaluation of customer service level, which one is correct?  It depends on the business model, and on the context.  In Vietnam, the US Army killed bad guys the enemy at a rate far more than our own casualty rate.  Wins used to be defined by simple body count, but we saw how that turned out.

The effficiency expert Pete Abila points out the Toyota quality method of “5 Whys” to try and find the real question (in hopes seting up an alanysis to find the real answer).  By simply asking the question “why?” at least 5 times, we can often get to the heart of the real problem, and strip away any assumptions or differences in the models we have put around the data results.

So, how to run an analysis that can provide sufficient context while also attempting to find the real issue? Whenever possible, I try to run all data in a method I call “Qualitative Feature Polarization”.  This method runs on some basic rules (which echo the problem points above):

  • Smash data sets together to see if any patterns arise (but remember your college statistics prof warnings about causality and correlation).  This is the serendipity part– the chance for an “a ha!” moment that might lead to a further inquiry or data set
  • Whenever possible, frame your data in left<–>right, blue<–>red, service<–>cost.  Applying such a framework to the Zappos vs. Walmart comparison would then lead you closer to the real issue: the business models are fundamentally different.
  • Whenever possible, highlight the specific areas that the results and evaluation have NOT answered yet.  In other words, show that the evaluation has uncovered some results, but that the reader/listener (your boss) should specifically NOT jump to some conclusions  (unless he has a mat) based on the data.  This isn’t because the data is incomplete, it’s because the data was investigated to look at a specific issue.  Thou shalt not extrapolate your summary.
  • Structure your analysis that leads you to a contextually-rich, polarized set of numbers.  These numbers should then guide the next choice of left or right, not good or bad.

Receptiveness to this analysis is a mixed bag.  If your audience is a fairly flat organization and the geeks are on equal footing, then qualitative feature polarization works well.  If the organization is fairly vertical, they likely just want “the answer.”  A good way to guage for this is the degree to which the org uses PowerPoint as a communications mainstay, and the level of complexity in the metaphors you spin out.

Meet your new Marketing VP

A couple of days ago I visited the subjective nature of ‘expertise’, and how online community software and social networks are actually exaserbating the relative nature of percieved expertise in any given field. I’d like to continue with a direction where I think the true expertise is developing: it’s all in the numbers.

IBM just bought CoreMetrics. Adobe bought Omniture. The job boards for quantitave analysts are a mile long. Why is this? My take is that the culture of hyperanalysis and sweating over every small trackable bit of behaviour that began with successful dotcoms is finally seeping into the larger marketing departments of larger companies. “Marketing” is no longer those guys from Mad Men thinking up new creative copy while sloshing martinis, it’s Anthony Edwards from Revenge of the Nerds now telling you the exact percentages of retention you’ll need from exact zip codes using precicely worded tweets (the text of which was likely written by a robot algorithm).

But let’s be clear– this isn’t a race to hoarde data. This isn’t a contest to see who can lumber through the largest spreadsheets. The data is everywhere, many times for free (thank Google). The real expert is the person with enough classical logic training, statistical classes, and– most importantly– the ability to write well enough to convey a coherent story that explains all the minutae into some sort of actionable plan. (there’s hope for all those philosophy majors after all).

Forrester Wave for ecommerce suites

Relative Goodness

Forrester Research understands this well. They’ve acknowledged the subjective nature of expertise in their data sets: all software rankings and application analyses are based on executive surveys. They figure that if they ask enough questions of enough executives they can get some relevant (subjective as it is) data points from which to present a decent story. Notice that Forrester rarely draws conclusions– they simply present enough data and a nice set of graphics that you can draw your own subjective conclusion. Forrester even gives you the source spreadsheet so you can monkey with the variables and draw your own story. Their success, I believe, is in the strength of their storytelling abilities and presentation skills.

Who is the expert? The person that can divine a coherent direction out of a sea of numbers, that’s who. If Edwards can comb his hair and write well, he’s got the job.

truer than you think

Times was, I used to be able to spout off any random factiod I thought I knew, and the Internet took it as read truth.  The Wikipedia used to be great for this.  Now, my rants are pretty much limited to the blarg you’re reading right now– we’re probably all better off for it.  Most university professors scowl very deeply if a student references the Wikipedia in a footnote, which is fair, but not for the reasons most people think: Wikipedia is a bad reference source because it’s a derivative work, not because it may be inaccurate:  The student should be citing the original work, not someone’s summarized boilerplate.  Wikipedia has largely squashed the ‘inaccurate’ label through a zealous use and requirement of all statements must have footnotes.

But that raises a conundrum for many of us: where is truth?  Where is the expert?  Is the expert the one with the most experience?  Is the expert the one with the most money?  The most devotees?  Is truth simply the mob’s consensus?  Graduate school told me that truth is the logical sum of a tested thesis.  I spent 15 years being smug that I knew what that meant, only now to really see that when the Internet gave everyone a soapbox from which to preach, now social networks are giving everyone a Hyde’s Park corner complete with audiences.  Companies like bazaarvoice and pluck are setting up these cacophonies wherever possible (good for them).  These systems invariably include meta-rating systems to rate the reviews and the reviewers, in the hopes of crowdsourcing the good information from the bad.  In general, it usually works.  It is still, however, all based on a Kuhn-model of mob truth.

The NYT recently published an article on a new computer named “Watson” designed by IBM to play Jeopardy.  Another possible use they summized might be to find counter-factual statements to anyone’s gtiven declaration on the Internet.  In short: a bullshit detector.  I can imagine they will be able to monetize this thing into millions of dollars: every social network and review thread can now come with a robot that can read plain speech, offer immediate counter-responses to erroneous information, and perhaps even show us a numerical score for ‘trustability’ or ‘truthiness(all the footnotes in that link– irony!). The downside here, of course, is that most reviews for most products will be reduced to little more than the barren subjectivism of American Bandstand: “It’s got a good beat, I can dance to it.”

There is still salvation for quality content in quality reviews: hard numerical data, solid logic, and qualitative feature polarization.  I’ll explain myself on those in some upcoming posts.

250px-suica.jpgI recently came back from an extended stay in my other home, Tokyo.  While there ,we did the usual daily things: ride the train, buy groceries, get lunch, eat sushi, watch Godzilla movies (well, okay, just once).  Here’s the thing: we only used a credit card maybe 3-4 times over 10 days, and used actual cash even less.  Everywhere we went, we used our Suica card.

This thing is metal, the size of a credit card, and uses contactless RFID to talk with whatever cash register is nearby.  Japan Rail started using Suica on the train wickets 10 years ago (traditionally, the choke point of inefficiency in any station) in order to speed people through before they get packed in like sardines (you’ve seen the pics before, and yes– it’s true).  From there, it soon spread to the convenience kiosks on the platform, the convenience stores next door, and now looks pretty ubiquitous anywhere within a kilometer of the station (which means everywhere except your grandma’s house).

Visa and Mastercard never got very far in Japan (compared to marketshare in the US).  JCP (a Japan-specific credit card) had a good run, but looks to be shrinking to second-class status like Discover Card.  Cash was always king: I used to walk around with the equivalent of $500 in my back pocket; most Japanese had $1000 on them at any given time.  Big cash + crowded trains = pickpocket’s dreamland.  I couldn’t ever figure out why crime was so low.

But enter the Suica– it’s got both Cash and Credit Cards beat:

  • can be loaded up with credit via monthly automatic deposit, cash in an ATM, or even cash-back from some POS
  • personally stamped with your daily commute route
  • same size as a credit card
  • no numbers or identity to be stolen
  • MUCH MUCH faster than a credit card transaction

visa1.jpgThat last point is the killer.  To buy anything, all we had to do was tap this thing inside a circle on the glass counter, as if we were beknighting the transaction,  done.  Meanwhile, a credit card requires a swipe, a printout, the hostess signing the receipt, and we (the buyer) countersigning.  I know that some US places are just accepting the one swipe under a given amount (no signing required under $25 or so), but it’s still slower.

My prediction: Suica or other RFID cards are coming to the US soon (some are already here).  They’ll take a good chunk away from Visa corporation, especially in mass-transit towns like Boston, NYC, DC, and/or San Francisco.  My money is on Boston or San Francisco, especially if they can figure out a way to build community-centric bullshit around the card.

If I were Yelp, I would be teaming up with JR on bringing a branded card to SFO right away.

free_wi_fi_spot.gifI really don’t like shopping.  It used to bring out my inner Marxist, but now it just incurs a low-level buzz in my head.  I’ve found I can keep it under control if I satiate my internet addiction every 10 minutes or so.  Many stores, however, are large window-less Faraday cages, which kills the 3G signal on my phone.  There’s wifi, but it’s not free (it’s usually the corporate offices of the store, and the days of poor security with open enterprise networks are over).  Free wifi in a retail environment is still a rare treat.  Some stores get it, but the vast majority do not.

So, here’s my case for offering free wifi in a retail environment:

  • The percentage of customers with smart phones will only get bigger.  The share of people who will want to check prices, ask-a-friend, or otherwise tweet about their shopping choices will only get bigger.  Do you want to welcome those people, or frustrate them?
  • The potential for data mining about what customers are doing on their smart phones is a huge opportunity.
  • Cost is pretty minimal.  One wifi antenna should do for most stores; Macy’s might need one on each floor.

Risks are fairly minimal, and can be contained with some common sense policies:

  • Put a standard anti-porn filter to mitigate the legal liability of perverts in the store.
  • It’s doubtful someone would go down to the mall to download mp3s– the bandwidth is relatively poor compared to the land-line available at the public library (not that I condone that kind of behaviour).
  • Someone may try to hack into NORAD from the store wifi, but again– internet cafes are better for that because they offer coffee and a table for all your blue-tooth voice encryption equipment (again– I’m not suggesting anything).  Barnes & Noble isn’t a hip enough place to hang out for that long anyway.

So, where’s the upside?  Where’s the money?  It’s in that second point in the first group: the data mining.  There are several forms of valuable bits of data flying around that the store would be well to catch:

  1. Competitor Recon: if Barnes & Noble could know exactly which books people are looking up on Amazon, they could match it against their own conversion rates on those same books.  They would know where they’re losing the sale.  They would also know which books people are viewing on Amazon that B&N doesn’t stock.  This is great informaiton for gauging demand.
  2. Brand Awareness:  how often are REI customers going to REI.com whilst inside the store?  Are they trying to get details on products that the floor peeps aren’t explaining well enough?  Should the floor manager and corporation welcome this kind of look-up? [yes]
  3. Social network awareness: how often do customers ping Facebook that they’re about to buy / just bought a 60″ LCD or a $600 pair of boots?  How often are they tweeting?
  4. Instant couponing: most free wifis have a ‘Conditions of Use’ short login page.  This doesn’t need to have a username and password, just a paragraph that tells the customer we are tracking web traffic anonymously (for all these rich data mining opportunities).  it’s a great opportunity to offer someone some up-sell and cross-sell offers, and maybe an instant coupon with a barcode for 10% they can take up to the register.
  5. These same advantages apply for airports: people love to surf– a gold mine of surfing behaviour lying unexploited because some airport middle manager thinks there’s more money in trying to charge $9.99 for the 2% of people on expense accounts that will fork over that money. [stupid]

Some stores will understand this sooner than others, but in a pretty short window (the next 18-24 months), we should have pretty ubiquitous wifi signals in any urban or suburban environment.  The benefits for free and onmipresent wifi are legion.  The most apparent opportunity is the VoIP, and the chance to show some advertisements.

Google gets this second point clearly– they’ve chosen a target-rich environment (airports), and are handing out free wifi just to get people to surf, and maybe use Google, and maybe click-thru on some AdWords.  In this sense, they’re competing with the idiot box CNN.  If it pays off, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Google putting in free wifi anywhere there are more than p number of people waiting for an average of t amount of time.  The equation would look something like:

Demand (D) = p * t * p(sp)

Opportunity (O) = D * p(G) – wificost

where

p = number of people in a given location

t = average time of wait or lounging around that location

p(sp) = percentage of people with smart phones

p(G) = percentage of people who will go to Google and click on an AdWords

wificost = cost of installing and running wifi base station

In the market, I would not go long on telco stocks, unless they’re leading the pack on opened smart phones.  I would go long on Skype and Cisco, and business intelligence providers, and of course, Google.

communications1.png
Every few years someone re-invents real time chat.   Back in the 70s we had teletypes in the high school computer lab.  Internet purists had IRC to keep themselves entertained in the 1980s, while the early 90 gave us AOL chat rooms for the rest of us poseurs.    Soon, we all had ICQ numbers (I still have mine memorized),  then AIM aliases, which were soon replaced by jabber handles, Google chat IDs, and then came the facebooks.  All shared some basics: real-time typing, conversation windows, text-centric, and just below the speed of verbal communication.  Still, they’re all just variants on the real-time chat, a communication path that’s been around since The Beginning.

If we were to graph a spectrum of communication forms, spreading them out along the x-axis in terms of speed, and y-axis for quality of information, then email would be somewhere to the left and slightly higher than chat: It’s not real-time (you send something, and an answer comes back whenever the other person feels like it), but it can contain pictures and video, so it’s arguably better quality.  Below and to the left, we would have twitter: asynchronus, poor quality (short).  To the right of chat we would telephones (real-time verbal), and above that we would Skype: real-time verbal communication with the bonus of your friend’s beautiful face on your screen.  Skype’s real-time video conferencing should be superior (above and to the right) of all of them, right?
Why do we still have the other forms around?

So, it seems there is room for something that can land in that flexible in-between the safe distance that asynchronous  email gives us, but the conversational flow of chat.  If it were an open platform, people could start grafting on the higher-quality content elements like music and videos and pictures of cats eating cheezburgers.

Enter GoogleWave.  I’ve had it for a little while now, and I see some promise if people understand the construct.  Google is betting that people will want to sometimes be real-time, sometimes not-so-real-time, sometimes lo-fi, sometimes hi-fi.  I bet they’re right.

My GoogleWave ID is tokyodave@googlewave.com.  Hit me up.

© 2010 Dave Jenkins contact me via twitter @davejenk1ns or via email blog at davejenkins dot com Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha