What is brand Awareness? By definition, Brand awareness, in marketing, is the ability a consumer has to recognize and recall a brand. [1]
Before we discuss brand awareness, let’s first understand the process to get to it.
An individual or a group decided to form a company based on an idea to deliver a product or service. An analysis of the macro and micro environment is made to include industry, threats, suppliers, buyers, demographics, locations, laws and regulations among other drivers.
Once all of that is sorted, the brand is created. A brand may come in different forms such as a logo or a name. The concept behind the brand is to create an identity to the company’s product or service. Companies protect their brands by registering a trademark which is a type of intellectual property.
Now we have our company, wholesaler or retailer functioning with a name and a product. But how do we get people – consumers – to know us? How do we get them to know our brand? How do we build brand awareness?
It’s a delicate process very similar to build trust on a relationship. Like people, some products and services are very sensitive and the actions of a company can be very detrimental to its brand. In other words, one lie can kill one thousand truths.
It’s extremely important to brand correctly because at the end the price paid for your product is direct related to your brand.
Some strategies have been used to build brand awareness. A clear mission and vision is the starting point. A brand statement defining who you are gives the foundation to move ahead.
Develop a brand that is worth believing in. Make sure that your product or service can deliver, that it can meet your consumers’ expectations.
Create a relationship with your customers because they are the ones that ultimately will determine your brand’s value. Listen to them and build a consistent, efficient and fast customer relations unity.
Understand your competitive advantage, what sets you apart from your competitors - Strategic awareness*
Overall, the aforementioned strategies are a good point of start but depending on the industry, product, target segment, etc... Many other factors may be considered as well.
*Strategic awareness occurs when not only does the person recognize your brand, but they also understand the distinctive qualities that make it better than the competition. Strategic awareness occurs when you have differentiated your brand in the mind of your market. This distinction as to why your brand is unique in your category is also referred to as your Unique Selling Proposition or USP. Your USP tells your target market what you do and stand for that is different from all of your competitors. [2 & 3]
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
2 - http://www.the2bowmans.com/Strategic-Awareness-intro.html
3 - http://www.davedolak.com/articles/dolak4.htm
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Can Your Brand Thrive WITHOUT Online Social Media?
Wikipedia defines Social media as “media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media use web-based technologies to transform and broadcast media monologues into social media dialogues.” [1] Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content.” [2]
Social media has allowed business to connect with consumers around the globe. As more and more consumers connect with various social media sites, they become more brand aware and more educated about consumer trends. Social media has marked a milestone in the world of marketing, everyone is doing it.
The concept of marketing on Social sites has many up sides. The beauty of social marketing is that a marketer can test it out and get instantaneous reports. If something doesn’t seem to work, they can change their marketing efforts or focus on another channel. This is not possible with the traditional advertising channels where a marketer can wait up to several months before seeing a report.
Another benefit to using social marketing channels is that you are guaranteed to remain within your specified budget. Facebook and YouTube enable the user to set up an account and specify maximum daily and/or monthly budget limits. Your account specifications are uploaded to the site’s database and once your max is reached, your account will not be charged further until the next cycle begins.
Web 2.0 marketing strategy allows a company to market precisely to their target. A channel like Facebook will capture detailed demographic information about the user and in turn will use this information to determine which advertisements will work best based off of their profile statistics. This highly effective “pull-marketing” tactic allows marketers to market their products in a non-invasive, non-threatening manner. Viewers/consumers may or may not click on the banner add. Viewers may or may not choose to comment on the product, ad, video, etc. In the world of Web 2.0, the consumer is the decision maker.
There are several downsides to Web 2.0 marketing. The most obvious negative is the fact that negative information about a business’s brand, product or service, can spread virally just as quickly as positive information. This negative press can destroy the credibility of a brand. Consider this fact: 78% of global consumers say they trust and believe other people's recommendations for products and services - more than any other medium, including newspapers, conventional and online advertising [3]. If those recommendations are negative, the effects can be detrimental.
Traditionally, marketing has always had a top-down approach where marketers develop a campaign and push their content toward their target market. The social marketing phenomenon has introduced a pull method, where the consumers seek out their products. This new wave creates a barrier for the traditional marketers who are not yet ready to adapt to the new pull methods. To overcome these barriers, Jennifer Leggio [4], social media blogger, summarized her learnings after the 2009 Web 2.0 Expo. She reiterated that to adapt to this cultural change, a business has to get the big guns (the executives) involved. She recommends starting small and experimenting and then branching out further as marketers gain confidence and comfort.
Finally, companies have to decide their need to be part of this new emerging channels of advertising. They have to investigate and decide if by exploring this new media they would achieve their advertising objectives. Can they substitute their existing media plan? What are the expected results? What are the benefits and risks? All questions must be answered before changing methods and embracing the explosive propagation of new media.
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
2 - http://www.slideshare.net/guestef2b2f/social-media-definition-and-classification
3 - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-170803247.html
4 - http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=887
Social media has allowed business to connect with consumers around the globe. As more and more consumers connect with various social media sites, they become more brand aware and more educated about consumer trends. Social media has marked a milestone in the world of marketing, everyone is doing it.
The concept of marketing on Social sites has many up sides. The beauty of social marketing is that a marketer can test it out and get instantaneous reports. If something doesn’t seem to work, they can change their marketing efforts or focus on another channel. This is not possible with the traditional advertising channels where a marketer can wait up to several months before seeing a report.
Another benefit to using social marketing channels is that you are guaranteed to remain within your specified budget. Facebook and YouTube enable the user to set up an account and specify maximum daily and/or monthly budget limits. Your account specifications are uploaded to the site’s database and once your max is reached, your account will not be charged further until the next cycle begins.
Web 2.0 marketing strategy allows a company to market precisely to their target. A channel like Facebook will capture detailed demographic information about the user and in turn will use this information to determine which advertisements will work best based off of their profile statistics. This highly effective “pull-marketing” tactic allows marketers to market their products in a non-invasive, non-threatening manner. Viewers/consumers may or may not click on the banner add. Viewers may or may not choose to comment on the product, ad, video, etc. In the world of Web 2.0, the consumer is the decision maker.
There are several downsides to Web 2.0 marketing. The most obvious negative is the fact that negative information about a business’s brand, product or service, can spread virally just as quickly as positive information. This negative press can destroy the credibility of a brand. Consider this fact: 78% of global consumers say they trust and believe other people's recommendations for products and services - more than any other medium, including newspapers, conventional and online advertising [3]. If those recommendations are negative, the effects can be detrimental.
Traditionally, marketing has always had a top-down approach where marketers develop a campaign and push their content toward their target market. The social marketing phenomenon has introduced a pull method, where the consumers seek out their products. This new wave creates a barrier for the traditional marketers who are not yet ready to adapt to the new pull methods. To overcome these barriers, Jennifer Leggio [4], social media blogger, summarized her learnings after the 2009 Web 2.0 Expo. She reiterated that to adapt to this cultural change, a business has to get the big guns (the executives) involved. She recommends starting small and experimenting and then branching out further as marketers gain confidence and comfort.
Finally, companies have to decide their need to be part of this new emerging channels of advertising. They have to investigate and decide if by exploring this new media they would achieve their advertising objectives. Can they substitute their existing media plan? What are the expected results? What are the benefits and risks? All questions must be answered before changing methods and embracing the explosive propagation of new media.
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
2 - http://www.slideshare.net/guestef2b2f/social-media-definition-and-classification
3 - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-170803247.html
4 - http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=887
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
MARKET SEGMENTATION
Consumers are not part of a homogenous group. Buyers have different needs and desires. So, for companies, market segmentation is crucial. It defines competitors and Industry.
It helps you to understand and define your business. Once you do that, you have a clear picture of your customers and competitors. More important, it determines what you do – your strategy.
Critics would say that there is no right way to identify or define your industry. You can try a narrow or a broad definition with pros and cons. A narrow definition will focus more on specific resources and purpose but may potentially failed to see threats and opportunities. A broad definition is focused on the “big picture” but may lose focus and use wasted resources.
The Basis for Segmentation: Customer and Product Characteristics:
Opportunities for Differentiation
Characteristics of the Buyers
Industrial buyers
Size
Technical
Sophistication
OEM/replacement
Household buyers
Demographics
Lifestyle
Purchase occasion
Distribution channel
Size
Distributor/broker
Exclusive/nonexclusive
General/special list
Geographical location
Characteristics of the Product
Physical size
Price level
Product features
Technology design
Inputs used (e.g. raw materials)
Performance characteristics
Pre-sales & post-sales services
Kotler mentions five criteria for an effective segmentation:
• Measurable: It has to be possible to determine the values of the variables used for segmentation with justifiable efforts. This is important especially for demographic and geographic variables. For an organization with direct sales (without intermediaries), the own customer database could deliver valuable information on buying behavior (frequency, volume, product groups, mode of payment etc).
• Relevant: The size and profit potential of a market segment have to be large enough to economically justify separate marketing activities for this segment.
• Accessible: The segment has to be accessible and servable for the organization. That means, for instance, that there are target-group specific advertising media, as magazines or websites the target audience likes to use.
• Distinguishable: The market segments have to be that diverse that they show different reactions to different marketing mixes.
• Feasible: It has to be possible to approach each segment with a particular marketing program and to draw advantages from that.
http://www.businessplans.org/Segment.html
http://www.netmba.com/marketing/market/segmentation/
http://www.greenbook.org/marketing-research.cfm/examples-market-segmentation
http://www.themanager.org/marketing/segmentation.htm
http://www.learnmarketing.net/segmentation.htm
It helps you to understand and define your business. Once you do that, you have a clear picture of your customers and competitors. More important, it determines what you do – your strategy.
Critics would say that there is no right way to identify or define your industry. You can try a narrow or a broad definition with pros and cons. A narrow definition will focus more on specific resources and purpose but may potentially failed to see threats and opportunities. A broad definition is focused on the “big picture” but may lose focus and use wasted resources.
The Basis for Segmentation: Customer and Product Characteristics:
Opportunities for Differentiation
Characteristics of the Buyers
Industrial buyers
Size
Technical
Sophistication
OEM/replacement
Household buyers
Demographics
Lifestyle
Purchase occasion
Distribution channel
Size
Distributor/broker
Exclusive/nonexclusive
General/special list
Geographical location
Characteristics of the Product
Physical size
Price level
Product features
Technology design
Inputs used (e.g. raw materials)
Performance characteristics
Pre-sales & post-sales services
Kotler mentions five criteria for an effective segmentation:
• Measurable: It has to be possible to determine the values of the variables used for segmentation with justifiable efforts. This is important especially for demographic and geographic variables. For an organization with direct sales (without intermediaries), the own customer database could deliver valuable information on buying behavior (frequency, volume, product groups, mode of payment etc).
• Relevant: The size and profit potential of a market segment have to be large enough to economically justify separate marketing activities for this segment.
• Accessible: The segment has to be accessible and servable for the organization. That means, for instance, that there are target-group specific advertising media, as magazines or websites the target audience likes to use.
• Distinguishable: The market segments have to be that diverse that they show different reactions to different marketing mixes.
• Feasible: It has to be possible to approach each segment with a particular marketing program and to draw advantages from that.
http://www.businessplans.org/Segment.html
http://www.netmba.com/marketing/market/segmentation/
http://www.greenbook.org/marketing-research.cfm/examples-market-segmentation
http://www.themanager.org/marketing/segmentation.htm
http://www.learnmarketing.net/segmentation.htm
Monday, May 17, 2010
Where should companies draw the line in their activities abroad?
It all depends on where the activities are being held. There are a block of countries where laws and regulations are taking seriously such as the US, some countries in Europe and Australia. Countries from South America are more corrupted and it’s very hard to comply with the law and still have a profit. Africa still has a lot of turmoil – wars – and it makes even harder to comply with ethical and moral values.
A US company operating in Asia, may adopt the same guidelines as it would domestically in US, with some adjustments to local context. For example, installing filters to avoid air pollution should be a standard procedure regardless of the country minimum requirement. In case the US requirements are more stringent, then it should follow this level, or be very close to it. Working conditions also should be of higher standards, even if local practices are at low levels. Wages should be accessed according to the local context, but in case the local wages are too low, companies should offer minimum wages compatible with a decent living condition.
For each scenario, companies need to mold to the culture and values of the specific place. We tend to believe that corporations have an obligation to do more for society. So, corporations should not engage in illegal activities such as bribery. However, if they don’t do it, they won’t be able to operate and survive in certain countries. Therefore, the right thing to do is to close the operations and layoff thousands of people.
Unfortunately, we need to understand that sometimes is better to have a little wrong to produce a greater good for a large number of people. According to the principle of utilitarianism, the right way to behave in a given situation is to choose the alternative that is likely to produce the greatest overall good. The positives and negatives must be weighted from the situation at hand and how they will affect both parties, the business and its employers. Cultural norms and practices in ethics should be researched for the country by the company so they are not pushing any of these limits
But, we can draw the line where the basic human rights are violated. We should not tolerate slavery, torture, and distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion.
A US company operating in Asia, may adopt the same guidelines as it would domestically in US, with some adjustments to local context. For example, installing filters to avoid air pollution should be a standard procedure regardless of the country minimum requirement. In case the US requirements are more stringent, then it should follow this level, or be very close to it. Working conditions also should be of higher standards, even if local practices are at low levels. Wages should be accessed according to the local context, but in case the local wages are too low, companies should offer minimum wages compatible with a decent living condition.
For each scenario, companies need to mold to the culture and values of the specific place. We tend to believe that corporations have an obligation to do more for society. So, corporations should not engage in illegal activities such as bribery. However, if they don’t do it, they won’t be able to operate and survive in certain countries. Therefore, the right thing to do is to close the operations and layoff thousands of people.
Unfortunately, we need to understand that sometimes is better to have a little wrong to produce a greater good for a large number of people. According to the principle of utilitarianism, the right way to behave in a given situation is to choose the alternative that is likely to produce the greatest overall good. The positives and negatives must be weighted from the situation at hand and how they will affect both parties, the business and its employers. Cultural norms and practices in ethics should be researched for the country by the company so they are not pushing any of these limits
But, we can draw the line where the basic human rights are violated. We should not tolerate slavery, torture, and distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion.
Will Only the Rich Get High-Quality News Online?
The New York Times and some news outlets are ready to charge for their online content. The NYT has been developing this idea for over a year. It has considered three types of pay strategies but it seems that it will adopt the pay wall approach. The move has been seen by some as a radical approach as it would restrict its content to a minority of people that can afford to pay [1-2].
Newspapers have endured a huge loss in circulation and in advertising. It has been so bad that some blogs refer to it as “the death of the newspaper” and a group - The Newspaper Project - has been formed to fight against the misconception that newspapers are a dying industry [3]. If you follow this http://timeswv.com/business/x681701079/Newspaper-problems, you will find some facts about newspapers gathered by the Newspaper Association of America.
But the question here is not whether newspapers are running out of time but whether people have the right for free information. Do we actually have free information?
We have been paying for information for quite a while. We pay for the news that are broadcast by CNN, Fox, Bloomberg, NBC…we also pay for the contents on MSN, Yahoo, AOL.. How? We pay for cable and internet services! So, why would we be so defensive if a paper such as the NYT wants to charge?
Furthermore, it’s a misconception to think that it would affect the poor. Are we assuming that the less fortunate have access to a computer and to the internet? One of the potential limitations on the growth of B2C e-commerce is the global inequality that limits access to phones and pc’s [4].
Finally, the price that one would pay for a newspaper is not that significant. If we see an article that we would like to follow, we just have to go to a newsstand and buy the paper ($5.00?). More important changes in cost of living were gas prices, milk, and rice, among many others.
Food for thought: Is it really quality news?
Sources:
1- http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/new_york_times_set_to_mimic_ws.html
2 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/media/03brill.html
3 - http://timeswv.com/business/x681701079/Newspaper-problems
4 - e-commerce: business, technology, society 2010, 6th Edition by Kenneth C. Laudon and Carol Guercio Traver, ©2010, ISBN-13: 9780136100577
Newspapers have endured a huge loss in circulation and in advertising. It has been so bad that some blogs refer to it as “the death of the newspaper” and a group - The Newspaper Project - has been formed to fight against the misconception that newspapers are a dying industry [3]. If you follow this http://timeswv.com/business/x681701079/Newspaper-problems, you will find some facts about newspapers gathered by the Newspaper Association of America.
But the question here is not whether newspapers are running out of time but whether people have the right for free information. Do we actually have free information?
We have been paying for information for quite a while. We pay for the news that are broadcast by CNN, Fox, Bloomberg, NBC…we also pay for the contents on MSN, Yahoo, AOL.. How? We pay for cable and internet services! So, why would we be so defensive if a paper such as the NYT wants to charge?
Furthermore, it’s a misconception to think that it would affect the poor. Are we assuming that the less fortunate have access to a computer and to the internet? One of the potential limitations on the growth of B2C e-commerce is the global inequality that limits access to phones and pc’s [4].
Finally, the price that one would pay for a newspaper is not that significant. If we see an article that we would like to follow, we just have to go to a newsstand and buy the paper ($5.00?). More important changes in cost of living were gas prices, milk, and rice, among many others.
Food for thought: Is it really quality news?
Sources:
1- http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/new_york_times_set_to_mimic_ws.html
2 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/business/media/03brill.html
3 - http://timeswv.com/business/x681701079/Newspaper-problems
4 - e-commerce: business, technology, society 2010, 6th Edition by Kenneth C. Laudon and Carol Guercio Traver, ©2010, ISBN-13: 9780136100577
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Branding in Web 2.0
Measurability is a big cloud hanging over the heads of many managers when it comes to talking or investing in web 2.0. How in the world do we measure this? How do we know that the money we take from traditional media will yield better results in web 2.0? Why should we leave the monster we know for the monster we don’t?
Furthermore, the very measure used to for tradition media; reach ,frequency receptivity and presence would have to be substituted for a whole new genre or metrics; click through rates, page views, unique visits, and time spent on site.
There is also the issue of the IT human resources infrastructure in place versus what will be needed to properly manage web 2.0 campaigns. For traditional media, the message the organization wants to convey is careful crafted and put out once as a final product typically with one message. However, with web 2.0 there is no final product! It’s always changing and evolving!
An organization that wants to be successful with web 2.0 can’t just initiate and then leave it to run itself. A television campaign is created once but a news feed on facebook has to be constantly updated…comments/content on YouTube has to be constantly monitored. Because of the fast pace of change in trends and social values, IT can’t afford the time it takes to make the decisions with traditional media. A TV commercial shoot can be put on hold for months but a negative facebook comment by a “facebook user” needs attention now….a YouTube video in response to bottom-up demand has to be done now because the effect of doing or not doing, if felt faster than ever with consumer’s ability to share thoughts and opinions in record time in record numbers.
There are also some management implications that must be considered here. First is the issue of cost and obtaining financing for something that the organization is not used to measure. How will this be funded? Chargeback? Allocation? (To who marketing or IT), or corporate budget? How can we really know how much it cost? The Total Cost of Ownership approach may be best because beyond the cost of set up, there is the cost of constant monitoring, constant changing and constant evolution. Even then though, it still takes management back to the question: Total cost of ownership to whom?
Another issue is that web 2.0 is not a touch-and-go type of campaign. Companies that want to be successful have to in it to stay a while. It almost requires a change in strategy. This is very much a bottom-up approach where an organization makes a commitment to be in tune with what the consumers are saying and doing and then responding to their cultural values (consumer co-creation, social affiliation, digital self expression and sharing)
One of the greatest concerns that organizations have about web 2.0 is the issue of control. Typically, an organization can control the messages that are out there for the world to see. They carefully craft the TV commercials, carefully write the copy on websites, carefully script radio commercials and carefully present print ads, making sure that all these media say exactly what they intend them to say.
With web 2.0, it’s very different. Consumers now have the power to co-create the content on the internet about anyone and anything. While that may be a great advantage when consumers become positive evangelists that spread a good word to friends and family about the organization and thereby create more income (because of the higher conversion of personal referrals that people trust), it may be a very bad thing.
One negative experience by a consumer can reach 400 people in a matter of minutes or seconds….think what could happen in a month. It would be a damage control nightmare for the PR department.
If the organization decides to change, then there arises the issue of project management and the management of project risk, specifically the area of clarity.
According to Pearson and Saunders, “…a project is more risky when it is hard to define and clarity is concerned with the ability to define the requirements of the system….the project also has low clarity I f user demands for the system or regulations that guide the structure of the system change considerably over the life of a project.”
Well, welcome to web 2.0! Because that might as well be its definition. Web 2.0 is constantly evolving because users are constantly evolving…constantly creating, sharing and critiquing.
Many things will influence Management in the decision making process but one that is subtle but powerful are the technical influences. General Managers who are uncomfortable about technology often either ignore the issues, delegating entirely to IS organization or focus in appropriate attention on managing the technology to counter their fear. None of these are good for this new cultural wave.
Managers that don’t understand cultural drivers such web 2.0, or the technology that makes it all possible or even the habits of consumers today will do one of the above; anyone of which will almost guarantee the death of a successful web 2.0 campaign.
Could this also lead to the Bikeshed problem? As Larry Cone describes in his blog entry, (http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/coneblog/about-project-management-the-bikeshed-problem-32923 ) The fact that web 2.0 is still new to a lot of managers could either cause them to dismiss and bypass the details of the technology, culture and campaign and/or delegating entirely to IT because they don’t want t o ask question and look foolish or outdated.
Furthermore, the very measure used to for tradition media; reach ,frequency receptivity and presence would have to be substituted for a whole new genre or metrics; click through rates, page views, unique visits, and time spent on site.
There is also the issue of the IT human resources infrastructure in place versus what will be needed to properly manage web 2.0 campaigns. For traditional media, the message the organization wants to convey is careful crafted and put out once as a final product typically with one message. However, with web 2.0 there is no final product! It’s always changing and evolving!
An organization that wants to be successful with web 2.0 can’t just initiate and then leave it to run itself. A television campaign is created once but a news feed on facebook has to be constantly updated…comments/content on YouTube has to be constantly monitored. Because of the fast pace of change in trends and social values, IT can’t afford the time it takes to make the decisions with traditional media. A TV commercial shoot can be put on hold for months but a negative facebook comment by a “facebook user” needs attention now….a YouTube video in response to bottom-up demand has to be done now because the effect of doing or not doing, if felt faster than ever with consumer’s ability to share thoughts and opinions in record time in record numbers.
There are also some management implications that must be considered here. First is the issue of cost and obtaining financing for something that the organization is not used to measure. How will this be funded? Chargeback? Allocation? (To who marketing or IT), or corporate budget? How can we really know how much it cost? The Total Cost of Ownership approach may be best because beyond the cost of set up, there is the cost of constant monitoring, constant changing and constant evolution. Even then though, it still takes management back to the question: Total cost of ownership to whom?
Another issue is that web 2.0 is not a touch-and-go type of campaign. Companies that want to be successful have to in it to stay a while. It almost requires a change in strategy. This is very much a bottom-up approach where an organization makes a commitment to be in tune with what the consumers are saying and doing and then responding to their cultural values (consumer co-creation, social affiliation, digital self expression and sharing)
One of the greatest concerns that organizations have about web 2.0 is the issue of control. Typically, an organization can control the messages that are out there for the world to see. They carefully craft the TV commercials, carefully write the copy on websites, carefully script radio commercials and carefully present print ads, making sure that all these media say exactly what they intend them to say.
With web 2.0, it’s very different. Consumers now have the power to co-create the content on the internet about anyone and anything. While that may be a great advantage when consumers become positive evangelists that spread a good word to friends and family about the organization and thereby create more income (because of the higher conversion of personal referrals that people trust), it may be a very bad thing.
One negative experience by a consumer can reach 400 people in a matter of minutes or seconds….think what could happen in a month. It would be a damage control nightmare for the PR department.
If the organization decides to change, then there arises the issue of project management and the management of project risk, specifically the area of clarity.
According to Pearson and Saunders, “…a project is more risky when it is hard to define and clarity is concerned with the ability to define the requirements of the system….the project also has low clarity I f user demands for the system or regulations that guide the structure of the system change considerably over the life of a project.”
Well, welcome to web 2.0! Because that might as well be its definition. Web 2.0 is constantly evolving because users are constantly evolving…constantly creating, sharing and critiquing.
Many things will influence Management in the decision making process but one that is subtle but powerful are the technical influences. General Managers who are uncomfortable about technology often either ignore the issues, delegating entirely to IS organization or focus in appropriate attention on managing the technology to counter their fear. None of these are good for this new cultural wave.
Managers that don’t understand cultural drivers such web 2.0, or the technology that makes it all possible or even the habits of consumers today will do one of the above; anyone of which will almost guarantee the death of a successful web 2.0 campaign.
Could this also lead to the Bikeshed problem? As Larry Cone describes in his blog entry, (http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/coneblog/about-project-management-the-bikeshed-problem-32923 ) The fact that web 2.0 is still new to a lot of managers could either cause them to dismiss and bypass the details of the technology, culture and campaign and/or delegating entirely to IT because they don’t want t o ask question and look foolish or outdated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
