ROT (Return on Time)

To paraphrase the Rolling Stones, "Time, is NOT on my side". With multiple e-mail accounts, Facebook updates, Tweets, Texting, cell calls, and, oh by the way, the demands of the Real World, we don't have enough time. Same is true at work. I recently calculated I was spending over 5 hours a day just on e-mail (I'm fixing that one). So with time becoming an increasingly rare commodity, it is as important to look at ROT when evaluating an investment as it is to look at ROI. Exploring that new product or partnership, revising that presentation one more time, having a meeting to discuss an issue - are they worth it? You need to look at the time spent on something through the same lens as spending hard dollars. Because the opportunity cost of your time might be even more valuable than an out of pocket investment. Are you getting the time to just sit back and think about how to move your business forward? Are you meeting with a vendor who just might be the next Google or Facebook and would offer you to get you in on the ground floor? Is there an agency who might have a game changing idea for you business? You'll only know if you meet with them, and you'll only have time to meet with them if you spend less time on low ROT activities.

Go to where the people are

Retailing hasn't always been as simple as setting up a store, either physical or virtual, stocking up with merchandise that people wanted at a price they were willing to pay, and then marketing to let customers know you were open for business. Centuries ago, merchants had to go where the people were. They'd stock carts with goods that weren't readily available and then go from town to town selling them, pricing them at whatever price they thought the customer was willing or could afford to pay. They'd go to town squares, churches, synagogues, barn raisings - wherever people gathered - so they could sell what they had brought into town. They'd get to know their customers, building relationships over the years. They'd be welcomed as an honorary member of the village (unless someone felt cheated, in which case they'd be run out of town). It was social, relationship based commerce, and it continued with Avon, Tupperware, Pampered Chef, and other door to door and house party retailers.

In the modern age, the rise of mass merchandisers changed mobile commerce to destination commerce. People started going to retailers, searching out what they want to buy rather than waiting for it to show up at their door. Retailers knew that if they marketed, they would come (or they could send them a catalog so they could shop at home), and having a relationship with your customer was secondary to having a range of products at appropriate prices. The Internet started the same way. Sites were built, banner ads were purchased, people came and shopped. Like catalogs, they used e-mail and affiliate programs to reach customers in their virtual homes or at sites they were surfing, always bringing them back to their site store.

Now that the the Social Web has transcended teens to include baby boomers, it is time to consider going back to bringing the store to where the people are and building community based relationships. Stores need to be within social networking sites, offering products relevant to customers while they interacting with them in their virtual villages. You need to be welcomed in, allowing people to discuss what you are offering, both positive and negative, and even allowing people to haggle if they want. But by engaging with them in their "town square", you have an opportunity to bring back the connection the shop cart owner had with his customers. It is the era of "social commerce". How will your business adapt?

The future of content

Leveraging content assets across new, revenue generating distribution channels is a critical challenge for media and entertainment companies as the nature of media consumption shifts. The days of consumers enjoying TV, music, video, film, radio, and print content in the forms created by media companies, at the times programmers or editors wanted to deliver the content, and at the price the company choose to charge for it have faded rapidly over the last 10 years. It started with print media, as newspaper circulation eroded, replaced by real time Internet news sites and ultimately customized, on demand or streamed news feeds. It was followed by the record industry, which ignored customer demand for downloadable, individual songs and as a result saw a rapid decline in CD sales. Radio listenership has declined, with the rise in pod casts, ipods, and streaming music. Finally, over the last two years, it has expanded to video content, which is quickly shifting to the web and mobile and gaming platforms.

What this means for media companies is that they need to rethink their content and how to distribute it. Customers want their media on demand or streamed to them, to their computer and, perhaps more importantly, their mobile device. They want it on their schedule, not the media companies. They want it in time frames that work for them - 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 30 seconds. And they start with the assumption that if there is advertising (and sometimes even if there isn't), it should be free. For publishers facing significantly lower online CPM's, which are under pressure by ever expanding inventory, the math of purely ad supported online content doesn't currently work except for niche and technology oriented content. For publishers to succeed, they need to revalue their content by considering charging for it. Paid circulation magazines and newspapers generally commended higher rates than free publications because they illustrated customer loyalty and engagement while helping to defer costs. As content migrates online, smart publishers will figure out how to successfully parse their content and get readers to pay for at least some of it, creating a second revenue stream.

Social Media and E-Commerce - Fad or Fundamental Change - Interview with Steven Groves and Guy Powell

Check out my interview on "Social Media and E-Commerce - Fad or Fundamental Change" at http://www.iirusa.com/upload/wysiwyg/2010-M-Div/M2208/downloads/MeasureUp_LewisGoldman.pdf

Why nytimes.com should charge a subscription fee

The New York Times is one of mankind's great contributions. The paper not only features outstanding writing, terrific investigative reporting, and engaging, interesting, intelligent opinions and news, it does so consistently every day. It is one of a handful of newspapers that provides content so truly unique and special that people across the country (and throughout the world), not just from New York, are willing to pay for it with their own remote subscriptions. Except they don't have to. Despite the fact the paper is for sale in virtually every major city across the country (and many worldwide), subscriptions for the Times, like virtually every other newspaper, have been declining. With the recession and the related decrease in advertising revenue, and the rise in paper and other costs, the Times has gotten squeezed and as a result has sold assets and cut back staff. Thus the paper's competitive advantage, its world class reporters, are under siege as revenue decreases while costs have risen. Online ad revenue hasn't come close to picking up the slack, and the economy, once again, hasn't helped with online sponsorships.

My brother-in-law lives in Texas, graduated from Stanford, and subscribed to the Times for years until he decided that it wasn't worth it. Every article, op ed piece, review, photo (and many additional articles, pictures, videos, as well as blogs not available in the print edition) could be viewed for free at nytimes.com. In addition, the archives are free, so he can look up any article written over the last 20 plus years on any topic with the search engine. Going to Italy and want to look up that story you saw a few months (years) back on Turin - you can find it in seconds.

My mother once said (in another context), why buy the cow if they're giving away the milk for free. Rupert Murdoch announced after he purchased the Wall St. Journal that he was going to eliminate subscriptions and build up the advertising revenue by opening up wsj.com and building traffic. Then he started looking at the numbers, and even before the economy tanked not only decided to continue with the hybrid free/paid business model, he invested in pushing subscriptions. The fact is there is no Internet law or sacred truth that all content should be free - and in fact there is significant technical and business to business content that is currently offered only with a subscription. The Times has terrific content which people should (and will) pay for, and the company needs that revenue stream to insure that they can continue to invest the resources to deliver their best in class product every day. In fact, the Web has added the additional burden of delivering updates and new content as news happens through the day and night, requiring more journalists to cover a truly 24 hour news cycle, not to mention managing blogs and adding videos, both of which are unique to the web.

As you can see, I love the New York Times. I'd hate to think that the product's best years are behind it, and that we will lose one of the best sources of news and analysis in the world. So if they charge a subscription fee, I'm happy to be one of the first to sign up.

Obama, The Internet President, and why politics will never be the same again

Barack Obama has already made history by leveraging the Internet in ways politicos never envisioned. After watching how Howard Dean mobilized supporters and donors using the Web in his failed bid for the democratic nomination in 2004, Obama did his research, hired some smart Internet marketers, leveraged his experience as a community organizer, and built an online political machine. He raised funds by directly appealing to supporters, adding easy to use viral elements to expand his base of donors rapidly. He created a facebook page and got millions to "friend" him, using it as a platform to mobilize supporters and donors. He developed an e-mail list which ultimately totaled 10 million and got many of them to help with grassroots campaigning (he also got over 3 million of them to donate to his campaign - sensing a theme here;). He used YouTube as his own media channel, ultimately uploading over 1800 videos during the campaign (with over 100,000 more created by his supporters, including the famous Obama girl), 3 times the number of John McCain (and his videos were collectively viewed over 9 times the rate of McCain's). By doing so, he controlled his message and communication with the electorate, and was able to quickly respond to and neutralize negative messages from his opponents (his team did the same with blogs as well).

Now the Internet candidate is the Internet President-Elect, and having seen the power of the medium, he will leverage it as a platform for his philosophy of participatory government. While he can't leverage his supporter e-mail and donor base directly, he is encouraging them to sign up on change.gov (in fairness, he's interested in everyone signing up, not just democrats). On it you can apply for job in the new administration, read the latest news in terms of the transition, and watch his weekly radio address via a YouTube video (without a Republican response). The valued currency will no longer be donations (although given the cost of the financial bailouts, the US treasury could use them :), but engagement. The site has blogs, calls to join America Serves, and, of course, a place to register and provide your e-mail address. This is perhaps the most powerful component of presidentobama.com (which was available as of 11/14/08 by the way, for any domain squatters, along with the .org and .gov versions). Imagine 10 million people on the change.gov e-mail list getting a weekly newsletter on issues and pending legislation. Being asked to lobby their congressman or senator on short notice to pass a bill. Or encouraged to show up at a rally or town hall meeting to show support or opposition for pending legislation. If he decides to capture mobile phone numbers, he could add text messages as a media vehicle.

Online chats and news conferences, pictures and videos of white house and government events, soliciting comments on proposals (as well as polling the public) - all will be components of what has been referred to as "Obama 2.0". Of course, Web 2.0 participation works both ways, and how President Obama handles voter resistance will be the true test of the Internet President. Regardless, it will be nice to have a President interested in listening to the voice of the people after the last 8 years.

Mobile Advertising - Truth or Dare

Mobile advertising. People will have coupons downloaded to their phone and run to Target to make a purchase. Or, using GPS technology, Starbucks will send an ad for an extra shot of expresso just as you pass the local storefront. Maybe people will even watch superbowl commercials over again (or for the first time) on their way home from where they watched the game. It all sounds great, and I've heard it before. We were discussing mobile banking back in 2000 at Citigroup. Guess what - it hasn't really taken off. Turns out people are just fine with sitting at their computer to pay bills and transfer balances. So is mobile advertising truth?

Well, what we do know about mobile is people will buy content, mostly ringtones and games so far. In fact, NBC makes more from selling shows over mobile phones than from the Internet (where many shows are now free on Hulu.com). Just think, on the Web someone pays $.99 for a song, but via their cell phone because the bill is at the end of the month, they think nothing of downloading part of that same song for $2.95! Yes, paid for content on mobile phones is a success and will continue to be as long as it is just added to their monthly bill.

People also like Internet access on their phone, and the ability to text. And overseas, some of the applications I described above are happening. So, will mobile advertising take off? I'm not so sure. One of the great myths of couponing is that companies want people to use them. For the most part, that's really not true. Companies want customers, ideally full paying ones. To get new ones (or to get old ones to buy more), they issue coupons. But the dirty little secret of couponing (which I learned almost 20 years ago at Colgate-Palmolive) is that less than half a percent of coupons distributed are actually used. So the couponing budget is relatively modest. Now if you give some a coupon at point of sale, like on his/her mobile phone, and they use it 80% of the time, that can get expensive. And if, God forbid, they were planning on going into the store anyway, well then you've really hurt your margins.

And what about a mobile device as Good Old advertising? Well, given the screen size it will have to be creative. My view - there will be some smart agencies and advertisers that will come up with some great success stories, probably by figuring out how to integrate communications such as messaging into the "advertisement", but overall I "Dare" anyone to get rich from Mobile Advertising.