The CIO versus the CMO - slow and steady (with the right strategy) wins the race!

Once upon a time there was a Fortune 500 CMO who, boasting how he could generate business better and faster than anyone else, was forever teasing the company's CIO for his limited contributions to customer acquisition and retention. Then one day, the irate CIO answered back: "Who do you think you are? There's no denying you're fast, but even you can be beaten with the right strategy!" The CMO squealed with laughter.
"Beaten in a competition? By whom? Not you, surely! I bet there's nobody in the world that can win against me, I'm so good at what I do. Now, why don't you try?"

Annoyed by such bragging, the CIO accepted the challenge. A competition was planned, and the next day at dawn they stood at the starting line. The goal was to generate new business by engaging new or lost customers. The CMO had been honing his craft for several years, and his marketing team was the best in the business. The CIO had only recently begun testing a strategy that included reaching out to customers and potential customers to engage them in communication -- even building relationships . . . It started when he realized that this strategy produced the best crop of employees, and he was interested in testing to see whether it worked for company business, as well.

The CMO yawned sleepily as the CIO trudged slowly off to his office to send a Twitter message to his team. When the CMO saw how painfully slow his rival was moving, he decided, half asleep on his feet, to have a quick nap instead of rallying his top-notch marketers. "Take your time!" he said. "I'll have forty winks and catch up with you in a minute."

The CIO's team got busy, posting on their well-read, cross-linked blogs, updating the internal and external technology wikis, and brainstorming (on Skype, and Free Conference Calls, of course) ways to get the word out. One of the team members had his video camera, so the team shot a quick (amateur) video announcing the challenge, posted it on YouTube, and then posted it on their blogs and their networking profiles.

The CMO woke with a start from a fitful sleep and gazed round, looking for the CIO. But the CIO was only a short distance away, having barely moved at all while blogging for the third time that day on Social Media Today and Always On: The Insider's Network. Breathing a sigh of relief, the CMO decided he might as well have breakfast, and off he went to eat at the new Cinnabon he had noticed across from the mall. But the heavy meal and the decaf latte made his eyelids droop by the time he made it back to the office.

With a careless glance at the CIO, now engaged in a webinar with over 100 new contacts from LinkedIn and another 75 from Facebook, the CMO decided to have another snooze before rallying his team for a winning last-minute marketing push that afternoon. And smiling at the thought of the look on the CIO's face when he realized the CMO's intellectual superiority, he fell fast asleep and was soon snoring happily, with his feet kicked up on his desk.

The sun started to sink below the horizon, and the CIO, who had posting (and linkinng) to related posts in the blogosphere since that morning, was getting up for his last Jolt. At that very point, the CMO woke with his own jolt. He could see the CIO walking toward his office from the break room and off he dashed. He set up an on-the-fly conference call with his team at record speed and gave them all news of the challenge, his tongue dragging, and gasping for breath. Just one strong push and he'd be the winner. He called a handful of his fellow CMOs and asked them to negotiate some quick dual-branding strategies so he could claim a superior follow-on strategy, and typed up a press release in a matter of minutes.

But the CMO's last minute leap was just too late, for the CIO had beaten him with his slow and methodical relationship-building strategy. The CIO's team was just shy of having 500 new relationships that day -- a third of which were with former customers, and over 150 had placed rather large orders. Poor CMO! Tired and in disgrace, he slumped down beside the CIO who was leaning against the wall silently smiling at him.

"Slow and steady (with the right strategy) wins every time!" he said.

This contemporary re-write of The Tortoise and the Hare, one of Aesop's Fables, was designed to provide you with a glimpse into the paradigm shift that business has to make in order to survive The Emergence of The Relationship Economy.

What do you think?

Can I have a Coffee Lite Frappucinno and some FREE WiFi? Apparently the answer is YES!

I just got an email from ATT (where I get my home and mobile phone service with DSL Internet) and they announced that I could go get free wireless with a cup of coffee!

I am pumped!

A search of the ATT.com site (and even Cingular.com which autoforwards) found nothing on a search for starbucks . . . maybe only the marketing department knows . . .

But the STARBUCKS site is touting "free Wi-Fi access for qualifying AT&T customers and any Starbucks Card holder" - Heck, I have both!

I wonder if that's why they had the company-wide store closure the other day? Is this another example of Customer Powered Service?

Earlier I was reading a very indepth article on branding. In it, Umair Haque, Director of the Havas Media Lab, said Brands are perhaps the most intuitive example of cheap interaction’s atomizing hand. Yesterday, they were a potent source of advantage. Today, the game has changed: investing in traditional brands is yielding fast diminishing returns, and leading more and more players directly into value destruction. That’s why it’s not just revolutionaries like Google, but also mass-market giants like Nike and P&G, who are rethinking orthodox branding.

I'm thinking ATT might be going into the coffee business, so they can compete with McDonalds . . .

What do you think?

Utopic Neutrality

I really don't think there's a whole lot of long-term support for Net Neutrality, but it sure does make for some interesting dialog. As the Internet forms and transforms, so many people have so many views on what should be and what will be. These often conflicting and usually opposing views seem to miss the reality of what the Internet and Neutrality is all about. Putting the two together appears to form an oxymoron. I propose, as an alternative:
The premise of neutrality is objectivity, or freedom from bias.

The premise of Net Neutrality is the absence of restrictions by those providing access on those for whom the access is provided.

If this sounds like the western expansion in the United States (and other countries before it), or if someone has burdened you with the metaphor of Internet expansion as space exploration, that's because we, as humans, have the need to relate new things to old paradigms. If we are looking for something to really relate this to, it's pretty simple . . . the Internet is like Utopia!

Utopia is that la-la-land dreamworld where everything is perfectly designed, where beta-testing is a thing of the past (sorry Microsoft), and where nothing -- seriously, nothing -- breaks. It's where you have enough and I have enough, and we both know it and are happy about it.

Thomas More, a lawyer, author, and statesman, coined the word "utopia," and described it as an ideal (fictitious) island nation. Here's an overview of More's Utopia (also here):

View Upload your own

According to Wikipedia, Net Neutrality refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, that does not restrict content, sites, or platforms and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams would be considered neutral by most observers.

According to Google, Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The company observes that fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.

The problem with that position is that it doesn't fit even the basic business (revenue generating) model. Google has been operating with an advertising revenue model that is changing (not growing) even as you read this post. Google is to the Internet what Wal-Mart is to manufacturing -- they provide none of the Internet but make a whole lot of money using it. To even think that Google has the ability to provide an unbiased view of the topic is to think that American automobile manufacturers naturally support carbon-neutral energy sources.

Here's the more simple analysis. In our neighborhood (yours and mine), we have dirt roads. Suppose there's a campaign started that requires all local, state and federal governments to provide unlimited access to improved roads for all vehicles. Let's call it "Street Neutrality." I ride a bicycle, you drive a sedan, and Joe, the guy down the street, drives a semi truck. Are we all supportive of this campaign? Absolutely! The problem comes with implementation.

The roadways in our city are made of concrete, about two inches thick and ten feet wide. I am the first one to drive on the roadway, and I really enjoy the comfortable drive. The curves are gently sloped, the roads are flawless on the surface, and they are plenty wide for me -- even if I like to swerve back and forth. You are the second to drive on the roads. You, too, enjoy the drive, and though you tend to drive like you are on the Interstate (hopefully I am already off the roads), the slope of the curves allows your tires to grip the road surface just right.

And then along comes Joe. He's got a trailer on the back of his truck, so the width of the road is a problem -- especially around the curves. That trailer has some heavy merchandise in it, so the thickness of the road is a problem. We both notice the problems Joe is having, so we force our city to build wider and thicker roads and build sidewalks for me and my bike.

And then the tax bill comes.

Each of us notice our taxes went up, and we are not especially pleased about it. We get together and walk down to City Hall to see what the problem is. We are told that because of the additional work, the city had to spend more money to improve the roads then they had in the annual budget. They explain that the added costs are needed to install and maintain a roadway infrastructure that will support large semis like Joe's while providing way too much support for your sedan and my bike. You and I glance at each other and almost immediately glare at Joe, vowing to find a way to opt out of supporting this in the future. We return home and immediately start a neighborhood petition. I think you can fill in the rest of the story . . .

So how does this all shake out? Telecom companies (or power companies) will provide Internet access just like we currently get water, electricity, and trash pickup. They used to provide dial-up (dirt roads) but realized that enough of us wanted and were willing to pay for DSL or Cable Internet. A few of us need much more bandwidth, and the rest of us got tired of paying extra (remember, we join social networks and upload pictures and video for free). There will be a basic fee for a up to a certain amount and then there will be added charges for those users who want more than the average customer.

We may not like it, but we wouldn't be able to run our own companies any other way.

This post was provided without adding added burden to the Internet . . .

What do you think?

Customer Powered Service -- the next step in The Relationship Economy!

A while back, Bruno Teuber suggested we use something called Customer Powered Service to define service that is shaped by the customer . . . driven from outside the business to inside and designed to make the customer successful, not just to make support staff more efficient. There have been a few instances of the use of this term, but they all seem to focus on the company's reputation, not the customer's needs and desires. Teuber suggested that Customer Powered Service was a new model that empowers customers, not just internal service personnel. It helps customers achieve their goals, and it optimizes service towards making the best use of customers' time.

I think it's time to revisit the use of this term -- not as a buzzword, but as a mantra.

Customer Powered Service should be seen as a return to the mindset of the marketplace. It is the empowering of the customer, but it doesn't stop there. We have to realize (and make sure the companies we are dealing with realize) that they really aren't going to be successful if they don't provide us with what we need (and are asking for). When we speak of Customer Powered Service, it's not just about the customer -- it's also about the service!

Scott Allen recently noted that we have been moving closer and closer to the point that the customer is really the one in charge of the relationship, not the vendor. How does that work? Customer Powered Service!

Mark Kerrigan established a contact within #84 of the United States’ most profitable companies, and they (the founders) weren’t going to let that slip away. How did he do that? Customer Powered Service!

Jay Deragon observed that the best kind of sale comes from existing customers either buying more or referring someone else to your business. What is he talking about? Customer Powered Service!

Doc Searls, at Harvard's Berkman Center, is knee deep in VRM, or Vendor Relationship Management, the reciprocal of CRM or Customer Relationship Management. It provides customers with tools for engaging with vendors in ways that work for both parties. How are they going to build that? Customer Powered Service!

Pete Blackshaw suggested that if customer service and consumer affairs professionals want more budget, more respect, more leeway to nurture meaningful consumer loyalty -- and hence positive word-of-mouth and CGM creation -- they need to make their case, and do so now at a time when the resource-rich marketers are dotting every third word in speeches and memos with the word "conversation." How can they do that? Customer Powered Service!

The March 3 issue of Business Week, in an article entitled “Consumer Vigilantes“, provides us with a look at the creative ways that "we the people" have started using social media to address the issues when we want to avoid dealing with the phone menu (press one if you really want to do something about the problem).

This Thursday, February 28, 2008, join is at the Business Week webcast on The Impact of Social Media on Selling.

It promises to be a glimpse into the future of Customer Powered Service!

What do you think?

Arrrgghhh! All those years studying Political Science were a waste!

It's a shame when you realize that you wasted time doing something. It's even more a shame when you realize you wasted A LOT of time doing something!

No, I'm not talking about the times where we might second-guess ourselves after a failed marriage. I'm not referring to the soul-searching that goes on when one of our adult children does something REALLY stupid and we wonder where they learned that from. I'm not even talking about the feeling we get when we are downsized, rightsized, or even (God forbid) laid off, nor am I talking about what happens when you and your spouse vote for opposing candidates (more on that later).

I'm talking about the time we've wasted studying the variety of ideologies and political maneuverings at the Federal, State and Local levels of government in our fine country. I'm talking about the time we (even now) spend on trying to discern the benefits of voting for one primary candidate over another, or even trying to engage in public dialog to assist others in distinguishing from one potential political candidate over another.

This revelation comes like a cannon ball in the gut (I've never felt it, but I watched enough cartoons as a child to be able to imagine how it feels). Could it be true that it is actually our gut that affects our political persuasion? That's what it looks like . . .

According to James Fowler and Christopher Dawes of the University of California, San Diego, genetic predisposition can account for up to 50 percent of our political ideology. Tom Jacobs observed that political scientists have debated which environmental influences have a bigger impact on a young person’s nascent political ideology: the belief system of one’s family of origin, or the alternative ways of thinking one is exposed to in the outside world (say, at college). “All liberals know conservatives don’t have a heart, and all conservatives know that liberals don’t have a backbone,” joked John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University and one of the first academics to explore genetic influences on ideology. “So the issue has always been biological. “This takes some of the onus off of parents,” he added. “If your kids become liberal and you’re a conservative, they’re usually not doing it to poke a finger in their eye. It wasn’t a choice for them, so it doesn’t reflect a deliberate flaunting of your beliefs.”

The sure thing here appears to be that politics are not simple to understand -- at least not as simple as business.

Doc Searls, Scott Allen, and Jay Deragon have all posted of late on the effects of the basic factors of The Relationship Economy on politics in the context of the recent debates. Doc reported that Clinton called it “an honor” to be running against Barack Obama, and that “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” Scott and Jay observed that in recent debates, Obama was saying that we have to have a relationship in order to effect change, while Clinton was saying that “they” have to change in order for us to have a relationship. In order to keep this framed in one ideological stance or another, let me observe that McCain was deemed newsworthy by the New York Times for claims made eight years ago regarding his relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist . . . oh, wait, that's not we mean by The Relationship Economy . . . Actually, I think Newsweek did a decent job of covering the recent mud-slinging toward the GOP candidate-in-waiting.

The bottom line is that all these politicians need is a crash course on relationships. In the marketplace, the reaction to someone who completely and totally offends your offering of a relationship is the removal of that offering, the commitment to take your business elsewhere, and (if they were really offensive) the commitment to report this offense to everyone you know, everyone they know, and as many people as you can by a variety of broadcast mediums. In government and politics, we have to wait a bit longer -- usually around four years. Nonetheless, we all remember the ways to get involved in politics from our American Government class, right? If you don't like the way you are represented, either jump on the bandwagon of someone you agree (more) with, or build your own bandwagon.

It is sad, but I think the choices in this election season started out in the crapper, and they just keep swirling around and around.

Here's Tango's attempt to combine Politics and Relationships:



See if you can do any better!

What do you think?

Absolutely creative programming

I received this in an email this morning. It's pretty cool, and definately creative.

HEMA is a Dutch department store. The first store opened on November 4, 1926, in Amsterdam . Now there are 150 stores all over the Netherlands . HEMA also has stores in Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany . In June of this year, HEMA was sold to British investment company Lion Capital.

Take a look at HEMA's product page. You can't order anything and it's in Dutch but just wait a couple of seconds and watch what happens. Turn on your sound too.

This company has a sense of humor and a great computer programmer.

HEMA - online winkelen

Corporate Online Relevancy in The Relationship Economy

Let's talk about corporate online relevancy.

In a recent article, Lee Gomes observed that, "Back in the '90s if you didn't have a Web site you were irrelevant; the same was true with having an e-commerce site in 2001. That is where social networks are right now." See Talking Tech - WSJ.com

Is that acccurate?

I agree that social networks are important. I understand that it is not in the best interest of many companies to venture into the space by launching their own site and trying to draw customers and potential customers to it. I have seen the mistakes by those who try to use Marketing 1.0 techniques to attract a Web 2.0 customer. But can we be so bold as to suggest that companies without a social network presence TODAY are irrelevent?

Perhaps.

Perhaps if they don't realize that they should and are scrambling to do something, anything, to be seen as "in the know." Perhaps if they have hired a consulting firm and thrown tons of cash at every and any idea and wasted countless hours training their employees on the proper way to represent the company in the new online world. Perhaps if they don't pay attention to their teenagers (representing their future employee base) and see that this is where they "hang-out."

Christopher Carfi and Dan Greenfield have asked the question "does 'if you build it, they will come' work for social networks?" My keen eye and memory allowed me to spot the classic movie inspired metaphor right away, and then I got curious. I was blown away when I Googled social network field dreams in the blogosphere.

Here are some of the hits:

Dan Greenfield cautioned that "in launching a social network, it is tempting to create a FaceBook page and declare mission accomplished. Yes you can check off that item on your social media to do list. But having friends on your company page rarely taps a user base looking for a meaningful forum to engage with your brand or company." He then addresses the needs and goals that must be in place in order to make the project measurable, observing that "Critical mass is about relative measurements, not absolutes."

Dan wraps up with "In successfully targeting your audience and reaching critical mass, the problem may not ultimately be whether they will come, but what will you do when they come." That reminds me a little of the ad earlier in this decade (as I recall) where the startup was watching their hit counter roll so fast that they were out of action before they had been open long enough to consider a profit.

Marshall Sponder wrote a follow up to Dan's that "we’re living though all that - figuring it out as we go - which is exciting but also makes me want to pause and figure out if we’re missing something."

I, too, love it that we are all excited about being excited, but what message can we really deliver to those in need, desparate need, of an answer? We can tell them that the tide is coming in and the surf is looking good -- that's about it! Don't get me wrong, I feel strongly (and previously said so) that Corporations should embrace (and more) the activity known as Social Networking. As we previously posted, Networking, especially Social Networking, can be used to leverage time. But every company that wants relevance in The Relationship Economy needs to first understand what it is!

The downside is, there are no cookie-cutter solutions. Each individual and organization has to see 1) where they are, and 2) where they want to go. Then and only then can they map out 3) how they are going to get from 1 to 2.

Chris Brogan lays this out pretty well:

"First, know what the intent of your social media and networks will be. Are you hoping to improve awareness and open communication about your organization? Are you looking to reach new markets and open channels for sales or membership or market adoption? Are you hoping to use these tools as collaboration platforms? Are you making informational products? Are you just virtualizing your water cooler? Knowing your intent drives which path you take."

In addressing the new strategies needed in this space, Jeremiah Owyang observes:

"What’s key? It’s having a plan to kick start your community. Secondly, understanding to consider joining the community before building one. Lastly, marketing (and your community) may not even be on your own website or domain, distributive, amorphous, and ubiquitous."

With all the confusion that this can cause, there will be quite a few well-meaning and not so well-meaning scam artists who will promise solutions they have no possibility of delivering. That's about the only place the rules haven't changed for this new era -- there are still people who will take advantage of someone in need.

Hopefully, the CEOs, CMOs, CIOs and CTOs have read our post about "The CEOs new social network strategy."

What do you think?