More on online behaviour

Using my own behaciour as the benchmark, I am astonished by how much users online activity has changed over the last three years.  I still remember when I needed to get information on a subject, company, or product, I would look for a web site using a search engine or search a wiki site to get the needed information.   Although I still prefer to look into a search engine, Google in most cases, I find myself checking social media sites like Facebook, Google + and others to see what they have about the subject or company.  Although, I must admit that is most likely because I am already trolling those sites to begin with, and it is quicker to enter a search term from within the page than to launch another tab.  If I need to search for something generic with a long tail keyword then I do tend to go to Google as a default.  A long tail search that comes to mind is "how old is Tom Selleck?".  Admittedly, most do not know you can query this type of search from a search engine.

I wonder how many have noticed a change in their search habits over the past three years or so?

I was also surprised yesterday when I was waiting for a video to start on YouTube I inadvertently clicked on the advertisement that preceded the video and found myself redirected to a products's Facebook page instead of the company web site.  This tells me the large brands are starting to recognize that users are less likely to visit a web site if they know it will be the same static information they viewed the last three times they visited that site.  Small Business owners need to be cognizant of those behavioural changes and adapt accordingly.  Particularly since one of the biggest challenges for a small business is a lack of marketing funds. They need to play in the same sandbox as their customers and potential prospects.

My approach is to have both a web page and a few social media pages and to monitor which gets the most traffic and adjust marketing initiatives and campaigns to that specific platform.  They will soon find the return on investment for a social media page is much more than a web site.  There are several reasons for this; A social media page is more dynamic than a web site, allowing your clients and prospects to interact with you, with each other, and with your industry.  The small business owner can immediately see what are the most pressing issues or active discussions on their page and target a marketing campaign specifically addressing that particular item.  This also gives them the opportunity to get immediate response to a customer service issue.  Be it to address an irate customer's needs or to say thank you to a loyal customer.  The downside is that social media can be time consuming and most small business owners, who have to wear several hats on a daily basis, do not have time to troll their own page.  Fortunately, there are an increasing number of savvy individuals or companies that offer this service.  They will keep an eye on your page and report anything that merits attention, be it negative or positive.  Some will even post regularly to your page on your behalf to keep your page updated.  Searching Google can help you find those companies locally.

The other challenge is to determine which social media sites to concentrate your efforts in.  The default sites are a no-brainer but there are new emerging sites that merit attention provided you know what your goal is and whether those sites can most effectively deliver the message you want to convey. There are new sites like Pinterest, Instagram, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Quora, etc... that are all gaining attention.  To be fair some of these have applications on mobile devices which we will explore in another post.

To conclude don't allow yourself to be convinced that spending thousand of dollars on a search engine marketing or search engine optimization strategy is the correct most accepted route for your company to pursue.

When is it okay to intervene?

Watching the debate last night I had an epiphany. When is it okay to intervene in peoples’ lives? On one side we have the pro-lifers who want to protect an unborn fetus from harm, from the moment of conception but will be unmoved to help a starving three year old. Then there is this notion that government need to stay out of people’s lives, most of all, in anything related to the economy or the market. This group believes the dollar is the ultimate litmus test of whether a venture is worth attention or not. This group only believes in looking at their immediate entourage, close family members only – distant relatives need not apply. Big business, trickle down economy, free market, etc.

On the other end of the spectrum there is the group that believes they stand for the community. They stand for people making the choices in their lives but government is the watchdog and referee of the people. Standing between big greedy business against the small working class man. Standing for pay equity, pro-choice, and social programs designed to improve the lives of the least fortunate. Those in the position to help have a responsibility to do so, just as they would for an immediate family member who met a bump on the road. Be it an unexpected health related hardship or a unforeseen economic downturn or worst a random accident. This same group will allow choice in the matters of abortion but will want support for your child to go to school.

What is the answer?  When is it okay to intervene?  How soon should we get involved to help the least fortunate?

The recent events seem to point to a polarizing of society on this subject - what is the solution?

Linking Personal Behaviour to Business Behaviour

I am often amazed when speaking with business upper management how they don't make the connection between their own behaviours to their business.  I was once trying to get a VIP of a very important, very large business network to see that he was missing out on a huge online market.  After almost a year of avoiding me, he finally relented and gave me 5 minutes to hear my pitch.  During that time he realized that what I was telling him made sense as that is exactly how he behaved online.  Once we were able to make that connection, I am not sure if it is because he was embarrassed but he promptly told me he would have his agency look into it.

I tried my very best to make him feel like he was not the only one who thought that way but I guess that was not sufficient.  I wish I had found another way to engage him to endorse him on how I could have helped him.

Why the new generation of Star Trek miss the mark

Although the most recent Star Trek movie of the early life of James T. Kirk was highly successful at the box office. I have no doubt the franchise will die of a premature death, until the producers, writers and directors realize which ingredients made the series this successful.

1. All of the Star Trek leads where theater trained. Although Chris Pine comes from a actors family and spent some time at the American Conservatory theater, he does not yet have the pedigree of carrying the leading role of a Star Trek Captain. He does make an attractive leading man and action hero, but that is all.
2. Star Trek has, by all accounts of Gene Roddenberry's vision, been as cerebral as it was an adventure in space. This was missing in the 2009 release and if it fails to deliver this ingredient in the next chapter, I predict fans will not be as enthused, at least the die hard Star Trek fans.
3. Not enough emphasis on the technological gadgetry in the 2009 release. A major ingredient of the Star Trek series which have by and large produced a slew of scientist nerds who sought to recreate in real life what they had seen on the shows. There are plenty of development being research and some breakthroughs being announced that would spark the enthusiasm of all nerdy Star Trek devotees.

So I fear if these three basic ingredient is not incorporated into the next release or releases, the series may end up in the same category as John Carter. A lot of flash and little substance.

Should developing countries participate in Global Climate debate?

They shouldn't participate in the debate but more importantly they shouldn't follow the industrial nations path to development. Paying to build their infrastructure using the same model as the developing nations makes little sense at this time. The cost to modernize requires energy and the cost of natural energy sources will soon be out of reach for most developing nations. They should seek to follow a different path, they shouldn't to follow the same path. At the end of the day, we (industrialized countries) are working with a flawed model, a model that says that primary resources are infinite. That simply isn't true, eventually we'll be faced with the prospect of having exhausted all the natural resources that are available and then move to a new system. Meanwhile developing countries are continually playing catch up. Now is the time to move to a new model. China realizes this and while they are fiercely competing on the world market for natural resources they are also leading the way in alternative energy source.

There have been many new developments that were achieved in the past two decades that we simply don't hear about but because they haven't found a way to "monetize" it, it is not being mass produced. NASA conducted an experiment by deploying a tether in space that would convert ambient electromagnetic energy into electricity. The experiment was so successful the power surge blew the tether off from the space shuttle. Imagine if we could deploy an antennae that converts the ambient electromagnetic field into electricity to power our houses. An entire energy economy would collapse.

This stuff is out there and all it would take is a visionary to implement it. Granted that visionary would most likely become a target by current power base structures but once the genie is let out of the bottle it will be difficult to put it back in.