PR from the Beach

Creating a Social Business? Remember to ask the right questions

Lost count of the times you've struggled a bit when someone has said: "What are we going to do about social media"? 

Rest easy - because that's the wrong question. The question that today's leadership teams need to be addressing is this: "What do we need to do to create a social business"?  Of course, that question needs to be proceeded by 'Why do we need to create a social business'?  I hope you'll find some signposts to that answer here.

Disruptive technologies come, go - and stay around for a while. Books, telephones, televisions, the typewriter, all changed the way business was conducted.  For the main part however, those technologies were initially retained by few and used as a means of command and control. Hierarchical organisations employed disruptive technologies to increase profits, shareholder returns and, of course, power.

The speed of change and access to the latest disruptive technologies means that they can't be retained or held by a few. Although moves are afoot to try and change this, for the time being at least, the combinations of change, access and low-cost means that the notions we had of business, leadership and social order have changed. Expectations are different. We have not only a right to choose, but a right to demand, cajole, influence and - in some cases - insist.

Social media changes business for good. And not simply 'good' in terms of finality. 

The 'good business' of the future will be just that. Good in terms of its impact on society as well as its contribution. Financially sound and sustainably grown. The integrated reporting and global reporting initiatives will make all organisations accountable for their actions - financial, environmental and societal. In order to report performance effectively and truthfully, many organisations will have to turn themselves inside out, changing from within and working out how, once changed, they can meet their business and organisational goals.

Given the seismic shift in the financial world markets since 2008, it is extremely likely that G3 and other integrated reporting guidelines will become mandatory. South Africa is the first country to have made integrated reporting a legal requirement. This type of initiative, combined with the force of social media, creates a new style of business in which listening comes first.

The new business won't just make and sell things.  It won't even declare itself by putting its ingredients on the pack. The new business will have full support of the community in which it operates.  The resources it uses will be tracked to origin. The packaging - QR code or otherwise - will explain exactly where, how and why it fits into people's lives. It will declare its own risks and benefits in equal measures. It will create and foster a clear understanding with its user community who will report back publicly on their views, experience and satisfaction with the product or service and make suggestions for improvement.

The user will be able to choose how, where and when they make their purchase and whether they do that with hard currency - currently under threat - or network credits. If they are bought with network credits then the network too will assume responsibility as part of the new supply chain. Those supplying goods and services through the network will be held to terms and conditions and, if they are found to be in breach, will be cut off.

Each stage of the process will be designed to foster the trust of all the stakeholders involved. Monitoring and implementing the process will demand a new skill set from everyone involved, not least the organisational leaders who will have not just organisational reputations to defend, but their own personal ones as the line between the profession and the person gradually disappears.

That's one scenario - but keep in mind that it isn't simply social shift we are witnessing. It is a business shift as well.  Welcome to the Brave New World.

This post is taken from a piece I wrote at the back end of last year - and in discussing social business with a few people today, thought I'd dig it out and put it here for them to have a read. Hope it gave you some food for thought too.

2012 - Work it from Anywhere

If you are looking for the latest technology developments to dazzle your friends - or yourself - then look no further than the International Consumer Electronics Show which has just kicked off in Vegas.

One thing's for sure - the interconnectedness of the technologies now available means that we have moved right into a year where we can work anything from anywhere. I can switch on my aircon in NZ - even if I was in Vegas - or turn on the home monitoring micro-camera from the office to see the faces of those who have just triggered my house alarm. I can tap my credit card on my ultrabook to pay for stuff and turn my phone into a gaming console for a quick play while I wait. 

Here are my top five 'most excited about' announcements so far:

1. Intel is to bring gesture based computing to its new ultrabook technology (think Minority Report)
2. Acer unveiled the world's thinnest laptop
3. Huawei reveals its ultra-thin smart phone
4. TV shifts to OLED technology
5. Tobii Technology's eye tracking system that allows users to scroll, play and navigate using their eyes alone

If you like checking out the new and you can't get across to Vegas in the next couple of days (I wish) then you can follow the updates and breaking news on CESweb.org/news or check out the YouTube channel from CES Unveiled. 

Here's some honourable mentions, including 'print your own objects' now available for the consumer.

 

A neat scanner mouse that will cause more copyright havoc no doubt...

 

And for a general round up of things green, comfort-inducing 'work it from anywhere' innovations, here's their taster:

 

 

We need more than Kiwi ingenuity to be ready for kick off

I know there are huge life-and-death concerns in the world right now but, at a local level, I find myself worrying more and more as to whether or not we will be ready for kick-off come the Rugby World Cup on September 9 this year.

I love New Zealand, I love rugby, I love Auckland and Invercargill and all the places in between. I also know it is tantamount to treason to profer criticism of either New Zealand's ability to do something or rugby. But looking around, I am not confident that we will be ready to the standard the rest of the world expects come the big day. 

Today's New Zealand Herald  looks again at the financial cost of hosting the event here. Me, I'm worried about the cost to our reputation.  There's the big tent thingy going up on the waterfront, the stadiums that are not equipped to deal with the demands of the world's sports and other media, there's the inoperative countdown clock  just opposite Britomart. Then there's the whole business of accommodation, transport links to venues, overpricing, no eftpos at stadiums and (whispers) the normal potential for the weather to be atrocious in September and October.

Whether we like it or not, the world has high expectations of international events of this kind and looking around the country four months out, I wonder if we will meet those expectations or fall dreadfully short. We rely on people coming here. Tourism is, we are told, one of our economic cornerstones. Yet this showcase event looks scarily unfinished at a time when we should be adding polish to the preparations, not still struggling with the infrastructure.  The long term risk to our reputation is far greater than the initial financial deficits being reported. If those coming - or not - for the Rugby World Cup - are not happy with the provisions and preparations for their arrival our tourism industry will be affected for years to come. 

It is naive to think that it is just a sporting tournament even though that viewpoint is the one most heard. If you have any doubts about that, cast your mind back to the debacle in India last year during the Commonwealth Games. September's event is a world showcase for the entire country so we need to see some leadership - and some real action - in order to be ready for those we have invited to come. 

If I had invited visitors from across the world to come to see me in September, the rooms would be ready, beds counted, meals planned, transport sorted and entertainment organised.  All that would be left to do four months out would be a tidy up in the garden just before they got here.

Looking at the event from the inside out, it all looks very piecemeal, disjointed and uncoordinated. From an event management point of view, this is not a good look, nor good operational practice. I am willing someone, somewhere to create a rounded picture for fans and visitors alike of what they can expect - something that doesn't exist at the moment.  

Looking at today's picture, I fear it will take a heck of a lot more than Kiwi ingenuity between now and September to give the rest of the world the welcome it expects - and deserves. Because there is an awful lot more to do than just tidy up the garden.

So has the first Cyber War begun?

Amazon has now had a blip, Mastercard and others have experience distributed-denial-of-service attacks and Saturday's UK Guardian announces that the hackers claim the first global cyber war has begun.

Back in 2006, when I first stumbled on the film 'V for Vendetta' you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who would go along with the conspiracy theories that fuelled the plot. After all, they would say, nothing like that could possibly happen in this day and age - we're much too smart. And besides, ordinary folk just don't get off the benches and do that sort of thing. Interesting then that the Anonymous group, alleged to be behind the attacks, has adopted the Guy Fawkes mask from the film as their collective avatar as they ostensibly stand up against the demise of the WikiLeaks site and arrest of Assange. But are they the 'ordinary folk' behind the mask that they purport to be? Elsewhere the hackers have been described as ordinary people rising up to 'right the wrongs' they perceive to have occurred. There are definitely some serious wrongs going on in this sorry saga, but I do wonder if these 'ordinary hackers' are sincere in their stand for 'the people's rights' , whether they have stopped to consider the consequences of their actions or whether they are merely keen to exercise a little anarchistic muscle.

It might seem inconsequential for most of us - something happening beyond our control out there in cyberspace - where, let's face it, many mostly go to check Facebook, chat on Twitter or email out some Christmas greetings.  Truth is, even if claims of the first global cyber war have been exaggerated, the implications of the online actions of all those involved - from WikiLeaks, to Governments, hackers to downloaders - are considerable.

I've written about this before (back in 2007) and again more recently following the China hacks and we all need to be concerned, aware of what can and can't be done in such circumstances and also - most importantly - that the web is not the bastion of free speech that many of us would like to believe it to be.  Frustratingly, not many people seem to care and, worryingly, there is very little collective business, individual or organisational will to address the problems this sort of denial of service can cause or to address the social and economic impact it will have on the real ordinary people who will find they can't get their money, or buy food or operate within a system increasingly dependent on online interactions. Somehow I can't see the hackers themselves coughing up the cash refused to the hungry, cold pensioner because 'the computer says no'.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the players who withdrew services from the WikiLeaks site did so to maintain their political licence to operate, rather than to ensure everyone toed the line when it came to site terms and conditions. Shame should rest on the political masters who may have engineered such reactions.  I am also convinced that at least some of the hackers currently dealing out 'payback' are doing it because the WikiLeaks affair provides a useful sandbox environment that allows them to see just how far they can get. Now, as always, two wrongs don't make a right.

As with all wars, the innocent are the ones caught in the middle and even a cyber war will see casualties mounting. Sadly, I suspect the first great loss will be the opportunity the web provides for Freedom of Speech. Another bleakly Orwellian view I can glimpse is that Freedom of Thought would be the next human right to bite the dust as first the governments, then the web giants, then the hackers seek to control - from behind their respective and particular masks - what we say and do online and off, as well as what we are allowed to hear and see.

 

Beware Geeks Bearing Gifts

It's that time of year when people dress up and pretend to be something else. The trend begins around Halloween, then on towards Christmas there is almost a perpetual parade of cowboys, pirates, fairies, elves and magical creatures that - in fiction - can provide all manner of blessings and benefits but in reality, well, they're just pretend.

So a word to the wise as we approach the season of giving. Beware geeks bearing gifts, particularly in the realms of social media and you truly will have yourself that merry little Christmas.

Over the last few months I've stumbled over several sites promising all sorts of miracles for those who buy their social media wares. If you are thinking of using social media and expanding what you do online, good on you. But,  if you are one of the small to medium sized businesses that these sites seem to be aiming at, my Christmas wish would be that you think very carefully and consider the points below before you load up a shopping cart full of exciting looking goodies and click 'send':

1. Social media is not about numbers. It is about people communicating with each other, building relationships and working together. If someone promises you 'thousands' of Facebook or Twitter followers they don't understand the environment and are likely to lead you astray. Expensively. This is not a popularity contest and 'follower' numbers don't buy results.
2. Social media takes time. Yes, you can get a 'message' out there quickly, but, in the long term, the relationships you forge will be the measure of your success, not how speedily something went 'viral'.
3. Look carefully at any site that purports to be run by 'social media gurus' or 'experts' or 'specialists' but features blog posts from 'admin' and has no real people associated with the site.  These are signs that you need to be very, very careful before you part with your hard earned cash.
4. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That's been my message to, well, thousands of people now over the last ten years or more. Understand what you want to achieve, who you want to build a relationship with and why and how you are going to sustain and build that relationship - then start thinking about your strategy and then the tools you might use. Don't start with tactics first and work backwards. That's another Trojan Horse.
5. There are lots of genuine people out there who have solid experience in this area. If you are setting out to buy in help, be careful. Talk to real people. Hear some real stories. Don't buy 'off the shelf' - it won't work because your needs are very different to anyone else's - as are the needs of the communities you will serve.  And serving and service is a vital component of this space.

So, to recap. Think about what you want to achieve first, don't think it is about numbers and popularity  because this is the real world, not high school. Talk to real people, hear some real stories. Scrutinise all geeks bearing gifts. Remember at all times that just because someone is dressed up as Father Christmas, it doesn't mean you'll definitely find Santa underneath - it might just be a pirate or a cowboy looking to take you on a ride to nowhere.

Internet Access a 'human right'? Finland finishes first in making it work

Today, Finland becomes the first country in the world to enshrine internet access as a legal right for its citizens. This piece from the BBC provides a quick overview of what has been accomplished, and follows on from the BBC survey earlier this year which identified access as a fundamental right. The Finns passed their bill in October 2009 and the aim is to provide citizen access to 100mbs - by right - in 2015.

Last year, France declared in its courts that internet access was a human right and other countries are following suit - but Finland wins the game today with its activation of last year's law.

Here in New Zealand, where we still struggle with connectivity, an effective duopoly of provision between Telecom and Vodafone with a few minnows struggling upstream, means the statistics are not so good. In Finland, 96% of the population is already on line. With a population of 5.3m, that's not so much bigger than us, yet Statistics NZ's number release in April this year advises that only 1m Kiwis are active broadband users, 80% are regular users but rural populations are still struggling along on dial-up.

There was a reasonable and robust programme of digital engagement under the last NZ government. Since John Key and the Nationals were elected, there has been far less emphasis and discussion on how we can ensure that the digital divide is bridged - and bridged quickly.  Areas of access, digital literacy, digital education have all faded into the background. Sadly, basic infrastructure is lacking along with the will to change and despite our much vaunted Kiwi ingenuity, I fear that unless there is some real leadership, we will soon find ourselves far behind other countries in the world. And it is very easy to 'slip behind'.

Technology is a key enabler. It facilitates education, change, progress and problem solving. Access in itself is not a 'human right' but making it a 'legal right' certainly helps us all to improve the level of human rights around us.

Below is a great TED video from Hans Rosling from 2007, which looks at progress through the eyes of a very creative statistician, who demonstrates that change is possible, nothing is impossible - but we do have to be able to distinguish between goals and means if we are to make any progress at all.  I hope that our own New Zealand government uses Finland as a credible and praiseworthy example as to what is possible in the area of digital access and starts sorting out an infrastructure that will allow everyone here to benefit in the same way as the citizens of Finland.

Cow pat energy could boost data storage?

The latest research paper from Hewlett Packard puts a whole new slant on digital waste.  Their idea? Use waste from the dairy industry to create 'natural energy plants that could power data storage centres. Apparently 10,000 dairy cows would produce 1GW, enough to supply electricity to the farmer and the assigned data centre.  Interesting thinking - wonder if there is the will anywhere to put it into action? Certainly could boost NZ's economy and make good use of those troublesome dairy emissions! Seems like an opportunity to me.

The bitter taste of chocolate coated influence

This is not a whine brought on by lack of chocolate. But it is a worry about the way 'influence' is being trumpeted and overly paraded in the social media sphere to the extent I am once again reminded of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Earlier this week, in a bad mood caused by other matters, I grumbled when I read a tweet from the local branch of a global confectioner on Twitter to a blogger who had benefited from some free chocolate, apparently sent following her commentary on the palm oil debacle and the company's subsequent 'recovery' in social media channels. I was delighted for her that she had received the chocolate and hope much 'nom. nom, noming' was going on at her base. I would also add that she conveyed surprise in her blog at the arrival of the goodies. I was, however, intrigued.

Supply of freebies in the blogosphere is dependent on the supplier's perception of the recipient's 'influence'.  In the US, restrictions have now been placed on bob-a-blogs, elsewhere I suspect they may materialise soon.  But what I find interesting is not the supply of freebies, but the perception of influence. You see, in my house, I am the primary chocolate buyer. The filler of supermarket trollies who lumps in those palm-oiled bars for my confectionery-loving crew. I also have an extensive network - not on Twitter - of fellow trolley-fillers, who in turn perform outreach 'within a tightly formulated purchasing tribe' (to add the sparkle of some current corporate blather-speak).  But which do you think is potentially of greatest influence? A person who blogs about how well a company has done in the social media sphere or a person who actually buys the products? 

At this end of the week (having cheered myself up with some purchased chocolate) I have been playing with Klout, another Twitter analytics tool that, along with many others, advises users as to their influence on the network. Apart from the fact it doesn't seem terribly accurate and doesn't correlate terribly well with other similar analytics tools, it makes great play of the 'influencer' numbers, telling you how you should try harder, do this, retweet that, ask this question and so on.  A couple of weeks ago I was playing with Twitter lists - a seemingly benign mechanism for organising groups of people - that was almost immediately tainted by a feverish outbreak of a seemingly high school mentality of popularity.

I know that many of those 'influencers' in the social media sphere will probably baulk at this, but my worry is that all this talk of influence takes social media down a wrong turning and into a dark alley.  The biggest bonus awarded to us all by online interaction was the removal of filtered communication. We had been stuck with commercial mainstream media models - well, for centuries  - and over the last fifteen years we have seen the gradual erosion of their control. (Which is one of the reasons Rupert Murdoch is so mad, but that's another post entirely).  There is a real and present danger that the benefits of social media, the open channels, the acceptance of newcomers and the willingness to actually listen to someone else (and I mean properly listen) will diminish and content, instead of having the power to change things will become another platform for marketing spam.

Statistics show us the millions of people who are engaged online, using all sorts of tools to connect with each other but there are still millions more who have no access to the tools, technology or concerns of those intent on filtering who says what to whom and when, but who may well end up permanently out of the loop.

I've been working in this space for many years now (despite Klout's assessment of me!) and I know that if your intention is to genuinely build community, you don't put barriers in front of people - you make them welcome. You make them feel they are part of the team, rather than the one who never gets picked. 

Introducing pop charts, lists, influencer ratings, most popular this, most fantastic that simply replaces the old filters with new ones, removing individuals from the conversation. Voices that should be heard won't be heard - or considered important - because they haven't made this week's list or carry last week's Klout.

Much is going on online to make people feel unwelcome, unwanted and unnecessary, which is very sad indeed. If it continues as it is at present then countries who do much to block internet access and content won't have too much to worry about as the egos, seekers-of-influence and experts will put sizeable numbers off joining in in the first place.

Influence is subjective. A relationship has action. Build a real relationship with real people that have real 'reach' in the real world. That'll build the chocolate sales and keep the jobs alive far more effectively than seeking social media plaudits.

Two degrees off integration

2degrees mobile ran its 'press launch' this morning, leaving me questioning why they couldn't tell us all at the same time. Why run a 'press launch', when you can tell me yourselves? After all - I am your potential customer and you already know I am listening.

At 9am, when the 'launch' ran, the 2degrees site and blog were not updated with the long anticipated pricing information. As one of 20,000 people the company says pre-registered, why didn't they email me with details instead of sending me a patronising and vague 'we'll send you your SIM sometime soon' message? They have my mobile number too, so text would have done the job. A neat, direct contact that would have had me waiting in line tomorrow morning to look at the phones on offer and become a happy customer. Indeed, had they done so, 2degrees and I would now be holding hands, smiling at each other and starting a lovely new relationship.

But no. Instead, the only information I got was via a brief Twitter stream, presumably from the media conference.

It is very good news that there will be a phone company operating in New Zealand offering us value for money and that the cell phone noose held tight by Vodafone and Telecom has been loosened but somehow the shiny, friendly launch was dulled by the lack of joined-up thinking on communication.

Companies and organisations need to realise that if they are using social media tools to engage with their communities - whether their aim is to generate a purchase or provide a service - they need to engage directly with those communities and not give precedence to old-school mainstream media techniques  mostly concerned with vanity coverage as opposed to real outcomes.

Which do you think is more powerful?  Direct communication with 20,000 engaged, potential customers who will not only spread your message by word of mouth wildfire and spend the cash necessary to support you or filtered communication with commercially-led mainstream media channels, which, if you check your research, will have dwindling influence among your potential and active communities?

For me, 2degrees demonstrated once again that many organisations do not yet understand that they are no longer simply providers of information, but publishers. And, if they start a dialogue with a group of people, they can't suddenly switch off, ignore the first group and pour their hearts out to someone they assume might be more interesting. A bit like those dreadful networking events were people start a conversation with you but look at their watch and turn away if they believe you are not useful enough.

Organisations today do not have to utilise filtered mainstream media unless that media is a target community of its own. Direct, honest communication with no separation at all between your organisation and your community is the way to go. 2degrees made much of NZ's population knowing someone who knew someone. They had a direct channel to a large group of people and blew their advantage. The effort organising the press launch would have been better directed getting the SIM cards delivered on time tomorrow, rather than telling us we might have to wait a week or so. That way, we would be loaded up with $20 top-ups and they would start to put money in the bank on day one. Instead, we will be twiddling our thumbs in indecision, unsure as to whether to wait for the SIM delivery, buy one or stuff the whole thing and sign up with Vodafone for an iPhone instead (I doubt anyone will look at Telecom as an option, but that's another story).

While two degrees can be a precise measurement, in navigational terms, being two degrees off can take you somewhere you really didn't want to go, leaving you lost or marooned. Let's hope 2degrees remembers who it needs to talk to, as I for one would like to see them give it a go.

Where is the Chorus of Disapproval?

Well I for one was staggered at the news that Chorus engineers are likely to be turned from employees to owner operators. In the much vaunted 'current climate' isn't it a bit thick to be turning long-standing employees out into the cold to survive on their own? Particularly as these are the very employees who are supposed to be key players in the creation the new infrastructure that will power our 'knowledge-led digital economy'.  The opportunities to train apprentices will be diminished; those who sign on to be owner-operators will be spending time learning to be small business people rather than getting on with the engineering work and as for the rest of us? We won't benefit from better prices or service or infrastructure. No. The company Chorus has 'subbed' the contract to will simply make bigger profits at our expense and at the expense of their workforce. Shame on them.