kbex

Entries categorized as ‘social media’

Something new…

March 11, 2009 · 2 Comments

I just wanted to write a post about the three hours it took me to teach a colleague how to publish videos on the intranet (and that only covers half of the work), and about that I’m looking forward to calculating a business case for the new solution we’ve been discussing for more then a year.

This morning, I got the amazing news: My project has been approved by the management board. We will build a new intranet. I started to work on the first proposals in November 2007  – so that were really really long discussions.

Now it’s signed; the main requirements we want to meet are:

  • build a portal that’s accessible for everybody from every country we’re operating in
  • introduce publication processes that talk with one voice to everybody (same content, same time, all audiences)
  • introduce permission management and closed usergroups where necessary
  • introduce group-personalisation to create different views on the content for different audiences
  • enhance the corporate directory towards an enterprise network
  • carefully introduce well planned blogs and microblogs with attractive authors
  • provide wikis as collaboration-, documentation and knowledgemanagement tools (knowledgemanagement projects are running in parallel)
  • use tags as additional navigation- and categorisation tools, introduce rss for easier and for flexible customization
  • support and train employees especially with increasing their media literacy

Detailed planning will continue now, I will keep posting and I’m looking forward to comments and discussions.

Categories: communication · design · information architecture · intranet · management · organization · project management · social media · user experience
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Facebook Hollywoodifies Our Lifes. And it Shortens Them.

February 23, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I read news from a friend diving in south africa, participating in the famous london gorilla run and celebrating his daughters fith birthday. – what a life.

 Another Friend is posting pictures from Bali, New Zealand, Australia – that are his three holiday-trips in one year.

And friend 3 posts in his statusnotes that he just arrived from Shangai after a short stop in Berlin, is now having food at Vienna airport, shortly before leaving for Barcelona.

Very glamourous lives.

Everything is so spectacular, it’s happening at breakneck speed – and watching makes you feel really poor.

Some distance puts a lot of shine and glamour on many things. So many nice things are happening so fast – it’s really impressive. If you look at the good things only, that is.

Doing that in real life, too, is plain bullshit bingo. But we could look at it as another benefit of using social networks: they make us clean up our lives as if we were attending a party and having a nice conversation.

That’s a pretty good reason to use them anyhow.

Categories: communication · social media
Tagged: , , , ,

Blackberry addicted? Or just curious for life?

February 16, 2009 · 2 Comments

I heard two colleagues talk about blackberries on Friday; they talked about addiction, changes they bring into our lives and the stress you have checking for mail even in the evening or on weekend.

I think this is not something imposed on us by Blackberry or other mobile email technologies, this is an expression of how we look at life: Are there a lot of dangerous, bothersome, annoying things out there? Are we afraid of what is waiting for us?

Or are we curious for life, are we looking foreward to the things to come? A lot of my life is happening digitally that’s the way to stay in touch, to share something. And looking at work: I want to get things done, getting information earlier leaves me more time to handle things. So I want to get information…

I can’t know everything, I can’t care for everything and I can’t do everything at a time. But it makes me more comfortable to know that I should do something – even if I can’t or don’t want to do it right now. True relaxation is not excluding information, it’s ignoring it…

And efficiency, as we shold know, is not doing as many things as possible, but doing the right things at the right time (this is, once again, why we need information…).

Enhanced by Zemanta

Categories: communication · management · organization
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Too much socialising is quite antisocial

February 13, 2009 · 2 Comments

When I’m not sure if I like a website or an application I think of it as a persons who is talking to me. Sometimes that helps to make up my mind.

When I look at twitter, there is a multiple personality talking to me. Or somebody who is just namedropping, without actually saying anything. The more people you follow, the less communication is happening: you don’t see your real friends anymore you hardly care about what all these guys are saying it’s just noise going on…

This turns twitter from a communication to a publication media – the same antisocial stuff as your old tv station.

This tells me

  • it’s in the responsibility of the user if a media is an information-, publication- or communication-media. That’s quite a lot of power and can also influence business models.
  • I will unfollow all professional twitter users; they just waste my time for too little benefit.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Categories: applied collaboration · communication
Tagged: , , , ,

SEO self-experiment

February 9, 2009 · 5 Comments

I started an SEO self-experiment these days: How long does it take to promote a domain (without playing foul or spending money)? How long does it take search engines to react on changes (display new page titles, new meta tags)? How many new links do you get by entering web-catalogues, online-pr-distributors? How many links do you get by using social bookmarking?

The test arrangement

  • registered an unusual domain (there are no other search results for this word then my own pages)
  • set up around 100 pages with meaningful content
  • followed the basic SEO-laws (use page titles, descriptions, keywords in decent length, use many internal links in the body text, name pictures etc.)
  • creating three new web-catalog entries per day (I guess I’ll do this for about 3 weeks; it’s all manual work with individual descriptions)
  • posting one article everyday on three social bookmarking services (delicious, digg, stumble upon)

What I’m checking daily is

  • Number of search results for my domain name
  • Number of links to my domain that search engines find

Softer facts I’m interested in are:

  • which catalogues are the most efficient?
  • which bookmarking services are the most efficient?
  • when does it start to grow from alone, when do other users start to post links or bookmark stuff?

I’ll keep posting results on a weekly basis.

Related articles by Zemanta

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Categories: communication · project management · social media
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Facebook selfdestruction

January 31, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Hispanic business own...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I witnessed a major case of selfdestruction via facebook these days: a former colleague posted a few messages abou how curious he was on friday. He was waiting if Friday would be his day of success. If things were really that simple that you just have to tell people that you are the best. That he hoped that finally he would achieve something. He works in the lower management of a worldwide software company. Some frieds were curious and asked, but he did not tell any details. Until friday: that’s when his tone switched to disappointment. And afte having been asked a few times, he – as an actively employed manager at his companny, who even publishes his employer in his facebook-profile – confessed that he had applied for a new job and did not get it. That’s not only stupid, that’s really disloyal and reputation damaging towards his employer. Such a behaviour is a real personal career booster…

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Categories: communication · social media
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Who is the Boss in the Media-Biz?

January 27, 2009 · 2 Comments

I’ve worked with many media companies in the print, online, and tv-business, and I’ve worked in media related positions in many companies from other branches.
There is still one question I can not really answer: Who is actually the boss in the media business (ok, it’s not the only question; probably I’m just in the right age to worry about that…).
Are there strategists who are really the big guys, who tell you were to go and what will happen in the next years? Actually I hardly met any strategists in commercial environments. There were a few who had a similar job title, but most of them where either vain outlaws who more or less sacrificed their job for the title (because it always proved to be a dead end road), very ambitious youngsters who disappeared as quick as they had risen, or some old and actually jobless friends of the CEO or the editor in chief or the CMO, who needed a job with a cool title and not too much work.
So should it be the marketing guys? Media marketing people are great in extending relationships, driving reputation and drawing nice pictures in consumers minds – and there is often a big gap if it comes to realization. I hate to say that they usually dont have a cue, but that’s actually the truth. And in most cases, they don’t care – because it’s not there job. If it’s just marketing, then it’s just making people think that something is great, it’s not making things great.
And what about the sales department? They are the guys who bring the money, we all want money, so shouldn’t we listen to them? That takes us very quickly to a very simple view of the business: It needs to be sold. And once it’s sold: Who cares? Advertisers wont get their money back, a few complaints can be handled. and if there is really some trouble – there are enough advertisers as potential new customers. If you remind them of what they actually sold or what plans have been made for the further development of the media, they either don’t remember or they ask you why it has not been done yet. And anyway: they won’t have time, because the have to be out there and sell something.
So there are the creatives left, the designers, the writers. For sure they have a lot of ideas, they know the product and they can realize what they planned; they are the ones who have to do it anyway. But do they know the commercial terms of the business? Have you ever met a designer who can really calculate his business?

The famous media persons are generally the creative ones, usually close to the editors, or some have formerly been editors.
The rich ones are rather from the business side.
That’s no so much astonishing, what bothers me more, is that there are still single persons around, we are still acting as if Mr. F in person had founded this daily newspaper or as of Mr. B. did really have anything to do with the TV Channels he owns, but we know, that it’s simply not possible to combine all this smartness…

That’s another reason why I switched more to online media, and to the more functional part of the media business. Do you know the big names? And do you have an idea of what they are actually doing?
I have the impression that – with highly movable and flexible media – our perception shifts from big guys to big things: We don’t bother what HE does, we think about what features IT provides.
Probably back in the days when everybody was just publishing newspapers, you had to invest a lot in vanity and you had top think about how to stand out personally. Now, there is more space to focus on your product: Make it be something special (that’s the creative part) and make people understand that it’s something special (that’s the sales and marketing challenge). – But still, you can stick with the product, you don’t have to worry so much about yourself.
Why bother? It’s not only that there are no clear paths and visions for your career, there are also no best practices. In a lot of companies I left, the people who stayed are now the big guys. Just because they stayed. In other companies, there were more almost-retiree-strategists than developers. And then, some companies consider you as their hero, if you can do everything: writing, programming, handling Xpress or Indesign, talk with the system admins and talk the business lingo – just because there is nobody else who can keep up with you.

Conclusion: Just keep on doing what you like. The rest is’nt woth bothering in our business. If you really want to question if you’re successful with what you’re doing – keep on doing it and ask again in five years. I think that’s a pretty average time period that should malke you notice some differences…

 

What ails media business models?

Media Business News Spun out of Control

John Batelle: You’re in the Media Business Now

Uphoff: Fixing Microsoft’s Media Business

Categories: communication · management · strategy
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

Gain Twicksize

January 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment

twicksitejowyang1

Jeremiah Owyang returned from a 20 day twitter hiatus. To be honest, I did not really realize he was away – there is so much noise going on. And exactly that was his experience: A lot of things are just noise, you will not miss them.

The noise keeps going on, not matter if you care about it or not. Sometimes there is some positive impact, sometimes not.

What I’m really curious on are some efficiency discussions around twitter that started in the past weeks: The topic is not what you do on twitter, not even why you do it – but who is the most powerful Twitter-User.


Twinfluence.com works around three main values: Reach, Velocity and Social Capital.

Reach is defined as ” the number of followers a Twitterer has (first-order followers), plus all of their followers (second-order followers). This is by necessity a crude maximum estimate, since there will definitely be duplicates and overlaps that could only be eliminated by up to thousands of API calls. Reach is a measurement of potential audience and listeners, a best estimate of the number of people that a given Twitterer could quickly get a message to.”

Velocity “merely averages the number of first- and second-order followers attracted per day since the Twitterer first established their account. The larger the number is, the faster that Twitterer has accumulated their influence. Of course, this number could jump significantly with the addition of a few high-profile followers. Velocity is scored from “very slow” to “very fast” relative to other twitterers at your network size.”

Social Capital indicates ” indicate the average first-order network of a Twitterer’s followers. It’s essentially a measure of how influential are a twitterer’s followers. A high value indicates that most of that Twitterer’s followers have a lot of followers themselves. Social Capital is scored from “very low” to “very high” relative to other twitterers at your network size.”

Toplists can be viewed, you can also search and compared user-profiles or rate your own twitter nick. The values all care about reach and impact – how far can your tweets reach how many people – to really get business value out of it, you still need some idea what the impact is good for.

Twicksize.com has an easier approach. Size matters – that’s it. The criteria are not defined any closer, but the visualization is impressive…

Much of it is fun, but what we can see is that the criteria are generally still in discussion – as with any kind of social media or even online media. Twinfluence ranks Barack Obama and Guy Kawasaki as the post powerful Twitterers, but Jerermiah Owyangs Twick is bigger then both their Twicks (and there are even bigger twicks around…)

Even if it’s not serious, any kind of measurement and kpi-definition can help us to answer some of the most important questions coming up in 2009: What is all that stuff good for, what’s the use of our media universes and where do they turn in to money? – A good answer to that will be the #1 quality sign for media projects.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Categories: social media · user experience
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Intrapreneurship – sounds nice…

January 13, 2009 · 2 Comments

Exterior sign a...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I read the term “intrapreneurship” on a Xing-profile today .

Is it a way to prevent bore-out and frustration? Or is it just another term for getting the most out of your employees without having to pay for it?

I think it could describe quite precisely the attitude that is required if you want to make your internal media a success. I think of it as will and capacity to get things going, to set up something new even if you have to – partially – accept the borders of an existing organisation, and as the will to make use of the white spaces in an organisation that Tom de Marco describes in Slack. (If you really want to know what intrapreneurship is, check out the Social Camp in Vienna next week).

I want to make friends with some intrapreneurs, because they are definitely the kind of employees with whom you can create nice success stories with internal online media, collaboration tools or employee portals.

Hopefully it’s not brainwashing. This is another somewhat weird, but interesting nice piece and about intrapreneurship.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Categories: communication · intranet · management · organization · project management
Tagged: , , , ,

Applied collaboration – dont always blame me

January 7, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Wiki Collaboration Process Model
Image by Pirkka2 via Flickr

I just came back from vacation and there are not so many but still far too many emails asking for things that should not have waited for me. “Could you fix this, do you know how to do that, what’s the name of the guy who works with…” – I’m not the only person around who knows this, but I’m probably the one whom others suppose to know this. There are a lot of colleagues whom you could ask, and I bet you can find a lot of the requested information in the blogs, wikis and other information sharing services I’m running.
I like the idea of collaborating not only in dedicated collaboration environments, but also – or rather way more – in environments that strongly support networking. Yes, information should be tailored to a certain audience – but everybody should have the possibility to be part of that audience.
Public information provides better accessibility, not only of the information itself, but also of the possibilities and responsibilities: Who did what? Who can fix what? Who knows what? I don’t want to skip hierarchies or substitute managers, I’m mainly thinking about intra-team collaboration: Some colleagues have a sense for what’s going on, others simply don’t. They always need help and guidance, especially if they are supposed to get in touch with people they don’t have to deal with every day.
And that quickly leads to fear, prejudice, stubbornness – which again reduces the quality of information. Actually it even reduces the readiness to look for any information at all.

We know the consequences: Colleagues start to blame each other, questions are understood to be suspicions and wrong information becomes harder and harder to fix – you start to believe in things you know just because you know them, and because it seems to be more comfortable than questioning them.

And maybe the colleagues who asked so many questions during my vacation did not want to blame me… :) , but they really just needed to know something.

What’s the end of it: Collaboration does also stand for networking and documentation; collaboration tools should also provide information on who did what. Or the other way round: every tool that is of value for the community or is used by a community should provide collaborative features that

  • provide public information
  • show who did what and who can be addressed for what
  • are easily accessible and not just an administrator’s secret.

Then we can clearly say that collaboration adds tremendous value to media.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Categories: applied collaboration · intranet · organization · social media
Tagged: , , , , ,