Posts
This blog has been moved to Wordpress.
You can find all future (and past) posts at: http://christinadulitz.wordpress.com/
Monday, October 12, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Social Media Breakfast #19
Last week, I attended my first Social Media Breakfast. Social Media Breakfast - Minneapolis/St Paul is a group that meets for breakfast (bacon!) periodically to discuss social media.
At the most recent SMBmsp (the 19th!), the event was divided into two sections - a presentation and demo by mixmobi and an interactive discussion about the state of social media use within corporations.
Mixmobi is a quick and easy way to deploy announcements/coupons/offers via social mediums and the ability to report on those campaigns in near-real-time. The tool, which they demoed live at SMBmsp, allows nearly anyone to deploy campaigns - no coding or technical background required. The resulting campaigns can be deployed via SMS or Twitter, I believe, although they were looking to expand that list.
The feature that I found most fascinating (as you'd expect, given my background!) was the near-real-time reporting capabilities. During the presentation, they deployed a postcard via Twitter - and near the end of the presentation, went into the reporting feature to show it off. Already, we could see some of the stats emerging. Quite a departure from my experience with reporting!
(If you're interested in more details on mixmobi, check out an article here, including a demo video.)
The second half of the event was an interactive discussion about the use of social media. People shared their frustrations about being social media evangelists within their company, and techniques for helping others realize the power of social media. There were many interesting points and discussions, but one stood out for me. If someone doubts the power of social media, or feels they can ignore it until they're ready to tackle it - take them to Twitter or Facebook and search on their company name. I imagine the results would be eye-opening to many.
Overall, an enjoyable, interesting, and thought-provoking morning. I look forward to attending more of these breakfasts in the future.
At the most recent SMBmsp (the 19th!), the event was divided into two sections - a presentation and demo by mixmobi and an interactive discussion about the state of social media use within corporations.
Mixmobi is a quick and easy way to deploy announcements/coupons/offers via social mediums and the ability to report on those campaigns in near-real-time. The tool, which they demoed live at SMBmsp, allows nearly anyone to deploy campaigns - no coding or technical background required. The resulting campaigns can be deployed via SMS or Twitter, I believe, although they were looking to expand that list.
The feature that I found most fascinating (as you'd expect, given my background!) was the near-real-time reporting capabilities. During the presentation, they deployed a postcard via Twitter - and near the end of the presentation, went into the reporting feature to show it off. Already, we could see some of the stats emerging. Quite a departure from my experience with reporting!
(If you're interested in more details on mixmobi, check out an article here, including a demo video.)
The second half of the event was an interactive discussion about the use of social media. People shared their frustrations about being social media evangelists within their company, and techniques for helping others realize the power of social media. There were many interesting points and discussions, but one stood out for me. If someone doubts the power of social media, or feels they can ignore it until they're ready to tackle it - take them to Twitter or Facebook and search on their company name. I imagine the results would be eye-opening to many.
Overall, an enjoyable, interesting, and thought-provoking morning. I look forward to attending more of these breakfasts in the future.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Good to Great - the book
I recently finished reading Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't by Jim Collins. Collins is the author of an earlier book, Built to Last, which I haven't read, but this one is stand-alone (and, Collins considers it a prequel).
Good to Great is the result of about 5 years of research by a team of ~20 researchers. They first identified companies they felt had gone from 'good' to 'great', then identified comparison companies that had not made the transition, and then attempted to identify characteristics of the 'good to great' companies.
I would sum up the 'good to great' path as presented in this book as: Management hires the right people, creates a culture of discipline and focus on the core business and it competitive advantage, lets ideas percolate up to management, and leadership implements them, reviewing success and path frequently, and changing course as necessary.
THE PROCESS
The researchers first culled a list of ~1,500 public companies to find those that had gone from 'good' to 'great' by looking at performance over time (a period of average returns, followed by a transition period, followed by a period of above-average returns). (Of course, it was more difficult than that, for example, controlling for companies in industries that were experiencing industry-wide growth).
They ended with a list of eleven companies and comparison companies. Next was the arduous task of reviewing publicly available data on each of those companies - press releases, newspaper clippings, interview, and the like to understand what was going on within each of the companies during this time period. Did they have a change in leadership? Were they actively pursuing a new strategy?
THE RESULTS
Some sample characteristics of a 'good to great' company:
MY TAKE
As with many books in this genre, I was disappointed overall. Maybe I'm disappointed by the messiness of the real world or maybe I expect too much. But even with a sample size as small as eleven, I felt as though some of the characteristics were forced on some of the companies.
And, as is almost always the case, this book is not a how-to, it's a way of thinking. As the author states many times, the companies didn't realize they were in transition until it was complete. If this is so, can a company attempt to make the leap from good to great based on the path of the example companies? Does knowing that you're trying to transition impact the effectiveness of the transition? And even if it doesn't, implementing the steps will be difficult. How can a company determine what its competitive advantage is, what it can be the best at? Who are the right people?
GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF GREAT
The most powerful piece of the book, for me, was the statement 'good is the enemy of great'. I hadn't thought about it that way, but I find it very telling. It's just another way of saying that there's diminishing returns on the level of effort you put into something, but phrased that way I find it very powerful. How often do I settle for 'good' when I could have 'great'? And, when does it make sense to settle for 'good'?
CIRCUIT CITY, FANNIE MAE
I was quite skeptical of this book and its processes - perhaps because, reading it a few years after its publication, I have a vantage point that the author didn't. Two of the companies included in the eleven 'good to great' list no longer exist. Circuit City has gone bankrupt and Fannie Mae was bailed out by the government. Within less than 10 years of its 'greatness', these two companies got into serious trouble.
This certainly gives rise to some questions over the methods and results.
Good to Great is the result of about 5 years of research by a team of ~20 researchers. They first identified companies they felt had gone from 'good' to 'great', then identified comparison companies that had not made the transition, and then attempted to identify characteristics of the 'good to great' companies.
I would sum up the 'good to great' path as presented in this book as: Management hires the right people, creates a culture of discipline and focus on the core business and it competitive advantage, lets ideas percolate up to management, and leadership implements them, reviewing success and path frequently, and changing course as necessary.
THE PROCESS
The researchers first culled a list of ~1,500 public companies to find those that had gone from 'good' to 'great' by looking at performance over time (a period of average returns, followed by a transition period, followed by a period of above-average returns). (Of course, it was more difficult than that, for example, controlling for companies in industries that were experiencing industry-wide growth).
They ended with a list of eleven companies and comparison companies. Next was the arduous task of reviewing publicly available data on each of those companies - press releases, newspaper clippings, interview, and the like to understand what was going on within each of the companies during this time period. Did they have a change in leadership? Were they actively pursuing a new strategy?
THE RESULTS
Some sample characteristics of a 'good to great' company:
- led by 'level 5 leaders' - leaders who are humble, who think the company's success is more important than his own success, more 'plow horse' than 'show horse'.
- focused on getting the right people onboard and using those people to collectively find the path to greatness rather than dictating a strategy and using whoever's available to fulfill that strategy.
- determined what the company is passionate about and what the company can become the best at.
MY TAKE
As with many books in this genre, I was disappointed overall. Maybe I'm disappointed by the messiness of the real world or maybe I expect too much. But even with a sample size as small as eleven, I felt as though some of the characteristics were forced on some of the companies.
And, as is almost always the case, this book is not a how-to, it's a way of thinking. As the author states many times, the companies didn't realize they were in transition until it was complete. If this is so, can a company attempt to make the leap from good to great based on the path of the example companies? Does knowing that you're trying to transition impact the effectiveness of the transition? And even if it doesn't, implementing the steps will be difficult. How can a company determine what its competitive advantage is, what it can be the best at? Who are the right people?
GOOD IS THE ENEMY OF GREAT
The most powerful piece of the book, for me, was the statement 'good is the enemy of great'. I hadn't thought about it that way, but I find it very telling. It's just another way of saying that there's diminishing returns on the level of effort you put into something, but phrased that way I find it very powerful. How often do I settle for 'good' when I could have 'great'? And, when does it make sense to settle for 'good'?
CIRCUIT CITY, FANNIE MAE
I was quite skeptical of this book and its processes - perhaps because, reading it a few years after its publication, I have a vantage point that the author didn't. Two of the companies included in the eleven 'good to great' list no longer exist. Circuit City has gone bankrupt and Fannie Mae was bailed out by the government. Within less than 10 years of its 'greatness', these two companies got into serious trouble.
This certainly gives rise to some questions over the methods and results.
Frost Nixon - the movie
I recently saw Frost/Nixon. Because I often wait to see movies until they've left the theatre (or, in this case, a full year after it left the theatre), I rarely go into a movie with fresh eyes. With this movie, it was the commercials - in them, Nixon angrily shouts "I didn't want to take any questions on Watergate!" and "...when the President does it, that means it's *not* illegal!"
I think those two quotes sum up the movie. The first speaks to the pervasive, uncomfortable backdrop of Watergate. The second to the 'confsesion/admission' by Nixon. The admission was more in the vein of 'mistakes have been made' than a taking of responsibility, and that left me feeling dissatisfied. (although, assuming the movie is true to the tapes, that's not the fault of the movie.)
The part of the movie I did find very satisfying was towards the end, during and after the 'admission'. The facial expression and body language of Nixon was fantastic. To me, it portrayed weariness, guilt, resolve - what I wished he would have put into words. Beautiful.
I've put the original interview in my queue and am excited to see how they compare!
I think those two quotes sum up the movie. The first speaks to the pervasive, uncomfortable backdrop of Watergate. The second to the 'confsesion/admission' by Nixon. The admission was more in the vein of 'mistakes have been made' than a taking of responsibility, and that left me feeling dissatisfied. (although, assuming the movie is true to the tapes, that's not the fault of the movie.)
The part of the movie I did find very satisfying was towards the end, during and after the 'admission'. The facial expression and body language of Nixon was fantastic. To me, it portrayed weariness, guilt, resolve - what I wished he would have put into words. Beautiful.
I've put the original interview in my queue and am excited to see how they compare!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Web Analytics Integration
Judah Phillips recently wrote a blog post over at Web Analytics Demystified - Web Analytics Integration: Holy Grail or White Whale. In it, he describes the transition he's seen in the industry over the past few years around integrating web analytics data with data from other sources. In addition, he shares his thoughts on some of the potential integration points.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is much potential in this area. Web analytics data is powerful on its own - but combine it with data from other sources, and it becomes even more so.
Integrating data from any two sources can be difficult. Years ago, my project team was tasked with implementing a customer-facing feature that involved making certain data warehouse data available to the customer. If you're familiar with data warehouses, you'll recognize that this opposite from how a data warehouse is typically used. (If you're not familiar, you can find more information on wikipedia, but the basic idea is that the site data is the data used in for day-to-day operations, often customer-facing. The data warehouse takes the site data then reformats it, aggregates it, etc. to enable internal operations, often reporting). My project team was very familiar with accessing and using site data - and our data warehouse counterparts were very familiar with accommodating the new site tables. Yet, pulling data warehouse data back into the site data was new to both teams, and involved new processes and relationships.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is much potential in this area. Web analytics data is powerful on its own - but combine it with data from other sources, and it becomes even more so.
Integrating data from any two sources can be difficult. Years ago, my project team was tasked with implementing a customer-facing feature that involved making certain data warehouse data available to the customer. If you're familiar with data warehouses, you'll recognize that this opposite from how a data warehouse is typically used. (If you're not familiar, you can find more information on wikipedia, but the basic idea is that the site data is the data used in for day-to-day operations, often customer-facing. The data warehouse takes the site data then reformats it, aggregates it, etc. to enable internal operations, often reporting). My project team was very familiar with accessing and using site data - and our data warehouse counterparts were very familiar with accommodating the new site tables. Yet, pulling data warehouse data back into the site data was new to both teams, and involved new processes and relationships.
If integrating data stored in similar technologies with similar data maintained by teams with a close relationship can be difficult, then integrating data from disparate data sets can be even more difficult. Web analytics data is often captured, stored, and reported on differently than other data. Given this, it often takes focus and resolve to spend the effort to make this possible.
But, the payoff can be tremendous. More recently I was on a project team tasked with building out a system to collect click-stream data. Even before the Proof of Concept was initiated, one of the key requirements was that the resulting system be able to integrate with some of the existing data stores. And that proved to be a prescient requirement. Even before work on that capability was completed, we were discovering analyses that would benefit from combining the click-stream data with data from other data sets.
In summary, I agree with the author that integrating web analytics data with other data can be very powerful and I am glad to hear that he has noticed a shift in the attitudes and availability of features around this!
But, the payoff can be tremendous. More recently I was on a project team tasked with building out a system to collect click-stream data. Even before the Proof of Concept was initiated, one of the key requirements was that the resulting system be able to integrate with some of the existing data stores. And that proved to be a prescient requirement. Even before work on that capability was completed, we were discovering analyses that would benefit from combining the click-stream data with data from other data sets.
In summary, I agree with the author that integrating web analytics data with other data can be very powerful and I am glad to hear that he has noticed a shift in the attitudes and availability of features around this!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Target to take its website inhouse
I've known that Amazon offered a service where it powered the back-end of a third-party's website. What I didn't realize was that large companies with a strong online presence were still using the service in 2009.
When I first heard about the service, I thought it was brilliant. It was the early 2000's, maybe 2002 or so - the consumer marketplace was at an inflection point: e-tailing was becoming more popular and less of a niche market. But what would the marketplace look like at the end of the transition? Would traditional retailers change shape and exist in both the offline and online space? Could traditional retailers thrive in an online setting? Or would the market be divided into 'traditional' retailers and 'online' retailers?
Add to this uncertainty that creating an online presence - specifically those that include product inventories or ordering capabilities - can require new skillsets, technology, and hardware with high start-up costs. Add to that the high propensity for failure and the short window in which to make an impression in a changing market, and I thought it made great sense for companies to outsource their e-commerce operations to Amazon. I thought the service would primarily be an interim solution until each company built out its own e-commerce capabilities.
I hadn't thought about this service in years, until I came across an article which stated that Target would be discontinuing its partnership with Amazon in 2011 and taking its website inhouse.
So for nearly 10 years, the target.com backend has been powered by Amazon. I was completely surprised by this. But upon closer consideration, I can see how my thinking was biased.
My experience has been primarily with companies whose primary priority are its websites. In my personal experience, companies are filled with people who are technical (or used to be technical) and there are teams dedicated to disaster recovery, data redundancy, performance, security, up-time, etc.
Looking at it through that lens, building and maintaining a quality website seemed, if not easy, certainly not difficult. Add some resources with specific front- and back-end skillsets, expand a few data centers, add resources to the on-call schedule, and the site is up and running.
But, I suppose, not all companies are like the ones I've experienced. Building out a basic html site may be easy enough, but building out and supporting the infrastructure to maintain a highly-available, integrated, redundant, secure ordering site is complex. And for companies whose core business is distinct from that effort, it may not make sense to bring all that effort inhouse.
While this news rated just a few paragraphs in the local paper, I found it very eye-opening. And good luck to Target in this endeavor!
When I first heard about the service, I thought it was brilliant. It was the early 2000's, maybe 2002 or so - the consumer marketplace was at an inflection point: e-tailing was becoming more popular and less of a niche market. But what would the marketplace look like at the end of the transition? Would traditional retailers change shape and exist in both the offline and online space? Could traditional retailers thrive in an online setting? Or would the market be divided into 'traditional' retailers and 'online' retailers?
Add to this uncertainty that creating an online presence - specifically those that include product inventories or ordering capabilities - can require new skillsets, technology, and hardware with high start-up costs. Add to that the high propensity for failure and the short window in which to make an impression in a changing market, and I thought it made great sense for companies to outsource their e-commerce operations to Amazon. I thought the service would primarily be an interim solution until each company built out its own e-commerce capabilities.
I hadn't thought about this service in years, until I came across an article which stated that Target would be discontinuing its partnership with Amazon in 2011 and taking its website inhouse.
So for nearly 10 years, the target.com backend has been powered by Amazon. I was completely surprised by this. But upon closer consideration, I can see how my thinking was biased.
My experience has been primarily with companies whose primary priority are its websites. In my personal experience, companies are filled with people who are technical (or used to be technical) and there are teams dedicated to disaster recovery, data redundancy, performance, security, up-time, etc.
Looking at it through that lens, building and maintaining a quality website seemed, if not easy, certainly not difficult. Add some resources with specific front- and back-end skillsets, expand a few data centers, add resources to the on-call schedule, and the site is up and running.
But, I suppose, not all companies are like the ones I've experienced. Building out a basic html site may be easy enough, but building out and supporting the infrastructure to maintain a highly-available, integrated, redundant, secure ordering site is complex. And for companies whose core business is distinct from that effort, it may not make sense to bring all that effort inhouse.
While this news rated just a few paragraphs in the local paper, I found it very eye-opening. And good luck to Target in this endeavor!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Brain Tumor Awareness Day at the A's game
The National Brain Tumor Society is an organization I became aware of earlier this year when they visited the hospital where I volunteer.
A great organization, with information on diagnosis, treatment, research, and support. They also hold events throughout the year, and one is coming up this week.
The Oakland A's is hosting a 'Brain Tumor Awareness Day' during the August 15 game. $4 of every ticket sale is donated to NBTS. If I were still in the Bay Area, I'd certainly go out to the game!
A great organization, with information on diagnosis, treatment, research, and support. They also hold events throughout the year, and one is coming up this week.
The Oakland A's is hosting a 'Brain Tumor Awareness Day' during the August 15 game. $4 of every ticket sale is donated to NBTS. If I were still in the Bay Area, I'd certainly go out to the game!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
