May/111
Inattentive Mobile Developer’s Wanted
So I just came across this posting for a mobile app developer in Tulsa:
Job Order #6241
Posted Date: 5/12/2011 Job Category: Computing/MIS Position Title: TULSA - Mobile App Developer Salary Range: Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA Description: Mobile App Developer
Addison Technical currently has opportunities available for
Mobile App Developer’s. Requirements are as follows:
- JAVA Script
- IOS Development
- Android Development
- Pearl Development
- Oracle SQL/PLSQL
- HTML/CSS
Please send resumes to cthompson@addisongroup.com
I have all of these qualifications but I just couldn't bring myself to apply. I recognize that it may be counterproductive but I refuse to have my technical skills scrutinized by someone who doesn't know the difference between Perl and Pearl. I did however, send cthomson the following email:
Howdy,
I was looking at your recent posting for a mobile app developer which lists the following requirements:
· JAVA Script
· IOS Development
· Android Development
· Pearl Development
· Oracle SQL/PLSQL
· HTML/CSSI just thought I'd let you know that "JavaScript" is one word and only the "J" of Java should be capitalized.
The "i" in "iOS" should be lowercase.
The computer programming language is "Perl" - the spelling you used is the white things they find in oysters.
And finally "PL/SQL" should have a slash between the "PL" and the "SQL."
If you have people applying that don't notice these errors, you probably shouldn't hire them.
If you're interested we'd love to have you attend our newly formed mobile computing interest group, at which there are several folks that meet this criteria. Our next meeting in on Tuesday, May 24th from 6-7:30 at Hardesty Library. Check out our website at http://mobiletulsa.org
Best of luck,
-M.
I opted not to point out that the opportunities they had were for "Developers" and not "Developer's" because the job posting wasn't, after all, for a grammarian.
Mar/110
The Case for the $500 App
Last year I started a company that is developing iOS software for the architectural services industry. The price of our first app, Architactile Inception for iPad, is $499.99. This makes it one of the most expensive apps in Apple’s App Store. As you might imagine we get several comments about the price of Inception. While generally, the intended audience of the app (namely architects involved in business development) recognize the value Inception delivers, many folks can’t seem to get past the price. The suggestion seems to be that by virtue of running on an iPad, software has an upward limit in value. That somehow, no matter what utility is provided by an iPad app, it is simply inconceivable that it might be worth $500. So why then have we set the price of Inception so high? Is it some sort of get-rich-quick scheme? Are we trying to bilk our customers? Quite to the contrary, we’re trying to do something important. We’re trying to improve the efficiency of the business of architecture. And we’re trying to legitimize the iPad as a real business tool for architects. But to do that, a $500 price point for Inception is both necessary and justifiable. So before you make any snap judgements, please consider the case for the $500 app.
There’s a lot of talk about people using iPads at work, but the reality is there’s very little development going on for vertically-oriented point solution apps on the device. There are a few industry giants (Autodesk, SAP, Salesforce, Intuit, etc.) that are dabbling in app development, often publishing “free” apps that provide a mobile interface to their flagship products. And there’s lots of general purpose business software - voice recording, expense reports, time keeping, todo lists, notes, business card scanners etc. but when it comes to real application specific tasks, there’s not a lot of serious development. So why is this? There are lots of reasons. Many of which have to do with challenges to B-to-B business models when trying to provide software through Apple’s consumer centric iOS ecosystem such as fixed pricing and the lack of detailed customer information (Apple provides no more detail than the county in which an app is purchased to the developer - no name, contact information, etc.) But perhaps the biggest barrier to the success of B-to-B software for the iPad is the perception that apps should be cheap or free.
It’s ironic really, that Apple has simultaneously created the perception of a luxury brand and is able to fetch top dollar for it’s high design tablet, while simultaneously driving the perceived value of software targeted for the coveted device to almost nothing. The common perception is that “apps” are disposable and should be purchased on impulse, without thoughtful consideration. You don’t like that app? So what? It’s only 99 cents. For the consumer market this is quite brilliant. From the developer’s perspective, high quality, low cost applications with very limited utility or functionality can be produced and sold in large quantity to an audience conditioned to perpetuate the buy-use-delete disposable app cycle in an insatiable quest for the next Angry Birds. It’s a beautifully engineered system for all involved - the user, the developer and Apple.
This system works as well as it does for one reason: Apple has done an awesome job of creating a captive audience of massive scale. A well designed and marketed app selling for 99 cents can generate hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars in revenue for the developer. Although blockbuster “hits” are hard to come by (and getting harder each day, especially for the small developer) even a part-time hobbyist can cobble something together that, priced at 99 cents, can pretty easily sell hundreds of copies.
But the model changes dramatically when the developer wants to target a narrowly focused vertical market. Instead of a market defined as “anyone with an iPad” it’s something smaller, perhaps much much smaller. In Architactile’s case, our market is “architects who are involved in business development who have, or are willing to buy, iPads.” Furthermore, vertically oriented business apps typically require more functionality, domain specific knowledge, licensed 3rd party content, and so forth, not to mention customer training and support. From the developer’s standpoint this means higher development, maintenance and marketing costs, and smaller markets. For this type of model to be viable, the price for the app must be higher than that of less sophisticated apps with target markets of millions.
So what’s an app worth? The “value” of consumer apps designed for entertainment is subjective and intangible. Much of the value of consumer apps is derived from context. By setting the lowest non-free price of an app in the app store to 99 cents, Apple (perhaps unknowingly) set the de facto standard “value” for a typical iPhone app. The common consumer perception is that in order for an app to be “worth” more than 99 cents, it must be significantly better than the average app. “Better” again being subjective. For iPad the perceived value is slightly higher - I guess because the screen is bigger and bigger should cost more.
Unlike consumer targeted entertainment apps, business apps are different or at least (I argue) they should be. With business applications a user should perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the value of the app. For most business software there are both tangible and intangible benefits. Typically the tangible benefits (time savings, hard cost savings, etc.) should be able to provide a demonstrable cost benefit over the alternative solution in order to be selected. Intangible benefits (perceived status, improved aesthetics, easier to use, more fun) are typically used to choose between multiple alternative with similar tangible benefits.
The great challenge with business oriented software for the iPad is that the users’ perception of the software’s value is largely based on the intangible context pricing of large market consumer apps instead of the actual cost-benefit provided to the business by the use of the app in practice. This reasoning has resulted in criticism of high value yet moderately priced productivity software from great companies like The Omni Group who produce the $49.99 OmniGaffle for iPad which is often cited as one of the most expensive iPad apps.
It’s paradoxical that folks frequently argue that a $500-$830 piece of hardware is an essential, or even revolutionary business tool while simultaneously dismissing the validity of any software for the device priced at more than a few dollars. The reality is that, as a device, the iPad’s value to business is a function of what it can do for that business in terms of cost-benefit which is to say that iPad’s value to business is completely dependent on it’s software. The idea that the cost of iPad for use in business is justified before consideration of the nature and cost of the applications which will run on the device is sophomoric, unless of course browsing the web and playing Angry Birds at Starbucks alone is somehow sufficient justification.
Pricing is something we at Architactile take very seriously and we spent a lot of time considering it during the development of Inception (which sells for $499.99 in the iTunes App Store). We knew that the price would draw criticism, but at the same time we knew that in order to be viable as a business we needed to charge a significantly higher price than the typical iPad app because of our small target market. At the same time, we knew that we needed to provide a product that delivered benefit that far exceeds the purchase price if anyone was to buy it.
We spent a lot of time talking with architects and showing them early versions of the app to try to gauge value. The general consensus is that for architects who are routinely involved in business development or other activities that involve developing high level scope and conceptual budgets for projects, that Inception will save several hours (at least 8 to 20 or more) on every project. At a cost of $500, most architects involved in business development that we talked with feel that Inception will pay for itself within the first 1 or 2 projects with measurable (tangible) time savings while providing the intangible benefits of producing higher quality deliverables for clients in less time than what they (and their competitors) are doing now.
We also spent a lot of time sizing the market. In the US, there are about 40,000 architectural services firms. About 80% of these are 10 employees or less. Half of all US firms report less than a millions dollars in annual revenue. In September and October we provided a free preview of Architactile in the App Store (called Architactile Lite) which was downloaded just shy of 3,000 times - about 1,200 of which were in the US market. Based on this information, our sales goals are in the low hundreds of copies per year.
Often when I tell people that we’re selling our iPad app for $500 they reply with some version of “I think you’d do better to lower the price to $50 or less and make up the difference in scale.” The problem with this approach is that, for us, the scale is simply not that big. Our total market is not millions, not even tens of thousands but more like a few thousand.
So let’s run the numbers. Let’s say that everyone in the US who downloaded the free app was willing to pay $50 for the non-free app. That’s 1,200 folks - a number that we consider ridiculously high when projecting our sales (at almost any price).
1,200 people x $50 / copy = $60,000 gross revenue.
Apple keeps 30% of this, or $20,000 leaving $40,000 net revenue.
Architactile Inception took 800-1,200 hours to develop. We’ll call it 800 to be generous.
$40,000 net revenue / 800 hours = $50/hour
First off, the going rate for an iOS developer is $75-125/hour. Secondly, this doesn’t include the marketing costs, equipment costs, 3rd party content licensing (parts of IBC 2009 for example), ongoing maintenance and updates, customer training and support, other operating expenses, etc. And keep in mind, this result is only if we could sell as many copies as we were able to give away for free in the US market - something that seems pretty unlikely.
The bottom line is “make it up in volume” strategies simply don’t work for point-solution, vertically oriented business applications on the iPad or any other platform when the target market is small.
The alternative is to set a fair cost based on the actual benefit of the app to the business, and aim to penetrate enough of the market to make the business viable. In the case of Inception we hope to sell 200 copies in the first year. The math looks something like this:
200 people x $500 /copy = $100,000.
Apple keeps 30% of this, or $30,000 leaving $70,000 net revenue.
Keep in mind that we’ve already invested about 1,000 hours in development. So even if we hit our targets, no one is getting rich quick - but it would allow us to expand and develop more applications for the iPad designed specifically for architects. We’re okay with this - we’re in it for the long haul.
So, how will architects perceive the value of iPad apps for their business? The jury is still out. But if architects (and other professionals) want to use their shiny slates for more than email, slide shows and PDFs, then they’ll need to measure the cost against benefit instead of Angry Birds. Otherwise, the market for industry specific B-to-B software for the iPad simply won’t be able to attract developers.
Aug/102
Apple iPad & The Bath Water
I love Apple. There, I said it. I love their vibe, their vision and most of all, their products. In fact, I'm so enamored with the iPad that I'm staking my future on it by building a company around developing software for iPad. Or at least I'm trying to. What's my biggest barrier to success? Apple. That's right. Apple. Let me explain...
About 6 months ago I was laid off. It was a good thing as I really hated my job and I took the opportunity to start my own company. The iPad had just been announced and I saw it in a way that many people couldn't and still don't: I see the iPad as a transformation tool for vertical business applications. I mean real business applications - not just expense reports and calendars, but important business critical niche market stuff. Stuff that changes they way people do business forever. I wrote a lot about this a while back.
So anyway, my company is called Architactile and we develop iPad software for architects. I spent 4 months developing what was to be released as a beta product for free in the Apple App Store in early July. It was initially submitted on July 4, 2010. Today is August 26 and to date my app has been rejected six consecutive times and is still not available in the App Store. It's now awaiting it's seventh review. To be fair, some of the blame is on me but most of this delay has been Apple's famous and seemingly arbitrary application of it's ill-defined rules for the approval of an app.
So what's happened? Here's an a brief history...
July 3rd. The day before I first submitted my app I got an email from Apple. This email was in response to some questions I had asked over a month prior. Ironically, almost none of my questions were answered but I was told that "Beta" applications were not allowed in the App Store. This was news to me. I hadn't asked about this, but I had stated in my email that I was planning a Beta release. Oh well. What now? I reviewed Apple's policies (not trivial) and had some discussions with folks like Dan Lovejoy. Dan works for a la mode, a software firm based in Oklahoma City that specializes in Real Estate software. They have a killer iPad app for appraisers called DiVinci that is released as a "prototype" (essentially a codeword for "Beta"). Based on feedback from Dan and taking a cue from DaVinci I renamed my app from "Inception Beta" to "Inception Prerelease Preview" and submitted to the app store.
A week went by (the average time Apple takes before they start to look at apps once submitted) and to my surprise, I received a reject email from Apple. Specifically I was rejected because of a bug I didn't catch. My fault. Completely. But also in the rejection email was the somewhat cryptic (but Apple standard) text:
Inception Prerelease Preview cannot be posted because it is a feature-limited version application. Free or "Lite" versions are acceptable, however the application must be a fully functional app and cannot reference features that are not implemented or up-sell to the full version.
"Huh?" I thought. "but I see 'feature limited' versions all over they place in the app store. And yes, they are called Lite but almost without exception they advertise the functions only implemented in the full version and they ALWAYS up-sell to the full version. ALWAYS." So I was confused. I fixed my bug and resubmitted figuring that Apple would give me more detail if there was still a problem.
A week later, rejection #2. This time the stated reason was a minor violation of the iPad's Human Interface Guidelines. I'll own this one too. It wasn't on purpose and it was minor, but it was a mistake. This, I thought, is what the app review process is for. I corrected the issue and resubmitted.
A week later, rejection #3. This time almost no detail but a repeat of a familiar phrase:
Inception Prerelease Preview cannot be posted because it is a beta or feature-limited version. Free or "Lite" versions are acceptable, however the application must be a fully functional app and cannot reference features that are not implemented or up-sell to the full version.
At this point, I'm 3 weeks behind where I wanted to be, I'm frustrated and I'm completely unclear about what Apple wants me to do. It's moments like this that non-iOS developers don't really appreciate how frustrating the process is. There is only one way to (legally) distribute iOS software to the masses - through iTunes. Unless Apple anoints you, you're screwed. Wasted effort. I've read this type of post from other developers but I've always thought - well, that's what you get for playing too close to the line - developers producing silly apps of no real value (like the Fart Machine) or apps that infringe on AT&T services or existing Apple applications, or apps containing content considered too risque. But for me, for my app, a business tool for architects? I thought I was WAY inside the line. I wasn't trying to dupe anyone here. I was trying to GIVE away a FREE app for Pete's sake. I'm trying to give architects a legitimate reason to buy an iPad. And the worst part is that there is no way to reliably contact Apple and have a discussion. You can't call them. You can email them but they tell you upfront that they may never respond and they don't tell you how long it might be. My previous email had taken over a month for them to respond to. I couldn't wait that long. So I removed the most egregious marketing components of my FREE app. I removed everything that talked about upcoming features. I wasn't sure if I had to change the name and I didn't want to, so I held my breath and resubmitted. I also wrote several emails to Apple asking about details about exactly what I needed to change in case I was still misinterpreting their crypic seemingly hypocritical rejection rhetoric.
A week later, I got a phone call... from Apple! Whatever negative feelings I may have had festering immediately disseminated. It was awesome that they called, and I still really, really appreciate it. It turns out they do this from time to time when they think a call can short cut the process after several rejections. We talked for almost an hour. I learned a ton about the process and what I needed to do. I didn't like everything Apple asked, but as least the guidance was clear. I learned that because I had been rejected before, and especially since I had been rejected more that once that my app was being reviewed with ever heightening scrutiny. And that my app was dragging with it the running history of it's reviews. Because of this I was advised to modify my app to be beyond reproach, to remove absolutely everything that might suggest that this app wasn't the "real" app. I could use anything with a "Pre" prefix - no preview, no prerelease, no Pre-Inception (which is how it showed up on the iPad screen). I couldn't mention forthcoming features, or forthcoming applications or software. And I had to change the name to "Inception Lite."
Since I was really desperate to get my app approved, I pulled out all of the skeletons. I asked about things that Apple hadn't mentioned but I could imagine might be a problem. Specifically I asked about user registration. My app had a REQUIRED user registration page the called for first and last name and email address. This information is sent off to my server via the internet. "Was that okay?" I asked. The Apple rep told me that required registration was fine as long as the app is free (which he knew mine was) but for non-free apps registration needed to be optional. Fair enough. Since my app was free we mutually agreed I was in the clear.
Interestingly, the Apple rep told me that I was the most forthcoming developer he had ever talked to. He said most developers are trying to misdirect or disguise things to sneak them past Apple. That's just not the way I roll, especially at the front end of a relationship. To my surprise the Apple rep's advice to me was "to be less forthcoming with Apple" and to leave more things unsaid. That's a really sad way to do business with your trading partners, but I was ready to do whatever it took to get my app in the damn App Store.
The Apple Rep also told me how to get an expedited review for my app, which saves about 3 or 4 days. That was awesome. The next day I resubmitted and wrote my email asking for expedited review.
About 4 days later, I receive rejection email #5. What now? What else do they want? Blood? As it turns out, my app crashed during testing. Three times. The email described how to make the crash to happen...it essentially happened 7 taps after launch... every time for the Apple tester. I couldn't believe it. How did I miss this in my own testing? Well, after 3 days of my own very, very thorough testing I'm convinced that I didn't miss it. I have never been able to recreate what the Apple tester reported. I had been through those same steps hundreds of times before (they're normal steps in using the app) and had never seen it in the past either. I can only assume that there was some other environmental factor to cause the problem and I don't believe it came from my app. So for all the dumb luck, my one shot at expedited review and some fluke causes a crash in testing. Another week gone.
So now what? How do you change an application to fix a problem that doesn't seem to exist? Well, you don't. I changed a few other things though, minor tweaks that had no relation to what Apple had reported. You know, just so the binary file would be different. And for the 6th time, I submitted the app for approval.
A week later, yesterday in fact, I get rejection email #6. This time Apple says
Applications cannot require user registration prior to allowing access to app features and content; such user registration must be optional and tied to account-based functionality.
Huh? WTF!?!? This is EXACTLY what I had asked when Apple called me two weeks ago and EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what I had been told. What's more the registration page is the very first thing you see when you launch the application. You can't get into the application without registering. And it's been that way since I first submitted the app on July 4th. FIVE previous Apple reviewers have all clicked through the REQUIRED registration page and not until now, the SIXTH review, does anyone mention it.
In about 10 minutes I added a button to let users skip my registration even though I had been told two weeks ago by an Apple representative this was okay. Go ahead, use my free application. Don't worry about me contacting you, Apple won't let me know who you are, loser.
That should meet the requirement of an "optional" registration, but what about "account-based functionality?" The "and" between those two tells me they are BOTH required. This freaked me out. I don't have any account-based functionality. But the statement itself didn't even make sense to me. How can you have account-based functionality and have optional registration? Hoping that they really meant "or" and not "and" I held my breath, again, and submitted my app for review for the seventh time last night. I followed up with an email asking for a merciful expedited review, hoping for benevolence, half-expecrting to be put on an even darker shade of black list.
Early this morning I sent another email off to Apple asking for clarification on the "and/or" issue. They responded almost instantly (just when I start to get really pissed Apple always seem to do something exceptional). Turns out they really meant "or" so if the registration is optional then no account-based features are required. Of course, two weeks ago they told me required registration was okay on free apps, so who know. I guess I'll find out in a week.
As I said, I love Apple, but I love them a little less than I did 3 weeks ago. If Apple iPad is the proverbial baby, then the arbitrary and inaccessible application submission process is the bath water. In the past, when I thought I was standing inside it, I've been a vocal defender of Apple's walled garden. I'm slowly starting to feel like I'm standing outside though, looking in through razor wire laced trellis. I'm too invested in the baby to throw it out, but man, I sure could do without the bath water.
UPDATE: Remember how I said "just when I start to get really pissed Apple always seem to do something exceptional." Well Apple pulled it off twice in one day. After submitting my app for the seventh time late last night and sending an email of desperation to Apple, someone inside those hallowed white halls heard me. My app went into review literally WHILE I was writing this original post. Less that 24 hours after submission. It was approved and on the way to the App Store about 90 minutes later. RECORD TIME. My App, Inception Lite is now available in the App Store for download at no cost. I guess the seventh time really is the charm.
And now I'm ready to drink the bath water and pretend it's Kool Aid. I love you Apple, I never doubted you for a second.
Feb/100
Starbucks Buys 122M Pounds of Unethically Traded Beans
Full disclosure: I think most marketing is really, really bad. Why? It's because I think most marketing people are more focused on manipulating the consumer into believing a half-truth than they are on anything even remotely related to their product. In doing so, two things happen:
1.) Focus is shifted off of the product. (Or more importantly what the consumer can DO with the product.)
2.) A half-lie is told.
Today's case study in really bad marketing - Starbuck's Coffee.
This morning, my amazing bride brought me a hot cup o'joe from Starbucks. As I was drinking it, I noticed that on the side of the cup it said...
YOU.
BOUGHT 228 MILLION POUNDS OF RESPONSIBLY GROWN, ETHICALLY TRADED COFFEE LAST YEAR.
"Cool." I thought. Some more text continues underneath that cardboard sleeve they put on the cup to keep you from burning yourself. At the point I noticed on the cardboard sleeve it says:
This sleeve is made from 60% post-consumer fiber.
It's part of Starbucks™ Shard Planet™
our commitment to doing business in ways that are
good to each other, coffee farmers and the planet.
"What?!?!?!" I thought. Why ONLY 60%?!?!? Why not 100%?!?!? What is so special about a cardboard ring that you can't use 100% recycled materials? Isn't recycled cardboard readily available? Is it because using 100% recycled materials would be harder to print your trademarked green-washed program name on? And seriously Starbucks, you actually trademarked the program name "Shared Planet"? I hope you sue everyone that tries to use the phrase "Shared Planet", perhaps with the settlement Starbucks can afford to spring for 100% recycled cardboard rings in the future.
Now don't get me wrong. I get it. 60% recycled is better than 0% but I call fowl when Starbucks tries to manipulated how I feel about them for what I consider to be a half effort. If you are going to rant about saving the planet as a marketing ploy, I expect you to step up. And with the 3-color artwork design on that cardboard ring, I have a hard time believing that Starbucks is more interested in saving the planet than they are in getting me to buy more coffee with their 60% recycled commitment. What's more, the copyright on the ring is 2008 - so no progress in 2 years.
So off with the ring. And what do I discover underneath?
Everything we do, you do. You stop by for a coffee,
And just by doing that, you let Starbucks buy more coffee
from farmers who are good to their workers, community
and planet. Starbucks bought 65% of our coffee this way
last year - 228 million pounds - and we're working with
farmers to make it 100%. It's using our size for good,
and you make it all possible. Way to go, you.
So let me get this straight. I'm responsible for buying 122 pounds of coffee beans last year from farmers who either exploit their workers, have a negative impact on their communities or using environmentally harmful practices? And I'm supposed to feel good about this? I need a shower.
When I saw the first statement about 228 million pounds of beans I falsely assumed it was ALL of Starbucks coffee. I'm sure that this is their intent. Only if I REMOVE the 40% non-recycled cardboard ring do I see that this is only 65% of Starbucks coffee beans. If you do the math, that means over 122 million pounds of beans come from "somewhere else". So how committed is Starbuck to this idea of fair trade?
Like most folks, I'm not an environmental zealot or a fair trade freak - but when I have choices I like to do the thing that feels right. I also get that Starbucks is a business and they need to make profit. I don't disagree with their business practices and applaud their efforts to increase the portion of their beans purchased from ethically traded growers - but don't sell me a fairy tale.
How could this be done better? Starbucks could start with the premise that the job is not yet done. Tell me that 35% of their beans are still being bought from people that they'd rather not do business with. And give me a timeline for how quickly they want to change this. Or better yet they should "use their size for good" and simply stop doing business with that 35% if buying form unethical growers bugs them so much - and then use their cups to explain to the consumer why their coffee is a little more expensive this year. That's a marketing message that woudl actually make me feel better about Starbacks.
So to the exploited workers that I apparently forced into producing beans for 35% of my double mocha latte this morning. I'm really, really sorry.
Sep/096
My Ignite Tulsa Presentation
He's a video slideshow version of my Ignite Tulsa presentation titled "If someone gives you roses you should be pissed off." This isn't the video (or audio) of the actual event - just a (somewhat sterile) video slideshow of the same presentation. I hear the actual videos of all of the talks will be available soon on the Ignite Tulsa website. It's also worth mentioning that our friends in Oklahoma City are working on an Ignite OKC event for later this fall. I'm hoping to make it down there. Ignite was a great experience both as a speaker and spectator.
Update: And here's the video of me presenting this talk at the Ignite Tulsa event on September 17, 2009 at the Blue Dome Diner in downtown Tulsa. You can see all of the talks presented at that event on the Ignite Tulsa YouTube Channel. Thanks to the Ignite Tulsa folks for the video and a great event!
Aug/098
5 Authentic Realities of Social Media…
Last Sunday Mark Schaefer posted Five social media myths that MUST STOP NOW! on his wonderful blog {grow}. It was linked to several times in my Twitter timeline. It's a good read and you should go read it now if you haven't already... go ahead... I'll wait...
I really appreciate Mr. Schaefer's effort to defuse several ridiculously overused clichés of the industry. You have to admit, for a group of folks who incessantly preach authenticity, engagement and conversation, the social media kids love to yell out their talking points from atop their soap box. As I read Mr. Schaefer's post I began to realize that he didn't wholeheartedly disagree with the original foundational sentiment of each of these "myths" but rather he objected to the oversimplification and subsequent misinterpretation and misuse that has ensued. This sort of thing is rampant in social media - especially today with our obsession with micro-blogging. We pluck things out of context that we didn't fully understand to begin with and then paraphrase into 140 characters which is then immediately edited even smaller by a retweeter. Meh.
I commented on Mr. Schaffer's blog that after reading his post I felt more like his call to action wasn't so much to stop these myths as it was to edit them - to rethink them slightly in order to return to the original foundational meaning. To this end I authored 5 Authentic Realities of Social Media:
Authentic reality one: To be effective in social media, you must accept that you have never had control of the conversation.
Seriously, if you're a marketer or PR professional in 2009 and you still believe that you control what people think and say about you and your company then you're a naive moron and a liability. Forget social media, or any other media for that matter, people have always talked about you and your company. They've always seen through your marketing rhetoric. They've always known the what's up and even if they didn't know where they smell was coming from they've always smelled the fish. Deal with it.
What is different about social media in this regard is velocity and volume. Before the Age of Transparency you at least had time to leave the press conference before the crowd got wise. At least for a moment you got to be story. Today, more than ever, the story is the reaction of the people, not the action of the company. Unlike decades past people that want a voice can get it, cheaply and easily. With 437 channels on TV and nothing to watch any Joe Schmo can inspire a vocal following with little more than time and passion - both which he happens to have in abundance. The reality is that marketers have neither the time, nor the money to broadcast a message through social medial channels. Social media as a marketing tool works only when individuals carry forth a message that will ultimately support the goal of the marketer. The catch is that marketers don't get to craft the message - all they can do is set the stage and be encouraging. It's a little like a typical elementary school play - if you've done everything right the play can be very enjoyable... but the one things that's certain is that won't be anything like rehearsal.
If marketers fail to understand that they don't control the conversation they'll probably fail in traditional media, but they'll fail twice as fast in social media.
Authentic reality two: It’s all about making money... through engagement.
How many things can social media be "all about" at any given time? For you math-averse marketing types, let me give you a hint: ONE! And as Mr. Schaefer aptly point's out, when using social media as a marketing or PR tool that one thing is making money. That said, if you're not engaging your public then whatever you're doing is not social media. Don't get me wrong here - whatever you are doing might be very effective, and very profitable. It just may be something other than social media.
For those in the back row, let me highlight the very important subtext here. If you are using tools designed to participate in social media like Twitter, Facebook or YouTube but do nothing to listen and interact with the people who consume your content through those platforms then you are not using social media. Using social media tools doesn't necessarily mean that you are practicing social media. Not using social media may work for you. Power to you. I just don't want you to go around thinking that you are way more progressive and hip than you actually are - it can lead to some very embarrassing cocktail party moments.
Authentic reality three: Never BLATANTLY SELL (and do some of that relationship building stuff while you're at it.)
Alright, you've already come clean about the fact you're in this for the money - why stop there? You're trying to sell something. Fine. We accept that. Now just don't be annoying. This is an idea best illustrated by this Hugh MacLeod cartoon:
So if you're not talking to people like advertising talks to people, then what? Obviously, you talk to people like people talk to people. Relationships ensue, etc. Still having trouble letting up on the hard sell? I think it's helpful to think of it this way - unlike direct sales where you're trying to sell something directly to the person you're talking to, in social media you want the person with whom you're talking to sell someone else. Like maybe next week. For free. Without being asked. Because he likes you and finds you credible. From a sales perspective, the person you're talking with in social media is not your mark - it's their secondary and tertiary social networks that you're after, except you never get to talk with them. If you don't have the time or patience for this sort of thing then delete your Twitter account and buy a Superbowl ad. Let me know how that works for you.
Authentic reality four:To be effective, you must have BOTH quantity and quality.
Duh. Oh, and before Bill Handy and Abby Wambaugh get into a fist fight in comments you need BOTH content and good design too.
Authentic reality five: Social media is about being polite and likable... and honest.
I can further paraphrase this nugget of wisdom by quoting a dear friend: Don't be a douche bag.
Any other social media myths you'd like to debunk or defuse? What other social media realities have you observed?
@mattgalloway on Twitter
- @abbyannette BTW, I love your new avatar pic. It's like a mildly deviant Norman Rockwell.
- @Boldface Not me, but the computer. And since the computer is HAL 9000... the programming part must be easy.
- @Boldface And, of course, clients don't know the difference between a designer and a developer which is why we have so much ugly software.
- @Boldface "Where do I get the data to drive that decision?" I ask coyly. "I don't know. Like the internet...cause it's computers and stuff"
- @Boldface I'm constantly surprised people seem to think computer are capable of telepathy & precognition AND that both are easy to program.
- @Boldface You'd be surprised. Although jazz hands are most often associated with excitement about an "awesome" idea that's impossible.
- I heard Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow so winter continues. CONTINUES?!?!?!? When's it gonna start?!?!?
- I'm working on streamlining an UI this morning. I've managed to trim down the paradigm into a little less than a digm and a half.
- @boldface I love that cliche post. FWIW all true of software developer clients too. Close to home.
- I feel truly and deeply sorry for all of you who missed the Jonathan Coulton/They Might Be Giants show last night. Life altering.
Twitter on TU’s COMM 4843
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Social Links
