Paid, Owned and Earned - blurring boundaries

I recently put some thoughts together for a client on the blurring boundaries between paid, owned and earned media. Take a look at the presentation below on my initial thoughts on this (note: this isn't meant to be comprehensive, as some of this is client-specific)Paid Owned & Earned : The blurring boundaries

View more PowerPoint from Hayden

This theme has also been mentioned by Rebecca Lieb from Altimeter Research, who has given some more specific examples of how the boandaries between these three different media classifications are now very blurred.
http://www.imediaconnection.com/printpage/printpage.aspx?id=31333

To me its clear that both clients and their agencies must eventually integrate all three of these media to get the maximum return on investment (of resource / time and money).

Companies and the services layers

I recently received a report from McKinsey [link] that covered the topic of the 'corporate software layer'. This wasn't just another publication talking about application development standards, it referred to a metaphorical layer of services that surrounds the core 'hardware' processes and functions of an organisation. This software layer is an all-encompassing wrapper that the author described as including APIs, digital customer touchpoints and even Social Media.

Coincidentally I was chatting with someone in the Digital industry only a few days ago (thanks Wyndham) about how the use of web-based services can allow a company to incrementally develop its inner and external functions to remain agile & responsive to changes. I explained that via a Service Orientated Approach (SOA), a company could continually evolve its client-facing functionality (internal and external clients), wrap legacy functions and get the most from its digital agencies... by getting them to utilise any existing services.
Note:
We also questioned why digital agencies never seemed to develop work for clients using their own suite of web services to quickly deliver more intelligent work for their clients, but that's another topic for this blog sometime).

Anyhow.... Having thought about this some more, I do think there's the opportunity to not only merge the two topics mentioned above, but to then represent this in a similar (but perhaps more complex) way than McKinsey have done.

Here's what I mean:

1. McKinsey (perhaps in an effort to de-techie their report) haven't mentioned SOA and it's obvious benefit.

2. The 'software layer' is a little too catch-all for me.

3. Their diagram doesn't explain the big difference between the more technical machine-to-machine interfaces and the softer services that involve human interaction.

I guess what I'm saying here is that there might not be just one layer around the business, but possibly several service layers..... And the diagram needs to reflect this.

EU Privacy Directive - my recommendations

In my earlier post, I covered my understanding of the EU Privacy Directive and what the current situation was with this legislation in the UK.

At the end of this post I raised the question of what you can do. So here's some recommended steps you can take to compliance:

•  If you have an ecommerce site, immediately update your transaction Terms and Conditions.
• Carry out an audit of all 1^st and 3^rd Party cookies and other tracking technologies used across the sites. Then assess whether they are still required
• Clearly and accurately communicate to visitors about your cookie policy and what tracking is used.
• Develop a solution that requests consent if it is not already obtained. This consent needs to be obtained before any other actions are carried out on the site.   Note: Consent can only be gained by positive action (e.g. the user doing something. The user NOT doing something is not consent.
• Also check with your SEO company to see if any solution proposed affects your rankings (e.g. is seen as a blocker, cloaking, etc.?)

I would also strongly recommend that you speak with your legal representative or in-house counsel to ensure that you know your legal responsibilities when the legislation comes into force on the 26th May 2012.

EU Privacy Directive - Fact vs Fiction

There's been a lot of discussion in the last few months on the new EU Privacy legislation, so I thought I'd write-up my current understand of the situation.

The UK government has given websites until May 26th 2012 tocomply with the EU Privacy Directive. As of 26th May 2011 it has already becomelaw across a number of countries in the EU.

The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has the power tofine website owners up to £500,000 for serious breaches of the law. But he hasstated he will take a ‘practical and proportionate’ approach to enforcement ofthis legislation where organisations are making efforts to comply.

The Directive requires consent for storage or access toinformation stored on a subscriber or users terminal equipment. In other words…
obtaining consent for cookies and similar technologies. For example this could include: Local Shared Objects, commonly referred to as “Flash Cookies”, web beacons or bugs (including transparent or clear gifs).

The only valid exception is cookies which are ‘strictly necessary’ for a service requested by the user. However the ICO has stated thatwebsite analytics are not strictly necessary. They are also aware that obtaining consent from users may affect website owners’ ability to track users. In fact, when an opt-in message was placed on the ICO's own site, they saw visits (from opt-in users only) drop considerably. However, this will not stop them responding to complaints from visitors or carrying out their own investigations.

So what can you do?

(I'll hope to cover than in a subsequent post)

Social Media Espionage

I'm surprised (and a little humoured if I'm honest) to read that some of the most senior members of Western military have been compromised by their Facebook activity.

It seems that by posing as a top NATO chief, spies have managed to 'friend' other Military / Defence officials and obtain their personal details as a result. So although they thought they had become genuine online friends with Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, they've more than likely handed over their family and friend information to Chinese agents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9136029/How-spies-used-Facebook-to-steal-Nato-chiefs-details.html

It isn't just corporates that are being brandjacked via social media now. It is clear that the security services are targets. And just like companies that eventually adopt social media rather than avoid it, Nato has now advised its senior people to set up & own their own social network pages to hopefully prevent a repeat of this embarrassing issue.

Famous in fabric - the Hayden T-shiirt

Having something named after you typically only happens to famous (or infamous) people, royals and inventors. It is definitely not an occurrence that regularly happens to eCommerce consultants.

However I've been humbled by a product that has recently been launched by one of my clients.

The "Hayden" T-shirt is a new product for the AllSaints Spring/Summer 2012 collection and is available in different colours. As you can see from the screen grab below, it is available to buy online as well as in-store at the modest price of £40!

And you can buy it here (for now):

When I asked Alix the AllSaints eCommerce Manager how this had happened, she explained that as the business gives a name to every product, they are always on the look out for unique ones. It would therefore seem that my name was deemed appropriate and it has been used for this T-shirt.

The only question remaining is not whether I will buy it and then wear it.... But if I have any choice in the matter!

New York Times - what's in a photo?

There is a great review of the new Facebook timeline feature in eConsultancy yesterday, which mentions the New York Times as a good example.

http://www.facebook.com/nytimes

However the one thing that stood out for me in this photo is the red staircase in the centre. Taken from this angle it has the sort of company performance chart that every Chief Exec doesn't want to see. 

Perhaps it is just me, but is the NYT trying to tell us something?

Back to the stone age

Back when the Internet was new and exciting, when Yahoo ruled search
and before Mark Zuckerburg had learnt to build websites..... There was
utter mayhem.
(Note: I'm talking about 12 or more years ago here folks, it's not
like this was last week)

You see back then the amateur ruled web development. Anyone with a bit
of understanding of how to build a site could cobble a few pages
together and charge a few hundred pounds (or much, much more) for the
service. These sites were a mess..... flashing text on multi-coloured
backgrounds and nasty graphics were often seen an innovative and basic
usability, let alone accessibility, wasn't even considered.

This was partly because web standards were still emerging, partly
because the technology was so new (so browsers were so basic and often
flimsy in their rendering of HTML code) and partly because nobody knew
any better; from digital agencies half-putting this stuff together
through to clients who thought they were being clever by trying to
reinvent the wheel (e.g. sticking the main navigation on the right
hand side of the page).

Fortunately, over the years standards evolved and more people actually followed
them. Browser got more complex and in-turn developers learnt they had
be more rigorous in their coding. But more than this.... we learnt
what actually worked.

And now, just a few years into the mass use of Social Media, we have
the same thing all over again:

• Wacky ideas from agencies who are trying to do anything to differentiate themselves
• Poorly considered support for social activity in the long term (a lot of people still think it is something they can pick up and drop just as quickly)
• People with very little experience touting themselves as experts - and charging a fortune

It makes me wonder if we learnt anything first time around.....

Email the key to Multi-channel retail

I've been reading about a new technology that emails your shop receipt to you when you've made a store transaction. This functionality (called Yreceipt) basically automates the process for retailers and takes the customer one step closer to a paperless shopping experience.

But in my opinion it also provides one very important function to the seller.... it helps join up the multi-channel picture for stores, by getting that one piece of data that marries the store purchase with online cuistomer transactions with any digital marketing preferences.... their email address.
This isnt exactly ground-breaking stuff, but getting a customer's usual email address when they are in the store (and yes, I'm well aware that we all have several these days) means you not only know if they've purchased at your online shop, but if they've signed up or opted out of your bulletins. You can then link the in-store purchase to this account or even reactivate them for subsequent email marketing.

Surely by linking till systems with the ecommerce database, any serious retailer can then make the shopping experience more favourable for the customer (by providing loyalty discounts & other incentives, proving an online way for them to see their entire purchasing history and then delivering added value such as emailing receipts to them)?

Multi-Channel competency and innovation

Over the last few months I've been speaking to clients about two different principle facets of Multi-Channel retailing:

1. Continue to improve what you're doing
2. Find new ways to do what you're doing

This came to a head a week or so ago when I saw Sir Terry Leahy, the former CEO of Tesco, present on future global trends. As he talked, I was struck by one key phrase he quoted.

"Don't just do things better. Do better things"

And in an instant I had the key way to integrate my two disparate facets (Thanks Sir Terry!)So here's my presentation, which brings together my current thoughts on this subject. It's not complete, in fact it is a long way from it.... but I'm putting it up to collective scrutiny, with the aim of getting your feedback to develop it further.Multi-Channel Innovation & Competence

View more PowerPoint from Hayden Sutherland

Show me the Social Media money!

My, I must be getting sensitive after all these years in the digital industry. I've just got a bit annoyed after reading a single tweet.
No, it wasn't a rant by one of the angry accounts I follow, nor a bigoted response to a pressing social matter... It was this one:
"The number one objective for social media strategists is to evangelise a new initiative"
(I've withheld the name of the person who tweeted this, but if you have the skills.... You can find out who it is yourself).
No!
In my honest opinion this is NOT the first objective of anyone in social media, let alone someone responsible for the strategy.
Let me explain...
I believe that the most important role of anyone in any company is to support the organisation in its business objectives and responsibilities. These typically are to make money and reduce costs.
Sure, it is also the role of most employees to: take responsibility for their work, think innovatively (although perhaps more those in a more supervisory / management position) and question traditional business practices. But for a social media strategist to consider the evangelising of a new initiative as their principle role..... Is surely missing the point?
Are they not there to: asses, measure, understand and come up with strategic initiatives that make a difference to revenue, operational efficiencies, brand value, etc.?
I would very strongly reconsider the position of someone employed at a senior strategic level who does not understand this economic fundamental.

Clarification:
I'll keep my original posting above, but provide clarification after some subsequent information has come to light (thanks Gabrielle). The Tweet I referenced was not actually the thoughts of the person (Jeremy) who tweeted it: https://twitter.com/#!/jeremywaite/status/179667787705364481
but a quote from someone else at SXSW who made this statement.

Augmented Reality for retail

A couple of weeks back I was told about an innovative 'Virtual fashion mirror' from Cisco. As well as being covered by the BBC, Cisco also blogged about it here:
http://blogs.cisco.com/retail/cisco-styleme-virtual-fashion-mirror-inspires-sales-across-all-age-groups
Although this immediately gained the interest of the techie press and the online fashion community, a little digging found that this technology is still in its infancy and that the actual technology isn't available right away.

Now Microsoft have demonstrated their Holoflector, a large translucent mirror with an LCD panel  behind it, connected to a Kinect camera
.
http://www.geekwire.com/2012/video-microsoft-research-holoflector-augmented-reality-mirror


Is this the future of retail?

Don't declare the death of F-Commerce just yet

News that several major retailers have recently shut down their Facebook stores has led to a lot of predictions about the death of f-Commerce (the term used for eCommerce on the World's biggest social networking platform and therefore the most visited website).

See this article on Bloomberg for a touch of hype generation (and link baiting... dammit):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/f-commerce-trips-as-gap-to-penney-shut-facebook-stores-retail.html 

One Forrester Researcher was also quoted as stating:

“There was a lot of anticipation that Facebook would turn into a new destination, a store, a place where people would shop. But it was like trying to sell stuff to people while they’re hanging out with their friends at the bar.”

People please...... before we go around proclaiming the end of social commerce, can we please get a bit of perspective here?

Yes, it is true that some big US retailers such as Gap and Nordstrom have closed their Facebook retail channels. But it is still very early days for f-Commerce and a lot of companies are still finding their feet with this stuff. Its currently the same as web-based selling was back 10 or so years ago.

Back then customer confidence was low and the methods and tools & best-practice are still being learnt.

It is also true that users have a big security issue with using their credit cards via Social Networks:

http://mashable.com/2012/02/10/credit-card-information-social-network/ 

And even less trust Facebook stores to prevent fraud.

http://threatmetrix.com/study-reveals-only-a-quarter-of-consumers-trust-facebook-storefronts-to-prevent-fraud/

However the race hasn't been run yet. Given the speed of change in both the eCommerce and Social Networking space, I wouldn't declare the death of f-Commerce straight away. In fact Gap have stated: “We will continue to evaluate if this is something we want to bring back in the future”

My suggestion is therefore to ask yourself one simple question 

"does your Facebook store make a decent ROI without cannibalising other sales channels?". 

And if the answer is "Yes"...  then I suggest you keep it going.

Social Media - a platform for complaints

When everyone first got excited about the Social Media Goldrush back in 2008 - 2009 the same stories circled round and round. We all know them.... the Dell Hell blog, etc.
Things haven't got much better several years on. Recently, peeved about a new $5 monthly bank fee imposed by Bank of America, Molly Katchpole logged on to the Change.org website to start an online petition urging the bank to reconsider imposing monthly fees on debit card users. Quickly more than 300,000 people joined her  campaign demanding the bank drop what they saw as an monthly usage charge and the bank backed down. Many not credit Molly with eliminating debit card fees for the Bank of America and others.

Today's consumers are relentlessss with their expectations and complaints about brands - and with easy access to site like TripAdvisor (for travel users) and tools like Twitter, their words can go far. 

It seems that Social Media has now provided a platform for complains and potentially helps foster a Culture of Dissatisfaction online.

Aggregators - why they exist in specific markets

Meta search and aggregation (for the purpose of this article I'm saying these two are the same thing, although some may claim there are subtle differences) have grown over the last few years to be a dominant acquisiton force in a number of important online vertical markets.

Financial services, from credit cards through to insurance, are now subject to aggressive aggregation from a handful of major players such as: compare the market, go compare and moneysupermarket.

Utilities including: gas, electricity, mobile phone tariffs and broadband access are now compared online. In fact a lot of fuss and claims are made by the market leaders in this sector that they are championing your consumer cause (without obviously stating that your business with them helps their financial cause).

And travel has its obvious aggregation in the form of meta searches for: car hire, hotels, flights, etc.

Each aggregated vertical has its specific nuances and intricacies, plus each its own referral & commission structures, but in essence the the business model is the same:
a. Collate as many similar products or services as you can
b. Provide a single interface that qualifies the visitor's choice (usually by a series of form fields common to all parties)
c. Deliver the results in a consistent and comparable manner (usually cheapest first, but also allowing the user to filter some options)

Aggregators exist because two simple facts:
1. customers do not believe that they always get the cheapest rate for all products from one supplier
2. customers do not want to spend the time completing the same form on numerous sites

But why don't aggregators exist in other markets... such as fashion or FMCG products (e.g. washing powder and chocolate bars)?

Well, for fashion products, the usual reason is that products are exclusive to the manufacturer. Therefore because the channels to market are all protected (e.g. the manufacturer has some level of control over price and/or distribution) there is no real flexibility in the price. Then (assuming the brand site has eCommerce functionality), it is then typically just as cheap for users to shop from the brand site as it from a re-seller.

For FMCG the lack of aggregation is a different one, that of convenience. Most shoppers, when looking to source FMCG products go to a grocery store or supermarket. They also assume that the shop has done some sort of price comparison with the competition, so they don't have to (although prices may only be matched for the core 'basket' of goods and other less common items are still priced to maximize profits). Although sites such as http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk have sprung up to allow web users to compare grocery and health & beauty products from the leading retailers, people still either only visit one store or use one online supermarket at a time.

The question I have is... are there any remaining markets where aggregation is possible but has yet to take off?

The Physics of Social Media finances

Following my recent post on The Physics of Social Media, it has been pointed out to me that there's the distinct possibility that the finances of Social Media and social platforms are also subject to Newton's Third Law. This is the one that states "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction"

What does this mean?

Well, how many people these days use social networks and expect them to be free? Everyone, right?
But there's a problem with this.... The cost of developing, improving and running these sites isn't free. There's no such thing as a free lunch where website hosting is concerned. The cost of just hosting a social website like Facebook, with its approximate 700,000 - 800,000 users and billions of page views per day, is huge! (Annually estimated at $50 million in September 2010)
But someone has to pay for all this infrastructure.

Sites such as Facebook make a lot of their money by selling advertising space, in much the same way as Google or another search engine does. In the attention economy companies want to be where the eyeballs are and the more targetted they can make their advertising... the more they are prepared to pay.

So by giving more details about yourself, you are therefore allowing social networks to sell more specific advertising inventory to companies. They in-turn can pin=point your needs more.... or in other words, you're paying for their lunch (AKA the incredibly high valuations of these companies) by sharing your personal information with them. And somewhere within me that stirs a physical reaction.....

Social Business - the evolution of Social Media

Back in 2011, I did a presentation at the iShopKent 2011 event on the topic of Social Media. However rather than cover the usual stuff you see all the time (transparency, engagement, build a Facebook page, etc.) I triumphantly proclaimed the death of Social Media.Here's the presentation I gave that day and would welcome any feedback on the content (or your questions, if its not clear what I was talking about from the set of slides below)

View more PowerPoint from Hayden Sutherland

The cyclical nature of online marketing

One of my more typical observations is just how 'inter-connected' all
things digital have become. In other words.. when you affect one
thing, you stand a good chance of creating a knock-on effect with
something else.
Take this cyclical set as an example:
PR affects SEO
SEO affects Content
Content affects Pay-per-click (PPC)
Pay-per-click affects Conversion
Conversion affects Analytics
Analytics affects email
Email affects social media
Social Media affects PR
Have you seen any other similar cycles?

The future is responsive

PC's, tablets, mobiles and TV interfaces.... The list of devices used
to browse the Internet changes and increases all the time.

When designing and developing a new website, the common accepted
practice is that you start your user experience (UX) work first, based
upon how users with a PC and sometimes large tablets (e.g. the iPad),
might see things. Then depending upon the other popular devices used
to access your site, you then consider building an alternative
version.... say mobile.

But turn this concept on its head for a moment and consider the following:
1. Nobody fully knows what the future devices will be (up until 2
years ago the tablet market was virtually non-existent).
2. It is safe to predict that mobile devices will continue to grow in
use and that the available range will expand over time, as
manufacturers experiment and try to invent new form factors (in the
hope of finding a previously in-tapped customer need).
3. Bolting a mobile interface onto your existing site is hard work.
Some do fancy things with style sheets, while others just 'make the
buttons bigger' (yes this is a cheap and quick change, but not all
sites look good with chunky submit buttons, etc.).
4. Building a separate mobile-specific site is usually more work than
spending a little longer on your main one.
It is therefore unsurprising that I predict a future where a
significant number of company websites will no longer be developed
with a version for each specific device.... but a single one that
automatically adapts to the size and orientation of the devices used.
Note: I'm not talking about interfaces such as the Microsoft Metro
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language) design
language, which the software giant is successfully using across most
of its devices.

But this isn't a pipe dream for the far-off future, this is all
possible now using responsive site design & development techniques.
And soon it will be clients asking for this technology that will drive
its adoption, as they realise they don't need to spend a lot more
money building separate versions just for specific device profiles....
For examples, take a look at:
http://mediaqueri.es/
http://designmodo.com/responsive-design-examples/

RNIB serves bmibaby for inaccessible website

According to its website,the RNIB has served travel website bmibaby with legal proceedings. Apparently this is because it has a website that remains inaccessible to those using screen readers or those who can't use a mouse.
Yup, that's correct. After over a year of informing the company that has failed to make vital changes to its website to allow customers with sight loss to use their online services, the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) has decided to take the legal route.
It would seem from the online press release found on its own website that despite "receiving expert advice, recommendations and a full audit report from RNIB", bmibaby still hasn't made any real progress in this area. So RNIB has now served the company with legal proceedings.
The implications of this action are potentially huge. To date in the UK (that I'm aware of) there has been no public airing of the accessibility legislation all now wrapped up in the Equalities Act of 2010.
If this action does proceed, it could have far-reaching consequences for other high profile websites who continue to flout the legislation.
I think I can safely state that the eyes of the industry are now firmly focused on this case....
http://www.rnib.org.uk/aboutus/mediacentre/mediareleases/mediareleases2012/Pages/pressrelease27Jan2012.aspx