Tag Archives: #new media

C-Suite in a quandry: To Blog or Not To Blog…

Posted on by
2

Should CEO’s be on social media? That is the question many boards, PR advisers, marketeers and C-Suite occupants are faced with these days. Partly driven by existentialist angst (“I Tweet therefore I am”), partly a desperate act of “me too”, many CEOs are in a dilemma about how to engage with the new media.

While it might sound like a good idea to have a CEO blog, in the wrong hands or used inappropriately, it can come across as inauthentic, too corporate, or just crass.

The use of CEOs as “personal brands” is nothing new – think of Richard Branson, Anita Roddick, Steve Jobs, Jack Welch etc. And while social media has the potential to extend the CEO’s reach to customers, shareholders and employees, it also abhors a vacuum. If companies do not take control of their public persona, their customers and employees (supporters and detractors alike) will fill the void for them.

I am seeing this debate play out in different ways:

First, there is a difference between a personal brand and a business brand, so it is important to establish boundaries while recognising how the CEO’s personal standing can be used effectively to complement the corporate presence.

Second, having the CEO recognised as an expert can enhance personal influence but may not directly benefit the company if it is not relevant to the business – does Warren Buffet’s prowess on the ukulele boost instrument sales, or help the share price of Berkshire-Hathaway?

Third, if CEOs do choose to outsource their blog content, make sure it is genuine and aligns not only with the CEO’s personal values but also with those of the company, customers, shareholders and employees.

Finally, CEOs or Boards struggling with this topic, or those worried about whether to take the plunge into social media would be advised to consult Dionne Kasian Lew‘s new book, “The Social Executive”, which is sure to become an essential guide on the subject.

 

 

 

Defining RoDA: Return on #Digital Assets

Posted on by
4

How do we measure the Return on Investment for digital assets? It’s a question that is starting to challenge digital marketers and IT managers alike, but there don’t appear to be too many guidelines. Whether your social media campaign is being expensed as direct marketing costs, or your hardware upgrade is being capitalised, how do you work out the #RoDA?

In most businesses, measuring the expected RoI of plant or equipment is usually quite easy: it’s normally a financial calculation that takes the initial acquisition price, amortized over the useful life of the asset, and then forecasts the “yield” in definable terms such as manufacturing output or capacity utilisation.

However, when we look at digital assets, many of those traditional calculations won’t apply, either because the usage value is harder to define, or the benchmarks have not been established. Also, while hardware costs may be easy to capture, how are digital assets such as websites, social media accounts, software (proprietary and 3rd party) and domain names being reported in the P&L, cash-flow analysis and balance sheet?

Sure, most hardware (servers, PCs and physical networks) can be treated as capex (e.g., if the purchase price is more than $1,000 and the useful life is 2-5 years). But how do you make sure you are getting value for money – is it based on some sort of productivity analysis, or is it simply treated as fixed overhead – regardless of your turnover or operating costs?

As we move to cloud hosting and #BYOD, many of these assets utilised in the course of doing business won’t actually appear on the company balance sheet. Yet they will have some sort of impact on the operating costs. Most software is sold under a licensing model, where the customer does not actually own the asset. (But, if the international accounting standards change the treatment of operating leases longer than 12 months, that 2-year cloud hosting fee might just became a balance sheet item.)

I was once involved in the acquisition of a publishing business that was converting legacy print products to digital content. Not only did they capitalise (and amortize) the servers and the conversion software, they also capitalised the data entry costs (using freelance editors) to avoid the expense hitting the P&L. Nowadays, that’s a bit like putting the HTML coding team on the balance sheet and not the payroll…

In some cases, the costs associated with maintaining an e-commerce website or registering a URL, will remain as overhead or operating expenses. But over time, businesses will want to have a better understanding of their RoI for different online sales and digital marketing channels, especially if they have been investing considerably in their design, build and maintenance. Measuring online visitor data, customer conversion rates and average yield per sale, etc. are becoming established metrics for many B2C sites. Having a good grasp of your #RoDA may just give you a competitive edge, or at least provide a benchmark on effective marketing costs.

 

Publishers’ Choice: Be a Victim, or Join the Vanguard?

Posted on by
Reply

I recently posted a blog about saving the Australian publishing industry, prompted by some research I was doing on government-sponsored initiatives, notably EPICS and BISG. This generated a couple of (indirect) responses, one from the Department of Industry itself, the other from a long-time colleague in the industry. More on these later.

The future of publishing - circa 2000....

The future of publishing – circa 2000….

But first, some more industrial archeology, by way of demonstrating that book publishers are not shy about new technology – remember the first electronic ink? When I was working at the Thomson Corporation in the late 1990s, we were given access to a prototype version of what we would now recognise as an e-reader. It was about the size and thickness of a mouse pad but less flexible, and could only hold a small amount of data in its memory (content was uploaded via an ethernet cable). It was described as the future of book publishing, and was predicated on the idea of portability (it could be rolled up like a newspaper if the screen was thin and pliable enough), and updating it with new content whenever it was (physically) connected to a computer or the internet.

However, whatever their apparent appetite for new technology, publishers struggle to adapt their business models accordingly, or they are fixated on “old” ways of monetizing content, and locked into traditional supply chains, archaic market territories (geo-blocking), restrictive copyright practices and arcane licensing agreements; and unlike other content providers (notably music, TV and newspapers which have shifted their thinking, albeit reluctantly) the transition to digital is still tied to specific platforms and devices, unit-based pricing and margins, and territorial restrictions.

Anyway, back to the future. In response to my enquiry about the outcome of the BISG initiative, and the creation of the Book Industry Collaborative Council (BICC), the Department of Industry offered the following:

“A key outcome of the BICC process was to have been the establishment of a Book Industry Council of Australia, an industry-led body based on the residual BICC membership that would come to be a single point of policy communication with government, though following its own reform agenda in the identified areas and unsupported by any taxpayer funding. Terms of Reference and so forth were drawn up but as nearly as we can ascertain from media monitoring and contacts, the BICA was never formed. It appears the industry is waiting to ascertain what the current government’s policy priorities might be, as expressed in the outcomes of the current Commission of Audit and Budget, before possibly resurrecting the BICA concept and/or the policy issues identified in the BICC report.” (emphasis added)

My read on this is that the industry won’t take any initiatives itself until it knows what the government might do (i.e., let’s wait to see if there are any handouts, and if not, we can plead a special case about the lack of subsidies/protection and the threat of extinction…).

This defeatist attitude is not just confined to Australia – my former colleague recently attended the 2014 Digital Book World Conference in New York. He commented:

“I was disappointed to see the general negativity of the publishing industry and the “victim” like mentality – also the focus on the arch-enemy – AMAZON! I see great opportunities for content – but companies have to get their head around smaller micro transactions and a freemium model. Big publishers are “holding on” to margins – it’s a recipe for disaster – [but] I think we can become small giants these days.”

There are some signs that the industry is taking the initiative, and even grounds for optimism such as embracing digital distribution in Australia, moving to a direct-to-consumer (“D2C”) model in the USA, and new approaches to copyright and licensing in the UK.

The choice facing the publishing industry is clear: continue to see itself as a victim (leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and extinction), or become part of the vanguard in developing leading-edge products and services for the digital age.

Defining the Prosumer product

Posted on by
Reply

This week, Do.com announced it will be closing down in January. It may simply be the latest in a string of social networking apps to call it quits, but it also highlights the difficulty in developing Prosumer products that generate market traction.

do-com-logoPositioned as a productivity solution, Do.Com was also viewed as an app that straddles the work/personal divide, to be a veritable Prosumer product.

The problem is, it did not have a clear vision of what defines the “Prosumer” market, and it did not adequately redefine workflow needs in a permeable environment that increasingly blurs the dividing line between the personal and the professional.

As a result, Do.com probably missed an opportunity to craft a new perspective on the elusive Prosumer demographic. For example, as a Prosumer, my primary need is to consolidate all the social networking and collaborative platforms I use. At the same time, I need to manage the different types of connections and co-ordinate the different degrees of sharing that these tools offer, but not based on “projects” or “transactions” – rather, based on “relationships” (which are not the same as “connections”).

Despite their attempts to capture “3-dimensional” linkages amongst my networks, most collaborative tools and social networking platforms are limited by their 2-dimensional perspective of linear connections, rather than multi-dimensional relationships.

Until tools like Do.com do a better job of managing the qualitative and contextual nature of professional and personal relationships (and offer better ways to manage the different facets of these connections), they will be interesting, but not essential.

POSTSCRIPT: Here’s why Facebook can never be taken seriously as a productivity or professional tool – when editing my “official” Facebook page the day, I was prompted to add my “likes” for music and films – why would I want to share that sort of information with my professional contacts (unless it was really relevant to our relationship – client karaoke night, perhaps?).