An Unenviable Decision

Must say, this may be my favorite reading of the semester. It was one of those cases you read when throughout the case, you go back and forth thinking "They should go for it..." and then 2 pages later think "Oh no, definitely don't go for it". And it put our all of our discussions of social media strategy in real life context.

So after much internal debate, I believe Ms. Hessan should not go forward with the Simmon's WOM campaign. I tend to be a pretty risk adverse businesswoman (for better or worse), and think in this case, the risks far outweigh the rewards. Given that WOM is not one of their core competencies, they risk having the campaign failing, and potentially, at the expense of what they do know how to do (engage communities). Further, they risk having the campaign fail for a client they have very much sought after, for a product that is critical to the company and the client is dependent on to prove herself - this is a lot of pressure for launching an initiative that's never been tried before. They also risk their reputation as a place that engages communities to generate insights and the transparency values they've built up. The rewards would be successfully entering a new market, yet they have much ground to cover still in their current market.

Social media, as we've learned, is constantly changing. I don't believe this is their only chance at entering a new field. Opportunities like this one will come up again, and better to do it when they've all come to the decision that it is time and they have the resources to do it.

What do you think? It's 4th down, 2 minutes on the clock, down by 3. Field goal to tie it or go for the win? And on that note, Pats or Vikings? :)

But what if...?

This week's readings were from Gartner Research, so the one I'll focus on is the Virtusa case study. It emphasized the importance of establishing a solid foundation consisting of employee training and goal definition prior to starting any social media initiatives. I couldn't agree more with this reading, since as I said in my first blog post, I feel that some companies still rush into social media because "its the thing to do". Virtusa knew exactly what it wanted to accomplish by using social media and took the time to train employees and provide them guidelines so they could use the medium appropriately. Further, it communicated the objectives it wanted to accomplish so employees knew what it was precisely that they were aiming for when they were using social media.

The case says that "after two minor mishaps, there were no major breaches of security or disclosure of inappropriate information...", and that it is important to let employees steer their course as long as they have guidance. A very Disney ending!! So let's play "what if".

What if there was an unhappy employee who was actually getting ready to quit (ala Jet Blue Beer-In-Each-Hand-Sliding-Down-Emergency-Slide man) and he lets out critical information that has an effect on an upcoming launch of a major project. As a manager, what do you then? How would you revise guidelines and policies? 

Now what if he wasn't an unhappy employee and he actually made an honest mistake that still cost the company and has a critical effect on the upcoming launch - any changes you would make then in comparison to how you handled the previous situation?

Crowd Sourcing Management: Silly or Smart?

Gary Hamel explores the concept (broadly speaking) of crowd sourcing management in Ch. 9 of his book The Future of Management. Why are a few executives far removed from the trenches making the big decisions, usually without the input of those who are in the trenches? Why are companies not developing products / ideas that employees are passionate about, and instead focus on those that management thinks will work? These are some of the questions Hamel brings up throughout the chapter, highlighting the success that comes from answering these questions with "Not sure, let's try it a different way." 

Obviously Hamel's theories have been proven correct to a certain degree. Many of Google's most beloved products, like Gmail, come from the 20% Time stipulation that says all employees must spend 20% of their time on their own projects. And pharmaceuticals such as Eli Lilly have used crowd sourcing to predict the selling power of a new drug. There is definitely merit to much of what Hamel says. 

But. Of course there's a but. In his passionate pursuit for the power of the employee and crowd, he minimizes the importance of senior management. For example, when he talks about why CEO's fail to look to the wisdom of the crowds, he cites that they probably need to justify their salaries or have gotten lucky in prior decisions and think their good fortune will continue. I say, let's take it easy here. Senior management has had the vision, determination and know-how to grow the company (in most cases) and should be given more credit than that. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are smart cookies, and while they may benefit for looking to the crowds for insight, no one can argue their success (something he begrudgingly admits later on).

My bottom line: there's a happy medium (again, of course there is!). Hamel's ideas should be explored and when it makes sense, implemented. In other cases, it may just create a ruckus (ie. - an open blog on why a launch failed - eek!! I can see that causing chaos.). 

My question to you, then, is: What idea of Hamel's could you see working nicely in a company that you have worked for in the past or are currently working for? Or on the contrary, what idea of his would be down right silly to implement?

Good for Dell!

I'll focus my discussion on Ch. 3 of Shel Israel's Twitterville, which talks about how employees at Dell started using Twitter to benefit the company. I found this chapter interesting because this past summer, I did a presentation for my internship on how companies misuse social media and go after it as if was a bright, shiny object. After discussion with my manager and the other person I was working on, we used Dell as a case study of what NOT to do. The reality is that everyone looks to Dell as the ultimate case study on how to make money on Twitter. The point of the case study I built as part of my presentation was that @DellOutlet generated .000125% of yearly sales, so no, Twitter was not an avenue for generating revenue. 

That said, I think the author did a fine job in pointing out this caveat, whereas many other "social media experts" do not. I think he also focused on what to me is more admirable in Dell's case. They humanized a gigantic computer company and brought customer service to a new level. The @NameatDell is genius, because it makes people feel that they are interacting with a person when they're really interacting with a brand. And today, that's just priceless. Dell also learned early on the power of listening, and being an observer before jumping into the conversation. Too often, companies just want to be front and center and forget that they're basically invading someone's conversation.

So in the end, good for Dell! What other companies do say "Good for XX"? Who do you give Twitterprops to?

Good for Dell!

I'll focus my discussion on Ch. 3 of Shel Israel's Twitterville, which talks about how employees at Dell started using Twitter to benefit the company. I found this chapter interesting because this past summer, I did a presentation for my internship on how companies misuse social media and go after it as if was a bright, shiny object. After discussion with my manager and the other person I was working on, we used Dell as a case study of what NOT to do. The reality is that everyone looks to Dell as the ultimate case study on how to make money on Twitter. The point of the case study I built as part of my presentation was that @DellOutlet generated .000125% of yearly sales, so no, Twitter was not an avenue for generating revenue. 

That said, I think the author did a fine job in pointing out this caveat, whereas many other "social media experts" do not. I think he also focused on what to me is more admirable in Dell's case. They humanized a gigantic computer company and brought customer service to a new level. The @NameatDell is genius, because it makes people feel that they are interacting with a person when they're really interacting with a brand. And today, that's just priceless. Dell also learned early on the power of listening, and being an observer before jumping into the conversation. Too often, companies just want to be front and center and forget that they're basically invading someone's conversation.

So in the end, good for Dell! What other companies do say "Good for XX"? Who do you give Twitterprops to?

That's Right, Junior! Grandpa got Obama Elected When He Was Only 24!

That's the conversation that came to my head when I read the chapter Presidential Coup in Emily Liebert's book Facebook Fairytales. Chris Hughes, who for all intents and purposes is a child, was the mastermind behind managing a new medium to get the first African American president elected. Obviously this story is quite amazing, but two things struck me:

1) He really does not realize how amazing this story is! And I start to think that all of these young people, like Mark Zuckerberg, who don't get the impact and hugeness of what they're doing / have done. I can't imagine  JFK saying, yes, let's entrust my entire television campaign to a 24 year old. And still, they treat it like "Oh, it wasn't really me - it was my team", or "Anyone could have done this". Younger people have an opportunity like never before to create huge impact, and its both a privilege and a responsibility - they have the means to do it and the knowledge to do it...I don't know that this has happened before. Which brings me to the other thing that phased me:

2) My generation and above is in trouble. I went to an event the other day the speaker says the most common mistake for companies to make is to think they don't have competition, or to incorrectly identify their competitive set. Example: What can you do if you wake up with a back ache? Take Tylenol, Advil or Aleve. Basic competitive set. You can also drink an herbal tea, use a heating pad, go to a chiropractor, go to a yoga class, or get a massage. This is also in your competitive set, but one that traditional companies rarely consider. So what I mean when I say that my generation and above is in trouble is that these younger people are definitely, 100%, without a doubt, in our competitive set. I'm fighting for a job, at the MBA level, with people who may be undergrad drop outs. Let's face it - nothing in my resume competes with "Directed Barack Obama's social media campaign, generating over 5 million followers and raising $500 million in campaign funds". Hmm...yup, nothin'. Just checked, just to make sure. Nothin'.

So from a managerial perspective, managers have an even wider range of people to pick from, and talent that doesn't necessarily come in a cookie cutter format (went to school, worked, grad school, worked). So my question for you is: How will you make yourself stand out when competing with the Chris Hughes of the world?