Contagious ideas by PSST : spreading 2.0 innovation (editor = jérémy dumont, strategic planner, france)

Innovation Perspectives - Social Media is the Glue of Innovation by Braden Kelley

This is the second of several 'Innovation Perspectives' articles we will publish this week from multiple authors to get different perspectives on 'What is the role of social media in innovation? (Either inside or outside the organization)'. Here is the next perspective in the series:

by Braden Kelley

Social media serves an incredibly important role in innovation. Social media functions as the glue to stick together incomplete knowledge, incomplete ideas, incomplete teams, and incomplete skillsets. Social media is not some mysterious magic box. Ultimately it is a tool that serves to connect people and information.

I'm reminded of a set of lyrics from U2's "The Fly":


"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief
All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief"


Social media can help ideas grow and thrive that would otherwise wither and die under the boot of the perfectionist in all of us.

Do you remember the saying "it takes a village to raise a child"? Well, it takes a village to create an innovation from an idea as well, and social media helps to aggregate and mobilize the people and knowledge necessary to do just that.

But, that is social media working in the positive. We must remember that social media tools are just that - tools.

Just as easily as social media tools can be an accelerant for innovation, they can also be an inhibitor - if the participants or the presenters manage to make the less active majority feel that innovation is not something for them.

If you don't want to be a fool with a tool, then you must be careful to make sure that the social media tools in your organization are fulfilling their role in a positive way and leveraging existing knowledge management and collaboration toolsets:

1. To make innovative ideas visible and accessible


2. To allow people to have conversations


3. To build community


4. To facilitate information exchange


5. To enable knowledge sharing


6. To assist with expert location


7. To power collaboration on idea evolution


8. To help people educate themselves


9. To connect people to others who share their passion


10. To surface the insights and strategy that people should be building ideas from

The better you become at the above, the stronger your organization's innovation capability will become, the more engaged your employees will become, and the more ready you will become to engage successfully in open innovation.

For the most part, what I've been talking about is the role of social media in innovation inside the organization. When you leverage social media for innovation outside the organization, it gets a whole lot more complicated.

But, maybe that's a conversation for another day.

In the meantime, please consider the ways in which social media in your organization might be able to strengthen inter-disciplinary cooperation, make the organization itself more adaptable, and how it could help to create an organization with the power to transform more ideas into innovations.

You can check out all of the 'Innovation Perspectives' articles from the different contributing authors on 'How should firms develop the organizational structure, culture, and incentives (e.g., for teams) to encourage successful innovation?' by clicking the link in this sentence.

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

 SOURCE business strategy  PAR: alexis mouthon  ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

 UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS?  AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0  DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont

linking Customer Loyalty With Social Networking through foursquare. The Pepsi Loot app for the iPhone is intended to drive traffic to restaurants that serve Pepsi products.

By STEPHANIE CLIFFORD

• • 
    

PEPSICO wants to sell its customers sodas whether they are near a grocery store, a restaurant or a gas station. With a new partnership that weaves its loyalty program into the location-based network Foursquare, PepsiCo gets a live notification when its customers are close to those sites, and can present offers that get them into the stores.

Enlarge This Image

The Pepsi Loot app for the iPhone is intended to drive traffic to restaurants that serve Pepsi products.

“Being able to drive foot traffic into our restaurant partners and our retail partners is a huge opportunity, because that’s where our product is sold,” said B. Bonin Bough, director of social and emerging media for PepsiCo. “Ten blocks mean a lot.”

Through smartphones that signal someone’s location, stores and brands like Starbucks, Tasti-D-Lite, Macy’s and Pepsi are getting live information about when and where people are shopping. Some companies are turning Foursquare into a virtual loyalty-card program, while others are creating their own location applications, offering customers discounts or other rewards for shopping.

“It gives us immediate feedback for what’s going on in the marketplace,” said Margery Schelling, chief marketing officer of PepsiCo Foodservice. “That’s invaluable.”

A phone is a simple replacement for a wallet stuffed with loyalty cards, but the real appeal for stores is in the location information provided by Foursquare and other location-based applications. Retailers can track when customers actually enter their stores. Such data can be used to learn things about store traffic, such as when men visit versus women. And it’s easier to note when the most loyal customers visit.

“If you check into work, then you leave work, you check into a bank and then you check into a store, that’s a behavior that, in aggregate, we might use to transform the way we market to you in the offline world,” Mr. Bough said. “We might see dayparts that are more likely for you to check out of some place and go to the store, and we might do advertising during that specific daypart in that specific place.”

Because consumers are electing to broadcast their location and signing up for these services, the privacy concerns aren’t enormous, another plus for marketers.

While Foursquare has a relatively small user base of about one million, the tactics companies are experimenting with could be extended to customers with a GPS-enabled smartphone, the companies say. Pepsi, in addition to beginning a Foursquare program, is also introducing a location-based iPhone application called Pepsi Loot through which customers can collect points toward free music downloads.

“We believe it’s a real, new opportunity to transform loyalty programs in a way that we haven’t done before,” Mr. Bough said.

Foursquare is sort of a social application meets game. Its members press a button upon arriving at various locations to “check in,” letting them accumulate points — they compete to be “mayor” of a certain site, or the person with the most check-ins at that site, and can unlock badges for completing certain activities. The designer Marc Jacobs, for instance, gave tickets to his fashion show to four people who unlocked a Marc Jacobs shopping badge. Members can also direct Foursquare to list nearby restaurants, banks or grocery stores, and see where their Foursquare pals are at that moment.

In March, Foursquare introduced a tool that lets businesses see who is checking into their locations. It lists data like the total number of check-ins, the male-to-female ratio, the top days and times Foursquare visitors come, and the top visitors.

“Foursquare hopes to tell them a little bit more about their loyal customer — who checks in when, where they go before and after,” said Tristan Walker, director of business development for Foursquare.

Tasti-D-Lite wove Foursquare into its loyalty-card program this year. When someone registers the card online or visits the loyalty Web site, she can click to connect the card with her Foursquare account (along with Twitter or Facebook). Whenever the card is swiped after that, the customer accumulates Foursquare check-in points and Tasti-D-Lite loyalty points at once.

“Imagine the amount of data we now have in order to make better marketing decisions, in order to make loyalty decisions, about our customers, as opposed to the paper punch cards we had before that didn’t do anything for us,” said B. J. Emerson, social technology officer for Tasti-D-Lite.

Starbucks has been offering Foursquare badges when people visit a certain number of stores.

“The next generation of that is potentially understanding a little bit more about loyalty as well,” Mr. Walker said. “We’re driving people to different stores. What about people who visit the same store over and over?”

The location-based opportunity is particularly big for consumer packaged goods brands like Pepsi. Those brands market their product heavily, but they depend on drugstores or restaurants to actually get consumers into stores. With Foursquare and apps that track consumers’ locations, Pepsi can strike a deal directly with the consumer.

Pepsi’s Foursquare program will begin running in June. While the company is still working out details, Mr. Bough said that he expects that when a Foursquare user is near a Pepsi retailer, an offer to enroll the person in a Pepsi rewards system will appear. Once people are enrolled, whenever they check in at a grocery store or drugstore selling Pepsi, they will accumulate rewards points or badges that they can redeem for products or offers or donate toward charities.

Separately, Pepsi Loot, to be introduced in mid-May, focuses on restaurants; about 200,000, including chains like Taco Bell, are participating.

The app shows the participating Pepsi-serving restaurants on a map, includes menus for them, and allows consumers to sign in to those locations (that sign-in is done separately from a Foursquare check-in). Once they do, they accumulate points toward song downloads. The restaurants can layer in offers, too — Shakey’s is giving $3 off a large pizza for people who show the Pepsi Loot app, for instance.

Macy’s, too, has announced that it will use an app from a company called Shopkick to send customers offers when they are in or near the department store.

Rewards will be critical for getting more people to use Foursquare and similar applications, said Amy Manus, director of media at Nurun, a digital marketing firm that did not work on the campaign. “Offering something that is beneficial for consumers is going to be essential in mass adoption,” she said.

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

SOURCE NY times PAR: alexis mouthon ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS? AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0 DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont

Storytelling Applied to Design to build better experiences on internet

Experience Themes: An Element of Story Applied to Design

View more presentations from Cindy Chastain.

A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing from McKINSEY, by Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Doogan, and Ole Jørgen Vetvik

Assessing its impact as well as its volume will help companies take better advantage of buzz.

APRIL 2010 • Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Doogan, and Ole Jørgen Vetvik

Source: Marketing & Sales Practice

Audio

Download MP3

 
 credit

Consumers have always valued opinions expressed directly to them. Marketers may spend millions of dollars on elaborately conceived advertising campaigns, yet often what really makes up a consumer’s mind is not only simple but also free: a word-of-mouth recommendation from a trusted source. As consumers overwhelmed by product choices tune out the ever-growing barrage of traditional marketing, word of mouth cuts through the noise quickly and effectively.

Indeed, word of mouth¹ is the primary factor behind 20 to 50 percent of all purchasing decisions. Its influence is greatest when consumers are buying a product for the first time or when products are relatively expensive, factors that tend to make people conduct more research, seek more opinions, and deliberate longer than they otherwise would. And its influence will probably grow: the digital revolution has amplified and accelerated its reach to the point where word of mouth is no longer an act of intimate, one-on-one communication. Today, it also operates on a one-to-many basis: product reviews are posted online and opinions disseminated through social networks. Some customers even create Web sites or blogs to praise or punish brands.

As online communities increase in size, number, and character, marketers have come to recognize word of mouth’s growing importance. But measuring and managing it is far from easy. We believe that word of mouth can be dissected to understand exactly what makes it effective and that its impact can be measured using what we call “word-of-mouth equity”—an index of a brand’s power to generate messages that influence the consumer’s decision to purchase. Understanding how and why messages work allows marketers to craft a coordinated, consistent response that reaches the right people with the right content in the right setting. That generates an exponentially greater impact on the products consumers recommend, buy, and become loyal to.

A consumer-driven world

The sheer volume of information available today has dramatically altered the balance of power between companies and consumers. As consumers have become overloaded, they have become increasingly skeptical about traditional company-driven advertising and marketing and increasingly prefer to make purchasing decisions largely independent of what companies tell them about products.

This tectonic power shift toward consumers reflects the way people now make purchasing decisions.² Once consumers make a decision to buy a product, they start with an initial consideration set of brands formed through product experience, recommendations, or awareness-building marketing. Those brands, and others, are actively evaluated as consumers gather product information from a variety of sources and decide which brand to purchase. Their postsales experience then informs their next purchasing decision. While word of mouth has different degrees of influence on consumers at each stage of this journey (Exhibit 1), it’s the only factor that ranks among the three biggest consumer influencers at every step.

Back to top

It’s also the most disruptive factor. Word of mouth can prompt a consumer to consider a brand or product in a way that incremental advertising spending simply cannot. It’s also not a one-hit wonder. The right messages resonate and expand within interested networks, affecting brand perceptions, purchase rates, and market share. The rise of online communities and communication has dramatically increased the potential for significant and far-reaching momentum effects. In the mobile-phone market, for example, we have observed that the pass-on rates for key positive and negative messages can increase a company’s market share by as much as 10 percent or reduce it by 20 percent over a two-year period, all other things being equal. This effect alone makes a case for more systematically investigating and managing word of mouth.

Understanding word of mouth

While word of mouth is undeniably complex and has a multitude of potential origins and motivations, we have identified three forms of word of mouth that marketers should understand: experiential, consequential, and intentional.

Experiential

Experiential word of mouth is the most common and powerful form, typically accounting for 50 to 80 percent of word-of-mouth activity in any given product category. It results from a consumer’s direct experience with a product or service, largely when that experience deviates from what’s expected. (Consumers rarely complain about or praise a company when they receive what they expect.) Complaints when airlines lose luggage are a classic example of experiential word of mouth, which adversely affects brand sentiment and, ultimately, equity, reducing both receptiveness to traditional marketing and the effect of positive word of mouth from other sources. Positive word of mouth, on the other hand, can generate a tailwind for a product or service.

Consequential

Marketing activities also can trigger word of mouth. The most common is what we call consequential word of mouth, which occurs when consumers directly exposed to traditional marketing campaigns pass on messages about them or brands they publicize. The impact of those messages on consumers is often stronger than the direct effect of advertisements, because marketing campaigns that trigger positive word of mouth have comparatively higher campaign reach and influence. Marketers need to consider both the direct and the pass-on effects of word of mouth when determining the message and media mix that maximizes the return on their investments.

Intentional

A less common form of word of mouth is intentional—for example, when marketers use celebrity endorsements to trigger positive buzz for product launches. Few companies invest in generating intentional word of mouth, partly because its effects are difficult to measure and because many marketers are unsure if they can successfully execute intentional word-of-mouth campaigns.

What marketers need for all three forms of word of mouth is a way to understand and measure its impact and financial ramifications, both good and bad.

Word-of-mouth equity

A starting point has been to count the number of recommendations and dissuasions for a given product. There’s an appealing power and simplicity to this approach, but also a challenge: it’s difficult for marketers to account for variability in the power of different kinds of word-of-mouth messages. After all, a consumer is significantly more likely to buy a product as a result of a recommendation made by a family member than by a stranger. These two kinds of recommendations constitute a single message, yet the difference in their impact on the receiver’s behavior is immense. In fact, our research shows that a high-impact recommendation—from a trusted friend conveying a relevant message, for example—is up to 50 times more likely to trigger a purchase than is a low-impact recommendation.

To assess the impact of these different kinds of recommendations, we developed a way to calculate what we call word-of-mouth equity. It represents the average sales impact of a brand message multiplied by the number of word-of-mouth messages. By looking at the impact—as well as the volume—of these messages, this metric lets a marketer accurately test their effect on sales and market share for brands, individual campaigns, and companies as a whole (Exhibit 2). That impact—in other words, the ability of any one word-of-mouth recommendation or dissuasion to change behavior—reflects what is said, who says it, and where it is said. It also varies by product category.

Back to top

What’s said is the primary driver of word-of-mouth impact. Across most product categories, we found that the content of a message must address important product or service features if it is to influence consumer decisions. In the mobile-phone category, for example, design is more important than battery life. In skin care, packaging and ingredients create more powerful word of mouth than do emotional messages about how a product makes people feel. Marketers tend to build campaigns around emotional positioning, yet we found that consumers actually tend to talk—and generate buzz—about functional messages.

The second critical driver is the identity of the person who sends a message: the word-of-mouth receiver must trust the sender and believe that he or she really knows the product or service in question. Our research does not identify a homogenous group of consumers who are influential across categories: consumers who know cars might influence car buyers but not consumers shopping for beauty products. About 8 to 10 percent of consumers are what we call influentials, whose common factor is trust and competence. Influentials typically generate three times more word-of-mouth messages than noninfluentials do, and each message has four times more impact on a recipient’s purchasing decision. About 1 percent of these people are digital influentials—most notably, bloggers—with disproportionate power.

Finally, the environment where word of mouth circulates is crucial to the power of messages. Typically, messages passed within tight, trusted networks have less reach but greater impact than those circulated through dispersed communities—in part, because there’s usually a high correlation between people whose opinions we trust and the members of networks we most value. That’s why old-fashioned kitchen table recommendations and their online equivalents remain so important. After all, a person with 300 friends on Facebook may happily ignore the advice of 290 of them. It’s the small, close-knit network of trusted friends that has the real influence.

Word-of-mouth equity empowers companies by allowing them to understand word of mouth’s relative impact on brand and product performance. While marketers have always known that the impact can be significant, they may be surprised to learn just how powerful it really is. When Apple’s iPhone was launched in Germany, for example, its share of word-of-mouth volume in the mobile-phone category—or how many consumers were talking about it—was about 10 percent, or a third less than that of the market leader. Yet the iPhone had launched in other countries, and the buzz accompanying those messages in Germany was about five times more powerful than average. This meant the iPhone’s word-of-mouth equity score was 30 percent higher than that of the market leader, with three times more influentials recommending the iPhone over leading handsets. As a result, sales directly attributable to the positive word of mouth surrounding the iPhone outstripped those attributable to Apple’s paid marketing sixfold. Within 24 months of launch, the iPhone was selling almost one million units a year in Germany.

The flexibility of word-of-mouth equity allows us to gauge the word-of-mouth impact of companies, products, and brands regardless of the category or industry. And because it measures performance rather than the sheer volume of messages, it can be used to identify what’s driving—and hurting—word-of-mouth impact. Both insights are critical if marketers are to convert knowledge into power.

READ THE REST mckinsey 

About the Authors

Jacques Bughin is a director in McKinsey’s Brussels office, Jonathan Doogan is an associate principal in the London office, and Ole Jørgen Vetvik is a principal in the Oslo office.

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

 SOURCE mckinsey PAR: glueman  ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

 UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS?  AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0  DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont

Social TV, Relying on relationships to rebuild TV audiences. By William M. Bulkeley

This article is part of an annual list of what we believe are the 10 most important emerging technologies. See the full list here.

The viewership for live television broadcasts has generally been declining for years. But something surprising is happening: events such as the winter Olympics and the Grammys are drawing more viewers and more buzz. The rebound is happening at least in part because of new viewing habits: while people watch, they are using smart phones or laptops to swap texts, tweets, and status updates about celebrities, characters, and even commercials.

Marie-José Montpetit, an invited scientist at MIT's Research Lab for Electronics, has been working for several years on social TV--a way to seamlessly combine the social networks that are boosting TV ratings with the more passive experience of traditional TV viewing. Her goal is to make watching television something that viewers in different places can share and discuss--and to make it easier to find something to watch.

Carriers, networks, and content producers hope that making it easier for viewers to link up with friends will help them hold on to their audiences rather than losing them to services like Hulu, which stream shows over the Internet. And opening TV to social networking could make it easier for companies to provide personalized programming.Many developers are working on ways to let people share the viewing experience over broadband connections or through set-top boxes; indeed, cable companies and other broadband video providers have sponsored small trials of various interactive TV services around the world for more than 20 years. But most of the systems were even clumsier than the combination of laptop and large-screen TV that today's viewers have kludged together. ­Montpetit wants to unite different communication systems--especially cellular and broadband services--to create an elegant user experience. She's been sharing ideas about that sort of system with BT, which provides broadband connections to 15 million people in the United Kingdom and Ireland, including nearly a half-million digital-TV subscribers.

Though BT won't comment on what form its social-TV system might take, Montpetit and her students at the MIT Media Lab demonstrated an intriguing prototype last year. A central database aggregates video from online sources like YouTube, shares user-specified data with social networks, delivers video to the user's TV, and lets users and the people in their networks send comments and ratings back and forth via an iPhone app. It avoids using the TV screen for messages, something that has proved irritating to consumers who don't want clunky text obscuring the pictures on their 52-inch HDTVs. The app also allows the user to tell the network what program to show on his or her set. For instance, if a friend suggests a show and the owner agrees, that show will pop up at the appointed time. In February, Montpetit and her students presented a refined version of this system to BT. Jeff Patmore, who works with Montpetit as head of strategic university research at BT, says such a system could be rolled out this year, although he declines to confirm any plans. But Montpetit anxiously awaits U.S. deployment of social TV: her daughter, with whom she watches certain shows, heads off to college next fall. Engineering and business issues aside, she wants social TV to help friends and family stay connected, even as they move apart.

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

 SOURCE technews PAR: glueman  ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

 UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS?  AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0  DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont

“Newspapers don’t like to hear the voice of the people, and they are especially disturbed by the voice of assholes.” Why Jeff Jarvis got it wrong by spoke digital

• 
  

Yesterday, at the 140 Character Conference, Jeff Jarvis criticised the newspaper industry and their online communities.

The conference looked at what Jeff Pulver calls “The State of NOW” – which is about how social media affects traditional industries.

Here’s some select quotes from what Jarvis presented:

“I defended [newspaper] comments for years. But the problem is that comments are too often the voice of assholes.”

“Newspapers don’t like to hear the voice of the people, and they are especially disturbed by the voice of assholes.”

“We allow comments only after we are done with what we’re doing. It’s inherently insulting. We finish our work or stories and say, ‘Now you can talk about them.’”

Shocked? I was. Let’s address his points:

“Comments are too often the voice of assholes.”

Now, that’s not strictly true. As with any situation where you put people together, there will be those who shout the loudest, and those who make their point quietly and succinctly. With online communities – as with comments on newspaper websites – we gravitate to the comments of twats. Why? For pure psychological reasons.

Those loud comments by ‘assholes’ are entertaining. And they make us feel superior because we’re not getting involved with the news story on that type of level. God, if we’re going to discuss the story, we’ll do it at a dinner party.

So let’s think a little deeper about the people who write comments on newspaper websites. Who are they?

If you’re reading this blog post right now, I can guarantee you’ve never written a comment on a newspaper website. Or if you have, you’ve done it once or twice. No more. Why do I say that? Because you’re just like me. You work in the digital industry, you probably live in a city, you definitely own at least one Apple product, and if you have children born in the last couple of years they’ll have a retro name. I’m generalising, obviously, but you get my drift.

So if it’s not you – or me – writing those comments, who is it?

We (and I mean you and I) like to think that the people writing these comments are the type of people we’ll never be. We assume these people are probably overweight, support the BNP, have issues, live in suburbia, use a PC, and are poorly educated because they can’t spell and don’t care that they can’t.

We like to think these ‘newspaper assholes’ have dubious personal politics. They want to shut our borders, hate the way the government wastes the ‘tax-payer’s money’ (even though they’re on benefits), and even if they’re not sure where they stand on breast-feeding in public, they want to make sure they comment on it.

But this simply isn’t true of the majority of people interacting with newspapers online.

How do I know this? Well, I’ve been in charge of the communities for The Daily Mail and The Sun, and I’ve seen that yes, while there are comments written by people who fit the stereotype I wrote above, there are also other ones. They’re sensible, intelligent, and add value to a debate.

Yes, comments can be written by assholes, but the majority of them aren’t. And you shouldn’t let your vision of this be clouded by the loud ones who write the most attention-seeking remarks, or insult everyone who interacts with a newspaper online. Great way to encourage debate, Jeff. Impressive stuff.

“Newspapers don’t like to hear the voice of the people, and they are especially disturbed by the voice of assholes.”

1. I can guarantee that newspapers are NOT disturbed – especially or even vaguely – by the voice of ‘assholes’ (commenting on their sites). They find the more outrageous comments quite funny. Remember, newspapers have always had a letters page, so they’re used to seeing a wide-range of thoughts from their readers.

2. Newspapers DO like to hear the voice of the people. And I don’t understand why Jarvis thinks otherwise.

Take, for example, The Sun. Okay, so the paper may not be as influential or as ground-breaking as it was in the 80s, but it still does a fantastic job of claiming to not only listen to the voice of the people, but being that voice. The Sun has a 24/7 community and moderation team that actively encourages debate, and gets their readers involved in the latest issues. When I worked there the opinions of the people interacting on the site were taken to Conference, and The Sun even recently launched SunVote, to find out even more about what their readers are thinking. So how can Jarvis say that ‘newspapers don’t like to hear the voice of the people’?

And one more thing on this. Jarvis helped write Murdoch’s legendary speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 2005, when Murdoch said:

“Success in the online world will [be achieved by] listening more intently to our readers.”

Upcoming pay-wall or not, The Sun has always listened to its readers, and will continue to do so – which is why they’ve invested heavily in online community, and why most of the other nationals do so, too.

“We allow comments only after we are done with what we’re doing. It’s inherently insulting. We finish our work or stories and say, ‘Now you can talk about them.’”

Or, actually, what’s more insulting is suggesting that a newsroom can’t produce articles of a decent quality without readers (or, as Jarvis calls them, ‘assholes’) getting involved.

Let’s be clear here. Journalists write the story, and readers/users/consumers/’assholes’ (whatever you want to call them), consume and then debate them. That’s the traditional model of news, albeit on radio, TV, or the web.

I don’t understand why – with more interactive technology – this should change.

When the bombs went off on 7/7, I encouraged people from around the world to tell their stories on the Mail website. The BBC did the same, and from that came phone footage of the bombs, and some shocking – but valuable – insights into what happened.

When the evil volcano ash cloud happened this week, you could see people from all over the world sharing their stories about being stranded. Again, it’s added-value, and it’s part of the story.

What it isn’t is that main story itself.

You can’t rely on your readers to write that story for you. How could you? They don’t have access to the wires, they don’t have investigative journalists working with them, they don’t have the money or the resources or the contacts to write something credible and truthful. (OhMyNotNews, anyone?)

So for that very obvious and basic reason alone, that news story has to be written by the newspaper itself.

And again, Jarvis is wrong in saying that once that story has been written, that it’s over, and it’s only when it’s over that people can comment on it. Okay, so perhaps that used to be case when people got their news from the paper edition, and then wrote a letter to the editor about it and popped it in the post.

But journalists constantly update their stories online, and more often than not they take the points – and possible leads – presented to them by readers, and follow up on them. I’ve seen it in action at the Mail and The Sun, and I’ve seen exclusives come out of it.

So again, what’s Jarvis talking about?

I absolutely agree that no national newspaper has cracked the full benefits of newspaper interaction. There definitely doesn’t seem to be an obvious ROI for the thousands spent on it, other than it being a feature readers want.

But why diss the people who work for those newspapers, and those who are in charge of doing their communities?

And, fucking hell, why call the readers who do get involved assholes’?

Have a bit of respect for people interacting with newspapers – and brands – all over the web. The future of news is going to be more interactive, more on-demand, more personalised. So why be rude about the trailblazing users? They’re making history right now. Even if a minority of them are ‘assholes’.

(These views are my own, and are not necessarily those of Holly and James, who I work with at Spoke.)

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

 SOURCE  spoke digital     PAR: glueman  ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

 UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS?  AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0  DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont

You Will Be Using FriendFeed In The Future — But It May Be Called Facebook (written in april 2009)

Last week, we wrote that FriendFeed was in danger of becoming “the coolest app that no one uses.” The thought was that while FriendFeed is doing some great things both in terms of its technology and feature-wise, it has failed to capture the growth of the hot micro-messaging service, Twitter. But I think that misses the real key comparison. If you look at it, FriendFeed is actually a lot closer to Facebook these days. You know, that service that 200 million plus people use. They’re doing a lot of similar things — only FriendFeed is doing them better.

Go ahead, take a look at the newly launched beta version of FriendFeed side-by-side with the recently redesigned Facebook. Sure, both also look a lot like Twitter, but look deeper, beyond the appearance and into the functionality. Both of the services’ main pages offer a stream of information, including information piped in from other services. Both have filters on the sidebar (though FriendFeed recently moved its from the left side — where Facebook’s are — to the right side). Both offer the ability to comment and “like” elements within the stream. And both offer the ability to hide information within the stream.

Now, use both services. Immediately, you’ll see what Facebook is trying to do: Show you an up-to-date look at what your friends are doing both on Facebook and around the web. But it’s not actually live — it’s static. You need to refresh the feed to get more information. FriendFeed, on the other hand, is updating in real-time.

At first, there was some backlash against this real-time updating on FriendFeed, with users complaining that there was too much information coming in, too quickly. But that talk has quieted down quite a bit in the week since its launch. And the real-time aspect has so far proven to be a boon for activity on the site. I’m looking at my FriendFeed stream right now compared to my Facebook stream — my FriendFeed stream has a lot more activity on it, despite Facebook having over 200 million users and FriendFeed likely having something south of a million users.

At a glance, FriendFeed feels alive, while Facebook feels, well, static.

Facebook plans to turn on real-time updates as well. But when it does, it could well be looking at another major backlash from users. If we saw a backlash against real-time on FriendFeed — which not only has much fewer users, but also has a user base that is considered to be full of “power” web users — just imagine what the backlash will be like on Facebook. It will be ugly.

And that’s why filters are so important. These allow you to show only certain updates from certain people on your stream. But again, FriendFeed has done a better job on them than Facebook has. Facebook has made it fairly easy to edit who is in what filter, but it’s still not obvious as to how to do that from a friend’s actual profile page. On FriendFeed, it’s obvious.

More importantly, FriendFeed has always made it easy to filter the stream not just by user, but by type of feed element. Facebook recently added this functionality, but it is much less tailored. For example, I can hide YouTube videos, but it will hide all YouTube videos. On FriendFeed, you can hide just YouTube videos from a certain user (but still get other updates from that user). And it’s easy to change those settings as any time. On Facebook, I have no idea how to do that.

And with these weaker filters (and a user base who isn’t accustomed to using them), when Facebook implements its real-time stream, a lot of information is going to go by without being noticed. That’s because while FriendFeed smartly brings elements back up to the top of the stream when a friend comments on or “likes” them, Facebook keeps them moving right on down the stream. This means that we’re not likely to see an 800+ comment stream below items like we saw the other day on FriendFeed during a live recording of the Gillmor Gang (yes, it was talking about FriendFeed, but still).

Obviously, Facebook is a lot more than just a stream of information — it’s the largest social network, with rich profiles, a robust application community, among many other things. But it’s also clear that Facebook wants to be the center of sharing information on the web. And right now, both Twitter and yes, FriendFeed are kicking its ass at that, in terms of execution.

Let’s jump back to Twitter for a second. A lot of people are caught up with the whole Facebook/Twitter comparison — and that probably includes those high up at Facebook (which failed in a bid to buy Twitter at the end of last year). It’s obvious that Facebook’s recent emphasis on status updates comes directly as a result in the surge in popularity of Twitter. It’s also clear that the large icons in the stream come from Twitter as well — something which I think is actually a mistake for Facebook, because the icons are far too large and make information intake even more difficult.

But I think it’s FriendFeed that Facebook should be more closely following, given what it wants to do with its service. That’s especially true when even more information starts coming into the site by way of Facebook Connect. Twitter has exploded in popularity because it’s so simple — but it’s far too simple for everything that Facebook want to do. But FriendFeed seems to be morphing into exactly what Facebook wants to be.

So the question I have now, is whether or not Facebook will copy these better features from FriendFeed? I think it will. After all, it had no problem borrowing the “like” feature, the importing of third-party stream elements, or the commenting functionality. (Sure, FriendFeed didn’t invent all of these, but they’ve been implemented on Facebook in nearly the exact same way they’ve been used on FriendFeed.) And if Facebook is able to follow that lead, 200 million plus users will essentially be using FriendFeed — just under the moniker of Facebook.

Unlike a lot of people out there, I believe Facebook is on the right track with its recent moves to centralize sharing on the web. But the redesign, in many ways, is half-baked. It needs to be executed better — it needs to be like FriendFeed.

get widgetminimize

CrunchBase Information

FriendFeed

Website:	friendfeed.com
Location:	Mountain View, California, United States
Acquired:	August 10, 2009 by Facebook for $47.5M in Cash and Stock

FriendFeed aims to be a one stop shop for all your social networking updates and news items. The four founders were all team members at Google and helped to launch such products as… Learn More

Facebook

Website:	facebook.com
Location:	Palo Alto, California, United States
Founded:	February 1, 2004
Funding:	$716M

Facebook is the world’s largest social network, with over 400 million users.

Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg in February 2004, initially as an exclusive network for Harvard… Learn More

Twitter

Website:	twitter.com
Location:	San Francisco, California, United States
Founded:	March 21, 2006
Funding:	$160M

Twitter, founded by Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams in March 2006 (launched publicly in July 2006), is a social networking and micro-blogging… Learn More

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/12/you-will-be-using-friendfeed-in-the-future-but-it-may-be-called-facebook/#ixzz0m6BJ3IRk

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

 SOURCE tech crunch PAR: glueman  ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

 UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS?  AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0  DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont

2009 / 2010 SOCIAL TRENDS Marketing Communication Media Creativity Design by pourquoi tu cours

The strategic planners of pourquoi tu cours (the ideas agency) have identified 4 major social trends for 2009.

1st social trend : Self Accomplishment
- Recentring on oneself
- The need for doing things 
- Conscience awakening

Second social trend : Interactive Identity
- Open Identity
- Co constructed Identity
- Active Identity
- Augmented Identity

The 3rd social trend : Networking
- People like us
- Activation links
- Interpersonal links
- Influence nodes

4th social trend : Collective automation
- Shared activity spaces
- Action communities
- Open access
- Geolocalisation
- Technological automation

2009 SOCIAL TRENDS Marketing Communication Media Creativity Design

View more OpenOffice presentations from Jérémy Dumont.

Pourquoi tu cours (the ideas agency) is a strategic planning agency run by Jérémy Dumont that helps brand managers develop strategies designed for the new interactive generation on and offline.

We have enabled companies such as iDTGV, Orange, LVMH, Crédit Coopératif to function as one dynamic network to increase their performance, to practice open innovation to develop new products and services, to engage consumers in new relationships through advertising, to build social platforms to better interact with stakeholders comunities or to integrate social media in their strategies.

At the forefront of innovation, our exchange platform, PSST(opinions and trends 2.0), is the place where 60 000 professionals working in marketing, communication, media and design interact to share ideas and master 2.0 innovations.

POTSED ON CONTAGIOUS IDEAS : 2.0 strategic planning BY : jérémy dumont THE BEST OF OUR BLOGS PSST.FR

AN INITIATIVE OF POURQUOI TU COURS ? 2.0 STRATEGIC PLANNING AGENCY jérémy dumont DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC PLANNING

TENDANCE DE SOCIETE = rapport d'innovation sur la diffusion des valeurs féminines dans la société. Un rapport d'innovation de courts circuits, le cercle d'innovation du réseau interprofessionnel PSST.

...

Introduction du rapport d'innovation sur la diffusion des valeurs dites féminines

View more presentations from jérémy DUMONT.

La Diffusion Des Valeurs Dites Féminines - Partie 1

View more presentations from jérémy DUMONT.

La Diffusion Des Valeurs Dites Féminines - Partie 2

View more presentations from jérémy DUMONT.

• Pourquoi ce thème est-il d’actualité ?

• Certains phénomènes récents changent la société et accélèrent la diffusion des valeurs « dîtes féminines » :

• L’interdépendance : La globalisation et la libéralisation des capitaux nous donnent l’impression que nous ne contrôlons plus rien, que nous ne décidons plus de notre avenir. En fait nous commençons juste à réaliser que nous sommes tous interdépendants et que pour ne pas subir et pouvoir agir, de nouveaux modes de gouvernances sont à mettre en place avec comme leitmotiv les notions de démocratie participative et de bien commun.

• Le sens : Quel paradigme viendra remplacer la postmodernité et le nihilisme destructeur de sens qui la caractérise ? La notion de progrès qui guidait les lumières a depuis longtemps été abandonnée pour être remplacée par un grand vide. Aujourd’hui nous nous intéressons à un capital trop souvent méprisé, le capital humain pour ensemble construire un système qui fasse sens.

• La spiritualité : Au-delà de la religion, la nouvelle spiritualité émergente s’érige en protectrice de la vie. La sauvegarde de Gaïa n’est plus regardée comme un simple mythe païen.

• L'accomplissement de soi : Le regard normatif de la société s’est considérablement adoucis. Hier nous risquions l’exclusion de du groupe, de la communauté. Les personnalités d’aujourd’hui mêlent féminin et masculin à l’envie, bien loin des carcans de nos aînées. Les familles se recomposent, les hommes et les femmes se réinventent. Le regard normatif des autres n’est plus la norme, on cherche l’accomplissement de soi.

• Un rapport du cercle d'innovation courts circuits avec les contributions de =
• Christine Marsan, psychologue, chercheur en sociologie, écrivain

• Jean Louis Lespes, économiste

• Joël de Rosnay , biologie, prospective, fondateur d’Agora Vox

• Rafik Smati, fondateur et président du groupe Aventers

• Nishchalananda Saraswati, enseignant spécialiste des spiritualités

• Danièle Rousseau, Medef

• Thierry Verhelst, auteur

• Monique Grande, consultante

• Christine Page, auteur

• Jean Baptiste de Foucauld, pôle emploi

• Maïté Levasseur, journaliste

• Marc Luyckx, auteur

• Marc Halévy, physicien et philosophe

• Bernard Andrieu, philosophe du corps

• Fabienne Brugère, philosophe

• Roger Nifle, sociologue, directeur de l’institut cohérences

• BSV, Pro Senectute Suisse

• Une initiative de Jérémy Dumont, directeur du planning stratégique chez Pourquoi Tu Cours ? (l’agence des idées)
• newzy avait fait un reportage vidéo sur le lancement de cette étude lors des apéros du jeudi "tous en jupe, les hommes aussi" organisé pour explorer la diffusion des valeurs dites féminines dans la société" = www.lesaperosdujeudi.com
• La jupe est de retour dans les garde-robes masculines. L'association Hommes en jupe (HEJ) milite avec humour pour l'égalité des sexes et a profité des apéros du jeudi 30 avril pour défendre ses convictions.

• 
  Les hommes en jupe !
  envoyé par newzy-fr. - Regardez les dernières vidéos d'actu.
  

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

PAR: glueman ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS? AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0 DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont

The noble principles on which modern France was founded are in trouble. But the effort to give them new life is underway, says Patrice de Beer.

About the author

Patrice de Beer is former London and Washington correspondent for Le Monde.

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.... For more than two centuries, since the revolution of 1789, this motto has been carved on the nation's coat of arms and on the façade of public buildings all over France. Amid the revolution's rich cultural and imagistic repertoire, it is still considered the symbol of the motherland of human rights. Many French people believe it to be one of the most honourable legacies of an intermittently glorious past. But what remains of these noble ideals in the France of today?

A glance at current political realities suggests the answer is "not much".

Liberty? A cluster of fears - of immigration, of globalisation, of crime - has fuelled successive governments' efforts to centralise power, and trade an increasing number of long-taken-for-granted civic rights for a law-and-order strategy. The government of President Nicolas Sarkozy - who on 6 May 2009 celebrated the second anniversary of his election - has gone further than any previous one in this respect.

The grand ideal looks equally fragile abroad. Realpolitik leads France to trade with and indulge unsavoury leaders and authoritarian states. Patrice de Beer is former London and Washington correspondent for Le Monde

Equality? This is a period of economic crisis where much of the population lives in insecurity and near-despair. There is high unemployment; half of France's households live on less than €1,470 a month ($2,010); 13% of the population lives below the poverty-line. Millions of French people believe, for the first time in decades, that their children will be worse off than they are. The immigrant population and its children are ghettoised, more prone to unemployment, and victims of job discrimination.

There is a chasm between rich and poor. The notion of equality of opportunity and a "social elevator" based on merit shows its limits in an education system of which France was once proud. Today the university sector is starved of funds and packed with students who have meagre chances of finding a good job, while the successful business schools and grandes ecoles for the crème de la crème guarantee career-track progress for a favoured elite.

Fraternity? Nicolas Sarkozy describes the scions of two of France's wealthiest families - Arnaud Lagardère and Martin Bouygues, each of whom controls a media empire - as his "brothers". The French president, living symbol of the nation to the world, seeks his friends in the bling-bling world of opulence, greed and power. Another crony, the advertising tycoon Jacques Séguéla, captured the spirit of the age in the comment: "If you don't sport a Rolex watch at 50, you've wasted your life"! Too bad for the legion of "losers". 

The response to an appeal by Ségolène Royal - the socialist candidate who challenged Sarkozy in the presidential election of 2007 - for her audience to echo her chant of Fra-ter-ni-té was revealing; she was vilified on all sides, called mad by some and silly by others for embracing such passé mantras.

After the fall

The social corrosion and political manipulation of the principles that underpin modern France make it hard for the French to reclaim them. Yet in face of these depredations, there are signs of a struggle both to invigorate them and to reorder their priorities.

A survey recently published by two researchers of the Association pour la recherche sur les systèmes de valeurs (Arval) suggests that over the 2000s the French public's commitment to equality has for the first time become more important than that to freedom (see Pierre Bréchon & Jean-François Tchernia, La France à travers ses valeurs [France through her values], Armand Colin, 2009). The notion that social competition is itself valuable has retreated, while the idea that the state has a key role in guaranteeing welfare and regulating or directing business has advanced.

At the same time, the idea of fraternity has in some areas returned to prominence. In everyday life, for example, where local solidarities - nurtured at grassroots level by community groups and occasionally helped by municipal authorities - are helping some to survive the crisis. Indeed, when the economy is failing, life is getting harder, social distances widening and an ethic of individualism spreading, "solidarity" might look like an appropriately updated version of the classical "fraternity".

Such a modernisation of the founding ideals of modern France is reflected in another recent publication by one of the country's best known intellectuals, Régis Debray. In the latest episode of a colourful career - Debray followed the trail of Che Guevara to Bolivia in 1967, advised Francois Mitterrand in the 1980s, rallied to Jacques Chirac in the mid-1990s, all the way pouring out books on the media and political or religious affairs - the author breathes new life into the debate on "fraternity" and veers back to the left in the process.

Régis Debray's book - Le Moment fraternité (Gallimard, 2009) - wants France's embarrassed silence on this value to be lifted. He advocates a fraternité with a fighting spirit - a concept where the collective "we" overcomes narrow egoism, and a society disfigured by fragmentation and crazy numbers (shares, price indexes, polls, profits, debts) and is returned to human scale and sanity. 

For Debray, fraternité today involves not bland sermonising, far-left sloganising, nor nostalgic reminiscing. It means going beyond the intellectual comfort of social and intellectual bubbles, creating networks to build a new and better society. At a time when the increasingly unpopular Nicolas Sarkozy has expressed his loathing for "egalitarianism", Debray offers a way ahead on another flank for a left divided by personal rivalries and seeking a convincing substitute to the presidential regime. When each of the three "pillars" are in their own way under assault, and the painful economic recession threatens greater social violence, a coherent model of change is desperately needed. Régis Debray offers one way forward.

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la mort...in their own way the French may, after all, be seeking neither to live in the past nor abandon it, but to infuse its ideals with new life.

Also in openDemocracy on French politics:

Johannes Willms, "France unveiled: making Muslims into citizens?" (26 February 2004)

Patrick Weil, "A nation in diversity: France, Muslims and the headscarf" (25 March 2004) 

Henri Astier, "We want to be French!" (22 November 2005)

Alan Lentin, "The intifada of the banlieues" (17 November 2005)

Henri Astier, "France's revolt against change" (23 March 2006)

Henri Astier "In praise of French direct democracy" (12 April 2006)

KA Dilday, "Zidane and France: the rules of the game" (18 July 2006)

Henri Astier, "France's banlieues: year of the locust" (8 November 2006)

Henri Astier, "Jurassic Left: the strange death of France's deuxième gauche" (25 March 2007)

KA Dilday, "France's two worlds" (7 May 2007)

Hector Andrieu, "A lost left: the soul of French socialism" (5 June 2007)

James McDougall, "Sarkozy: big white chief's bad memory" (7 December 2007)

Rejoignez PSST ! La plateforme d'échanges interprofessionnelle !

envoyez nous vos actualités + inscrivez vous a la newsletter : www.psst.fr

 SOURCE  open democracy   PAR:glueman  ACCÈS DIRECT A LA PLATEFORME: PSST.FR

 UNE INITIATIVE DE: POURQUOI TU COURS?  AGENCE DE PLANNING STRATEGIQUE 2.0  DIRIGÉE PAR: Jérémy Dumont