Faces of Pervasive Communications

January 12, 2012 9:58 amaberkson10 Comments

So what exactly IS pervasive communications?

I get that question a lot these days. I am starting a new series here dedicated to fleshing out what it means to me and, more important, what it could mean for you.

One aspect of pervasive communications is considering the types of communications that take place on the sprawl of communication options available to us. Marshall McLuhan famously said “the medium is the message” and never has that been more true. Today, communication decisions don’t only involve what you are going to say but on what medium you’ll say it.

I recently tweeted:

Thinking of updating my voicemail to say “Just hang up and send me a text msg”

— Alan Berkson (@berkson0) January 8, 2012

The implication: “Why are you leaving me a message?”

Voice communication has a value. It’s synchronous. Multiple “iterations” of a dialogue can be completed in rapid succession. If you are leaving me a voice mail, it’s asynchronous. You are leaving the message at your convenience, and I am listening to it at my convenience. However, let’s consider the limitations of voice mail:

Listening to the message requires accessing my voicemail and investing the same amount of time to listen to it as you spent to record it
Most likely I will need to take action as a result of the message e.g. jot down the information you’re giving me or make a note to follow up with you.
For most people the voice mail communications is a dead end. Saving, forwarding, replying are all difficult (in most circumstances).
Voicemails contain data that is not easily indexed and search

In this case, perhaps another medium may be more appropriate?

This is not a new challenge. We’ve always had a wide variety of communication channel options. However, we are seeing the impact of this aspect of pervasive communication becoming more acute. What do you think?

Let’s Call It What It Is: Pervasive Communication (intelligistgroup.com)

Posted in Business Strategy, Pervasive CommunicationTagged ALAN BERKSON, Communication, Marshall McLuhan, Pervasive Communication, pervasivecomm, Telecommunication, Twitter, Voicemail

Let’s Call It What It Is: Pervasive Communication

October 12, 2011 8:14 pmaberkson14 Comments

I don’t want to talk about social media. I don’t want to talk about social business. I don’t want to talk about social enterprise. At least not in the context which many people seem to be using it these days. Businesses are not social. People are social. Supreme Court precedent aside, businesses are not people, at least when it comes to communication. But there is something going on that is disrupting traditional business communication.

Social, or Engagement?

When people talk about businesses needing to become more social, what do they really mean? I suggest they mean for them to be more attentive to the needs and actions of their ecosystem: customers, employees, partners, competitors, vendors…the list goes on. In the past this was done through surveys and focus groups, through phone calls and emails, and even the occasional note in the suggestion box. Was this social? I don’t know. Was this engagement? Absolutely. It was engagement using the tools — the media — available at the time. It boils down to communications. We’re living in an era where communication is ubiquitous. We have a generation of “hyper-connected” individuals with a new mind set; a paradigm shift.

To paraphrase my friend Phil Simon, “we have to raise the level of discourse.” Are we really looking to make businesses “social” or is it more about leveraging the latest communication tools? We are living in an era of pervasive communications. Social media — defined by many to include tools like Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Foursquare and LinkedIn, to name a few — is just one aspect of the innovations in communication technology. We have websites, email and blogs. How about mobile? SMS? VOIP? Video conferencing? These are all communication tools that can be leveraged to increase the level of engagement a business can have within it’s ecosystem.

Pervasive Communication

The arrival of pervasive communication was disruptive. It threw a monkey wrench in traditional communication channels, and global concerns loomed larger than us or our businesses. We now have conversations occurring worldwide, no longer constrained by national or natural borders. We have adapted and learned to deal with it.

The challenge now is pervasive communication has become chaotic — the sprawl of communication mediums offer competing, yet similar functions. Conversations now leap among platforms and channels with an unprecedented fluidity — a Twitter update engenders an SMS text which leads to a phone conversation that informs a blog post that points to a web-site viewed on a mobile device which generates a sale in a brick-and-mortar venue – yes, chaotic, hyper-connected, ubiquitous and non-linear.

With this change comes both risk and reward. This disruption presents opportunity: to leverage a new communication paradigm, or be crushed under the weight of it.

Velocity of Information

“Over the next 10 years, the amount of both real-time and historical information available to a single person will have increased exponentially, as will the ability of a single person to instantaneously touch – and influence – a billion people in the time it takes to read this sentence.” – 2020F

Pervasive communication through the aforementioned abundance and diversity of channels puts enormous amounts of information and analytic power in the hands of the average person — without even having to know how to research. It’s not a fire hose of information, it’s fire hoses. Just think what accomplished researchers can now do to enrich their thinking via conversations made possible through a fluid web of agile collaboration. Instant. Pervasive. Extensive.

Business Transformation

Pervasive communication is changing the way we do business. All business can now be local and global. Conversations among businesses and consumers are no longer bi-lateral. Consumers are talking to each other about brands. This is not news for many of you, but it’s important to recognize how it has added words like “listening,” “monitoring,” and “community” to the business lexicon. Most recognize that the impact is felt throughout traditional external facing aspects of business. This could include:

Sales
Marketing
Public Relations
Customer Service
Service Delivery

How many recognize the effect on internal facing aspects of business? Consider the impact on the following:

Human Resources
Product Development and R&D
Operations
Project Management
Supply Chain
Administration

Pervasive communication has redefined the nature of internal collaboration and broadened the value proposition of a distributed workforce. It allows collaboration at a high level, quickly.

New Rules For Risk and Reward

The very nature of pervasive communication enforces the requirement for businesses to present an unprecedented level of transparency – it’s tough to hide these days. If you want to see what not to do, Jeremiah Owyang has a great list: A Chronology of Brands the Got Punk’d by Social Media. This re-balances the risk/reward equation for business. Businesses face an intense level of scrutiny which requires new operating procedures and crisis management techniques, all this against the backdrop of an evolving legislative environment.

The Level of Discourse

For business, the conversation needs to be raised above the level of social media. It’s time to talk about more than Twitter monitoring and Facebook corporate pages. This is about strategic business objectives. We need to ask ourselves the big questions:

What is the impact of pervasive communications on my business?
How can I leverage these communication tools today?
How can I protect my businesses from the inherent risks?
How does this fit into my long range planning?

Mentoring, Networking and Innovation (intelligistgroup.com)
Big Data Has Arrived (intelligistgroup.com)
Are We Ready to Add Cause to Social Check-Ins? (fredmcclimans.com)
Turn On, Check In, Hang Out (intelligistgroup.com)

Posted in Business StrategyTagged ALAN BERKSON, disruptive, facebook, Generation Y, hyper-connected, Intelligist Group, Jeremiah Owyang, linkedin, Millenials, Pervasive Communication, pervasivecomm, Phil Simon, Social Business, Social Enterprise, Social Media, Twitter

Turn On, Check In, Hang Out

August 1, 2011 4:48 pmaberkson4 Comments

What do social check-in’s have to do with “influence”? This was the basis for a recent conversation I had with Fred McClimans of the McClimans Group. Check out Fred’s most recent post “Are We Ready to Add Cause to Social Check-Ins?” to get a sense of the evolution of social check-in. Have you checked in lately? Foursquare, Gowalla? Facebook, Twitter, or Google+? Why do you do it? To earn reward points or get discounts/freebies? Or is it something more?

The Baby Boomers had their heyday in the 60’s with the famous Timothy Leary phrase “Turn on, tune in, drop out.” They had civil rights, anti-war protests and sexual freedom. My generation, Generation X, will be known for big hair, Madonna, Gordon Gekko and urban decay. Nice. And Generation Y a.k.a. the Millennials? Well, they are the forefront of a new age. I seem to have missed all the cool generations.

Baby Boomers and Gen X are a bit suspicious of social check-in, but Gen Y/Millennials embrace it. What going one here?

Technological Descendant of Smoke Signals

Let’s go back a bit. I’ve carried some sort of electronic communication device on my person since 1987. Back then, it was doctors, drug dealers and IT professionals. I am not now, nor have I ever been a doctor, and the only thing I’ve had in common with drug dealers is we (the IT pros) also called our clients “users.” A pager was a status symbol, of sorts. Wow, was I excited when I got a pager that gave me real-time stock quotes and sports scores! At it’s core, however, it was a communication tool, and would remain so until it’s obsolescence.

What’s worse, it was for the most part a one-way communication tool. The 20th century equivalent of sending up smoke signals. To respond, you had to turn to an alternate communication device. Remember pay phones?

Flash forward to today, where personal communication devices are ubiquitous. You have the ability to communicate with everyone you’ve ever known and a generation that’s not afraid to do just that. Prior generations made plans to meet somewhere to hang out. We would call each other, maybe send a page. Think about this: today’s generation hangs out together wherever they are!

Marketing Tool or Social Commentary

The history of innovation in communications is finding ways to leverage the power of each communication medium. Today’s marketers created the concept of a social checkin-in to leverage smartphones. They needed an alternative to increasingly ineffective “push” marketing techniques. Push marketing doesn’t work well anymore. Seeing that today’s connected, social consumers like to share with their peers, brands cleverly attempted to leverage that behavior with social check-in services.

Now here’s an interesting twist. There is a generation alive today who is turning marketing efforts into their very own communication tools. They are turning a social marketing ploy into a social statement.

For many a check-in is far more than just participation in a brand’s gamfication strategy. It’s a densely crafted social statement. Consider what information we get from these checkin-ins and what they’re trying to say:

“At DMV. Can’t believe these lines…”
“Hanging at Starbucks talking influence with @fredmcclimans”
“At the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer (with 1000 other people). Support me?”

We are only just scratching the surface of the impact of pervasive social connectivity and a new language to describe it. Add “check-in” to the list. Where do you see it going next?

Are We Ready to Add Cause to Social Check-Ins? (fredmcclimans.com)

Posted in Business Strategy, Influence, InnovationTagged #influencechat, facebook, Foursquare, Fred McClimans, GenX, GenY, GooglePlus, Gowalla, Influence, Millenials, Social Media, Twitter

Beware Of Scope Creep

January 4, 2011 11:14 pmaberkson1 Comment

All entities have a purpose—a reason to exist. To better understand and manage “things” we define them and classify them. It could be a job description, a contract or even a country.

I remember as a kid working with my father on a home improvement project. As I was about to attempt to hit a nail in with the back of a screwdriver my Dad said “Stop! You don’t use a screwdriver for that. Use the hammer.”

It certainly looked to me like the screwdriver would have done a perfectly adequate job of hitting in that nail. My father explained that each tool had a purpose, something for which it was designed and for which it was best.

So what was wrong with using the screwdriver? Simple. It may have worked that one time. Maybe even a few more. But in the long run it was not a good bet to effectively hit in nails and, what’s more, would likely cause damage to the screwdriver.

What we had here was a case of scope creep. I was extending the definition and function of the screwdriver beyond it’s original intent, beyond what it was “contracted to do.”

Can You Just Do…
Let’s say you hire me to mow your lawn. “Oh, while you’re here can you just change the light bulb in the shed?” Sure, why not. It’s a little thing. “Oh, I forgot. Can you also tighten the doorknob on the garage?”

What’s happening here is classic scope creep. The original scope was mowing lawns. Changing the light bulb in the shed? Not the same skillset, but still a small thing. What about tightening the doorknob? Hmmm, I need a screwdriver for that, don’t I?

Do It Once And You Own It
I have two problems here. The first is I am doing more work than you originally contracted. How far can I let that go before I need to charge you for it? “Can you also change the light bulb in the garage?” you may ask. Sure. What about the whole house?

Second, and less obvious, is you are making me expand the type of work you will now come to expect from me. The next time I mow your lawn you may expect that I can also change light bulbs and fix door knobs. Even if you agree to pay me for the additional work, is that really what I do well? Can I do it cost effectively? Is all my staff prepared to deliver those additional services?

The Law of Unintended Consequences
Scope creep, unchecked, can lead to many unintended consequences, not the least of which include:

cost overruns and angry customers;
overworked and/or misused employees;
failure to achieve contracted goals;
jeopardizing the organization as a whole.

In professional services, scope creep is a fact of life. It is something we need to manage and, if at all possible, avoid. What’s your experience?

Posted in Business Strategy, ProfServTagged #profserv, Consulting, Contracting, Fred McClimans, Kelly Craft, Professional Service, Scope Creep, Twitter

Giving Too Much Away?

December 9, 2010 12:23 pmaberkson8 Comments

A doctor and a lawyer were talking at a party. Their conversation was constantly interrupted by people describing their ailments and asking the doctor for free medical advice. After an hour of this, the exasperated doctor asked the lawyer, “What do you do to stop people from asking you for legal advice when you’re out of the office?”

“I give it to them,” replied the lawyer, “and then I send them a bill.”

The doctor was shocked, but agreed to give it a try. The next day, still feeling slightly guilty, the doctor prepared the bills. When he went to place them in his mailbox, he found a bill from the lawyer.

It’s an old joke (thanks to Jokes Place for this version) but, as with most good jokes, at it’s core is some truth.

As service professionals, whether it’s IT, accounting, management, or other, we provide advice to clients and they pay us for it. Sometimes, we feel compelled to give away free samples to prove our level of expertise. How many free samples do you need to give away to make a sale?

Posted in Business StrategyTagged #profserv, Consulting, Fred McClimans, Kelly Craft, Professional Service, Twitter

3 Reasons YOU Are Not A Thought Leader

November 16, 2010 12:58 pmaberkson11 Comments

A while back I wrote a blog called The Age of Thought Leadership. Sometimes, to define something, it helps to define what it is NOT, so I thought I’d have a little fun. I hope you take it in the spirit in which is was intended.

Hey you! Stop calling yourself a thought leader. For that matter, you can stop with “expert” and “guru” and anything else that comes up in your thesaurus.

I admit I am somewhat addicted to so-called social media: Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, blogs. I am, by nature, gregarious and these are great tools for interacting with other people. As with every other communication medium, it wasn’t long before savvy/unscrupulous individuals co-opted it in the name of the almighty dollar. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for profit and free enterprise. But if I see one more profile or blog where someone calls himself a thought leader I’m gonna puke.

By what process are leaders selected? They’re certainly NOT self-selected. It falls to US to designate YOU a thought leader/expert/guru – please don’t do it yourself. After all, real leaders don’t look for followers, they just do what they do and people follow.

Dating Sites Without Pictures

Thought leadership on the web seems to be more like a dating site without pictures: 6’, athletic build, loves long walks on the beach. Yeah, right. Sadly, people tend to believe things they see in writing. That said, when you write something on the web that’s hard to vet, and you call yourself a thought leader, I’m gonna have to say “prove it.”

In science, when you publish an article it’s subjected to peer review. They call it intersubjective testability. It was laid out by Herbert Feigl as follows:

“The quest for scientific knowledge is regulated by certain standards or criteria … the most important of these regulative ideals [is] intersubjective testability… What is here involved is … the requirement that the knowledge claims of science be in principle capable of test on the part of any person properly equipped with intelligence and the technical devices of observation and experimentation.”

Ideally, we should be able to substitute “content providers” for “science” and demand of our content providers some intersubjective testability. Unfortunately, that’s not the case today.

Caveat Emptor

“Let the buyer beware” has never been more relevant. As consumers, we are (somewhat) protected by the FTC against false claims by advertisers. Publishers, in turn, are protected by the First Amendment. However, the Internet is a Wild West of unregulated and unvetted content. Some of it is selflessly expository, some of it is naively exuberant, but more and more of it is consciously self-serving.

It’s too easy to game the system. You’ve got all these people talking about what great leaders they are and buffing their resumes. Who’s vetting blogs for quality, authority, plagiarism? How do you separate the real ones from poseurs?

As Fred McClimans recently wrote in Are We Outsourcing Common Sense to the Internet?:

…in a world where we are all “publishers” and sources of information, not all information has the same value or trustworthiness.

How people judge thought leaders should be how we judge all leaders, from Presidents down to the local school board members or your next vendor. Do some research. Compare and contrast. Are there any references to back up claims? Real data?

How about on the web? On blogs? How can we apply intersubjective testability? Some common sense. Are they delivering value or a sales pitch? Are there comments on the blog? Are there negative comments on the blog? Are they responded to in a civil fashion?

Bottom Line: Apply Some (Not So) Common Sense

In the end, we can’t change other people. We can only change ourselves. A bit zen, yes, but I’m being practical. We need to learn to apply some sense to the content we consume. I’ve indoctrinated my kids: when I say “what’s a commercial for?” they reply “they’re trying to sell you something.” It’s a start. How about you? Can you inject more integrity into your content? Can you apply some intersubjective testability to your consumption of content?

If you ARE producing content on the web, or anywhere else, please make sure that none of these apply to you:

if you call yourself a thought leader, you aren’t;
if you’re not transparent and we can’t validate your data, you aren’t a thought leader;
if your goal of blogging is blatantly to promote yourself or your product, you’re not a thought leader.

So, I haven’t puked since I was, like, twelve. I really don’t want to start now. A little help, please?

Posted in General, Humor, Leadership, Marketing, Public Relations, Social MediaTagged Blog, Expert, Guru, Humor, Social Media, Thought Leader, Twitter

4 Reasons I Like Twitter

July 29, 2010 10:56 pmaberkson4 Comments

1. Get on Your Soapbox
For me, Twitter is a modern day soapbox. I can stand up in the middle of the town square and shout things about which I feel passionate. If I say something interesting, somebody might actually pay attention. If I do it consistently, people may actually come back to listen again. It’s a meritocracy. You can’t make people follow you. You can prove to them you’re worth following by creating content they find valuable. And unlike say, a blog, it’s only a small commitment of time: 140 characters.

2. My Custom News Wire
I have 100′s of editors delivering a custom feed of news on all the topics I find interesting. Technology, sports, media, marketing—it’s all there, hand selected as interesting or relevant by people who have earned my attention. Is there hype and self promotion? Sure. I control the feed: so I just Unfollow.

3. The Modern Day Watercooler
I work very often from my home office. Among my followers and followees I have a virtual water cooler, a place to bounce ideas, tell a good joke or just blow off some steam. I “virtually” work with some of the smartest people in the world. Not bad.

4. It’s a Powerful, Concentrated Communication Tool
The most valuable commodity out there is not gold, it’s not property, it’s not money. It’s time. It’s the one thing of which we can’t get more. As content developers we are asking people to give us their time. Whether it’s a big commitment — reading a book, watching a movie; a smaller commitment — reading a blog, watching a commercial, listening to a podcast; or a very small commitment — reading a tweet, we are asking people to spend their valuable time on us. How valuable is your follower list? It’s the ultimate opt-in mailing list. I can go out and buy a list of email addresses. I can do it by specific demographics: give me a list of all CPA’s of firms with 5–10 employees that specialize in manufacturing in the 10024 zip code. But you can’t buy a Twitter follower list. You have to earn it.

And that’s why I like Twitter. How about you?

Posted in Social MediaTagged Social Media, Twitter

Intelligent Catalyst

Tag Archives: Twitter

Faces of Pervasive Communications

Beware Of Scope Creep

Giving Too Much Away?

Search Intelligent Catalyst Blog

Subscribe by Email to Intelligent Catalyst Blog

Blogroll

Websites

Intelligist Group Mailing List

Categories

Intelligent Catalyst Archives