![]() |
95 thesesthe following are the 95 theses from Copyright © 1999, 2001 Levine, Locke, Searls & Weinberger. |
| A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies.
These markets are conversations. Their members communicate in language that is natural, open, honest, direct, funny and often shocking. Whether explaining or complaining, joking or serious, the human voice is unmistakably genuine. It can't be faked.
Most corporations, on the other hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do. But learning to speak in a human voice is not some trick, nor will corporations convince us they are human with lip service about "listening to customers." They will only sound human when they empower real human beings to speak on their behalf. While many such people already work for companies today, most companies ignore their ability to deliver genuine knowledge, opting instead to crank out sterile happytalk that insults the intelligence of markets literally too smart to buy it. However, employees are getting hyperlinked even as markets are. Companies need to listen carefully to both. Mostly, they need to get out of the way so intranetworked employees can converse directly with internetworked markets. Corporate firewalls have kept smart employees in and smart markets out. It's going to cause real pain to tear those walls down. But the result will be a new kind of conversation. And it will be the most exciting conversation business has ever engaged in. |
||
if you only have time for one clue this year, this is the one to get... 
A lot of this seems to conflict with predictions in our COM530 readings that said in the not-too-distant future people will count virtual beings as among their best social network friends and favorite celebrities without knowing -- or caring, or even thinking about -- whether they are human or virtual.
In the limited research I've done for my COM530 project ("The Future of the Interactive Newsroom"), this is a point that keeps reemerging: Journalists whose employers brought them in on the reorganization process were generally accepting of changes, not matter how drastic, and even discovered that many of their gut-level fears were unfounded. Those shut out of the process, however, were more likely to resist changing, perhaps killing on arrival even the best orchestrated reorganization plan.
We all like to think we're immune to advertising, but I don't think any of us actually are. And interactive media enables advertising that's even more embedded in our day-to-day lives and harder to shut out. If you think about it, those who abhor advertising and make a point of saying so are more affected by it than those who are indifferent.
This reminds me a lot of when I call Time Warner Cable. Although they have tried to make some advances by letting you scream your requests at a computer voice instead of following a menu-by-numbers approach, it doesn't really make it much better. How often are any of us really satisfied until we speak to a real person?
Um, disagree. In today's society while we may zone out of advertising, we are not immune to it. Think about kids. They see Miley Cyrus is now selling clothes through Max Azria on TV and they tell parents they want it. Or when a catchy song is in the background of a commercial, more often than not, a viewer will associate that song with that commercial.
Price is a strong motivator, despite poor customer service and bad conversations about your business model. While I refuse to shop WM on principle, I can't stop my husband from going because of the purchasing power he has. I don't think there's an absolute here...WalMart controls the price conversation. Period.
The craft of advertising is much more subtle than say 40 years ago, when everything was canned pitches touting products with superlatives. Now it's more about associations, and licensing a popular piece of media is key. But it's just as effective or companies wouldn't be paying millions for what still amounts to traditional campaigns
In theory this seems true. The information age should speed up the rise and fall of brands. But in the past 10 years (other than financial sector collapses or Enron-like scandals) it seems the same brands still stay on top in all industries. Feel free to contradict me if you can think of examples of major brands falling fast
"arushton" says...
This rings true to my research topic for COM 530. Government seems to fall flat on it's face because the public often feel they do not know what is going on, how money is being spent, who is making key policy decisions etc. It is interesting "transparency" is such a relevant carry-over to the business world
This doesn't necessarily mean that we are victims of advertising however, this just means we can point out various techniques and characters used by advertisers and ad campaigns. i think as a whole, we are not being influenced to buy, based on our age and education in comparison to the Tweens that eat up anything with Miley Cyrus printed on it.
I completely agree. When righting a journalism article my junior year of undergrad, I wrote to a huge corporation hoping someone might right back (even if it wasn't the person I wanted maybe I would have the information I needed). Wrong. I got a nice little note with one paragraph that thanked me for my interest. The persons name wasn't even signed...I got the stamp signature.
This section about companies must share the concerns of their communities and must belong to a community...really made me think about the small businesses. In my hometown, they were the backbone of the community and always there supporting the community. It makes a big impact when a company follows that motto.
Its also a matter of immediacy. With the phone-ins on radio, the interaction did exist in real time, but the delay in response with newspapers removed the back-and-forth nature of conversation. Blogs and chat have allowed us to reply more quickly, in a sense changing the nature of the conversation, though admittedly not creating conversation that could not have existed prior to the internet.
Excellent point! It is essential to consider the target audience with advertising nowadays... while children and teens may still be heavily influenced by advertising (and perhaps even more so the peer pressure they encounter at school), people in their 20s and older are usually educated enough to see an advertisement and not be immediately struck with the sensation of "I've got to have that!"
"corymorrison" says...
This really aggravates me. If companies cannot communicate what it is they can do for their customers/clients in common language, how do they expect to connect with people? Advertisers learn to show, not tell people things, but companies need to figure out basic ways to communicate on a real level.
I definitely think age plays a factor in the level of influence advertising can have, but I don't completely agree that older people are less susceptible to its effects. In recent years, I have become an Apple junkie and every time they come out with new stuff, I get that "I've got to have it" sensation. They have great advertising, but it probably has to do with other factors too, like brand loyalty and the company philosophy. I feel like they've always been ahead of the curve and one of the smarter companies when it comes to business practices and customer relations.
The problem is that it's usually always about the money. Many companies are unaware of the conversation, because the only language they speak in is numbers. The value of a consumer is essentially tied to a dollar amount. Customer service departments attempt to make consumers feel important or even empowered, but in the end it all comes down to the numbers.
I think it still holds true that companies speaking in the language a consumer can't understand is speaking a language that falls on deaf ears whether it's on the Internet or in a true form of advertising...what this says is still true: companies that use this certain "language of the pitch" aren't really setting themselves apart.
Unfortunately, these days it has gotten worse because companies cozy up to potential clients, but then as soon as they sign the contract on the dotted line, they ignore the client until the contract needs to be renewed. They are trained to make as many sales calls as possible and unfortuntately that cuts down on any chance of a nice relationship. I''m speaking for some not all situations of course.