Subscribe To The Dylan Blog

The Dylan Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Social Media’

Boys Boys Boys :: Mash Books Re-Open!

November 25th, 2011   By   Filed Under: Brand Champions

RECEIVED A TEXT OR EMAIL ABOUT OUR DECEMBER RECRUITMENT TOUR?

We are about to embark on a 7-city Recruitment Drive and we are on the look-out for fantastic Brand Ambassadors & Event Managers across the UK – we’re looking to balance the male/female ratio on our books so these interview are just for the chaps – any ladies waiting to come on board, not to worry, we’ll be in touch early next year.

Any current Mashers who want to recommend a male friend or colleague to join us, we’d be delighted to hear from you.

NEXT STEP

No need to call in about this, have a look at the interview dates below simply email chrissyd@mashmarketing.co.uk to let her know which interview slot you are able to attend (give first and second choices for time for your preferred city), and she’ll respond to let you know which slot we can confirm. We look forward to meeting you to get involved with our award winning agency!

Please have a good look at our website for info on the kind of campaigns we work on and what it takes to become a successful MASHER!

The interview dates, times and locations are as follows ::

MONDAY 5th DECEMBER :: BRISTOL : 11am, 1pm, 3pm, 5pm

TUESDAY 6th DECEMBER :: BOURNEMOUTH : 11am, 12pm, 1pm

THURSDAY 8th DECEMBER :: EDINBURGH : 9am, 11am, 1pm, 3pm

FRIDAY 9th DECEMBER :: BIRMINGHAM : 11am, 1pm, 3pm, 5pm

SATURDAY 10th DECEMBER :: MANCHESTER : 12pm, 2pm, 4pm, 6pm

MONDAY 12th DECEMBER :: LONDON : 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 4pm

TUESDAY 13th DECEMBER :: LONDON : 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 4pm

FRIDAY 16th DECEMBER :: NEWCASTLE : 12.30pm, 2.30pm, 4.30pm, 6.30pm

Please contact our UK Brand Champion Chrissy either via our dedicated Recruitment FB page or via email to get booked in.

We look forward to welcoming you on board.

(MASH would like to thank all applicants waiting to join our books for their patience)

Cheers,

Greg

Gregory Mason

Talent Director

Mash Marketing Ltd.

 

Mash help Joseph build his dream business.

April 4th, 2011   By   Filed Under: Kiva

Joseph Olyang

As part of Mash’s corporate social responsibility initiative, we provide sustainable loans through KIVA to aid entrepreneurs in developing countries.

For March as our entrepreneur of the month, we have chosen Joseph Olyang , from Kangemi, Nairobie, Kenya. Mash have funded his entire project loan amount through KIVA.

Joseph Olyang is 41 years old, married and the father of one child. He has been working as a mechanic in a garage where he repairs vehicles for his customers in Kangemi, Nairobi. He earns an income of 10,000 KES per month.

Joseph learned about Kiva through a friend. He has applied for his first loan from Kiva which he plans to use to purchase spare parts. He intends to use the anticipated profit to save and plow back into the business.

In the future Joseph would like to grow his business and start selling spare parts from Dubai and Japan.

Mash are delighted to be helping Joseph achieve his dreams.

Making Data Relevant: The New Metrics for Social Marketing

January 12th, 2011   By   Filed Under: Interesting, Weird and Wonderful

Prashant Suryakumar is a Social Media Engagement Manager at Mu Sigma and is currently focused on social media analytics. This post was co-authored by Dhiraj Rajaram, the founder and CEO of Mu Sigma.

Social media has come of age. Marketers now have the ability to augment their traditional marketing approaches with rich behavioral and activity-based targeting that should increase marketing ROI significantly.

However, businesses are facing an uncomfortable truth: There are no “best practices” for measuring a successful social media campaign. Crowd behavior is dynamic and context-specific, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to build a “one size fits all” solution.

A structured approach to capturing, measuring, analyzing and refining marketing strategies in near real time is essential to executing a successful social campaign. Initially, however, companies need to invest in infrastructure to make such a learning cycle possible.

Invest in Data

Measuring the impact of social media campaigns is systemically different from that of traditional marketing campaigns. Since the medium touches all the aspects of the customer purchase cycle, a holistic measurement of awareness, transactions and brand impact is essential.

Additionally, social media is a two-way communication medium and businesses need to invest in listening capabilities that capture the activities of their existing or potential customers online. Several paid and “freemium” tools that monitor online chatter can be found online.

While data is abundant, it is by nature unstructured. Integrating listening data with internal web behavior metrics captured by JavaScript tags, customer care logs, brand surveys and transactional data can enable a business to get a 360 degree view of the activities of customers across all of the purchase touchpoints.

Real-Time Monitoring

A typical online conversation has a life span of about one to two days. As a result, it is imperative for companies to respond to conversations in nearly real time. During this short window, they not only need to understand the context and content of the conversation, but also create an effective response mechanism. All of this underscores the need for real-time monitoring and analysis.

Companies like Dell and Best Buy are adopting different strategies for listening to Internet chatter. These investments help keep a finger on the pulse of every conversation active on the networks.

Sentiment Analysis

Text mining and sentiment analysis are the flavor of the season for social media analytics and a common complaint is that the current tools are not able to classify a high percentage of the comments about your brand.

Step back and think about a conversation you had in the last 30 minutes. How many statements in that conversation were unambiguously positive or negative. Not many, right? Getting a 20% sentiment mapping for individual comments is a very high number.

On the other hand, think about the same conversation; Was the overall sentiment of the conversation positive or negative? That is far easier to cognitively classify. If businesses shift their focus to a conversation-based, rather than a comment-based sentiment analysis, they will be able to get a far better read on the aggregate sentiment of online chatter.

The need for improvisation and identification of new metrics is high. Currently, three categories of metrics need to be developed to enhance our understanding of social activities.

Metrics that help understand conversations and engagement (e.g. aggregate sentiment, conversation heatmaps),

Metrics to spot influencers in a community (e.g. influencer score, Klout score), and

Metrics that help in measuring holistic impact of social media activities on the business.

The Interplay Between Buzz, Branding and Sales

Measuring the impact of increased chatter for your brand might not always translate to more revenue for the business. Measuring cause and effect between buzz, branding and sales might show different dynamics for different product groups. For example, the Old Spice social media campaign saw an 800% increase in Facebook interaction and a 107% increase in sales. The numbers are related, but not necessarily 1:1.

Testing Mechanisms

Social media is a fertile testing ground, and businesses need to appreciate the importance of a robust testing protocol for social media-based actions. Having a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of comments will ensure that businesses can learn quickly and adapt to the social dynamics.

A key point to remember is that the instance and context of the test is as important as the test itself due to the temporal nature of conversations.

Some of the tests that can be conducted are:

Who are the right “influencers” to target for a particular product or service?

What is the right time to message these influencers?

What is the impact of competition activity on our buzz?

What is the impact of traditional marketing on social media and vice versa?

What are the type of comments that work for selling a product?

What are the type of comments that work for selling a service?

What are the right pricing strategies?

How should the business tap into current affairs?

Behavioral Segmentation

Behavioral targeting dramatically changed with online advertising, and now social media can take this effectiveness to new heights. Activity-based segmentation is far different from traditional demographic segmentation, and this is typically driven by a difference between the purchasers and the consumers of a product. Businesses can draw parallels from traditional marketing (targeting kids so that they can influence their parents) and build a unique social targeting mechanism.

Crowd Behavior

Businesses have tried to artificially stimulate a conversation by mettling in their own communities or creating artificial hype. This approach usually fails miserably. They need to understand that social networks emulate real-world interactions, and excessive policing of user generated content can be detrimental to the natural growth patterns of a network.

Math, business technology and behavioral sciences are the key ingredients for good decision making. Understanding organizational dynamics, flock behavior and complex adaptive systems are all directly applicable to social media. Integrating analytics with a deep understanding of how humans interact in a sociographic and psychographic sense can help a business stimulate a conversation within a community, or trigger flock behavior amongst customers.

Integration Into Existing Business Models

Once companies understand the impact of lead indicators, like buzz, on transactional metrics, like revenue, they can include such metrics into their forecasting models and predict short-term revenue with greater accuracy. Additionally, since a good social media campaign will improve the brand health, the long-term impact of these campaigns can be assessed.

While every business wants to understand the impact of its social media spend, it might not be so easy to integrate that into a media mix model. A good social media campaign might manifest itself in increased brand scores or customer loyalty and will impact the lifetime value of the customers more than the immediate transactional metrics. Including indirect metrics like buzz or sentiment might be one way to capture social behavior.

Product Design

Social media can be a direct line of communication with the end user of your products. Businesses can leverage this very effectively in product design by soliciting input from the end user on what features they prefer in the product. Getting feature specific intelligence from the customer can help in building a product that caters to most of the population and also helps in building a sense of loyalty among the user base. Good examples of this include Ideastorm, Vitamin Water and Fiat.

Conclusion

The framework above is the first step in helping companies understand the who, what, when and where of social targeting. The obvious next step is to integrate all this knowledge into traditional marketing and CRM.

Source: www.mashable.com

The Facebook Effect

May 11th, 2010   By   Filed Under: Uncategorized

41cjegayfrl_sl160_

Just who is the face behind Facebook? It’s the face of man who’s a savvy dealmaker, a confident businessman, and a brash leader – but it’s also the face of a man who’ll sob hysterically in the men’s bathroom after a meeting.

Meet Mark Zuckerberg, the coding wunderkind from Harvard who turned the concept of the annual booklet of incoming college freshmen into a game-changing digital empire. The Facebook CEO’s story is fraught with emotion, inspiration and determination – with a sprinkling of college geek humor.

In released excerpts from Fortune contributor David Kilpatrick’s soon-to-be-released book “The Facebook Effect,” Zuckerberg is a Harvard prodigy who shows moments of extreme maturity while creating the social networking juggernaut before being able to legally rent a car.

Kilpatrick, who had total access to his subject, portrays Zuckerberg akin to the Val Kilmer character in the 1985 teen classic movie “Real Genius.” Brash, confident with a propensity to wield a fencing foil about the room when he wanted to make a point, Zuckerberg is all ego and bravado in pajama pants.

Before the mega-corporations came calling, Zuckerberg lived in Palo Alto, Calif., with seven male friends in an environment that was more dorm than deluxe. There were parties, there was beer, there was college humor.

The house mascot was Tom Cruise, according to the excerpt. “Pretty soon the resident nerds were naming their computer servers after characters in Tom Cruise movies: “‘Where’s that script running?’ ‘It’s running on Maverick.’ ‘Well, run it instead on Iceman, I need Maverick to test this feature.’”

Zuckerberg and cohorts would insert lines from “Top Gun” into the burgeoning Facebook site. In a likely nod to Dave Chappelle he printed up a version of his business card with the title “CEO … b**tch.”

Yet Kilpatrick’s excerpts show a young man of amazing maturity and business acumen. Zuckerberg handles a private jet ride on a Gulfstream V with a hard-driving MTV executive with a combination of thrilled disbelief and the ability to hold his cards close to his chest.

Zuckerberg is also portrayed as a young man bound by ethics. In a key meeting with the venture capital firm Accel that would exponentially increase Facebook’s worth, Zuckerberg leaves the table and bursts into tears in the men’s room. He is in agony because he has already made a deal with Washington Post scion Donald Graham and does not want to renege on their honorable, but less profitable deal.

“Graham was disappointed, but he was also impressed. “I just thought to myself, ‘Wow, for 20 years old, that is impressive – he’s not calling to tell me he’s taking the other guy’s money. He’s calling me to talk it out.’ ” Graham knew that even his first offer was very high for a company so tiny and so young. “Mark, does the money matter to you?” Graham asked. Zuckerberg said it did. It could, he went on, be the one thing that could prevent Facebook from going into the red or having to borrow money. “Mark, I’ll release you from your moral dilemma,” said Graham. “Go ahead and take their money and develop the company, and all the best.” For Zuckerberg it was a huge relief. And it further increased his respect and admiration for Graham. (Zuckerberg eventually asked the publisher to take a seat on the Facebook board.)

Zuckerberg, now 26, now has a nearly $5 billion stake in Facebook.

“Unless I feel like I’m working on the most important problem I can help with, then I’m not going to feel good about how I’m spending my time,” he says. “And that’s what this company is.” The ultimate payday is not a priority. Changing the world is.”

Here We Go Again…

April 26th, 2010   By   Filed Under: Interesting, Weird and Wonderful

I remember that Monday morning, January 10, 2000. The day that AOL announced it was buying Time Warner. The word starting seeping out the night before, Sunday night. I went to sleep like it was Christmas eve, and couldn’t wait for what market madness the morning would bring. I was working at Flatiron Partners, and Fred, Jerry, Bob and I had a standing Monday morning breakfast at the Mayrose Diner. We all looked at eachother that Monday morning with our mouths agape, shaking our heads in amazement that this was really happening. In retrospect, that deal was a watershed for the Internet. It announced that new media was going to be bigger than old media. It also marked the final inflation of a bubble that popped painfully only a few months down the road.

I came home tonight to a techmeme filled with news about Amazon’s boffo earnings, rumors about Yahoo! and Microsoft’s interest in acquiring Foursquare, and a Bloomberg Business Week analysis of whether Pincus’s Zynga can continue to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from people buying virtual hoes in his games on Facebook. Brad Stone’s story about sharing credit card transactions in public was already filed for tomorrow New York Times. Waiting for me on the kitchen counter was a copy of this week’s New Yorker, filled with an essay by Ken Auletta “Publish or Perish: The Ipad Takes on the Kindle.” Next to it was New York magazine, whose cover “Life is Tweet” features Sam from drop.io, Karp from Tumblr and Dens from Foursquare. All the while, my mind was still adjusting to the new contours that had been etched into it, first by Twitter’s annotation feature announced at its Chirp conference last week, and then by Facebook’s Open Graph blitzkrieg yesterday. It feels like something big is about to pop, something on the AOL-buys-Time Warner richter scale.

All of which begs the question, what gives? The great recession of 2008 is a distant memory, as we move through the Spring of 2010 with stocks like Apple and Amazon up more than 100% from their lows. The Nasdaq chart from the financial crisis up until now looks something like this:

nasdaq20102

And to think, the seminal stock of the social media era, Facebook, has yet to trade a single share in the public market. One can only imagine how much pent-up demand there is from mutual funds, hedge funds and retail investors for stock in this company that has established the default identity system for what will soon be over 1 billion people around the world. One could argue that the value of this resource on a macro economic basis is commensurate with that of oil (ie Exxon Mobil) or of the two primary computer operating systems (Apple and Microsoft), and that the “mature” value of Facebook in 2012 might be closer to $300b than $30b.

And yet, against the breathlessness of what might be, is the reality of what once was. All we need to do is look at the Nasdaq chart from the 1998 Russian financial crisis through the dot com bubble of 2000 to give us pause:

nasdaq201021

Although I am not a market technician, my spider sense is tingling. The wheels of capitalism are back in motion, and liquidity is flowing from the top to the bottom of the cap structure. University endowments are trying to distinguish deal flow quality from the PayPal mafia versus the Xoogler community; Web 1.0 bankers are reuniting to capitalize on the coming Web 2.0 IPO liquidity, and startups with big ideas, hockey stick user growth, but relatively little revenue, are commanding eight figure Series A valuations.

Markets tend to overact on the way up and on the way down, so we may well see an extended period of bullishness over the coming months or even years. The Nasdaq has another 100% to go before it gets into the same trough to peak range we saw 10 years ago. The bubble needs to wait for companies like Facebook, Groupon and Twitter to transition from privately held to publicly traded before bursting. But burst it will, as it always does. Not before, however, some very fortunate entrepreneurs, investors and bankers make out with new fortunes.

In light of all this, it hadn’t occurred to me until now how uncanny my experience last Saturday night was. Tina and I ventured out from Marin into SF to join Kara Swisher and Quincy Smith for what we thought was going to be smallish dinner honoring Bob Pittman. Yes, that Bob Pittman. The one who, along with Steve Case at AOL, bought Time Warner. The one who made us all shake our heads in amazement that Monday morning ten years ago. As we walked into the back room of Tres Agaves, we quickly realized that this was no small dinner party. There had to be at least a hundred friends and colleagues milling around: Google execs, angels, VC’s, Public and startup CEOs. Everybody was enjoying the open bar and free flowing conversations. As I made my way to the back, to take a breath, there was Bob Pittman, off to the corner, looking fit as ever. The only noticeable difference was a fresh shade of sandy gray stubble matching his sandy gray hair. Every few minutes, somebody would venture up to him and shake his hand and reminisce about the last time they met. The younger startup folks seemed to have no idea who he was and were more concerned with putting together their tacos from the cart. Little did they know, however, how much their future will be shaped by his past.

Using Twitter to enhance Experiential campaigns

March 31st, 2010   By   Filed Under: Interesting, Weird and Wonderful

If you have not already embraced digital to enhance and extend your brand – both in offline experiential and promotional marketing campaigns, you may feel as if the world is passing you by.

However, it’s never too late to get started, and begin harnessing the added firepower that digital activation can deliver for your events happening in the real world, in real time.

While there are a myriad of digital channels for you to consider, we believe Twitter is the single-most effective and dynamic social media engine for promoting events and generating consumer dialog around experiential marketing campaigns. One of our favorite examples of using Twitter for a consumer experiential program is the Taco Bell Truck (Link), which shares info on where it will be traveling to give out free tacos, fun trivia and news about all things tacos.

Here are some basic steps on how you can use Twitter to take your experiential marketing campaigns to the next level:

Drive the Conversation – Set up a Twitter account and commit to a regular stream of tweets (posts) about your program, and generate a simple hashtag (#) that you include on every post. Make sure to add value for your followers by providing them with interesting info about your brand and relevant offers, and encourage feedback. For larger experiential campaigns, we recommend setting up a Twitter stream that is specific to your program and separate from any general brand or company Twitter stream you may have in place. This allows followers to self-select to specifically follow updates on your events – and you can still promote this separate stream by selectively re-tweeting your posts within your other brand accounts.

We’re currently utilizing this tactic for our client Coca-Cola via the @WorldCupTrophy Twitter feed, which is being utilized to start conversations with soccer fans around the world and generate excitement about the Coca-Cola-sponsored World Cup Trophy Tour event in Houston in May.

Follow Too – Brands that just broadcast one-way information fail in effectively deploying Twitter, so be sure to listen to your followers and take time to monitor what they are tweeting about. In addition, search on your brand and other relevant terms to find conversations from users who might be interested to attend your events and follow your info. Join their conversations, directly respond to those who ask you questions and thank those to re-tweet your content.

Cross-Promote – Promote your Twitter stream via all of your other communication channels, including email, website and other social media sites like Facebook. In addition, post your account address and hashtag at your events, and offer incentives for consumers to continue following after they have attended your experience such as trivia contests, Twitter-only discounts for your products, etc.

Follow Through – Don’t think of Twitter as just a way to promote your experiential programs before they happen, also be sure to tweet during your events. Tweet photos and video of the activities, and also tweet out thanks to followers who show up. This will encourage more interaction, and allow you to gain feedback about your events in real time. It also allows followers who are not physically present to still share in the experience (further enhancements of tweet photos and video can include posting longer video clips on YouTube or even live streaming the action on sites like Ustream).

zmash3-1

Of course, this works both ways, as social media can be utilized to drive event participation as well. We recently executed an experiential campaign for PayPal in New York, Chicago and San Francisco called the PayPal Tweet Hunt (Click here to view photos). Consumers were encouraged to follow PayPal’s @PayPalShopping Twitter account, which made them eligible to participate in the Tweet Hunt and win prizes such as flights, jewelry, gadgets and gift cards.

Listen – After you have started the conversation on Twitter, be sure to follow where it goes. There are many listening tools that allow you to track followers, retweets of your posts and direct mentions of your Twitter account name or related hashtags. All of these metrics can be measured and tracked, and can be used to build a scorecard for how your Twitter activity drives additional connections with consumers around your events.

One of the advantages to Twitter is that it is extremely easy to get started. Plus, it’s free.

We’ve even given you a head start. Just follow these simple suggestions to begin extending your brand’s offline experiential and promotional marketing campaigns into social media.

Web 2.0 Expo NY: Gary Vaynerchuk (Wine Library), Building Personal Brand Within the Social Media Landscape

March 29th, 2010   By   Filed Under: Interesting, Weird and Wonderful

Although this video is from 2008, we love the passion that Gary has about doing what you love. We’re not saying it’s that easy, but we find him very inspirational.

Ingredients of Marketing

February 5th, 2010   By   Filed Under: Interesting, Weird and Wonderful

On the 3rd of February 2010 our own Mash Co-founder Phil Edelston conducted a presentation named the “Ingredients of Marketing Mix”.

He delivered an engaging and inspirational session to a group of thirty ambitious students, all of whom harbour an ambition to become successful entrepreneurs.The presentation was part of a three day course linking in with NACUE – The National Consortium of University Entrepreneurs (www.nacue.com) which took place at the London Metropolitan University. Phil aimed to provide a detailed and practical coaching strategy covering key points such as:

• The background of marketing.
• What a marketing strategy is.
• How to put a strategy together.

Phil prepared by digging back into his own university lectures, using his own knowledge and experience combined to deliver an interactive and productive presentation.
Once the basic points were covered, Phil focused on marketing in today’s society and the accessibility that has been created through the current digital and social media.

As a widely expanding and popular domain, the participants were able to benefit in learning how to use these opportunities to their advantage.

As a successful entrepreneur himself (Phil co-founded Mash – www.mashmarketing.co.uk and Dylan* – www.dylanlondon.com ), Phil’s aim is to empower up and coming entrepreneurs, assisting in fast tracking their goals and provide any knowledge share that can help drive successful marketing initiatives through their businesses.

You can link in with Phil through www.linkedin.com/in/connectphiledelston

Face-to-Face Still Tops for Purchase Decisions

July 13th, 2009   By   Filed Under: Industry Thoughts

Neutral, informal communication on behalf of a preferred brand or vendor can have significant and far-reaching impact on purchase decisions, and in-person word-of-mouth still carries more weight – among all adult age groups – than recommendations via social networking, according to (pdf) a recent Harris Poll.

The survey, which was conducted by Harris Interactive, found that when it comes to getting information to help them with purchase decisions, American adults of all ages use a mixture of traditional media and new media, including those that would constitute “push” (advertising and websites) and “pull” (information from neutral, informal communication).

Most Popular Info-Gathering Methods

The most frequently identified methods of gathering information to make purchase decisions are using a company website (36%), face-to-face communication with a salesperson or other company representative (22%), and face-to-face communication with a person not associated with the company (21%).

Method Gathering Information - Purchase Decision (june-2009)

Only 4% of respondents reporte using social networking sites to gather purchase-decision information, the study found.

Differences in Sources Among Age Groups

Though pop culture often portrays younger adults as “text-crazed” and less interested in face-to-face discourse than older adults, according to Harris, the survey found that one-third of 18-24 year-olds (33%) say they obtain information through in-person communication with family members or friends, compared with 21% of all adults who say the same thing.

Harris did find, however, that 18-24-year-olds are more likely to use public online social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace (16%). These youngest adults are also significantly less likely than older adults to use online chat or email directly with companies (2%).

Memorable Brand Experiences Generate More Positive Action

The poll then asked adults who had a memorable product purchase, product use, or service experience if they had taken any type of downstream action as a result – and nearly four in five said they had (79%). Notably, 72% say they took positive action, with 57% communicating about their positive experience with others and 41% specifically recommending that someone make a purchase.

Respondents with negative memorable experiences appear to go in greater numbers to the vendor or supplier. Some 41% of purchasers who took action say they communicated directly to the vendor or supplier. Of this group, 68% were looking for some type of issue resolution and more than half (53%) say they had their issue resolved in a positive manner while 13%, still had unresolved issues.

Demographically, Baby Boomers and Matures are more likely to communicate directly with vendors (48% and 57%) while Echo Boomers and Gen Xers are less likely to do so (28% and 35%).

Industry Differerences in Communication/Recommendation

Harris Interactive also discovered definite differences in downstream communications and product recommendation, depending on the industry from which respondents purchase:

Those who purchase in the automotive space are more likely to communicate with the vendor (43%) and have positive communication (46%).
Those who purchase in the healthcare space and entertainment space are more likely to have positive communications afterward (45% and 43% respectively).
Those who purchase technology products (44%) and entertainment products (42%) are more more likely to make a product recommendation.
Interestingly, Harris said that in most industries – but especially automotive and healthcare services – there is greater downstream likelihood that consumers are conveying positive messages than positively recommending.

Communications Used After Purchase

Of those who had communicated to others after their purchase, almost three in five (59%) communicated with someone not directly associated with the company, such as a customer service or tech support representative.

Methods reportedly used for communication:

Interactive Method of Communicating after Purchase (june 2009)

Meanwhile, less than one in 10 used a public online social networking site, such as Facebook, for this communication (9%), an online message board, discussion forum, chat room, blog or wiki (8%), an independent website that has reviews (7%) or a private online social networking site (5%), Harris said.

Downstream Behavior and Further Purchase Likelihood

Overall, two in five (40%) of those with a memorable purchase experience say they would definitely be more likely to purchase again based on their own experiences. Of those who communicated about their positive product or service experience to others, more than three-fourths (76%) say they were more likely to repurchase, with only 5% saying they would be less likely to purchase. Among those who had made a positive recommendation, 79% would be more likely to repurchase in the future, compared with only 6% who would be less likely, the survey found.

Looking at those who had more negative experiences, 46% of those who communicated about their negative experience would be less likely to purchase, while about one-fourth (24%) would still be likely to repurchase, Harris said.

Among those who had recommended against purchasing a product, 63% would be less likely to repurchase compared with 24% who would be more likely to repurchase.

Harris concluded that this research provides three key takeaways:

Methods of obtaining information and post-experience communication is much more likely to occur through a mix of traditional and new-age consumer generated (social) media, both offline and online. Further, few are using social networking tools.
Communication to others about a product or service experience is more likely to occur than recommendation, and there is much variability by product/service category. Also, most post-experience communication takes place offline.
Data suggest that the action of offline and online methods of communicating directly to others about experiences – except for message boards, blogs, and wikis – equally impacts, or at least generally correlates with, customers’ own future purchase behavior. These findings also suggest that the act of communicating to others, positively or negatively, has the same impact on customers’ own behavior as the act of actually recommending.
Despite recent hype about the significant influence of social media, these Harris Poll findings appear to echo several recent studies that indicate that social networks are only beginning to have significant impact on purchases. Earlier this year, Mintel also reported that real-life WOM beats online by a wide margin, while a study by WorkPlace Media found that brands’ official presences on social networks make up only a fraction of a consumers overall view of those brands.

About the poll: This Harris Poll was conducted online within the US from March 9-16, 2009, among 2,355 adults (ages 18 and over) who agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population

Anything Could Happen…

June 9th, 2009   By   Filed Under: Interesting, Weird and Wonderful

Evan Williams’s first little idea shifted the culture.(You can thank him for the ubiquity of blogging.) His new business, called Twitter, will be entering your consciousness right…about…now. Why does this stuff happen? Because he lets it.

By: Max Chafkin

What is Evan Williams doing?

I ask myself this as I consume a second cup of strong coffee in a quiet San Francisco café. It is early in the morning on the first workday of the new year, and Williams is apparently blowing me off. For the past two weeks he has ignored my e-mails, phone calls, and text messages. We were supposed to meet this morning to discuss his next move; instead we have radio silence.

This is odd. Williams is the sort of person who can’t seem to do anything, no matter how trivial, without blogging, photo-sharing, or text-messaging the news. He founded Blogger, the website that introduced the world to blogging and now attracts some 163 million visitors each month. He has maintained a detailed personal blog for more than a decade–posting pictures, explaining his latest theories on business, and huffing about the cable company.His new business, called Twitter, takes it a step further: It lets exhibitionists, techies, and–a hint of things to come–marketers blast their latest doings to cell phones. So he’s not just a practitioner of hyperconnectedness; he practically invented the concept.

Eventually, Williams sends me an apologetic text message–we resolve to push back the meeting slightly–and then he does something else: He uses Twitter to send a text message to, oh, a few thousand people: “Late for my first meeting of the year and in need of a shave.”

Like so many technology entrepreneurs, Williams, whose friends call him Ev, is a software engineer. But unlike many of the most successful, he’s no genius when it comes to programming. His specialty is taking a tiny, almost nonsensical idea and turning it into a cultural phenomenon. “He’s like a master craftsman,” says Naval Ravikant, a serial entrepreneur who is an angel investor in Twitter. “There are entrepreneurs who are financial geniuses, and there are raw coders. Evan is the master of creating a product where there wasn’t one before.” If Williams’s art is the conception of inconceivable products, then Twitter is his chef-d’oeuvre.
What is Twitter? It’s hard to explain–Williams and his co-founders have wrestled with this–but it helps to begin in familiar territory: blogging. A blog is an online diary, in which someone holds forth on a topic, like vacation itineraries or the case against Roger Clemens. Now strip this to the core. A typical entry–say, a couple of paragraphs, some links, pictures, or maybe a funny YouTube video–becomes a 140-character plain text comment. (That’s the maximum length of a Twitter message–also known as a tweet–and the exact length of the previous sentence.) Instead of sitting down in front of a screen and typing a couple of paragraphs into a form, you compose your message quickly on your phone’s keypad.

Instead of having readers come to your website to check out your latest, you blast it directly to their cell phone inboxes. A recent selection of Williams’s tweets includes: “Considering making February external-meeting free,” “Relaxing my shoulders. Writing a little code. Drinking Guayaki,” and “Packing my warmest clothes for Chicago.” Each snippet is sent to his 5,644 (and counting) “followers,” as they’re called in Twitter-speak: the friends, acquaintances, and stalkers who have elected to keep tabs on his every move.

This is Twitter, in all its wildly popular, ridiculous glory. The service, which had a few thousand users at the beginning of last year, had close to 800,000 at the beginning of this one. Because Twitter allows anyone to send messages to thousands of cell phones at once and for free, new uses are popping up. JetBlue (NASDAQ:JBLU) and Dell (NASDAQ:DELL) use it as a kind of mailing list; presidential candidates use it to contact supporters; the Los Angeles fire department uses it as a de facto emergency broadcast system. As with all movements, there’s a backlash. The United Arab Emirates recently banned the service, and there are lots of cautionary tales about Twittering gone bad. (I had such an experience when, en route to an unfortunately named barbecue restaurant, I Twittered, and then hastily deleted, this gem: “Walking to Smoke Joint.”)

As a cultural phenomenon, Twitter is a comer–having been featured in an episode ofCSI, on MTV, and in nearly every major newspaper–but its status as a business is nebulous. The 14-person company is unprofitable (its single largest source of revenue last year was the subleasing of half a dozen desks to three small start-ups at $200 a desk a month), and there are no immediate plans for it to be anything otherwise. Although some technologists think Twitter could one day be a billion-dollar company, many others say it represents the worst of Web 2.0: a company that is built to flip, that does little of value and has no long-term prospects as a standalone enterprise. Williams and his collaborators don’t entirely dispute this notion. Co-founder Jack Dorsey, the service’s inventor, freely admits that Twitter is “useless, in a sense” and that many people are “violently turned off” by the idea of constant communications. But, he adds, “there’s a lot of value in seemingly useless things.”

This strange statement encapsulates Williams’s business philosophy. He believes that small ideas are almost always better than grand visions. That Twitter’s main function–telling you what your friends are doing–is included as a feature in Facebook, MySpace, and most instant messaging programs doesn’t bother him in the slightest. “I think features can make great companies,” he says. “You just have to choose them right.” Moreover, he argues, a product can succeed by doing less than a competitive product. Case in point: Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), which rocketed to popularity because of a single feature–the search box–while its chief competitor, Yahoo (NASDAQ:YHOO), offered dozens of services, from search to stock quotes to horoscopes. Google operated for years without a business model before it figured out that it could throw off billions in cash by serving little text ads next to its search results. “Applying constraints can help your company and your customers in unexpected ways,” says Williams. “The default thing we do is ask how we can add something to make it better. Instead we should say, What can we take away to create something new?”
That an entrepreneur can look at something as silly as Twitter and say, Yes, this is the future, is remarkable. Technology inventors have a horrible track record of turning new behaviors into long-term financial successes–social networking pioneer Friendster was long ago lapped by MySpace and Facebook; the first search engines, Web browsers, and video game systems met similar fates. And it’s not as if Williams doesn’t have the money (he made a reported $50 million selling Blogger to Google) or the connections (Twitter’s angel investors read like a who’s who of Silicon Valley) to attempt something more ambitious.

But he doesn’t care to. And he probably doesn’t need to. Mass adoption of broadband and social networking have made finding customers cheaper, and a booming online advertising market has made it easier to turn a profit once you attract them. Moreover, a handful of acquisition-happy tech companies have shown a willingness to add services by buying tiny, money-losing start-ups for tens of millions of dollars. These may be signs of yet another technology bubble, but there are smart people, like start-up financier Paul Graham, who argue that technology start-ups are undergoing a fundamental change, becoming smaller, cheaper to start, and more numerous–in short, commoditized. We may be entering an era of the little idea, a time tailor-made for Evan Williams.
Williams grew up on a corn farm in Clarks, Nebraska (population 379). He’s a self-taught coder, having dropped out of college after only a year to start a company. But this wasn’t Bill Gates dropping out of Harvard to start Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT). The college was the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and the companies–there were three failures in five years–were unambitious, money losing, and admittedly dopey. Williams’s most successful product was a CD-ROM for fans of the Cornhuskers football team. Finally, convinced he still knew little about how to run a business, he cut his losses, took a Web development job in California, and started writing about it.

Today, Williams is 35 years in age and unassuming in appearance. He talks quietly in the soft, flat tones of a Midwesterner. He’s handsome, but ordinarily so. In person, wearing a nice pair of jeans, a gray T-shirt, and a cashmere cardigan, he is subdued and guarded. When his bagel with peanut butter and banana is brought to our table sans banana, he seems to struggle mightily as he weighs what to do about it. Williams often speaks tentatively, revising, disclaiming, and qualifying his thoughts in a manner that most businesspeople would take as a sign of weakness. When I ask him a question on start-up finance, he starts with a disclaimer. “I was thinking a little differently before,” he says, pausing. “I wonder why that is?” A conversation with Williams can quickly devolve into an inscrutable merry-go-round of ideas.

But to meet him online is a different story. Many of the qualities that make Williams awkward in real life play beautifully on Evhead.com, the online journal he has maintained since 1996. Williams’s honesty, his tendency toward frankness, and his willingness to admit not knowing everything make him different from most business bloggers. They make him interesting.
As the name suggests, Evhead is a record of Williams’s thoughts, profound and otherwise. In the past months he has posted a picture of himself and his wife, Sara, with a stuffed black bear–as well as a thoughtful essay on how to evaluate a new software product and an untitled post that reads, “I’m awake at 5:37 (for two hours now). Thinking about so many things.” Even 15 years ago, an entrepreneur who did this would have seemed creepy or ridiculous. But to members of the Facebook generation, who meticulously groom their online profiles–posting photos while sharing everything from their political preferences to what’s currently in their Netflix queue–Williams comes off as likable, even humble.

Some 25,000 people, mostly techies and entrepreneurs, look at Evhead each month. (Many of these readers also follow his Twitterings.) Dorsey had followed Williams’s blog for years. He knew it so well that when he spotted Williams on the street in San Francisco, he recognized him immediately and decided to apply for a job. “It was the first time I’d seen him in person,” Dorsey says, as if he were talking about a celebrity he had never considered a real person. “I took it as a sign.” In the online world, Williams is seen as a truth teller, an engineer who’s not afraid to stick it to the suits and the venture capitalists. He’s someone who actually understands the process of invention and who values it more than he does the bottom line. To read his blog is to watch the growth of a human being: You see Ev nearly lose his company, bring it back from the dead, strike it big, struggle with the tech support for his new cell phone, and get married. In Williams, a new generation of entrepreneurs has a mascot.

It’s January 31, 2001, and Evan Williams is alone in his apartment, writing a blog post for Evhead. It’s a big one. His company, Pyra Labs, is on life support, and Williams has just laid off the entire staff. (His co-founder and ex-girlfriend, Meg Hourihan, quit rather than be laid off.) The trouble is partly the result of the Internet bust–the Nasdaq has been tanking for months, and Williams’s investors have told him he must make do with what he’s got–but it’s also, in a strange way, a result of his company’s unlikely popularity.
Williams and Hourihan started Pyra, in 1998, with a plan to develop and sell project management software. They did contract Web programming for Hewlett-Packard to pay the bills while they developed their product. So they could keep track of each other’s progress, Williams created a piece of software he called Stuff, which, it turned out, was a far simpler and more useful collaboration tool than the one he was building for Pyra. Stuff allowed him to quickly upload text to a webpage by filling out a simple form, and it organized the text by date. He and Hourihan joked that it worked better than their actual product. Only Williams wasn’t joking. While Hourihan was on vacation, in August 2000, he put it online as Blogger.com.
Blogger took off. Online diaries had existed since the birth of the Internet, but they had been difficult to maintain and organize and were therefore limited to serious techies. Blogger made communicating your thoughts to the world much easier and more satisfying: Fill out a simple form, click a button, and–bang–you’re a published writer. By 2001, Blogger had attracted 100,000 users and the beginnings of what seemed like a healthy buzz, even though it made no money and had no model for changing that.
So as he sits in his apartment and blogs, Williams finds himself in an odd place. He’s running a company that’s more popular and growing faster than he could have possibly imagined. It’s also flat broke. Several weeks earlier, Williams had written a post that begged users to donate money to keep the servers running. It worked: He raised more than $10,000 in $10 and $20 money transfers made through PayPal. Now he’s got to figure out how to save the company. Writing the blog post, which he titles “And Then There Was One,” he describes the layoff, wishes his former employees well–”Hopefully our friendships will survive”–and then finally addresses his customers: “I’m still fighting the good fight,” he writes. “The product, user base, brand, and vision are still somewhat intact.

Amazingly. Thankfully. In fact, I’m actually in surprisingly good shape. I’m optimistic. (I’m always optimistic.) And I have many, many ideas. (I always have many ideas.)”

With no personnel costs, Blogger hung on. In March, there was a $40,000 licensing deal with Trellix, a business software start-up whose founder, a Blogger admirer, read about Williams’s plight on his blog and decided he wanted to help save the company. By the late summer, Williams had a business model. He had been making next to nothing placing banner ads on people’s blogs. Now he would charge those people $12 a year to remove the ads. Meanwhile, Pyra–and the phenomenon of blogging–grew like gangbusters through 2001. By the middle of 2002, there were 600,000 registered users. In late 2002, Google came calling. Sergey Brin and Larry Page offered to buy Williams’s little company and let him run it inside their highflying (and still private) search start-up. Williams blogged the news of his acceptance while delivering a speech at a technology conference. “Holy Crap,” he wrote, linking the words to a minutes-old article on the sale. “Note to self: When you get off this panel, you should probably comment on this.”

The experience of shepherding Blogger through growth, then hardship, until he finally turned it into a real company cemented Williams’s philosophy of business. He would be an entrepreneur who looked for value in things that seemed worthless. Faith–in one’s ability, in one’s chosen path, and, above all else, in the fact that there are always opportunities ahead–was a company’s greatest need. Stick to your product, forget about scrambling for deals, and good things will happen.

The belief that faith is an important business attribute goes a long way in describing how Williams is able to see opportunities. “He has a stubbornness of vision,” says Tim O’Reilly, the tech luminary who runs publisher O’Reilly Media and who coined the term “Web 2.0.” O’Reilly was Williams’s first employer in Silicon Valley and an investor in Pyra. “There are so many me-too start-ups on the Web, so many people saying this will be the next big thing, but the successful entrepreneurs are people who see the world differently.” Williams’s closest collaborator, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone, says much the same. “He has a tendency to wait just a bit longer than everyone else would, to give an idea more time,” Stone says. “It is patience and perseverance and hope–all those things rolled up into one.”
After leaving Google at the end of 2004, with his fast-appreciating stock and a world-class education in business, Williams resolved to tread water until the right opportunity came along. “While I think I’m likely to start another company sometime,” he wrote on his blog, “I’m forcing myself to be noncommittal at the moment. My goal is to develop some perspective, learn new things, rest, and explore.” He promised to travel and to think about how he would change his life.

He didn’t do much of either. His next-door neighbor, an entrepreneur named Noah Glass, was starting a podcasting company, and Williams began advising him in the weeks following his departure from Google. Advising turned into full-time work, and full-time work turned into being co-founder, seed investor, and, eventually, CEO. By February 2005, he had invested $170,000 and personally launched the company, now called Odeo, with a demonstration at TED, the invitation-only tech conference held in Monterey, California. That same day, a front-page article in the business section of The New York Times profiled Odeo and its famous founder. Williams, it seemed, was on his way to turning another weird technology phenomenon into the next big thing.

But Odeo had no real product–only a sense that podcasting was somehow going to be popular. The website that Williams unveiled at TED, an audio directory and a few simple tools for recording one’s own podcasts, wasn’t ready for the public until a few months later, and by then it had been overshadowed by Apple’s release of podcasting features for iTunes. Odeo’s strategy, if there was one, was to be a one-stop shop for Internet audio, offering a number of tools for podcasters and casual listeners. Being all things to all people required money, and there were plenty of eager investors who wanted in on Ev’s next big thing. He raised $5 million from the venture capitalists Charles River Ventures and a number of high-profile angels, including O’Reilly, Google backer Ron Conway, and Lotus founder Mitch Kapor. The company quickly started hiring, and by the end of the year, it employed 14 people.

While he was trying to come up with a strategy for Odeo, Williams was processing the lessons of the past few years. In the fall of 2005, he wrote what he calls “my best blog post ever.” It was called “Ten Rules for Web Startups,” and it has since become something of an Internet classic. (Google the title and you’ll get more than a thousand results, nearly all of which point to Williams’s post.) The lessons were lifted from his experience at Blogger, particularly the first one, “Be Narrow,” which urged entrepreneurs to “Focus on the smallest possible problem you could solve that would be potentially useful.” Other lessons were “Be Tiny,” “Be Picky,” and “Be Self-Centered,” which discussed the importance of company founders using their own products.

Even as he wrote his rules, he was ignoring them. He wasn’t even podcasting. As Odeo sputtered, struggling to gain new users, Williams began to see his problem as one of corporate structure. He had accepted millions of dollars in investment capital, built a team, and worked the media before he knew what his company was. Odeo needed to experiment–to play, even. “If we were just two guys in a garage, we could say, ‘I don’t know about that idea, but let’s see where it goes,’ ” he says. His solution was to organize what he called a “hack day.” He broke the company into small groups and told them to spend a day experimenting–not just with podcasting, but with anything that struck their fancy. It was Dorsey’s project that struck Williams’s. Dorsey had long been fascinated by the status function on instant message programs: the short, pithy postings that allow you to tell your online friends what you are doing. He built a prototype of Twitter in two weeks.

“Thinking twttr is the awesomest,” Williams Twittered in March 2006. With little fanfare it went live in July. Like Blogger before it, Twitter was introduced as an experiment, a fun little side project. Nonetheless, Williams was excited–more excited than he’d been about anything that had happened at Odeo. This got him thinking about the hack day that had led him to Twitter–and then about the two years in which he had struggled to build anything, despite having plenty of money and all the hype in the world.
How had a single experiment succeeded where an entire company couldn’t? And more important, how could he do more of them?
On October 25, 2006, Williams blogged his answer. He was buying Odeo, taking the odd–to some, almost unbelievable–step of returning his venture capitalists’ money. It cost him $3 million out of pocket, plus all the cash Odeo still had. It was a lot to pay for a failing Web company and an unproven prototype.

He called the new endeavor Obvious, a nod to a lesson learned from the success at Blogger–that seemingly silly and trivial ideas often look like great ones in retrospect. Obvious would be a workshop where Williams and his cohorts could experiment with ideas in an environment free from financial distractions. If an idea worked really well, he could spin it off into an independent company using outside investment. Otherwise, he could either keep it for Obvious or throw it away. “I don’t want to have to worry about getting buy-in from executives or a board, raising money, worrying about investor’s perceptions, or cashing out,” he blogged. The move was widely seen as heroic. “Odeo Buys Back Soul,” read the headline of gossip blog Valleywag.

Shortly after buying Odeo, Williams wrote a blog post that announced his intentions to sell the podcasting part of the company–a New York start-up paid a reported $1 million for the service–and focus on Twitter. The text messaging service had its coming-out party at the South by Southwest technology festival in March, where conference attendees eagerly began Twittering one another. From there it grew rapidly, reaching a hundred thousand users in a matter of weeks and garnering nationwide media coverage. In July, Williams formally spun off the company, raising several million dollars from Union Square Ventures, a New York City VC with a hands-off reputation. (Managing partner Fred Wilson, who, judging from his Twitters, really, really loves to eat at Murray’s Bagels, had been using the service for months.) Williams appointed Dorsey CEO and told him to focus exclusively on fixing Twitter’s reliability problems. Though Williams remains the single largest shareholder, he has taken pains to stay out of Twitter. The business model, he says, can wait until millions of people are using it.

Beginning on the first day of this year, Williams started working in earnest on Obvious. His work area is a small nook under a lofted conference room in Twitter’s San Francisco office. The building has served as a private home, a snowboard factory, and an underwear store. The soiled carpet is a sort of puke-green color, and the only natural light comes from a few skylights far overhead. To date, Williams has hired two contract engineers to build small software products; they are building an application that will allow users to write “notes to self.” Obvious isn’t particularly counting on this product–”It’s almost not worth talking about,” Williams says–but that’s the point. Williams wants to make product development less risky and more prone to the kind of spontaneity that created Twitter.

At the same time, he’s trying to find early-stage start-ups to roll up into Obvious. He says he would like to invest roughly $100,000 in each company. Everyone will work in the same office, which means he will eventually have to look for additional space. He’s also trying to hire an assistant: The job description warns that the candidate will be paid hourly “until you set up the payroll system for the company, and then we can discuss salary and insurance (once you set that up, too).”

The goal is to separate the creative environment of the start-up process from the regular work-a-day of running a business. “It’s all theory for now,” Williams says. “But we’re hoping that by setting up an environment with multiple projects at once, these happy accidents can occur.” If this sounds unbusinesslike, then that’s the point, too. Obvious is, in the broadest sense, a company founded on the idea that it’s hard to predict which ideas will work and which won’t. “It’s almost like a theater troupe,” says Stone. “The idea is to tinker around and to be willing to come up with flops.”

Like most good theater, Williams’s new company is at once disruptive and self-indulgent–an ambitious challenge to the Silicon Valley rule book and a test for all of those blog-worn theories. The company of little experiments is itself an experiment, and a chance for Ev to do something grand on his own terms.

Max Chafkin, Inc.