The Techsoomer Weblog

Along with the rest of the world, the current economic downturn has gripped my full attention.  Despite many grim outlooks and predictions, I remain completely optimistic.  In many ways, I view the severe dip as the beginning of a completely new era.  Quite frankly, I find comfort in this notion…and so should you!

It is all too easy to get caught up in the familiar negative tones uttered by the masses.  We all know the type.  They instinctively regurgitate that all too common “recession speech” muttered by most of the TV news anchors.  Whether it be the astronomical rise in the unemployment rate, the ridiculous bailout figures, or even those human-Dow Jones ticker-types, who insist on griping over their recent losses in the market.

“Woe is Me” (in other words, “I’m Lame and My Thoughts Are Stale”)

As tempting as it is to add fuel to the “pessimism fire”, I advise you to resist at all costs.  My most common “extinguishing” technique comes from referencing the unmistakable Warren Buffett.  In an interview with CNBC, Mr. Buffett is asked about our current President and our economic future.  His response:

He is the right President. And incidentally, this is the right country. I mean, we’ve got the right President; we’ve got the right country. We’re gummed up at the moment, but this is the place to be. And this is the right time.
I wish I was 21 now instead of 78. The best days of America really do lie ahead. And President Obama is very, very smart. He’s got, I think, exactly the right goals. He’s articulate and he will be the right person to be the commander in chief in this economic crisis.
-Warren Buffett

Mr. Buffett’s words serve as an inspirational rallying cry…especially to those in the younger generation.  Obviously, the “Buffett Effect” is very powerful, and I would not expect anything but optimism from the brilliant billionaire.  But no matter if his speech is 100% genuine or slightly influenced by external factors (which I don’t believe is the case), it really doesn’t matter.  There is one, and only one way to look at our future…wide open.

The Four Stage Business Cycle

The traditional business cycle has always been explained in four self explanatory stages:

1. Infancy/Startup  << Guess what lies ahead
   
2. Growth
3. Maturity
4. Decline < Guess where we are

(Rinse and repeat)

If we were to pinpoint our current economy within this cycle…it’s no surprise where we would stand.  Repeating the cycle means that we are gearing up for a massive period of restructuring from the ground level.  As I alluded to in the beginning of the post, I believe this period of restructuring will undoubtedly usher in a new economic era.  An era led in large part by the younger generation (Gen Y).  Just as the industrial revolution bred tremendous innovation with interchangeable parts, automation, and manufacturing, we finally have the opportunity to incorporate our most recent revolution – the digital revolution — into our core business blueprint.

Take a quick glimpse at the current business landscape.  Many businesses established prior to the 90’s are simply at a technological disadvantage when compared to businesses created after this time period.  Obviously, this decade marks the commercialization of the internet, and what most would consider the beginning of the digital revolution.

And we are seeing the effects of being behind the times in nearly every economic sector.  Take the automobile and newspaper businesses, for example.  Both industries established in a time period well before the current digital revolution.  And just recently, we have all played witness to their massive blunders and inability to effectively utilize technological advances as well as embrace shifting consumer perspectives.

This Isn’t Your Father’s Business

Michael Malone, author of The Future Arrived Yesterday: The Rise of the Protean Corporation and What It Means for You, explains how the traditional business landscape has and will continue to change.  He stresses the fact that companies must become extremely fast moving, shape-shifting entities that  must embrace innovation and change.  He also explores the notion of “intrapreneurs,” that is, entrepreneurs who operate inside of a company’s infrastructure, and their positive impact on corporate innovation.  This is a philosophy made popular by many high-tech companies like Google.

Businesses are a living, breathing organism.  It’s time we started treating them as such.  So what other types of things can you expect?  Well, don’t be surprised to find a completely new business arena:

• where the phrase “too big to fail” no longer applies
• where businesses embrace transparency
• that is flatter, interconnected, and instantly globalized
• where smaller teams = greater agility = greater innovation
• where competition is as fierce as ever
• in which customers, clients, and users have a much louder voice
• where consistent reinvention is a must

So Who Will Lead This Charge?

The answer is very simple: it’s the entrepreneurs, it’s the startup junkies, it’s the innovators, it’s the non-conformists, it’s the contrarians…it’s YOU, the TECHSOOMERS.

Do yourself a favor and view the recession as one giant opportunity.  Instead of getting discouraged by the naysayers, thank them for creating one less competitor.  When things are good, it’s easy to stay optimistic.  It’s when the times are tough, capital is scarce, and the future uncertain when it becomes easy to give up.  Subsequently, it’s also in these particular times when you stand the best chance to shape the future.

Out with the old, in the with the new.

I was fortunate enough to come across Tippingpoint Labs.  The guys at Tippingpoint illustrate how to effectively use proven strategies, dependable technologies, and scientific approaches to online content marketing.  Very simply, they illustrate the tools that companies and individuals must execute in order to attain desired results.

Please do yourself a favor and check out their blog and video sections.  Below you will find three quick videos that, despite being common sense, are often overlooked.

Follow Andrew Davis on Twitter (@TPLDrew)

Do me a favor and think about your favorite products and/or services and ask yourself this simple question:

• How did you hear about them?

Does the answer to this question remain consistent or inconsistent throughout the years?  Do you find your preference for a particular product or service to be a reflection upon your upbringing? (i.e. our family has always bought Brand Y, so I continue to buy Brand Y)  Perhaps your friends’ habits play a major role in your consumer activity?  Or maybe you discover products and services through a wide variety of channels and outlets.  Obviously, there are a ton of ways to captivate consumers’ attention. What I’m wondering is:  Which is the most effective?

I raise this question in direct response to Microsoft, and their attempt to revive their search brand with Bing.com.  The fact that Microsoft is going head on against Google is eye-opening enough, but what really stood out for me was their marketing budget.  It is estimated that Microsoft will spend a whopping $80MM to $100MM in marketing efforts alone!  Believe it or not, this figure does not include the hundreds of millions they will likely spend in partnership deals with HP and Dell in making Bing.com their products’ default search portal.

Here’s an example of where some of that money did go [video below]:

Since Google is the unquestionable titan in this particular domain, I immediately thought back to my first encounter with the search giant about 10 years ago.  I was in the seventh or eighth grade when I noticed that my friend was using something besides Yahoo! or Altavista or Excite.  It was this insanely simplistic homepage with just a few words and lot of white space.  I was immediately intrigued and have used Google exclusively from that point forward.

The point is, there was no advertising campaign or multi-million dollar budget involved in grabbing my attention.  My conversion was a direct result of something 100% word of mouth.  Similarly, online services like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were introduced to me through similar viral efforts.

This brings me to the heart of the matter:  What efforts are most effective in captivating consumers?  Is it viral or is it commercial?

We’ve all witnessed how reaching an audience has become easier and more affordable through the constant advancements in technology.  Blogs, microblogs, and social networks are just some examples of the many consumer-driven publishing platforms that are revolutionizing the process of creating and distributing content to the masses.  We are experiencing the beginning of a much flatter and more democratic media surge, where an individual has the ability to reach an audience just as easily as Company X.  But just as the landscape is changing for the content providers, consumers have developed a new way of being captivated.

As a consumer, how do you prefer to learn about a brand, product, or service?  Does the answer depend upon the particular market segment?  (online vs. physical / free vs. paid / product vs. service )  Do you use different techniques for different scenarios?

Tell me what you think.

I was a little bit surprised to find a letter from the USTA (United States Tennis Association) and their legal department in my inbox just a few days ago. Below is a small portion of the document:

in view of the importance of this matter, the USTA respectfully requests that you: (i) immediately cease and desist from any and all use of the trademarks as described herein; (ii) terminate the use of US Open or any variation thereof in connection with any domain name; (iii) immediately remove any references to the US Open from the above-referenced Twitter account; and (iii) provide me with prompt written confirmation of your intention to comply.

-USTA Legal Department in reference to my Twitter account

How did this happen?

A few months prior to receiving the aforementioned letter, I approached the USTA, requesting to be a part of their upcoming US Open tournament in September. Expressing my passion not only for the game of tennis but for the annual event in Flushing, NY, I explained how I could add value to their ’social web’ presence. I simply wanted to be a part of the event, explained that I was not looking for monetary compensation, just the opportunity to be a part of my favorite annual Grand Slam tournament.

I had noticed that the official US Open website was lacking a certain social element. I felt there was an opportunity to integrate their coverage with live updates, real-time match commentary, and streaming photo galleries from a fan’s perspective. Being proactive in my pursuit, I created a super-simple Twitter page (@usopentennis, no longer active) using some official US Open logos as well as a few originals. I contacted the USTA’s “Advanced Media” department detailing my intentions and provided them with a link to the newly created account as a frame of reference. After this point, the Twitter page wasn’t touched again, as I was eagerly awaiting a response from the USTA.

Months past by with no reply. I did notice however, that the page was gaining a fairly solid following (atleast for a page with literally 1 update and one that clearly wasn’t yet ‘active’). This behavior continued to where it was not uncommon to gain over 100 followers per month. It was at the time when the follower-count reached around 700 that I was hit with the lawsuit asking me to terminate my Twitter account for, as they put it:

“the unlicensed use of its intellectual property for your social media outlet.”

I was left feeling with a mixed set of emotions.

Why I WASN’T Upset

• The USTA’s charges against me were 100% valid.
• Although not referenced in their official web site, the US Open did already have a Twitter account.

Why I WAS Upset

• The charges were 100% valid, however, I clearly was not trying to deceive anyone. I was in full contact with the organization and disclosed my intentions very clearly and openly.
• I only heard back from them when my Twitter page had surpassed theirs in followers. [see below]
  
  

  Screens taken as of 6/1/09

• Months after my suggestion to overhaul their social efforts, the USTA launched something similar to what I had recommended. The “US Open Series” website now featured a link to their Twitter account, as well as streaming Flickr fan image galleries.

The Overall Takeaway

Companies dream of having customers that evangelize their products and/or services. It’s these individuals that champion the company at the grass roots level, where it counts the most. Business author, Guy Kawasaki, explains the “Art of Evangelism” in this blog post.

That’s why it was a bit of a mystery to me why the USTA did not acknowledge the opportunity to expand their brand…FOR FREE! On multiple occasions, I reached out to the USTA in an effort to deliver the best solution for them, but they resisted at all costs.

Unfortunately for the USTA, they won’t just lose over 800 Twitter followers, they will be losing an evangelist’s voice. I’m certain that I could have been a tremendous extension for the US Open, helping them reach the biggest possible audience.

Just remember, when somene is clearly an evangelist for your company, it is in your best interest to simply enable them. Give these “mega-supporters” the tools that they need to accomplish the all-important act of spreading the word. You will find a lot of things to be true, none of which as important as the following: your fans are your company’s most valuable asset.

The web world has always been quick to call something a “game changer” or a “killer app” at a moment’s notice.  These sorts of declarations come largely from the early adopter crowd; a group of individuals who play a critical role in the advancement of technology.  Often times, making these sorts of statements are either: 1) unwarranted, 2) unjustified, or simply 3) premature.

But yesterday, when Google demoed their Wave product at the IO conference in San Francisco [video below], everybody watching knew that today was not like any other day.  It was very clear that the game had just changed, and drastically at that.  Google’s Wave was a project started over two years ago attempting to “re-invent” e-mail as we knew it.  In doing so, the Australian-based team at Google uncovered an amazing communication and collaboration platform.

[too long? ... read this great Google Wave breakdown courtesy of Mashable]

The service boasts the most interactive and real-time communication experience we have ever seen.  Remember thinking that it couldn’t get any more real-time than Twitter?  Or maybe even FriendFeed?  Wave literally blows these communication outlets out of the water (no pun intended) in terms of its connectivity and real-timeyness with it’s character-by-character chat-style communication flow.  No longer do you have to wait for an individual to post the reply, comment, or update; because if you are both on the “wave” at the same time, you are watching each other type, character by character, virtually lag-free!  Overload?  Maybe.  Game-changing?  Absolutely.

In addition to Wave’s powerful social implications lies Wave’s incredible enterprise capabilities.  Wave revamps online collaboration, now making wikis feel archaeic in nature.  The business implications on such a platform are immediately apparent.

How did Google do it?

• First, the team looked at the most dominant form of communication on the internet today: e-mail.
• Then the team asked, “What if email were invented today instead of 40 years ago?”
• Then they set out to essentially “re-invent” email using all of today’s communication tools the web has to offer
• As a result, the team created the most complete communication platform in history.

Just how pervasive will Google Wave become?

Is there a chance Google Wave won’t take off?  Yeah, I guess there’s a chance…but a very slight one.  Google’s focus on open source architecture and developer interaction leads me to believe that we are in for one long ride, on one very big wave.

Web startups are anything but rare nowadays.  Technological advances continue to drive down startup costs to the point where nearly anyone can participate in the internet ecosystem.  As a result, online businesses are in a constant battle with one another, competing not necessarily for customers, but simply for eyeballs.  We are witnessing the battle for attention, and it has been met with massive criticism.

Many skeptics criticize a website that has millions of users and lacks a definitive business model.  What most of these skeptics fail to grasp is that web businesses, for the most part, are not the “conventional” business and should not be treated as so.  The web has simply created a different playing field where web services have to first prove themselves valuable and credible in order to retain a significant user base.  The revenue model comes second.

The Battle for Eyeballs

Startup web firms today face a TON of competition.  For the end user/customer, this is a great thing.  As users, we are able to utilize the most effective web tools at the lowest (most often free) cost possible.  For the companies themselves, this is really the start of the battle…the battle for eyeballs.

How do you separate yourself in a sea of competition?  How do you compete with the field for attention?  What do you offer that others don’t?  Why should anyone choose you?

Ultimately, it’s the web firms who effectively answer these critical questions that stand a good chance at winning the initial battle.  But again, this is just the beginning.  You have only gotten their attention.  The firms must now convert these eyeballs into regular users.

The Value of a User

With today’s maturing web, the business landscape has been altered in a big way.  A firm’s market is now global while the number of their competitors will continue to rise.  Effective marketing techniques have changed dramatically while customer satisfaction has become the fundamental ingredient for success.  To a large degree, this brand new internet ecosystem has democratized businesses, giving the consumer one powerful and influential voice.

Due to the shifting landscape, web firms are now forced to adopt a totally new set of values (as compared to traditional business at least).  Most importantly, firms must now understand and appreciate the power of a dedicated userbase.  Instead of focusing solely on monetization options, the internet ecosystem has taught businesses to focus first on maximizing user value.  Even if this results in operating at an initial loss!  We have seen this strategy employed by Facebook, Twitter, Google, and many others.

It’s very simple, the businesses who create the most value ultimately wins.  This has been true and will remain true in any business; past, present, or future.  What has changed, however, are the rules for achieving this result.

Businesses must never forget the value of a user.  Not only are they a statistic, they are your biggest asset and most powerful marketing tool.  It’s easy to get caught up in monetization, but without a proven community of users, why even bother?  Unless your an invested VC, web firms should be worrying about one thing, and one thing only: How can we maximize user value?

An article in TechCrunchIT has raised a pretty spirited debate amongst the technology consumerist community.  TCIT author, Steve Gillmor explains how his Twitter stream has become his de-facto information outlet, replacing his need for an RSS feed.  With a title as dramatic as, “Rest in Peace, RSS,” it’s no suprise at the attention this post has received.  With 500+ comments, it has sparked many conversations concerning the future of RSS and the value of Twitter’s real-time platform.

So are we really supposed to believe that Twitter has killed RSS?  Have real-time tweets replaced the aggregated RSS feed?

Very simply, the answer is NO.  RSS is superior to Twitter in regards to information consumption.

Suggesting that Twitter has killed RSS, is almost like suggesting that Direct Messages (DMs) have replaced email.  Twitter’s platform, at this stage, is just too raw and undeveloped to treat it as one’s primary source of information.  The “noise” is simply too loud, and often overwhelming, making it nearly impossible to find the desired “signals.”  Wading through this noise is not only hard, it’s extremely time consuming.  Until we have the effective search technologies and filters to utilize, RSS remains the simplest and quickest way to consume content from around the web.

Although I disagree with Steve Gillmor’s RSS-ditching behavior, I do believe that this discussion is rather interesting.  Probably because I feel that RSS is NOT the most efficient model for information gathering/sharing.  RSS shows many promising features but lacks certain functionalities that we expect from today’s social web.  So while I will challenge those who claim they receive greater value in Twitter’s platform compared to an RSS feed, I will agree that we have the ability to improve upon RSS’s current offering.  The solution likely lies in an effective integration of both the reat-time and the aggregated feed platforms.

So before we are able to separate the noise from the news, I wouldn’t call RSS dead just yet.

Facebook has recently rolled out an update to its popular IM system, FbChat.  It allows users to incorporate their customized “Friend Lists” on the chatting platform.  With this update, Facebook now allows users the ability to appear either online or offline to a select group of their friends.  A small, but useful update for those who love to chat while appearing invisible to those random “friends” who you just don’t want to be bothered with.  In fact, a handy tool for any “Facebook stalker.”

Joking aside, the more interesting question raised is: “What is the future of our web interactions?”

With so many modes of communication on the net today, I sometimes wonder what the future has in store.  FbChat is extremely useful to Facebook’s platform as a whole.  I know for me, Instant Messenger (AIM) has been completely replaced through the use of both the GChat (Google) and FbChat services.  And still, despite the luxury of instant messaging, email remains my preferred method of communication…at least for the majority of my online interactions.

So what’s the future of web interaction?  With the push for a more real-time web, many tend to side with instant messaging (can’t get more real-time than that, right?).  What about Twitter’s huge impact on the social web?  Are tweets, microposts, and status updates the new way to share our thoughts and feelings?  Have we completely escaped from the conventional vocal conversation?

What do you think?

How simple is too simple?  Does simplicity facilitate usability?  Do we sacrifice effectiveness for usability?  I start to ask myself these questions as I log on to twitter.com with far less frequency as once before.  Will this 140-character revolution continue on its meteoric rise, or will it become a nostalgic web property of the past?

I have long praised Twitter for creating a whole new platform for communication.  The service is no short of revolutionary; however, I cannot help myself thinking that there lacks a degree of depth in the service.  For me, Twitter’s charm has worn off quite a bit.  This is due in part to a number of factors, none more important that these two:

1) Lack of Metadata and/or Metrics

For the most part, micro-blogging comes and goes.  The stream of messages (depending on how many you are following) is gone in a number of seconds/minutes.  A 140-character message, in Twitter’s case, holds almost no long-term value.  This is a direct result of a platform with little to no metadata.  Besides embedding links and maybe hashtags, a tweet loses a great deal of meaning after it’s initially sent.

2) Better Web Alternatives

Two web services, Facebook and FriendFeed, have undoubtadly looked to Twitter for some degree of inspiration.  Both serve a more complete and interactive micro-blogging platform, as compared to Twitter’s current offering.  Most importantly, they are in a much better position to combat the issue of meta-data and the shelf life of a post.

So, I’ll ask the questions I posed earlier in the post:

How simple is too simple? — Does simplicity facilitate usability? — Do we sacrifice effectiveness for usability?

Twitter is in danger of being replaced by more robust web services.  Simplicity, in my opinion, may ultimately cripple Twitter.  I have long been a proponent of the service, and still wish them the best.  From an end-user’s perspective, however, I am not getting enough value.  Additionally, the service has remained mostly identical from when I signed up over a year ago.  With massive mainstream exposure and a ridiculous spike in users, I feel as though Twitter could have extended the service’s functionality.  For instance, we still don’t have the ability to create groups!  That just doesn’t seem right!  I definitely understand the appeal of simplicity, but in Twitter’s case, this simplicity may come at a price.

Update: Just hours after posting this article, Twitter updated its user interface for everyone.  Now users are shown Trending Topics right on their Twitter homepage.  In addition, users are able to search tweets and save search results for later reference.  A huge step forward for Twitter.

It almost pains me to use MySpace in the title, seeing how much I dislike the service.  In any event, there is something to be said about Facebook’s new “direction”, and how they may be moving towards a product offering similar to that of the mighty content clusterf–k, otherwise known as MySpace.  I’m talking more specifically about Facebook’s recent polling of its users regarding vanity URLs.  It appears that Facebook is entertaining the notion of offering its users customized Facebook URLs.  So, for example,  instead of the very forgettable Facebook profile page of:

facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=11324937&ref=name we will likely see:
facebook.com/kevinpruett

In fact, Facebook has already dished out a select number of vanity URLs to businesses and individuals (see facebook.com/barackobama).  Point being, this is just one necessary step that Facebook must take in order to become a more open service.  A service that didn’t seem all that likely a few years ago, when they were competing for users with MySpace.  Of course, vanity URLs are not a new concept.  Many web services today offer its users a customized URL on their prospective profile page.  But in Facebook’s case, switching to this type of network structure holds greater meaning than you may think.

While MySpace implemented a relatively open and horizontal structure, Facebook represented a much more closed-off, vertical hierarchy; operating behind sub-networks and various levels of privacy.  In the end, Facebook emerged the victor in the social network war by developing a better and more interactive network.  It is no coincidence that Facebook has acquired 200mm+ users in just a few short years.  They are simply the best social network in existence.

But to keep up with the rapid movement towards transparency on the web, Facebook will have to tweak their service.  In doing so, they may end up becoming a bit more like their rival network.

Facebook…Tear Down This Wall

I wrote a post entitled “What Twitter Has That Facebook Doesn’t.”  The post talked about Twitter’s ability to operate transparently, and how it essentially knocks down all the barriers (the barriers Facebook has) to communication.  I ended the post with the following comment: “I can see Twitter accounts being distributed as commonly as email addresses are today — something that Facebook accounts just don’t have the flexibility in executing.”

I believe Facebook understands that in order to facilitate even more conversation and interaction, they must tear down some walls.  The vanity URL topic falls in line with this agenda.  As of late, we have all seen Facebook’s ability to “borrow” features from other web services.  We also know that Zuckerberg and Co. are not afraid of changing the face of their product in order to achieve their desired goals.

So what can we expect from Facebook in the future?

• Expect to see the service continue to strive for increased transparency.
• Going against there original strategy of operating behind a “walled garden,” Facebook will help user profiles step outside of Facebook into the broader world wide web.  Google juice for Facebook profiles will significantly increase.
• Privacy levels will be affected as this transfer occurs.  Users may opt for a public profile, making their profile (facebook.com/theirname) accessible to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
• Facebook becomes the (micro)blogging platform for the “normal” people.

Do any of these predictions remind you of MySpace’s offerings?  What are your predictions for the future of Facebook?