How can we not be angry?
Wall Street
The Gulf spill
The right for gays to marry is a question
The bakers who robbed us with trickery are not responsible for cleaning house
That "jobless recovery" is accepted / acceptable
War on drugs???
The AMA lobby
The insurance industry
No wonder so many people are on anti depressants....
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
The Big Short - The Big Island
I have been reading a fascinating account of the financial meltdown by Michael Lewis called the Big Short. I first felt obliged to read this book because Lewis hails from my town, Berkeley. After page three I knew I was going to have trouble putting the book down.
Who are these people that were able to disregard every single piece of financial news in the paper and bet against the 70 year housing boom? Actually, who were these people who devised their very own credit default swaps and convinced two of the largest and esteemed brokerage houses to make funds for these hedges? It's amazing there were so few, but it also takes a certain kind of person to do this, one who has a remarkably high "internal locus of control" to use an organizational development term.
It astonishes me how badly I would like to be one of those people. I am not, I am a person who like to break rules but not write my own rule book. I don't think there is any virtue in compliance for the most part, and I would love to claim I am not, but I fear I am.
Such a heart break.
Who are these people that were able to disregard every single piece of financial news in the paper and bet against the 70 year housing boom? Actually, who were these people who devised their very own credit default swaps and convinced two of the largest and esteemed brokerage houses to make funds for these hedges? It's amazing there were so few, but it also takes a certain kind of person to do this, one who has a remarkably high "internal locus of control" to use an organizational development term.
It astonishes me how badly I would like to be one of those people. I am not, I am a person who like to break rules but not write my own rule book. I don't think there is any virtue in compliance for the most part, and I would love to claim I am not, but I fear I am.
Such a heart break.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Lessons from Yelp on Monetizing
There are a few expectations most users of peer reviewed sites have about fairness and trust - one of them being that peer reviewed sites are indeed peer reviewed, and not subject to foul play of favoritism by the host site.
The whole point of peer reviews was to democratize the review process, removing the elitist foodie perspective or musical bias of reviewers - creating a review environment for the people by the people.
That sounds great, now where did Yelp stray from the path? They allegedly were offering to minimize negative reviews to small business by a filtering process, although they claimed that was not the case. I can attest to being solicited over the phone by a an eager sales person - but I know other business owners who have been strong armed. Whether this was Yelp's practice or some rogue sales tactics I don't know - but the practice was rampant enough to create some negative buzz, a death knell for any social media based business.
I handled this disappointment with Yelp in the social media manner, by giving Yelp a negative review on their own site. My review was book ended by two others, both from the Better Business Bureau. This solicited a personalized e-mail from Yelp, asking me to reconsider my review. The beauty of social media is this two way conversation can actually happen. Once your brand belongs truly to the people who care and use it, then the conversation is out of corporate control, the good and the bad.
Yelp was able to pull themselves out of the mud, and apparently ditch the filtering review system after their users complained. Time will tell if they will be able to regain trust and adequately monetize the site using fair tactics that don't depreciate the brand. I will still use the service to find other local services, but will be more cautious about the process. I think Yelp should be able to monetize the community they facilitated, but I would like them to do it fairly.
The whole point of peer reviews was to democratize the review process, removing the elitist foodie perspective or musical bias of reviewers - creating a review environment for the people by the people.
That sounds great, now where did Yelp stray from the path? They allegedly were offering to minimize negative reviews to small business by a filtering process, although they claimed that was not the case. I can attest to being solicited over the phone by a an eager sales person - but I know other business owners who have been strong armed. Whether this was Yelp's practice or some rogue sales tactics I don't know - but the practice was rampant enough to create some negative buzz, a death knell for any social media based business.
I handled this disappointment with Yelp in the social media manner, by giving Yelp a negative review on their own site. My review was book ended by two others, both from the Better Business Bureau. This solicited a personalized e-mail from Yelp, asking me to reconsider my review. The beauty of social media is this two way conversation can actually happen. Once your brand belongs truly to the people who care and use it, then the conversation is out of corporate control, the good and the bad.
Yelp was able to pull themselves out of the mud, and apparently ditch the filtering review system after their users complained. Time will tell if they will be able to regain trust and adequately monetize the site using fair tactics that don't depreciate the brand. I will still use the service to find other local services, but will be more cautious about the process. I think Yelp should be able to monetize the community they facilitated, but I would like them to do it fairly.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Goldman's PR Predicament
How do you save a client from them self?
This is a rhetorical question I have been musing over while reading about the latest round of Wall Street scions to get mud and egg on their well-tailored suits. Goldman Sachs executives are not only doing a poor job positioning themselves against Federal investigators, they are appearing to lose in the court of public opinion - at best they will be profiteering scoundrels, at worst felons.
In the face of the worst economic meltdown since WW2, when unemployment is in the double digits and the national foreclosure rate on homes is the highest in history, how would Goldnman's CEO Lloyd Blankfein best garner public support while defending Goldman Sachs positions in hedging against sub-prime mortgages, seeking TARP money from taxpayers only to hand out 16 billion in bonuses months later?
Stating "I am doing God’s work" is not at the top of my crisis-communication list.
The good news, is Lloyd may be the straw that broke the hold outs to Wall Street reform in congress last week, and ironically - that could be grace.
This is a rhetorical question I have been musing over while reading about the latest round of Wall Street scions to get mud and egg on their well-tailored suits. Goldman Sachs executives are not only doing a poor job positioning themselves against Federal investigators, they are appearing to lose in the court of public opinion - at best they will be profiteering scoundrels, at worst felons.
In the face of the worst economic meltdown since WW2, when unemployment is in the double digits and the national foreclosure rate on homes is the highest in history, how would Goldnman's CEO Lloyd Blankfein best garner public support while defending Goldman Sachs positions in hedging against sub-prime mortgages, seeking TARP money from taxpayers only to hand out 16 billion in bonuses months later?
Stating "I am doing God’s work" is not at the top of my crisis-communication list.
The good news, is Lloyd may be the straw that broke the hold outs to Wall Street reform in congress last week, and ironically - that could be grace.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Is nothing private?
The largest growing number of people on Facebook currently are the over-fifty crowd. Before congratulating them on finding their way in to this technology, I must wonder why??
Generations are colliding on Facebook and other social media platforms as almost universally opposed sensibilities about what is appropriate to share with the WORLD wide web come in to conflict. Forget the lascivious pictures of your niece and drunken pictures of your neighbors kid, how about the elementary photo of ME, and seemingly endless tagging of holiday party shots and various sundry unflattering angles my "friends" think is perfectly acceptable to share. I HAVE LOST WEIGHT SINCE THEN does not sound un-defensive or graceful comment.
The fact is, some people are not private, and by and large, they are under 30. This is an example of youth not being wasted on the young. The next wave of online marketing is in full swing, with social media sites tracking things like credit card purchases and even your DNA as part of your profile. While the notion of sharing my bad genes on the Internet seems like hell, some people are very content to share such information and most of them SEEM young. The obvious privacy issues around sharing purchases are already being illustrated for us by Bilppy.
http://consumerist.com/2010/04/one-of-the-blippy-four-speaks-out-on-credit-card-leak.html
While I am happy with my age, and don't mind sharing quite a lot of information about myself within certain specific groups, even at a group level, I understand the basic concept of leaving information where it belongs. I also am a marketer, and know that if there is a way to track you online, it will be unearthed....
Generations are colliding on Facebook and other social media platforms as almost universally opposed sensibilities about what is appropriate to share with the WORLD wide web come in to conflict. Forget the lascivious pictures of your niece and drunken pictures of your neighbors kid, how about the elementary photo of ME, and seemingly endless tagging of holiday party shots and various sundry unflattering angles my "friends" think is perfectly acceptable to share. I HAVE LOST WEIGHT SINCE THEN does not sound un-defensive or graceful comment.
The fact is, some people are not private, and by and large, they are under 30. This is an example of youth not being wasted on the young. The next wave of online marketing is in full swing, with social media sites tracking things like credit card purchases and even your DNA as part of your profile. While the notion of sharing my bad genes on the Internet seems like hell, some people are very content to share such information and most of them SEEM young. The obvious privacy issues around sharing purchases are already being illustrated for us by Bilppy.
http://consumerist.com/2010/04/one-of-the-blippy-four-speaks-out-on-credit-card-leak.html
While I am happy with my age, and don't mind sharing quite a lot of information about myself within certain specific groups, even at a group level, I understand the basic concept of leaving information where it belongs. I also am a marketer, and know that if there is a way to track you online, it will be unearthed....
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Social Media Etiquette
I am sitting in my marketing class at USF thinking about the power of social networks, probably because social media marketing is a theme that comes up frequently.
The notion that "brands" are not owned or controlled by companies as they were in the Mad Men days is not new but it is troubling for those responsible for corporate communications and marketing today. Brand now is in the hands of the people who use them. Anyone, can say virtually anything they like about you in the world and there is virtually no way to stop it - there is no way to un-ring the bell.
What does this mean and why should we care? I believe anything that dilutes the concentration of media and messaging - ostensibly that implies greater democracy. The idea that now any one person can actually be the voice of a multi-million dollar company is actually quite liberating.
In marketing, consumerism and politics it is a truism that the more active and engaged you are the more "voice" you have. The fact is, voice will continue to happen whether or not companies view this as an opportunity to engage or act in fear...
The notion that "brands" are not owned or controlled by companies as they were in the Mad Men days is not new but it is troubling for those responsible for corporate communications and marketing today. Brand now is in the hands of the people who use them. Anyone, can say virtually anything they like about you in the world and there is virtually no way to stop it - there is no way to un-ring the bell.
What does this mean and why should we care? I believe anything that dilutes the concentration of media and messaging - ostensibly that implies greater democracy. The idea that now any one person can actually be the voice of a multi-million dollar company is actually quite liberating.
In marketing, consumerism and politics it is a truism that the more active and engaged you are the more "voice" you have. The fact is, voice will continue to happen whether or not companies view this as an opportunity to engage or act in fear...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)