T.H.eeeee Blog

The Customer is Always Right

I remember the first time I used a cell phone. It was eighth grade Halloween. A group of friends and I were out walking the streets and I was due home sooner than we were going to get there. I knew my mom was going to “have a cow” if I didn’t get myself, in my big fat cow costume home quickly. I turned to a friend and told them I was going to leave the group and rush on ahead to get home in time, instead, she pulled out a clunky black phone and told me to call my mom instead, so we could all stay in the group together. I called, my mom stopped worrying and was glad to know I wasn’t running home by myself in the dark, and I was able to enjoy the walk home with friends not worried about the mess of chores and nights home alone I would have to deal with as punishment.

My youngest sister never had to deal with any such issues. She’s had a phone since she started “hanging out” and long ago learned she could squeeze an extra half hour out of any night curfew if she simply texted home where she was and when she would be home.

I also remember the year I felt the tipping point from common cell phone use to saturation. Fall 2001 I returned to my collage campus to find that everyone had a phone and often used it between classes. The shift was one of the most dramatic I have ever felt. I think almost every freshman showed up that year with a phone, seriously. And now I have numerous friends who don’t even have land lines to their homes.

None of this is all together surprising, or startling. Technology changes and even now we look back and marvel at what life was like before we all had a phone. I wonder if the mobile phone will be one of the most impactful changes in the world. It certainly has changed the public and private space blurring boundaries as I sit on the train each day and hear my neighbor chatting about sex, divorce, health concerns, and more. It also has changed our ability to be “on”. So that the office, family, friends, etc can reach someone at anytime so long as their battery is charged and the individual answers the phone.

Texting is another component of the phone, which due to cost issues, hit bigger around the world than it initially did in the states, but has even picked up here. And I know when that same little sister who has always had a phone, has her head down no matter where we are, she’s texting friends. In fact, come to think about it, I think that’s her main avenue to be asked out on a date.

The iphone in America has changed the way I travel, I no longer print out maps of Los Angeles to figure out where to drive, and I’m totally comfortable getting in my car and starting off, with out knowing exactly where my end destination is- I’ll get that on my phone along the way. And again, this is just the beginning. As the Aspen Report on Mobile Technologies indicated, cell phones are changing the world and how members of the world community communicate on political, commercial, regional and family levels. I believe it will be one of the most far changing inventions of my lifetime.

I don’t know that we are actually going to have a class about this, but I am interested in this topic and I do think that kids should be given special consideration and when adults, parents and teachers discuss literacy, media literacy is an important component in education in the 21^st century.

I recently picked up a book from the library about Media Literacy by W. James Potter. (I know the irony is painful, but I actually like course textbooks as intros into different subjects.) It’s interesting because the point is made right off that it is not just kids that need to be taught to evaluate media and ask deeper questions, like what, how and why certain media is shown and the meaning behind it. Especially considering how much of the day is filled with media of every kind.

This book notes three important factors that impact ability to deconstruct media: experience, actively using skills to ask meaningful questions, and finally maturation. Children need time to cognitively develop. Again, according to Porter, “only 10% of children between 5 and 7 years of age have a clear understanding of the profit-seeking motives of commercials” (Potter, 22).

I remember my own personal love of Teddy Ruxpin and favorite childhood commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kc2HvjO8z4. I wanted this bear so much and remember my mom finally sitting me down to explain that Teddy wouldn’t actually talk to me, and wasn’t actually “worth it” – whatever that meant to my little 5 year old mind. I never did get my own Teddy, and at the time, I don’t think I learned anything about the difference between advertising and real life either. Marketing has come a long way in childhood toys, even from that time.

I think the current most infiltrated toy on the market right now is the Webkinz product line of animals that also come to life when you sign up for the online community at http://www.webkinz.com/.

Media literacy obviously needs a place in early childhood education, not to stop kids from wanting what they see on TV or in ads, because that will never happen, but to make them aware of what is actually happening. I’d be interested to know, as educators, who’s doing this successfully and what they are doing?

In the March 22 edition of the Economist, there was an interesting article published on the role of social networking in online business. The question is whether the actual sites used to connect individuals will simply become a function of preferred web portals. Is the social function the new search for leading sites like Google to maintain their favorable position in the market?

Currently you have to sign up to independent networks in order to link to friends, and after the initial buzz of linking is over the rate at which people are drawn to those networks is drastically decreased.

The idea is that social networking in essence should be a main component of what it means to be “online.” It is more than obtaining information, it is also about connecting with others.

Mimi Ito recently reported at a MacArthur gathering that one interesting difference she found among Internet users were the different ways people actually interacted with social networks within the Internet. Specifically, she found two types of social users, those who go online to connect to existing friends and participate in existing networks through a new medium, and those who go online to connect to new networks or participate in knowledge sharing networks found around shared interests. The full report should be released later this summer.

Currently, networks work independently of one another. And to join a new network you must re-invent your friend list to each new space. Linking social spaces or opening up platforms to create on log-in that transfers among networks seems to the Economist to be the upcoming place for business.

Even as it is, people will probably pick one network that they love and choose to post information there and then view other profiles from the shared locations once they go big.

The idea that there are investors, just waiting for great ideas to fund with the hope of getting a return is a strange, and yet delightful idea. Reading advice about everything from how to get in the door and then how to craft the perfect pitch are very interesting, but in many ways, it all seems to come down to common sense. The thing that I’m struck with is, what‘s the threshold that makes one idea worth it and another just a lot of time spent on a project. I would guess that is the million dollar question, but it seems like it should be quantifiable in some way.

To be specific, I think I might have an idea that could be valuable, but it would target a small, niche community – which doesn’t necessarily seem to be a bad thing, it just simply isn’t scalable in large terms. It is however, very sustainable and I believe it will be relevant and appealing for the next 3-5 years, easily - and depending on the shifts in technology, perhaps longer. So the question is, “Is it worth it?”

Arguments like the “long-tail” “world is flat” and “tipping point” are all very interesting, and yet somehow very trendy to me. Actually generating and sustaining profit, doesn’t seem that hard, and yet I know that many companies don’t last longer than 3-5 years. What does seem sustainable is a good idea, lots of work, and common sense these three components never change, but they are also very hard, even impossible to quantify.

According to one of our class readings this past week, blogging is listed as one of the "do or die" functions of an organization that wants to succeed in the 21st century, yet I’m not convinced that blogging is all that chapter one from Naked Conversations claims it to be. While I agree that no one like reading or is moved by press releases that often hit the media void, I am also not convinced that consumers are flocking to blogs of major corporations. And while blogs are growing at a phenomenal rate, I know that I have rarely, actually come to think of it, never gone to my favorite brand company to see what the employees are blogging about. I frankly don’t care.

And while there is no doubt that blogs are increasing in popularity and at a rapid rate, the blogs that I continually read usually have to do with friends or family that I want to keep in contact with, even if from a distance. Followed by a few industry blogs to keep my finger on the pulse. I feel like I should make this confession quietly, preferably in a dark room. But I have a feeling that I’m not really the exception when it comes to this.

That being said, getting employees who emulate the brand of their company to speak out publicly about products, activities, and company values is one of the most genuine ways to directly link consumers to companies and a wonderful way to receive direct consumer feedback about what is and is not working. In my mind worst sin is not “not blogging” but rather not finding opportunities to connect with consumers. If this is a blog, that’s great, it can be a wonderful tool, but it is insignificant if it does not gain readership. Most important, as the chapter points out is word of mouth and genuine conversation. I believe that whether or not communication is on a blog, in person, on a website, or in a growing number of other ways it matters less than what the interaction feels like to the consumer.

Which is why I was so delighted to read the Customer Evangelist Manifesto. (http://www.changethis.com/1.CustomerEvangelist#) Finding individuals to personally embody particular brands, listening to those customers and being loyal to those customers is the most important business decision I believe a company can make. These are people who’s “beliefs are based on emotional connection, deep-seated convictions and the promise of a better way” (CEM, 4). Further more, “evidence shows that acquiring a new customer is five times more expensive than keeping a current customer happy. Moreover, customer profitability tends to grow the longer a customer stays with you. It costs less to keep them coming back for more” (CEM, 11).

I believe that the six tenets listed are much closer to the do or die strategy that companies need to adopt. In simple terms (some of them my own summary):

1) Continuously gather customer feedback

2) Make it a point to share knowledge freely

3) Build word-of-mouth networks

4) Create community

5) Make it easy for a customer to try it

6) Focus on making something better. 

Being a member of a community, be it social, organized or self-created involves understanding yourself as an individual in relation to a community of others. For better or worse, we are each a part of many communities over a lifetime. Granted, some may be more desirable than others, but nevertheless, we are born to parents, raised in a geographic space, and belong to organizations often before we are ever conscious of what this affiliation actually means. Furthermore, we have a role in that community with labels and titles and we are defined by how we portray ourselves AND how others reflect back to us. Identity is both created and perceived. In Henry Jenkins paper, Interactive Audiences, he looks at communities as defined by Levy 1) organic social groups, 2) organized groups, and 3) self-organized groups.

The traditional association to community is a fascinating concept and has been explored at length by psychologists, anthropologists, and any number of other disciplines. However, the question is whether a community actually changes once it is self-selected by common interests rather than propinquity. What happens when a social network is possible without “geographic constraints?”

I can see this argument going either way, and not being an avid member of an online community I do not consider myself an expert, however I will venture to share my observations. It seems to me that the most shocking moment might just be the realization that an eclectic taste is likewise shared by others who are equally passionate about the topic. And it doesn’t matter what it might be. A young neighbor of mine recently started a no cussing club at school. It received enough attention that he put it online and within four months had over 2000 members in his club. It went international and just as kids all over the world were flocking to join others kids were drawn to it to mock or destroy the club.

But the question is, are these groups inherently different than other social groups? On a surface level I would say, yes. Online communities are different than other affiliations because the barrier to join is only online access. However, at a core level everything I know about these communities mirrors traditional associations. The truly deep social networks often know about intimate details in one another’s lives and offer support, encouragement and drama, just like any other network. One other major difference however might also be the ability to leave a network like this with significantly less tangible repercussions.   

Another interesting issue in this exploration is the role of identity in these spaces. In some ways, identity can drastically vary, changing appearance, physical ability, and behavior. I have heard some notable scholars dismiss issues of identity, and am not sure why this is not a more interesting subject. I personally find identity very intriguing and am looking forward to building upon my “alternate identity” in virtual MTV.

What does it mean to plan an event in Second Life? Well frankly, it means a lot of work. In the last 3 years I've planned close to 200 events of various sizes and in a multitude of locations- everything from high-level conferences off-site to small roundtable discussions with individual speakers. However, virtual world event are a whole new beast – and here are some reasons why.

1.    Where will you host the event?

·        First you have to decide what you want the space to look like. Will you build something from scratch that is specific to each event? How many expected guests, where the numbers really could be tiny or enormous if the planning and press were targeted enough? Will there be video? Will it be sound? Skype or SL Voice, Text? Who will build this, what is the cost, where will you host it? If it is NOT a new space, will there be a memory in the space that you need to repurpose? What does re-using a space mean?

2.    Who will come to the event?

·         You have to go find the community, and then get notes sent to those communities, post on blogs, reach out to journalists (ok, this is similar to physical events) but you are much less likely to draw people with cues they find in their everyday life (they’d have to actually pass by and see it- but you don’t know where they will actually BE.) You really have to court people to get information out to their networks. And there is no alluring promise of food – which any good event planner will tell you - does help.

3.    Design how people get to the event.

·        In a real life event you plan where someone will walk in a door and every step from there to their exit. Not so in a virtual space, it’s harder to set up a process of movement , nor would I really want to control that flow in a virtual space (it’s all about discovery). But it does make it hard to guarantee a desired experience. Hard to greet all who come, etc.

4.    Anything that can go wrong; may go wrong.

·        This is general to event planning. And I usually l combat this by just OVER planning everything. But when was the last time you had to think about when someone was consistently falling through the floor?

5.    You have to teach many people (at least in the communities I try to engage) how to use the technology to help them have that positive experience.

·        When was the last time an event planner had to show individuals how to WALK around the space or how to turn their ears, eyes, and voice on? Never. You really have to watch for people who are lost and one-to-one buddy up with them to help them have a meaningful experience.

6.    Will you give hand-outs? Refreshements? Artists?

·        Ok, make them or get them on a stream.

7.    Content, content, content.

·        This is a usual issue and needs thoughtful consideration, but furthermore becomes another concern when you have to actually help bring thoughtful voices into the space and help them moderate the space just to get that content into the space.

8.    Making sure the physical technology to produce the event is prepared, tested, and then hold your breath that you stay on-line, have the needed bandwidth, and all participant computers cooperate.

·        Technology can be a barrier to a good physical event, but is rarely the deciding factor of success. I have yet to meet anyone who can control all technology issues. The best bet is to have a plan B, and C. Which means more work.

It all sounds simple enough, but it is a lot of coordinating, managing of different skill sets, and mind-bogglingly detail-oriented. And that’s from an event planner who lives in the details. Now- if you really want to start having fun, plan a physical event that coordinates with a virtual event.

It's all you can handle, baby!

So, I thought I was being so sneaky by putting my blog on Vox. I liked that I had a privacy option that allowed me to only share my blog with people I trust, however the nice little catch, at least as far as I can tell, is for that to happen - all my friends need to be Vox members. And that is NOT going to happen. So, I am forced to make my writing (cringe) public.

Six Apart is the host company that runs Vox (marketed as a personal blog), Typepad (for professionals), and Movable Type (for business). I liked the easy user interface and it really did only take me about 15 min to get this blog up. My husband was shocked when I returned after such a short time with "all my homework finished." That's usually not a typical work time for me... I also liked that it felt a little off the beaten path and the idea that I could participate in online communities without actually having to be public online. I think I'm just going to have to get over this issue.

So, fellow classmates, I'd love to know: Did any of you have privacy angst? Has anyone overcome this?

What is “the public good?” As one working on a grant exploring this exact issue in virtual worlds, I had high hopes for the Aspen Institute roundtable on, “Media, Creativity and the Public Good.”  As I understood the report, the “public good” is a vague definition for representative media that focuses on a moral code of conduct. Disappointingly, this report did not go deeper in to this important subject nor articulate any shared definitions for these terms.

To explore this topic religious leaders and media leaders were convened and although I would expect this group to blend about as well as oil and vinegar, they all seemed to agree that the direction of media, especially in the aftermath of the shootings at Virginia Tech, were not in the interest of the public good. Unfortunately, determining a corrective course of action was not determined nor was a better definition for the desired outcome stated. I believe that the first issue to changing the current state is not to lament where it is, but rather to articulate where it should be.

They “lamented […] the trivialization of the human experience” drive to cater to the “lowest common denominator”, “desensitization” and overall link between what is being modeled and values the community it is espousing (6,7,10). In past generations, art was supported by state and church entities with a level of assumed appropriateness. Today it is driven and sustained by market forces based on who will watch, purchase and support the art. Ultimately, consumers control what they watch and the Internet only exponentially expands those choices.

So rather than actually defining the topic of public good or creating a consensus for what they want, the group glazed that topic and then moved on to focus on various kinds of media including radio, TV and the Internet. They further explored WHO is responsible for media, from government, to broadcasters, to community leaders to parents and consumers.  And ultimately, ended recognizing that rights and responsibilities are intricately linked.

Online communities, are a great resource for a vast array of content, and I do not believe in stringent regulatory censorship, however there should also be “safe places” for children and adults who use the Internet without the sleaze that attendees at this conference were all likewise concerned about. Perhaps that could be a place to start.