6 Best Practices for Digital Pros and CXOs that Click

Digital marketing is fast coming into its own as a specialized discipline. From the early days of setting up websites left, right and center and cutting checks for search engine optimization, it now encompasses social media, mobiles and apps as powerful new possibilities.

So much so that some companies now have Chief Digital Officers (CDOs). In some cases, the CMO or the CIO may wear the hat of the CDO as well. The point is, the digital realm is getting bigger and more important as you read this.

In a world that is happily clicking away for content, groceries, travel, leisure and anything that fills up our life, how do you do digital? Sure, a bunch of boutique social media firms and others with 360-degree charters and integrated plays have come up recently, but as a digital marketing professional or CXO, it wouldn’t hurt to keep a few best practices handy, would it? So here you go:

1. Identify the digital goals for your organization: There are pioneering companies that have set their ambitions to nothing less than complete digital transformation. At the other end of the spectrum, there are (still) firms that are splitting hair about whether to go beyond a brochure or static website. Deliberate on where your company wants to be in the next one or two years and decide on specific digital goals.

2. Get the T&T (the team and its tools): Both these Ts will be crucial to the success of your digital efforts. However, in all likelihood, if you have the right team in place, they will go find the best digital tools to work with.

Again, in today’s increasingly fluid scenario, having a team doesn’t necessarily mean hiring bench-loads of Facebook junkies; it might work better to onboard a couple of digitally savvy professionals who are nimble-minded. They could even be hand-picked from within the company. Also, they should be able to manage the work outsourced (if any) to specialist agencies, programmers, etc.

3. Have a well-articulated social media policy: We keep reading of employees or customers cribbing on Facebook, Twitter or other social sites, followed by the klutzy approach taken by certain companies to respond to their comments. Given the generally open culture that social media fosters, even those who are not authorized by the company end up jumping in the fray—often causing reputational damage.

Building a brand online may be considered hard but it is nothing compared to the nightmare of salvaging a sullied reputation. It is best to have a detailed, idiot-proof policy (this must remind some of their boss :) concerning the use of social media and responding to comments or taking any other course of action. Goes without saying that a quick complaint-redress mechanism needs to be built alongside the policy. On social media, you must respond in minutes and hours rather than business days or weeks.

4. Mobile in the middle: In the feverish world of e-entrepreneurs, they have a new mantra for a successful business model: it’s called mobile-first. The idea is to think of the mobile phone (essentially the smartphone) as the first touch-point for customers (some storied mobile-first stars include Instagram, WhatsApp, Uber, Spotify and Evernote, among others).

Not every corporate entity on Earth needs to be mobile-first, of course. But with the usage of mobiles exploding and the number of those phones going smart increasing like crazy, it would be stupid not to give “mobile” the place it deserves. The caveat here is not to think of mobile in terms of any single device but to look at enabling employees, partners, customers—whoever—to interact with your organization anytime, anywhere, using anything that can connect to the Internet (you might have heard of the Internet of Things).

5. Balance speed and quality: If you ask around, most people would agree that the speed of life as well as business has gone up several gears in the past decade or so. In the context of digital, they would also aver that quality—the quality of content, software, etc—has gone down. While the race for digital supremacy is impelling most organizations to cut corners on quality, reduce time-to-market and respond to customers faster than ever, the winners will likely be those who manage a fine balance between speed and quality. It’s tough to achieve, but very much within reach, especially for companies that are not constrained by resources (or mindset).

6. Spread digital as a culture: This one is for the long term as well as the biggest impact. Arguably, it’s also the trickiest one. Remember the old saying, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” Having said that, people are not horses and digital is much different from water. With a top-down approach, can-do motto, the right tools and persistent monitoring, long-term organizational change can be brought in.

The key here is culture rather than strategy: you can strategize all you want, but unless the organization’s culture is soaked in digital, the results would be sub-optimal. No wonder management guru Peter Drucker is said to have once remarked, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Or lunch, if you are a lunch person, but you get the idea.

And here’s the short, two-word conclusion to this article concerning your digital journey: start now.

(The above article first appeared on IndiaDigitalReview.com.)

It's a SMAC, SMAC World

Crazy as it may sound, the entire world is going to be SMAC'ed.

Now, now, I'm not a futurist, not even a technologist. But as one who often writes and talks about tech trends that affect enterprises big time, I can bet a few shirts on this: Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud will shake things up like hell. (Or heaven, if you are on top of the stuff.)

It is hard to pinpoint when these four potent forces began to coalesce but, according to an article on Forbes.com, it was Cognizant Technology Solutions researchers who coined the term “SMAC” as recently as 2013. But let's not confuse terminology with technology (I remember one firm had coined a similar but rather ugly “SoMoClo,” for Social, Mobile and Cloud; and there are others who use “Nexus of Forces” and “the 3rd Platform” for similar concepts).

Irrespective of the term, the four mega trends are transforming how technology is developed, purchased, deployed and used. And how employees, partners, clients, customers and other stakeholders behave. It is the combined behavior that is slated to make the most impact—which is why it is difficult to put a dollar value to it and why impact estimates vary so much. To cite but one figure, a Reuters.com report quoting Nasscom director Rajat Tandon says that the value of outsourcing contracts for SMAC is set to soar from $164 billion last year to $287 billion by 2016.

No matter how you cut it, SMAC technologies are slated to leave a lasting impression. A Cognizant report, titled “The Value of Signal (and the Cost of Noise): The New Economics of Meaning-Making,” summarizes the situation neatly. “Nearly every aspect of our daily lives generates a digital footprint. From mobile phones and social media to inventory look-ups and online purchases, we collect more data about processes, people and things than ever before. Winning companies are able to create business value by building a richer understanding of customers, products, employees and partners—extracting business meaning from this torrent of data. The business stakes of “meaning-making” simply could not be higher,” it says.

I often hear murmurs of dissent: “There is more hype than substance to SMAC.” Or, “Big data (or cloud or mobility or social media) is not for us.”

It is possible that one of the big social platforms as we know it ceases to exist one day. Or some term other than SMAC will prevail (like cloud prevailed over service-oriented architecture). But does anyone seriously think people won’t be more mobile going forward? Or the human instinct to extend their socializing to new, emerging media will lose steam? Or, for that matter, we will stop analyzing this and that and what not, for business and for pleasure?

Crazy as it may sound…

Is Twitter Losing Its Chirp?

The problem with Twitter is not just financial numbers; it is not generating enough user interest

Microblogging site Twitter recently announced its results for the first quarter of 2014. Soon after, its stock took a beating of about 11%, even though its topline grew to $250.5 million compared to $114.3 million in the year-ago quarter. It also added 3 million active users compared to just 1 million in Q1 of 2013.

The financial reasons for the thumbs-down by Wall Street are obvious: despite growth in revenue and users, losses widened from $27 million in the year-ago quarter to over $132 million in the recent one.

But even otherwise, there have been signs of trouble for the social media biggie for some time. Apparently, its efforts to cast itself more and more in the image of Facebook (by improving profiles, adding features such as Twitter Cards and Nearby, etc) are not getting it enough traction.

There are other reasons as well. At one point, breaking news was touted as a big pull, but now Facebook and YouTube seem to be ahead in the game. Pew Research, for instance, is said to have found that only 8% of Twitter's entire user base (it has over 240 million active monthly users) uses it to stay updated with news. This is against 30% for Facebook and 10% for YouTube.

Another weakness, say critics, is that Twitter is not generating as much interest in markets outside the US as other social giants.

While sites like Facebook, YouTube and even LinkedIn are capturing the imagination (and engagement) of people worldwide, Twitter continues to be seen as a niche vehicle with limited utility (how much can you pack in 140 characters or less, for example). Twitter has certainly caught the fancy of celebrities, politicians and others who like to broadcast their views to their fawning hordes—but the average Joe or Jane is still keeping their distance.

There is another silly thing happening in the dark corners of Twitter: I have come across several Twitter profiles that appear robotic, superhuman, idiotic or a mix of all. A typical such profile reads: 23 tweets, 19,265 followers, 20,897 following (with weird handles I would rather not name). Besides, there are millions who created a profile out of curiosity but then went into a deep slumber.

Some of them do wake up once in a while to tweet something sleepy. (What I find more annoying is when even these folks get followers in triple digits!) Frankly, to me these tweeters, their tweets and followers look like the T-equivalent of click frauds.

Not that other social media sites are free of fakes and inactives, but the situation seems acute with Twitter.

Will the bird get its chirp back next season?

Facebook - Wacebook, WhatsApp - ShotsApp...

Who is *the stupid* in the biggest deal of its kind in social networking?

Just when people thought that the days of sky high valuations and companies with little or no revenue streams being bought for astronomical sums are long over, the indigestible figure of NINETEEN BILLION DOLLARS comes out of nowhere and stares them in the face in bold, upper case letters.

Apart from the heartburn the figure may have caused among the other new age startups not yet bought for lavish amounts, Facebook's acquisition of smartphone messaging provider WhatsApp is seeing industry insiders, pundits, analysts and their cats see red, throw tantrums, blow whistles and begin the next step: an elaborate dissection of the deal and what it means for different stakeholders.

First, let's get some big picture perspective. According a report on Reuters.com, “Facebook is paying more than double its annual revenue for a chat program that has little revenue. The purchase price is slightly more than the market value of Sony Corp.”

There are several conjectures about WhatsApp's existing revenues. In one, Henry Blodget (one of the chief “conjecturists” of the dot-com bubble era; Google him for more info) writes on BusinessInsider.com: “Even for Facebook, that's a staggering amount to pay for a company with estimated 2013 revenue of only $20 million. It represents almost 10% of Facebook's overall value.” Nevertheless, he goes on to assert that the move isn't stupid, but very, very bold.

In stupendous deals like this, however, there are many “stupids”—there have to be (as we have seen in many cycles of boom and bust, offline and on).

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has already proved with his chutzpah and billions in banks, stock and possibly hidden in the social network's billion users' monetizable worth that he ain't no stupid. Neither are WhatsApp's two co-founders, Ukrainian Jan Koum and American Brian Acton. (A slight stupidity charge may be deposited on their former employer, Yahoo, perhaps for letting them go and make their billions elsewhere!)

And most certainly, stupid isn't a term you would use with the VC firm that backed WhatsApp with $60 million for a stake that is now said to be worth $3 billion in the deal, according to a report on the website of The Wall Street Journal. (The firm is the famed Sequoia Capital, which over the years has invested in such companies as Apple, Google, Oracle, Cisco, Yahoo, YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn, among others.)

That makes two categories of people who may turn out to be playing the role of stupid here: one, the downstream investors who will keep on investing in these and other social startups in the hope that stock prices/valuations will keep getting jacked up further and further—and that they will be able to reap huge benefits by exiting their investments just in time. (Except that “just in time” comes with an expiry date that is never given).

The second category may be that of the users of these combined services. I have a feeling that the reported 1.2 billion of FB users and 450 million of WhatsApp, when combined, will turn out to be much lower than what most people expect. There is likely to be a lot of overlap, in addition to bogus accounts, at least on Facebook.

The users may also feel a bit insecure, manipulated or both in the medium to short term—though, for the moment, Koum has assured us otherwise. (It may be mentioned that WhatsApp seems to have a better reputation than Facebook in giving its users a simple, fast, clutter-free experience.)

In his blog post announcing the deal, Koum has written in this context: “Here’s what will change for you, our users: nothing.”

As of now, WhatsApp usage is free for the first year, after which an annual fee of less than one dollar is charged (the fee itself is disputed as to how many users actually pay up).

But given that WhatsApp is growing by 1 million users a day and Facebook has shelled out top dollar in the hope of monetizing the app's soon-to-be 1 billion users, things for the users might change for worse. Higher price, lots of ads and sponsored messages or all of 'em.

The Journal report mentions that Zuckerberg said in a conference call that “he doesn't think ads are the right way to monetize messaging systems.”

But monetize he will, we understand. And he might change his mind on what constitutes the right way. Why shouldn't he, or why wouldn't anyone who has made such a huge investment?

It remains to be seen how the coming together of two of the most powerful social platforms in the world ever, unfolds in the next few months. But this joining of forces itself raises the highly relevant question of monopoly—and raises the specter of restrictive trade practices that go invariably with any monopoly (even if the stated mission is not to be evil.)

Now, how many of the users will jump onto the next big platform in social to spread their choices, and whether we will have any such platform in the foreseeable future, is another thing that remains to be seen.

For all we know, users may just feel plain bored with all this social media thingy. Or with the big daddies of social at least. Already, there are reports of people, especially the younger generation, fleeing the likes of Facebook in droves in search for other, cooler platforms.

Unfortunately for them, FB ends up buying many of them!

Okay, let's tweet this for the moment...

The Future of Work

Technologies such as cloud, mobility and social media are changing the way we work

One of my favorite ad slogans is from the satellite communication firm Iridium: Geography is history.

I am reminded of this as I key in thoughts on the futuristic dimensions of white-collar work. Will the physical office and fixed seats be history? How about the 9 to 5 rule or working fixed hours? What kinds of work will get most dramatically impacted?

Reams have been written on the subject and extensive studies conducted, so I will not go into the statistics of a growing remote workforce, home opportunities and the like. Instead, let me focus on how technology is making an impact on the way we work.

One of the biggest changes comes from the increasing interplay of personal and enterprise technologies. CIOs are now talking about consumerization of technology, the movement toward, say, user-centric, friendly apps rather than dense lines of code or cumbersome interfaces to configure resources. BYOD (bring your own device) is already a growing phenomenon and people are frequently switching screens from Facebook and LinkedIn to the intranet and CRM.

Given this growing mix, I think certain companies will need to look at the “work output” as a performance measure rather than hours spent in the office or logged into the system.

Another big change: more workers are going to be empowered down the line than ever possible before. Through the Web and the tools it provides, through user-driven business intelligence and through other means, people at various levels will need to take more decisions more quickly—for the collective enterprise to be competitive.

Social sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn are also making an impact on assessment and hiring. Not just in jobs that require social media skills but generally in “judging” the future hires and their abilities through posts, usage patterns and circle of friends and followers.

In my own sphere of journalism, for instance, tech is making a big impact by connecting writers and readers in multiple ways; by bringing the whole blogosphere into the picture; by making it easy for us to find “material” through Google and Bing (and others I'm forgetting) yet difficult to escape the barrage of criticism if we slip; by making the whole writing-reading process quick, transparent, conversational...

On a more futuristic leap of imagination, in keeping with the vendors' fondness for “personalization,” shall we see a day when companies come knocking on your smartphones and say: “Hi there, if we were to offer you the job of the CIO, which of the following amenities will suit you? Please select as many as you like and we will come back with a personalized offer.”

Now, now, I didn't say that job search will be history!

Twittering out the Social Media Thingy

Okay, I won't begin with how Twitter-beat-Facebook-beat-Internet-beat-TV...quicker and quicker in terms of popularity or user base -- we are now beyond that stage.

I'll begin instead with how everyone is perplexed about this "social media thing". As I write this, new social media agencies are being set up, articles are being written about this *phenomenon* (including this one, if you can call this post an article), and the marketing pros are figuring out whether to suck at the Vampire widget or indulge in a Mob War to reach their target group.

The point is, the buzz around social media (btw, did we have anti- or un-social media before that?) is growing.

At the same time, some are even beginning to wonder if we could indeed be outgrowing Facebook. Lane Wallace of The Atlantic magazine says, for instance, that we might be at a stage where our initial, teenager-like fancy to FB may give way to fatigue or boredom. Still she admits that sites like FB and Twitter are growing and becoming increasingly popular with 30-plus folks and not just teeny-boppers.

Something doesn't gel, isn't it?

I think if we look close enough -- at human behavior, not websites or widgets -- we'll discover that the process of social evolution takes a long time (Darwin already told us that anatomical evolution takes even longer). In contrast, the breakneck technological evolution of the past decade or so has thrown up numerous tools and twitgets (note that!) for humans to play around.

So it's a playground out there, all right. But unlike earlier, when people played in more segregated age groups, in the virtual world we now have a whole smorgasbord of pre-teens, teens and umpteens 'behaving' in unprecedented ways. Combine this with the fact that this interplay goes on in several handshakes of connected gadgets, irrespective of where the players move across the globe. (We even have extreme cases in which people are being de-addicted for being too connected!)

Personally, I feel that the new tools of staying connected and sharing have brought out the kids in adults and allowed younger people to acquire wisdom or knowledge at an accelerated pace. If anything, the contours of our age-tied and time-bound behaviors are being pummeled into newer and more possibilities -- of what communication and sharing in this or the next digital world (Web x.0) will be really like.

So it's only natural that there's so much complexity and perplexity. I guess it'll be a progressive case of profusion - confusion - infusion (until more things come up and the cycle repeats).

Keep your fingers clicking...