It’s Like Facebook For Work. Wait It Is Facebook For Work

Alan Lepofsky

Vice President & Principal Analyst
Constellation Research

Alan Lepofsky - VP and Principal Analyst, Constellation Research. With almost two decades of experience in the collaboration software industry, Lepofsky helps organizations improve the way their employees work together to get their jobs done. Lepofsky’s primary research area The Future of Work, focuses on: integrating collaboration and business processes (Purposeful Collaboration), structuring work via Social Task Management, leveraging analytics and digital assistants to work more productively, the strategic impact of mobile computing on business transformation, and measuring workforce culture based on Digital Proficiency instead of age. Twitter: @alanlepoLinkedIn: https://ca.linkedin.com/in/alanlepo     , Title: Big IdeasIntelligent Collaboration: The Intersection of…...

Read more

On Jan 14th, Facebook officially announced their much rumoured Facebook at Work offering. This private version of the popular social network is designed to provide employees a place to collaborate securely with their colleagues. This sounds like a great idea, if it were still 2010.

In the late 2000s a shift began taking place that was commonly referred to as Enterprise 2.0, or E20. In E20 companies began adopting "social tools" such as blogs, wikis and activity streams to enable employees to communicate and collaborate more openly than they were doing via email. To explain this shift to potential buyers, early vendors such as Socialtext (where I was Director of Marketing), Yammer, SocialCast, Jive Software and others would use the analogy “It’s like a Facebook for the Enterprise". Even though forums and communities have been around since the 70s (the Well, AOL, Compuserve, etc.) a great deal of credit goes to Facebook, for popularising the modern era of social networking.

Around 2011/12 the theme os “Facebook for the Enterprise” began to evolve, as it was not resonating well with executives. They assumed this type of behaviour at work would be a waste of time, sating things like "Why would I want employees sharing pictures of what they had for lunch?" The lack of understanding of how social network could benefit businesses lead to my introducing of the theme of Purposeful Collaboration, where social features were integrated directly into the business tools people use to get their jobs done. Organizations realised that employees need social to be part of the way people work, not a separate destination to go to. This has led to vendors such as SAP, Oracle, Salesforce, Infor, IBM, Microsoft (who acquired Yammer) and others have made sharing, commenting and liking native features of their CRM, ERP, HR and other business applications.

Fast forward to today, where Google has struggled to gain mainstream enterprise adoption of Google+ and vendors like Slack, Glip, Hall, Unify (formerly Siemens) and Cisco have started to blend collaboration and unified communication. So, is Facebook's announcement too little, too late? Not necessarily. Below are a few of the pros and cons of Facebook at Work.

Opportunities

- Name Recognition: Facebook is "the standard" when it comes to social networking. Like it or not, it's a household name. You know the saying "fish where the fish are", well almost everyone is familiar with Facebook to some degree. Sure the demographics are changing and younger people are avoiding Facebook because it's for old people... but those "old people" are the workers of today so why not provide them Facebook at Work?
- Familiar User Experience: Yes, Facebook has had several hiccups when it comes to the design of their timeline, but they remain one of the key influencers on how people use activity streams/news feeds. Since people are already familiar with it, employers can save time and money by avoiding education and training on a new tool. As my colleague Holger Mueller points out, Facebook's popularity forces other vendors to improve their products, which is a win for users.
- Large Partner Ecosystem: Perhaps the biggest plus Facebook has going is the massive ecosystem of developers than know their API and can build add-on tools. While most of the current apps are games, it's not a far stretch to image a shift from Farmville and Candy Crush integration to add-ons for SAP, Salesforce, file sharing, web-conferencing, and other business tools.
- Bridging Employee to Customer engagement: Today many companies already have a "business relationship" with Facebook via their company's Facebook Page. Facebook could provide a compelling solution that bridges private employees conversations with the ones taking place with customers. So for example, a support team could see a question on the company Facebook page and route it to the right product manager to get an answer. Note: I'm not saying this bridging exists today, I'm saying it could be a useful feature if Facebook delivered it.
- Application Assets: Facebook has several applications outside of the news feed that could provide the foundation for a useful business platform. These include: Messenger (for chatting/voip/video calls), Instagram (photos and videos), Paper (displaying news/content) and Events (calendar).
- Massive Mobile Usage: a very high percentage of Facebook usage comes from mobile devices such as phones and tablets. Facebook's experience in this area could be a strong selling point to organizations who's employees require anytime/anywhere access.


Challenges

- Enterprise Software Is Not Consumer Software: Often when consumer companies try and break into the business world they fail to understand that companies have different requirements than individuals. Organizations have to deal with things like auditing and compliance, accessibility, multiple language support, directory integration, administration of people and groups and billing/usage reports. Facebook will need to show that they can meet these business requirements before business will use them for work.
- No Purposeful Collaboration: As mentioned above, companies have shifted away from just wanting a social networking to wanting collaboration tools that integrate with the tools employees use to do their jobs. For Facebook at Work to be successful, they are going to need to provide integration with CRM, ERP, HR, Customer Service/Support, Marketing, Finance and other business software. They will also need to have integrated with functions such as project/task management, file sharing, and web conferencing. This con can be linked to the pro above of partner ecosystem, as the lack of these things provides opportunity for partners to fill in the gaps. The Facebook Custom Stories platform (Open Graph) already has the framework for these integrations, no people just need to build them.
- Lack of Vertical Expertise: It's not enough to just provide a single collaboration platform and try and have it fit all use-cases. Winning collaboration vendors understand the specific needs of industries such as Healthcare, Finance Services, Legal, Manufacturing, Entertainment, Government, etc.  Facebook will need to build teams in each of these areas if they hope to sell into specific industries.
- Privacy Concerns: Warranted or not, most people have concerns about what Facebook does with their information. While Facebook has stated that you will have to switch IDs between personal and work, they still have a lot of work to do to convince organizations that their sensitive and confidential corporate data will be safe on Facebook's servers. The last thing a company wants is an employee "accidentally" posting something publically that they thought was being posted internally.
- Insufficient Search: One of the most important aspects of enterprise software is search. Employees need to be able to find the people, content and conversations they need to get their jobs done. While Facebook is steadily improving their search, it is still very cumbersome compared to most enterprise software. Contrast that to the type of analytics based search and filtering that companies like Microsoft and IBM are now offering, and Facebook has a lot of catching up to do. That said, Facebook's Graph Search has the potential to be quite powerful, so let's see where Facebook takes this in their At Work offering.
- Go To Market Channel: While many business today are using Facebook for marketing, the people who are paying for those Ads and managing Brand pages are not the same people that will be purchasing enterprise wide collaboration licenses. Facebook will need to find a way to reach people with buying authority, whether they reside in IT, LOB, or the executive office.
- Customer Support:   Today Facebook support is primarily an online help knowledge base. They will need a much more robust support organization in order for organizations to feel comfortable using them for critical business communications.
- Pricing: Currently no pricing has been set, but if organizations are already paying for something like Microsoft Office 365 or Google Apps (both of which include social networking) then they will be weary of spending additional funds.
- Competition: Perhaps the biggest hurdle is that there are already so many collaboration solutions available. The list I maintain of social software vendors contains over 50 companies, and (sadly) it is very out of date. Many of these vendors have a decade or more experience providing collaboration solutions, so Facebook may have a considerable challenge on their hands winning deals against these vendors. On the other hand, even after a decade of tools being available the market is so fragmented and no one vendor dominates the space. So perhaps Facebook can capitalise on their name recognition and win a decent percentage of deals. Time will tell.

MyPOV

Overall, I support Facebook entering the business market. They have a product already used by a billion plus people at home, certainly some percentage of those people will be happy also using it for work. I think they chose the right name, "At Work" versus something like "Facebook for the Enterprise", as I don't predict any large organizations will adopt this. There are just too many other choices for them that are better suited to meet the needs or large companies.  However, the millions of small businesses that don't have IT departments and may already be using Facebook as part of their marketing efforts may be quite happy using Facebook for secure employee collaboration.

My advice to Facebook, spend 2015 partnering with large enterprise software vendors so that you can announce integrations that prove the validity of Facebook at Work as a platform people can really use to get their jobs done.

Constellation Research realises that this is just the first release, and we look forward to working with Facebook and their business customers to help move their collaboration offerings forward.
 

The Brave New World of Information InSecurity: Trade PII not privacy

Steve Wilson

Former Vice President and Principal Analyst
Constellation Research

Steve Wilson is former VP and Principal Analyst at Constellation Research, leading the business theme Digital Safety and Privacy. His coverage includes digital identity, data protection, data privacy, cryptography, and trust. His advisory services to CIOs, CISOs, CPOs and IT architects include identity product strategy, security practice benchmarking, Privacy by Design (PbD), privacy engineering and Privacy [or Data Protection] Impact Assessments (PIA, DPIA). Coverage Areas: -  Identity management, frameworks & governance-  Digital identity technologies-  Privacy by Design -  Big Data; “Big Privacy”-  Identity & privacy innovation Previous experience: Wilson has worked in ICT innovation, research, development and analysis for over 25 years. With double…...

Read more

Originally published on December 13, 2011. Updated for relevancy January 14, 2014. 

There is an orthodoxy that privacy is willingly traded by people in return for some sort of reward. Try Googling "trade privacy for" (with the quote marks). I got 181,000 hits! Among other things, people are said to trade their "privacy" for convenience, security, safety, cheaper loans and free phones.

Yet there's a category error here, one we really need to be aware of, in the interests of clear thinking and good policy.

Increasingly what consumers are doing is trading their Personal Information for a gain of some sort. And in principle, that's actually fine by me, and by most privacy advocates. Because privacy and Personal Information are not the same kind of stuff.

Amongst the digerati there is a popular view that most people these days are smart enough to know what they're doing when they sign up for loyalty programs or provide their details when they enter a competition. That view may or may not be right, but it is a sensible position. The important thing is people can and should retain their privacy in the process -- because privacy and Personal Information (or PII) are different things. Data privacy is a state where parties that hold information about you respect that information, and are restrained in what they do with it. Privacy means they refrain from knowing more about you than is necessary, and from re-using PII collected for one purpose for some other purpose.

There is no inherent problem in bargaining your PII with others who happen to value it, but to preserve privacy in these transactions, we need greater visibility from retailers et al of what they intend to do with the PII they collect. We need more sophisticated tools so consumers can fully comprehend what's going on in these data transactions. And we need more precision and rigor in the way we talk about privacy. Let's be clear: there can and should be a fair trade in Personal Information, but not in privacy.

By analogy, we trade money for goods without necessarily losing value, unless the trade in question is unfair. So this is all about transparency, negotiation and fairness -- the same things consumers care about in any transaction.

One of the deep gripes privacy advocates have about today's digital businesses is their opacity. Facebook and the like harvest vast amounts of PII, without committing themselves to any Use Limitation at all, and without even telling their users what they're up to. For example, Facebook's privacy policy is silent on what they do with facial recognition in the background and with biometric templates. Infomopolies make inordinate amounts of money on the back of personal data collected from us without ever acknowledging its true value, let alone negotiating the trade.

And that's the sneaky one-sided bargain at the heart of most social media.

Facebook and LinkedIn tackle the enterprise – what are the implications for the Future of Work?

Holger Mueller

Vice President and Principal Analyst
Constellation Research

Holger Mueller is VP and Principal Analyst for Constellation Research for the fundamental enablers of the cloud, IaaS, PaaS and next generation Applications, with forays up the tech stack into BigData and Analytics, HR Tech, and sometimes SaaS. Holger provides strategy and counsel to key clients, including Chief Information Officers, Chief Technology Officers, Chief Product Officers, Chief HR Officers, investment analysts, venture capitalists, sell-side firms, and technology buyers.  Coverage Areas: Future of Work Tech Optimization & Innovation  Background: Before joining Constellation Research, Mueller was VP of Products for NorthgateArinso, a KKR company. There, he led the transformation of products to the cloud and laid the foundation for new Business Process as a…...

Read more

In not really surprising lockstep social network giants Facebook and LinkedIn announced enterprise offerings. For Facebook it is ‘Facebook at Work’ – bringing all the social tools of feeds, posts, messages etc. to the world of the enterprise, limited to the employees of the same enterprise. For LinkedIn it is initially about allowing employees of the same enterprise to send InMails to each other, and then create enterprise level groups to foster content sharing.

 

Implications, Implications…

• Social in the enterprises goes in round 2 – The first round and hype of social in the enterprise is over. The aftermath of the first round has left users and vendors exhausted. Good to see a new spark into this key area of productivity. The way how business users interact, share content, collaborate is ironically more fragmented and likely broken that in the world of a consumer. A Facebook user, a Skype user has likely better communication and collaboration options at their disposal than the enterprise user. Ironic and time to change that.

• Consumerization of Enterprise software finds the next gear – If Facebook and LinkedIn are serious to put their muscle behind this, it will rev up the level of ease of use for enterprise users. Good news certainly, as despite all the talk, most enterprise solutions have not (yet) reached the same level of usability as consumer grade applications. 

• Users may win – Especially the Facebook offering will be a big win for users. The 1B+ Facebook users are ‘suddenly’ familiar with their enterprise communication and collaboration tool. Adoption, comfort levels could reach a new height for enterprise users. 

• Practitioners face challenges – For the HR practitioner this will be initial headaches, as another system will have to be maintained, updated and monitored. And the blur of private and professional – with all its pros – has some chunky cons, too. 

• Established vendors need to step up – Assuming both Facebook and LinkedIn will not focus elsewhere soon – then ease of use and pricing of established vendors will be under pressure. While Facebook and LinkedIn ultimately need to find monetization alleys for this offering – they can take a more relaxed approach than the established vendors. 

• Partnerships on the horizon – There should be no surprise of some smaller enterprise vendors and adjacent vendors (e.g. in Content Management) will gladly defer and partner with LinkedIn and Facebook as their core communication and collaboration vendor. This will help them to focus R&D investments and Facebook and LinkedIn get a step up into enterprise and open new revenue alleys. 

MyPOV

The real question is – what took Facebook and LinkedIn so long? One can argue they had to solidify their leadership position with consumers, but that as not really anymore a contest for Facebook overall and for LinkedIn for business consumers. As I have blogged earlier, LinkedIn is de-facto probably the number #2 or #3 HCM vendor already – through its personal and recruiting subscription revenues – but did not act like a HCM vendor.

Overall I see this as a good change for the Future of Work, as it will spark new life into both usability, adoption and the overall a little sleepy social market for enterprise. It also will start a new conversation on identity, something that the traditional enterprise vendors with the notable exception of Salesforce.com (Identity Connect) have largely ignored. But in the short term it creates new headache for HCM practitioners, who have another network and user setup to manage. If Facebook and LinkedIn will leave it with the personal productivity, communication functions will remain to be seen. Exciting times ahead.

My colleague Alan Lepofsky has a great take on Facebook's new offering, too - please visit his blog post here.

What is your POV? Please share!

Internet of Things; what happens when ‘sense’ needs the ‘respond’ to come from an existing ‘legacy’ enterprise application?

Andy Mulholland

Vice President and Principal Analyst, Constellation Research
Constellation Research

Andy Mulholland is Vice President and Principal Analyst focusing on cloud business models. Formerly the Global Chief Technology Officer for the Capgemini Group from 2001 to 2011, Mulholland successfully led the organization through a period of mass disruption. Mulholland brings this experience to Constellation’s clients seeking to understand how Digital Business models will be built and deployed in conjunction with existing IT systems. Coverage Areas Consumerization of IT & The New C-Suite: BYOD, Internet of Things, IoT, technology and business use Previous experience: Mulholland co authored four major books that chronicled the change and its impact on Enterprises starting in 2006 with the well-recognised book ‘Mashup Corporations’ with Chris Thomas of Intel. This was followed in…...

Read more

There seems to be a belief that the value lies in the data, the information as to what has changed or is happening, and that may be so, but surely the ‘sense’ part will only provide business value if coupled with a ‘respond’? It’s likely that this requires the IoT data to assessed, and then used as an input to start an existing internal, or Back Office, enterprise application set of processes.

Research report now available: The Foundational Elements for the Internet of Things (IoT)

The whole point of IoT is to create new, additional value to a business, and its operations, a point made in the previous blog entitled ‘Internet of Things; Enterprise Value = Integration, Automation and Scale’. The opening observation I this blog stated “Standalone IOT reporting Services have the same challenge as standalone online Web based ecommerce systems a few years back. Great for pilots and proof of concepts, but sooner, or later a victim of their own success and requiring proper integration into existing order systems”.

This blog then drew attention to the Salesforce approach to IoT integration as a ‘Front Office’ activity, best delivered within the integrated Front Office ‘services’ environment using Salesforce products and methods to ensure optimum Business alignment.

It’s an approach that makes perfect sense, certainly for a Service based industry sector where their own product will probably also be a ‘Service’. However that’s not right for every business as SAP were quick to point out in their pre Christmas briefing on the SAP approach with its focuses on a different set of industry sectors and business models.

SAP point out that there are a lot of Industry sectors with Business models that require the ‘respond’ to a fulfillment provided by a complex set of internal Enterprise processes; think of Manufacturing, Mining, or even compliance centric activities such as Insurance.

Again it’s an approach that makes perfect sense providing, as indeed does the Salesforce approach, because each offers something very different to cater for a very different business model. What this does show is just how careful an assessment is required of exactly what your business model is, and does requires in terms of functions, before considering the technology capabilities required.

This is most decidedly not making the case for everything to continue ‘as is’ with Business requirement management by IT in the familiar manner. But it is making the case for a more thoughtful approach to where and how an  Enterprise IoT strategy will add value to the business model.

The topic of rethinking enterprise wide business functions in a genuine Digital Business model is a separate issue dealt with in the blog series; ‘Understanding your Digital Business Model by its Business Functional Requirements for Operational Technology’. In this blog the focus remains on out lining the SAP approach to IOT integration with Enterprise Applications, and of course ERP.

The opening statement reflected on the value of data coming from IoT sensing, and that for SAP means HANA, but it means more than the role of HANA as the classic provider of Big Data Business Intelligence.

In the mass of data that IoT sensors will pour into the enterprise lies a ‘real time’ challenge to process and sort out the ‘wheat from the chaff’, i.e. the valuable grain from the mass of straw.

SAP say that this is exactly what HANA is designed to excel in providing with its exceptional processing rates. In the IoT and Digital Business front office environment the goal for HANA is deliver ‘Smart Data’ meaning small highly valuable easily understood ‘triggers’ to people, or processes. The SAP integration model makes use of these smart data ‘triggers’ to both assess what applications and processes should be launched, as well as providing the data as the input to start the process.  Now the existing internal ERP, or other applications can provide the enterprise ‘respond’ capabilities from the existing optimized capabilities.

SAP has some excellent case studies to show how their approach works when the requirement requires fulfillment from the enterprise ERP. Two excellent examples are; Real time operations management through integrating IoT to Back Office ERP integration at Hamburg Port Authority, or HPA, and transformation of manufacturing at Harley Davidson.

HPA use IoT to sense more than 400 critical points in their port operations, which are connected to their SAP Connected Logistics enterprise ERP package. The resulting understanding of exactly what is happening ‘on the ground’ around the port has resulted in significant gains in the through put time taken to handle containers passing through the port. The result is the ability to handle more revenue-producing container through put with the same port faculties.

But the real case study that should make any senior executive realize how a well-integrated Digital Business is transformed in both its competitive capability, as well as its output, is Harley Davidson. An iconic brand that is driven by purchasers wanting their customized dream motor bike.

Harley Davidson claims to be manufacturing 25% more Motorbikes with delivery times for custom builds down from 21 days to 6 hours by integrating IoT sensing of critical points with their SAP Connected Manufacturing application.

These SAP case studies, like those of Salesforce, illustrate the huge importance that IoT to making Digital Business a reality in terms of creating a genuinely new competitive landscape. They show IoT being applied in different industry sectors, in different businesses, and in different ways, but what they all have in common is a deep understanding of the role IoT with the other new technologies can play to transform competitive, or operational, capabilities.

Today there are a selection of Case studies available that reveal much about the need to fully understand what is meant by the Digital Business transformation, and its more, much more, than just adding a set of new offerings either ‘bolted on’ to the current ‘Back Office’ IT systems, or even as a standalone ‘digital’ business operation. 

Research report now available: The Foundational Elements for the Internet of Things (IoT)

Ben & Jerry’s: Aggressive Customer Acquisition During “Low Season”

Partner, Sensei Marketing
Partner, Sensei Marketing

Sales & marketing veteran with almost 30 years’ experience and now 1800 digital projects to his credit for clients including Morgan Stanley, AOL, Hyatt Gaming Management, Snyder's of Hanover, Hitachi, the Home Depot, Kraft Foods, Drees Homes, American Idol, and hundreds more, including leading agencies around the North America.     ...

Read more

You think your business has customer acquisition issues? Consider the plight of ice cream manufacturers and retailers during the winter months!  Eating ice cream – let alone buying it – during the cold winter months is about as counterintuitive as buying sunglasses in London, England, where clouds and rain are permanent symbols on the weather forecast.  Yet January to March is an important time of the year for supermarkets selling ice cream and even more so for manufacturers.

Supermarkets and manufacturers like to keep freezer shelves stocked with ice cream during the winter months as a form of advertising; the consistency of seeing the ice cream labels during low season increases product desire when the weather heats up.

It’s Hot to be Cold

Many manufacturers lay low and cut costs during the low season. Toy makers, for example, hold most (if not all) of their marketing budgets for the Thanksgiving to Christmas time period. The “strike when the iron’s hot” strategy seems to work for them. However, what  revenue or opportunity is left on the table by not actively attempting to acquire new customers during the rest of the year?

For manufacturers like Ben & Jerry’s, the low season of January to March is seen as the perfect time to acquire new customers.  Where many firms use the low season to cut costs by decreasing activity, Ben & Jerry’s becomes more aggressive. Each year it introduces new specialty flavors during the winter months to entice reticent consumers to purchase their cold treats.

Today, Ben & Jerry’s announced the launch of three new flavors, which join the brand’s existing “core” lineup of ice creams that have such fillings as fudge, caramel, and raspberry jam. The new products are Boom Chocolatta! Cookie Core, Peanut Buttah Cookie Core, and Spectacular Speculoos Cookie Core. The center of the ice cream has a texture that’s kind of like cookie dough, but crunchier, says John Henry Siedlecki, senior brand manager at Ben & Jerry’s.

Buy When the Market is Down

Real estate and financial moguls will tell you that the secret to success is  buying or investing when the market is poor, not when the market is booming.  For manufacturers, those moments when the competition is lying low or periods when a product or service is less convenient might be the optimal time to be more aggressive with customer acquisition budgets and strategies.

Low season is also a good time to experiment with new products or service offerings, which can help differentiate the brand.  At a minimum, the strategy will help maintain an ongoing dialogue with customers, just when their attention would otherwise be diverted elsewhere. When the product is back in season, the brand is top of mind.

Sensei Debates

Marketing in low season is too expensive and too risky for the possible rewards. Agree/ Disagree? Why?
Join the conversation in the comments below.

A Radical Manifesto for Tech Pioneers: Peter Thiel's Zero To One is Thomas Paine's Common Sense

Constellation Orbits
Marketer & Storyteller

Anurag Wadehra has led marketing at several private and public software companies in the technology areas of mobile, eCommerce, advertising and data management: such as at LivePerson (LPSN) and Siperian (acquired by Informatica INFA) among others. Prior to that, Anurag was CEO & Co-founder of Chingari, a software company designed to help businesses improve success rates of new product launches. Additionally, he served in senior marketing positions at Kraft Foods and Procter & Gamble. Anurag has an MBA from the University of Chicago and B.Tech in Electrical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology. He is a lead mentor at Stanford's accelerator StartX and an avid film buff. ...

Read more

Building a new world order from technology requires covert operations of today’s revolutionaries. 

In his provocative book, Zero To One, Peter Thiel offers a view of entrepreneurship that is radical, in the original sense of the word. That is, it goes to the root of entrepreneurship: how to take bold risks to create a better future. Thiel believes that an entrepreneur should build a lasting company, not merely a successful one. One that is, by his definition, a defensible and durable monopoly and generates significant future cash flow. In this context, monopoly is not a pejorative term but a definition of sustainable business advantage over time. And what kind of entrepreneurs are needed to build such companies? Those who have a revolutionary zeal to pursue their goals matched with the ability to bend nature and consumers to their will. This is not a hand book for building a run-of-the-mill company to cash in on the latest tech trend. It is a pamphlet for tech founders who aim to pioneer new industries and conquer new worlds in some cases literally as in Elon Musk’s ambition to colonize Mars.

 

And as pamphlets go, Thiel’s Zero To One has a few elements in common to the Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Once you get past the obvious differences in form, content and style between the two pamphlets, you notice a common purpose: to persuade the reader to question the conventions of current rulers, to come down from the fence and embrace a new, radical order. For Paine, the purpose of his pamphlet was to rid monarchy and gain support for constitutional democracy based on liberty. He crafted his message to appeal to the commoners of his era. Similarly, Zero To One has the polemical style designed to appeal to today’s revolutionaries: the entrepreneurs. Thiel rails against the culture of risk aversion and the current obsession among founders with incremental innovations (“We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters”). He asks for a bold future in which technology pioneers run global, monopolistic companies to improve and extend human life. Like Paine, Thiel offers a recipe on how to achieve this future.  

 

In brief, here is Thiel's manifesto, as I interpret it, for the tech pioneers of today. 

 

Begin with an secret

Thiel begins with an insight on how to identify the kind of company nobody else is building.  Unlike most investors who ask founders to start with a vision, he asks them to be begin with a secret. He is right in that a vision is a dangerously vacuous endeavor. When asked to espouse one, most founders are prone to hyperbole of market trends ("social meets cloud meets internet of things, kind of like Uber for mono-cyclists)”.  Others simply extrapolate their product into the future.  In most cases, the founder's vision is simply an imagined set of uses of inflated product features targeted at all and sundry.

 

However, Thiel defines a secret in more precise terms. A secret is as an insight shared by the founder about the state of the future which is not generally accepted by others, and often contrary to popular beliefs prevailing in the market. There are of two kinds of secrets uncovered by an entrepreneur: those of nature (e.g. Shockley et al invented transistor) and those of people (e.g. Zuckerberg perfected how humans share photos online).  So, the founder must invent or discover a secret, as the first step; then develop a definitive view of how the secret shall affect the future. Not surprisingly, most entrepreneurs fall short here since they are not pioneers. They would rather build a product than an industry.  

 

Build a cabal 

For the pioneer with a newly minted secret, the next step is to attract others who agree with the truth of the secret. According to Thiel, “a startup is the largest group of people you can convince of a plan to build a different future.” This shared view of a different future is what animates the cabal of early employees, investors and customers. It is the unique way the startup solves the problem that offers the basis of building a long-term monopoly - and a happy company. Happy as in successful: well payed employees, richly rewarded investors and satisfied customers. Again, think Google, Facebook and Tesla. The mantra is: "All happy companies are different: each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: they failed to escape competition.” But how exactly does a startup engineer a monopoly? 

 

Run a covert operation

Thiel lists four characteristics of a technology-based company that can create a monopoly position. Of course, the foundation should be the technology; it must be an order of magnitude better than available alternatives - and it must be proprietary. To be ten times better is a good rule of thumb in most industries. The second factor is to generate network effect; that is, the technology should be adopted rapidly among consumers through word of mouth and social recommendations, or in case of business, through enterprise endorsements and references. Ultimately, the evidence of network effect is that the value of technology increases with adoption of its usage by every new member. But to achieve this effect, Thiel suggests that founders should bootstrap companies in a niche. They should fine-tune, prove and build the positive effect of networks in a niche market for which the technology is ideally suited before casting it wider to broader but less suitable audiences. This shall keep the company under the radar, away from competitive attention. Third, once the technology and its adoption is underway, the company should build the economy of scale - that is, expand with lowest cost curve - with the goal to deepen its competitive moat. And, finally, the company should build and defend its brand to become the de facto standard for the category. While Thiel doesn’t state this, it is clear that the order of things matter. Building a brand comes last, building a 10X technology comes first. The main idea is that the company builds these operations covertly to create a monopoly position while staying away from limelight as long as possible. 

Stay in the shadows

Thiel suggests that a company hide in plain sight. Its secret should attract only the few who believe in it; its operations must run lean until it is ready to draw attention. And, as an interesting corollary, it must ignore competition and not use large established companies as foil. “The act of creation is far more important than the old industries that might not like what you create,” he writes. He observes an interesting use of signaling theory where in "monopolies disguise their monopoly by framing their market as union of several large markets” in order to appear smaller in scale and influence. As evidence, Microsoft and Google in every antitrust suit define their respective markets much more broadly to show their share of it as low as possible. Also, burgeoning monopolies don’t toot their horn and are secretive about their plans.  Incidentally, the opposite is true as well: "non-monopolist exaggerate their distinction by defining their market as the intersection of various smaller markets,” to inflate their influence in them.  They chase the sizzle, make noise in advance of success and often claim “we’re in a league of our own”.  

Aim for a new world order

Finally, Thiel’s advice for those seeking to build a new future is to keep an eye on the prize: the end game. He quotes grandmaster Jose Raul Casablanca: "to succeed, you must study the end game before anything else”.  A pioneer should aim not to be the first in the market but to be the last one standing when the game finishes, and the new order has emerged. This means understanding not just the technology innovation, but the entire ecosystem of partners who come to complement the innovation.

 

In summary, Thiel’s Zero To One is nothing short of a blueprint to build a hegemony of technology titans. Like any call to arms, most entrepreneurs - and their companies - shall never fit the bill since most innovations are derivative in nature. But for the few radical technology pioneers who wish to emblazon a bold future, this is the essential playbook. 
 

 

2014 Logo Hits and Fails; How Important is a Logo to Your Business?

Partner, Sensei Marketing
Partner, Sensei Marketing

Sales & marketing veteran with almost 30 years’ experience and now 1800 digital projects to his credit for clients including Morgan Stanley, AOL, Hyatt Gaming Management, Snyder's of Hanover, Hitachi, the Home Depot, Kraft Foods, Drees Homes, American Idol, and hundreds more, including leading agencies around the North America.     ...

Read more

Sensei introduced a brand and logo refresh this week to usher in a new era of service based on its new Customer Insight Analysis (CIA) platform.  The goal in redesigning our logo was to provide a visual aid that better represented the business’s unique differentiator in a crowded marketplace. The response has been overwhelmingly positive yet it begs the question: What effect will this change have on our business’s bottom line in 2015?

That question encouraged me to look back at businesses that changed their logos in 2014 and what effect it had. Do logos actually have a significant effect on customer acquisition or customer development? In fact, is a logo simply a “nice to have” element of the brand or a critical element in driving or sustaining business?

Here’s a few of the businesses that changed their logos with mixed reviews in 2014.

Airbnb

One of the most talked about logo changes of the year was Airbnb, the popular accommodation marketplace. The change was met with overwhelming negativity and ridicule.

The new logo was intended to represent “a sense of belonging and connectivity” among community members, yet most people could not get past the sexual innuendo the logo seems to elicit. Putting the “Did they or did they not purposely choose a salacious symbol?” argument aside, one of the key aspects of the change was to add an icon to the wordmark (which was also updated) in hopes that it would become an easily recognizable symbol. The question is: What impact will the logo have on the business, which was already experiencing positive growth, unprecedented media attention, an estimated worth of $13 billion, and is heading for an IPO?

Hershey

Where Airbnb sought to create an iconic logo, The Hershey Company already had one. The logo was so iconic in fact that many called the change “un-American.”

The logo change went far beyond a design change; the company hid a corporate name change in the re-launch by removing the ‘S from the name. What effect, if any, will this logo change have on the business when in reality most will continue to refer to it as “Hershey’s?”

Foursquare

Foursquare finally understood what marketers were saying for years: The check-in app would only hold the public’s attention for only so long and there’s no way it could compete with Facebook when it too added a check-in functionality.

The change, which included a flag-like pin icon, successfully represents the business’s shift from check-in app to local business reviews and suggestion app. However, will the new icon/logo have any effect on its success in tackling Yelp! and other existing businesses in this space?

Southwest Airlines

Unlike Foursquare, Southwest’s logo change seems to be contrary to the business’s operations.

Southwest built its success on low fares, not superior service. The new logo, with a heart at the center of traditional flight wings, is intended to portray a brand “with heart” that puts customer experience first. Will this new icon replace less service for lower costs with a warm a fuzzy feeling in the minds of customers?

Sensei

While we’re at it, , let’s throw Sensei Marketing’s logo change into the mix.

The new icon was crafted to merge the inner Yin-Yang symbol that represents the interdependent customer acquisition and customer development disciplines of business growth, with the outer circle that represents the stages of the customer lifecycle that interface with both spheres. It certainly represents the core services that Sensei Marketing offers; however will the change inspire a change in our business?

Sensei Debates

Can a logo change, augment or reverse the fortunes of an existing business?

Sam Fiorella
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

 11

The post 2014 Logo Hits and Fails; How Important is a Logo to Your Business? appeared first on Sensei Marketing.

Consumerization of Authentication

Steve Wilson

Former Vice President and Principal Analyst
Constellation Research

Steve Wilson is former VP and Principal Analyst at Constellation Research, leading the business theme Digital Safety and Privacy. His coverage includes digital identity, data protection, data privacy, cryptography, and trust. His advisory services to CIOs, CISOs, CPOs and IT architects include identity product strategy, security practice benchmarking, Privacy by Design (PbD), privacy engineering and Privacy [or Data Protection] Impact Assessments (PIA, DPIA). Coverage Areas: -  Identity management, frameworks & governance-  Digital identity technologies-  Privacy by Design -  Big Data; “Big Privacy”-  Identity & privacy innovation Previous experience: Wilson has worked in ICT innovation, research, development and analysis for over 25 years. With double…...

Read more

For the second year running, the FIDO Alliance hosted a consumer authentication showcase at CES, the gigantic Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, this year featuring four FIDO Alliance members.

This is a watershed in Internet security and privacy - never before has authentication been a headline consumer issue.

Sure we've all talked about the password problem for ten years or more, but now FIDO Alliance members are doing something about it, with easy-to-use solutions designed specifically for mass adoption.

The FIDO Alliance is designing the authentication plumbing for everything online. They are creating new standards and technical protocols allowing secure personal devices (phones, personal smart keys, wearables, and soon a range of regular appliances) to securely transmit authentication data to cloud services and other devices, in some cases eliminating passwords altogether.

See also my ongoing FIDO Alliance research at Constellation.

We cannot pigeon-hole risk

Steve Wilson

Former Vice President and Principal Analyst
Constellation Research

Steve Wilson is former VP and Principal Analyst at Constellation Research, leading the business theme Digital Safety and Privacy. His coverage includes digital identity, data protection, data privacy, cryptography, and trust. His advisory services to CIOs, CISOs, CPOs and IT architects include identity product strategy, security practice benchmarking, Privacy by Design (PbD), privacy engineering and Privacy [or Data Protection] Impact Assessments (PIA, DPIA). Coverage Areas: -  Identity management, frameworks & governance-  Digital identity technologies-  Privacy by Design -  Big Data; “Big Privacy”-  Identity & privacy innovation Previous experience: Wilson has worked in ICT innovation, research, development and analysis for over 25 years. With double…...

Read more

One approach is to categorise different classes of IdP, matched to different transaction types. "Levels of Assurance" (LOAs) have been loosely standardised by many governments and in some federated identity frameworks, like the Kantara Initiative. The US Authentication Guideline NIST SP 800-63 is one of the preeminent de facto standards, adopted by the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). But over the years, adoption of SP 800-63 in business has been disappointing, and now NIST has announced a review.

One of my problem with LOAs is simply stated: I don't believe it's possible to pigeon-hole risk.

With risk management, the devil is in the detail. Risk Management standards like ISO 31000 require organisations to start by analysing the threats that are peculiar to their environment. It's folly to take short cuts here, and it's also well recognised that you cann't "outsource" liability.

To my mind, the LOA philosophy goes against risk management fundamentals. To come up with an LOA rating is an intermediate step that takes an RP's risk analysis, squeezes it into a bin (losing lots of information as a result), which is then used to shortlist candidate IdPs, before going into detailed due diligence where all those risk details need to be put back on the table.

I think we all know by now of cases where RPs have looked at candidate IdPs at a given LOA, been less than satisfied with the available offerings, and have felt the need for an intermediate level, something like "LOA two and a half" (this problem was mentioned at CIS 2014 more than once, and I have seen it first hand in the UK IDAP).

Clearly what's going on here is an RP's idea of "LOA 2" differs from a given IdP's idea of the same LOA 2. This is because everyone's risk appetite and threat profile is different. Moreover, the detailed prescription of "LOA 2" must differ from one identity provider to the next. When an RP thinks they need "LOA 2.5" what they're really asking for is a customised identification. If an off-the-shelf "LOA 2" isn't what it seems, then there can't be any hope for an agreed intermediate LOA 2.5. Even if an IdP and an RP agree in one instance, soon enough we will get a fresh call for "LOA 2.75 please".

We cannot pigeonhole risk. Attaching chunky one dimensional Levels of Assurance is misleading. There is no getting away from the need to do detailed analysis of the threats and therefore the authentication needs required.

Other thoughts on LOAs from over the years:

http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2011/04/08/i-dont-get-loas
http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2012/03/16/ski-runs-and-loas
http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2011/03/11/nstic-and-banking

360 Degree Retailing: Reassessing Brick and Mortar Stores

Partner, Sensei Marketing
Partner, Sensei Marketing

Sales & marketing veteran with almost 30 years’ experience and now 1800 digital projects to his credit for clients including Morgan Stanley, AOL, Hyatt Gaming Management, Snyder's of Hanover, Hitachi, the Home Depot, Kraft Foods, Drees Homes, American Idol, and hundreds more, including leading agencies around the North America.     ...

Read more

There’s no doubt that that Internet has changed the business of retailing. Thanks to consumers’ proclivity for pre-purchase research and the availability of online commerce, retail growth is no longer dependent on brick and mortar expansion. In fact, expanding physical stores can negatively affect a retailer’s bottom line because online sales are eradicating revenues previously used to offset the added expenses associated with expansion.

Adding more retail locations has long been the traditional growth plan for retailers.  Doing more of the same, even if that which was done proved successful in the past, is no longer a recipe for success.  However, transitioning to online sales may not guarantee success either.

More than half of consumers now research their retail purchases online. This means in-store purchase decisions are becoming less frequent as are, thanks to online shopping, physical visits to the store itself.

Is Online Shopping The Solution?  

At first glance, the number of store closings across North America and the UK would suggest that there’s declining value in brick and mortar stores. In the USA, fashion retailer Gap has closed more than 250 locations and retail giant Walmart is opening new, smaller-format stores. In the UK, electronics stores, the darling of the retail world, have seen a 20 to 30 percent reduction in physical footprints.

Fewer stores – or smaller footprints – are enabled by “virtual space,” which is the space required in a physical footprint to generate the sales achieved through online shopping.

There’s no limit to the number of online stores or products that can be made available, which at first may seem to be an opportunity.  The overabundance of virtual space, plus the new ease with which individuals and businesses can build and maintain online stores, has created competition greater than that found in the physical retail world.

Transferring traditional sales operations online has not proven to be a sure-fire profit generator for retailers.

Is There a Role for Brick and Mortar Stores in Today’s Economy?

While the merits of online retailing are being debated, a return to expanding brick and mortar stores may not be the answer.

The answer lies in re-inventing the customer experience across all channels and ensuring that the experience is inclusive across all those channels: Physical store, online store, social media, billing, customer service, product support, content marketing, loyalty programs, etc.

The physical store may no longer be the center of the customer’s experience but it can play a critical role towards fostering greater customer satisfaction and advocacy.

360 Degree Retailing: Reassessing Brick ‘n Mortar Stores

The answer lies not in the store’s size or window dressing but how customers rate the physical transaction and experience towards their overall impression of the brand.  Retailers must ask what role the retail store plays in the customer’s decision-making process. How does the store – or the customer’s experience within the store – affect interactions with the consumers they engage outside the store?

In other words, focus on building a 360 degree customer experience that does not rely on any one channel, but includes them all. Here are few strategies that you may find helpful:

1. Facilitate in-person meetings or experiences for those who purchase online or for customers who engage with other customers in social media.  For example: A craft store may offer in-store workshops specifically for those who transact online; a music store or electronics shop may host live performances for those who are members of the site’s online fan forum; a wine retailer can offer in-house or in-store wine tasting events for those who prefer to purchase online.

2. Create inspirational or educational events within the store that foster stronger relationships with customers, who may choose to purchase online in the future. For example, consider a bike shop that offers bike maintenance lessons each spring.

3. Host events outside the physical store: The Running Room, a popular and growing Canadian retailer of active wear including running shoes, coordinates free local running and walking clubs where customers can train together and sponsors races for customers and non-customers alike.  The local stores become a connection point for offsite social engagement and exercise.

4. Hire and promote an industry expert whose office is located in the physical store. For example, a furniture store may hire and advertise a popular interior designer who is made available exclusively to existing clients or selectively to prospects whom the store engages with in social media. The designer could make house calls, offer “staging services” for those selling their homes, etc. In other words, offer unique value in-store that cannot be effectively delivered online. Such a practice will develop stronger personal relationships with prospects and customers and possibly add additional revenue streams that can only be earned through the physical store.

5. Offer free in-store consultations and support for those who purchase and return products online or for those who need added support.  Giving customers the option to engage with an expert will decrease returns, reduce negative online publicity, and increase loyalty.  Stores like Best Buy and Staples are embracing this tactic well with their “geek squads” that offer in-store technical support or home and office support visits. This added service increases the likelihood of online purchases because it instills confidence in long-term support.

Conversely, transactions and engagements that occur in the physical store or at hosted off-site events should be designed in such as manner as to encourage reciprocal online engagement. For example: The Running Room offers a private online member forum for those participating in its running clubs;  a local restaurant I frequent posts pictures of wine-tasting events on its website, allowing those who attended the opportunity to tag themselves and share the branded photos across their social networks.

Sensei Debates

Is the value of brick and mortar stores diminished with the rise of online shopping?