The Dec. 2010 issues of Harvard Business Review has a short article entitled, The Myth of the Overqualified Worker that discusses new research that reveals that overqualified applicants/new hires are not more likely to quit sooner or under perform on the job because they feel they are superior. Counter to conventional wisdom, overqualified workers tend to perform better than other employees and they don't quit any faster.
Keep this in mind as you start to hire new employees coming out of this period of economic depression. There are many overqualified applicants out there that are more than worth a second look.
Why would you not hire somebody capable and willing to deliver more than you ask for?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Social media is not a business model
Back in 2007 Rob Frankel posted an interesting analysis of the buzz environment that surrounded online social networking sites. In fact, Rob predicted the demise of social networking sites.
http://robfrankel.blogspot.com/2007/09/demise-of-social-networking.html
I agreed with Rob at the time in that current practices in marketing and advertising did not (and still do not) support the business models for many of these social networking sites. The "build traffic now and worry about revenue later" mantra just won't cut it unless these sites can exist using an advertising-supported model. Indeed, many social networking sites have vanished since 2007. Friendster anyone?
So what if pure-play social networking sites are able to collect large numbers of users who interact in these online communities? Just because lots of people do it doesn’t mean there are profits to be found for the site owners--unless, as already stated, these sites can be ad-supported or user-supported which is hardly anything new. In a nutshell, social media must in the long run be monetized by those who own the sites and the servers.
Most people who participate in social media simply are not willing to pay a fee to participate just yet. Would you be willing to pay a monthly fee to be on Facebook? Would you be willing to go to a "PPT" (Pay Per Tweet) model on Twitter? Without substantial advertising revenue the name of the game in the long term will have to be building brand loyalists for these online sites. Loyalists who gladly contribute an ongoing revenue stream. Right now social media users find paying fees undesirable and targeted advertising just a bit creepy. In fact, targeted advertising is often seen as an invasion of privacy and when users sense that too much personal information is being shared with advertisers they quickly revolt.
Integrating social media elements into existing sites that already survive on revenue generated in other ways is a great way to bolster brands and further engage customers. Adding Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to your marketing tool kit is just plain smart.
Just don't succumb to the notion that engaging in social media is in-and-of-itself a business model.
http://robfrankel.blogspot.com/2007/09/demise-of-social-networking.html
I agreed with Rob at the time in that current practices in marketing and advertising did not (and still do not) support the business models for many of these social networking sites. The "build traffic now and worry about revenue later" mantra just won't cut it unless these sites can exist using an advertising-supported model. Indeed, many social networking sites have vanished since 2007. Friendster anyone?
So what if pure-play social networking sites are able to collect large numbers of users who interact in these online communities? Just because lots of people do it doesn’t mean there are profits to be found for the site owners--unless, as already stated, these sites can be ad-supported or user-supported which is hardly anything new. In a nutshell, social media must in the long run be monetized by those who own the sites and the servers.
Most people who participate in social media simply are not willing to pay a fee to participate just yet. Would you be willing to pay a monthly fee to be on Facebook? Would you be willing to go to a "PPT" (Pay Per Tweet) model on Twitter? Without substantial advertising revenue the name of the game in the long term will have to be building brand loyalists for these online sites. Loyalists who gladly contribute an ongoing revenue stream. Right now social media users find paying fees undesirable and targeted advertising just a bit creepy. In fact, targeted advertising is often seen as an invasion of privacy and when users sense that too much personal information is being shared with advertisers they quickly revolt.
Integrating social media elements into existing sites that already survive on revenue generated in other ways is a great way to bolster brands and further engage customers. Adding Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to your marketing tool kit is just plain smart.
Just don't succumb to the notion that engaging in social media is in-and-of-itself a business model.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
The latest logo debate says a lot about brands and social media
Starbucks recently unveiled a new, revamped logo that is stirring some heated debate and has some of its loyal customers frothing at the mouth based on some of the comments on the company's Facebook wall.
While some like the new logo others seems to absolutely hate it and say they want the old logo put back on the cups. Starbucks has dropped both the name and the word "coffee" from the new logo. Evidently being seen with the Starbucks cup is as important--if not more important--than what's actually in the cup to some.
This brings to mind a passage from Theodore Levitt in Marketing Imagination when he talks about the importance of packaging and how it is sometimes more important than the product itself. The image projected and the feelings you have about a product can sometimes be more important than the benefit you derive from the functional product attributes themselves.
And so it is in the modern era of branding.
Marketers know within hours what people think of any change in their brands' packaging and identity elements because people express themselves openly, freely and almost instantaneously on social media. People passionate about a brand will sound off about it and make their voices heard. Remember that your brand never, ever meant anything other than what the market thought about it anyway. You don't get to define what your brand means, they do.
It does make me wonder, though. Do we buy the coffee because we think it is superior and that we are paying a fair price or do we buy the cup with the logo on it so others will see us with it and the content is inconsequential?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)