Archive for April, 2012



*          *          *

Problem? Solution:

CEO-Read  –  Amazon.com  –  www.smroi.net  –  Barnes & Noble  –  Que

Read Full Post »

Moneyball - Courtesy of Sony Pictures

Filed under: opinion

Earlier this week, I wrote about what Moneyball‘s Peter Brand called the “epidemic failure to understand what is going on” plaguing the business, marketing and advertising worlds – when it comes to understanding that social media and social business are not just extensions of traditional “digital” strategies. Yesterday, I was reminded by both Christopher Barger and Justin Whitaker that the same type of off-target thinking is also plaguing other aspects of the world of business, particularly when it comes to the ever hot world of the dot-com.

If you read that post, you’re already 80% of the way there. What follows will fill in the remaining blanks for you. Here is basically how this plays out:

Christopher Barger (on Facebook): And the bubble burst countdown is officially on in 3…2… 1. The “logic” behind this claim is utterly insipid. And we’ve seen this movie before, folks. It came out in 1999 and was called the Dotcom boom. Dear social media business: Stop it. Just. Stinking. Stop it.

Here is the story he is referring to: Forbes – Pinterest is a $7.7 Billion Company. Below are a few clips from that Forbes piece.

Facebook values Instagram at $1 billion and LinkedIn (LNKD) has a market cap of $10 billion. Twitter claims it is worth $8 billion. So where does that leave the new kid on the block Pinterest? Well, it looks like you can pin $7.7 billion on your Pinterest board.

Pinterest is important because the traffic is growing and statistics are impressive. It is known for its magazine quality images. Pinterest is to artful images what Twitter is to artful words. What’s more, Pinterest appeals to college-educated females between the ages of 25 to 44. A sweet demographic known for its spending decisions and habits.

According to the scoreboard from Experian Hitwise data from March 2012, Pinterest is the third most popular social media platform in the United States. It is running close behind Twitter in the number of total visits. Facebook is the big beast at seven billion total visits, Twitter while very far behind, is logging 182 million visits. Pinterest is next with 104 million and gaining quickly.


Pinterest scored 21.5 million visits for one week at the end of January which was an increase of 30x from six months prior. So we can try to place a value on Pinterest by visits alone. If LinkedIn has 86 million visits and a market cap of $10 billion that values the visits at $116. By that method, you could pencil in a value of say $12 billion for Pinterest.

I am not making this up. It gets better.

Worth of Web, a website value calculator places Pinterest’s value at $267 million. It says the company has 10.8 million daily visits and 324 million monthly visits. It claims daily revenue is $74,520 with annual earnings of $26 million. Unfortunately Worth of Web seems to be way off on its valuations. For example, Worth of Web only values Yelp! (YELP) at $115 million, while it currently has a market capitalization of $1.5 billion. It also grossly underestimated Instagram at $2.6 million. But if we take the Yelp undervaluation and apply that to Pinterest, you get roughly $3.4 billion. Not so far-fetched these days. 

[…] Thus, grabbing an envelope and scribbling on the back, I split the difference between the two previous valuations and come up with $7.7 billion.

Don’t get me wrong: I love Pinterest, and I think there’s big potential for the platform, but I’m also not stupid. I can put its potential value in perspective. And I know how easily bad metrics, bad measurement schemes, bad assumptions can put us all in the weeds. Forbes evidently… not so much.

Look at that ridiculous valuation model. This is how a young company with $75,000 in daily revenue (according to that piece), by being compared to other overvalued companies, can magically find itself valued at $7.7 billion. Even if its revenue grew 30x in the next year, (and that is a very big “if”), you would be looking at $780 million/year. Can we say now that Pinterest has a 10-year shelf life? Where is that $7.7 billion coming from? Or that even more fascinating $12 billion figure? This? Nope. Pinterest, like every other social platform won’t be disrupting the market that long. Something else will come along to take over and kill its momentum, and it won’t take ten years.

So thanks, Forbes, for that enchanting little ride on the magic math train. Welcome to the fairy-dust world of equivalency equations – the same equations that lead agencies and brands to mistake the cost of acquiring an impression to the market value of a follower, to the notion that a Facebook fan is worth $372.99 without ever taking into account that fan’s purchasing behaviors, to the notion that a random start-up with no revenue model might simultaneously be $70M in the red and worth more than Luxembourg and the Isle of Man combined.

As Chris points out, we’ve been here before. But this is just the layup. There’s more:

Justin Whitaker (on Facebook): Olivier, did you see Calacanis’ newsletter on recent valuations? Gives you some insight into what is going on. His end result is that we have competition for good teams, and that’s pushing valuations up. To my mind, that’s exactly what’s wrong with what’s happening . We’re valuing teams, not revenue models.

That last sentence. Sound familiar? Remember Peter Brand’s conversation with Billy Beane from yesterday’s post? Hold that thought. Here is what Jason Calcanis had to say on Launch:

 Is the internet industry experiencing a bubble? Yes there are bubbles, but those bubbles make up the froth on top of the massive rising tide of value being startups are creating today.

The $210M sale of OMGPOP and the $1B Instagram purchase feel like a bubble, but you have to step back for a moment and realize that OMGPOP was purchased for 2% of the value of Zynga and Instagram for 1% of the value of Facebook.

Now, are Zynga and Facebook overvalued? Well, that’s a separate email of 2k words. The short version is they are aggressively valued based on their massive growth. I’ve heard folks say that $10B for Zynga and $100B for Facebook are anywhere from 0 to 30% rich. Most folks believe we are seeing a premium for growth — not a bubble — in these stocks.


What we’re seeing now is founders doing their jobs: getting the best price for their teams. Angels are willing to pay under these terms, so they are essentially saying they’ll give up the first 2x to 3x of a deal’s return in the hopes of getting YC’s next Airbnb or Dropbox. (Those two investments are up 50x to 300x since their YC days.)

Most angel investors have their activity covered by one big hit. Bottom line: It feels like a bubble, but it’s really just a hot market.


We’re not in a bubble. We’re in a revenue tsunami like nothing any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.

In a market like this, founders shouldn’t optimize for valuation. They should optimize for getting the involvement and attention of the best investors who provide the best long-term value.

And there you have it: “We’re not in a bubble. We’re in a revenue tsunami like nothing any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.” Us  meaning founders and A-round investors, industry insiders who invest in, buy and sell companies early, based on “potential growth,” rather than real world, sustainable revenue models (that’s a very different game). Every time one of these “we don’t know how to make money yet” companies gets slapped with an inflated value before being sold off to a Facebook or a Google, what do you think the real game is? That’s right: maximizing profit for the team of early investors who got them all prettied up for their big market day. There’s nothing wrong with it, mind you. Calcanis isn’t a bad guy. His business model works for him, his team and the people who spent a couple of years building really cool technology. But because most of the game is being played pre-IPO, the further down the river you are in the investment chain, and the higher the “valuation,” the further away you are from the reality of what dividends that company can actually produce for its late investors. At least Zynga has a revenue model. It’s being run and managed like a real business. But most of these young companies either don’t, or what meager revenue model they have is not nearly on par with their market cap. That’s a problem.

$7.7 billion for Pinterest. I want you to think about that. I want you to think of the gap between that $26 million in actual annual revenue mentioned in the Forbes piece and its subsequent $7.7 billion valuation fantasy. Why not $300 billion? Why not a zillion dollars? Could happen, right? And maybe if you follow the same thinking, maybe if VCs keep telling us all day that this isn’t another dot-com bubble, we’ll all stop asking.

So one more time, in case you missed it earlier, from Moneyball:

Peter Brand: There is an epidemic failure within the game to understand what is really happening. And this leads people who run Major League Baseball teams to misjudge their players and mismanage their teams. I apologize.

Billy Beane: Go on.

Peter Brand: Okay. People who run ball clubs, they think in terms of buying players. Your goal shouldn’t be to buy players, your goal should be to buy wins. And in order to buy wins, you need to buy runs. You’re trying to replace Johnny Damon. The Boston Red Sox see Johnny Damon and they see a star who’s worth seven and half million dollars a year. When I see Johnny Damon, what I see is… is… an imperfect understanding of where runs come from. The guy’s got a great glove. He’s a decent leadoff hitter. He can steal bases. But is he worth the seven and half million dollars a year that the Boston Red Sox are paying him? No. No. Baseball thinking is medieval. They are asking all the wrong questions.

Now here’s Justin again:

“To my mind, that’s exactly what’s wrong with what’s happening . We’re valuing teams, not revenue models.”

Let the wheels turn.

But because I am neither a VC nor a startup founder, maybe I have this all wrong. But then again, maybe all it is is just a big game of hot potato whose object is to keep all of the potatoes in the air while investors like me and you and our banks get sucked into collectively investing billions of dollars into fledgling companies that have yet to generate as much as 1% of their market cap in revenue.

The VC game might just be this: get in with a million bucks, get out with a billion, pass the hot potato on down to the suckers who see a score but haven’t figured out that unless these companies find a way to actually make money and pay investors back, it’s all basically a big fat ponzi scheme. What’s the secret? Everyone needs to stay focused on the imaginary bag of money at the end of the road, the Google dollars, the Facebook pesos. If the value of these startups keeps growing exponentially (like a Pinterest or an Instagram going from $5M to $1B+ in 18 months) we can all believe that we’ll become internet millionaires if we only invest in them when we get a chance. It’s that simple. The bigger the valuation, the more attention it attracts. $8B? Wow. Let’s all buy that dot-com lottery ticket!

Have you ever chatted with a VC or an angel investor? Nine times out of ten, here’s what you’ll hear: “We’re not investing in the company. We’re investing in the people. Because we know that even if this company doesn’t make it, eventually, these people will build something big. That’s what we’re really investing in. That’s how it works.”

We’re not really investing in the Brooklyn bridge. We’re investing in the architects. Unfortunately, to do that, you have to get people to back up your investment by buying the bridge from you, preferably for a lot more than what you paid for it. If 5x is good, 30x is better. How do you do that? By convincing them that your bridge is worth 100x of its actual value. The process behind that isn’t all that hard. The pieces are already on the board. All you really need to get things started is for someone with an imperfect understanding of where value actually comes from to write a piece about you in a publication like Forbes, Mashable or the WSJ. Five years ago, it was hard to get that done. Today, most big circulation publications also have online versions whose editorial standards are… well, lax. Their contributors aren’t always journalists or even analysts. Many are little more than glorified copywriters, underpaid to create content whose only purpose is to drive page views. A simple phone call from a senior exec promising an exclusive, or a friendly beer and a little attention can score you the story you want them to write.

Here’s another dose of reality: Companies like Google and Facebook are businesses, just like Nike and Apple. They have to be able to run in the black at some point. That means that there comes a time when buying $7B companies that don’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves eventually comes to an end. That acquisition game only makes sense in the very short term on when it comes to sacrificing black ink for a strategic move that hopefully isn’t entirely Pyrrhic in nature. Growth through the acquisition of upside down companies just isn’t sustainable. Look at it this way: If you’re eagerly buying stock in a company valued at $15B that only generates $200M per year in revenue from, say, advertising, and inflates its market value by buying $1B startups with no significant revenue stream every six months to make it look like they’re growing and making big moves, it doesn’t take a genius to see where the value of that stock is really going. What’s the company’s plan, then? To keep borrowing money from investors? To get banks in so deep that they can’t pull out without taking  a huge hit? To keep acquiring overvalued companies with Monopoly money and hope no one ever decides to cash-in their chips?

This is part of the mechanism that creates bubbles.

No matter how many companies with zero revenue you acquire, math is math. Profits are profits. You can’t keep promising “next year” forever. And when company valuations start hitting the stratosphere and the gap between price and value starts to look like the Grand Canyon, people finally stop being stupid. That’s when things get dicey.

Think of it as a game of hot potato. What’s the objective? To keep the potato in the air as long as possible.  The way it works is nobody stops to look at the potato. Nobody wants to get burned or miss the next toss because then it’s game over. How do you keep people playing? You convince them that the longer the potato stays in play, the more value they will get out of it. And as long as no one flinches, as long as no one asks questions, as long as all the potatoes stay in play, the game goes on; people who know how to get in and get out at the right time make money and the rest keep on paying and playing, not realizing that what happens when the music stops is they find themselves holding a old wrinkled-up overpriced potato. They were so focused on playing the game that they never stopped to look at what they were really buying. It’s what happened with the first dot-com bubble, it’s what happened with mortgages in 2008, and it’s what is brewing here too.

We’re valuating teams, not revenue models.

Here’s some perspective: Apple sells iPhones and iPads and media all over the world. It’s the biggest tech company on the planet. It’s so big it generates profits on the same scale as the world’s biggest energy companies. Starbucks sells zillions of gallons of coffee in little cardboard cups at an insane premium, and every day, millions of people eagerly pay for the privilege of walking around the office with their logo in their hand. McDonald’s sells burgers and fries and soda in almost every country in the world. Every morning, there’s a line of people getting their McCoffee and Egg McMuffins at virtually every McD’s on the planet. Ford sells cars. Lots of cars. Cool cars, even. Levi’s, RayBan, Coca Cola, Amazon, they all sell something a lot of people want. They generate insane amounts of revenue. What’s Pinterest selling? What is its revenue model, to be worth $7.7B?

Oh yeah… it gets web traffic. 104 million visits in March. My bad. $7.7B it is then.

Based on that equation – or more to the point, that kind of thinking – this blog should be worth $2.7M.

Tell you what: here’s a bargain. If you’re willing to pay cash, I’ll sell it to you right now for $2M even. Any buyers? No? I didn’t think so.

There is an epidemic failure within the game to understand what is really happening. And this leads people who run Major League Baseball teams to misjudge their players and mismanage their teams.

That. And this: there is a disconnect between the message and what is actually happening.

Do yourselves a favor: think. Ask the hard questions. Don’t just read Forbes or some industry white paper and take what’s being sold to you as gospel. Don’t surrender to marketing religions or measurement cults or self-serving sales pitches disguised as business philosophies. Challenge whatever conventions that make you raise an eyebrow or gasp in surprise. If you don’t understand something someone just presented to you, don’t delegate. Don’t leave that room until you understand every aspect of it. Don’t make a decision until you have left no stone unturned.

Why should we invest in a company with no revenue model?

Why is a Twitter follower valued the same whether she is a transacting customer or not?

Why are these qualifications even relevant to this role?

Why is content king?

What do you mean, “we’re investing in people, not the company?”

What’s your angle in this deal?

Question whatever business thinking that keeps you stuck in the same cycle of “why aren’t we doing better?” Bad insights lead to bad decisions. It’s painfully simple. The way you run your business, the way you hire people, the way you invest your resources, even the things you believe are real because you read about them in a magazine, it’s all the same thing. Mistakes all come from the same place. You want to know what the hottest product is in 2012?  It’s bullshit. The stuff gets sold by the ton. It’s hotter than gold, oil and cocaine combined. It’s even bigger than internet porn. My advice: Buy something better.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. You tell me.

*          *          *

Here it is. A whole book on how to make social media work from a business standpoint. ROI is covered, along with a lot of process elements that tie back to it. If your favorite social business “expert” doesn’t seem to get this stuff yet, don’t feel bad about sending them a copy. Knowledge is never a bad gift.

CEO-Read  –  Amazon.com  –  www.smroi.net  –  Barnes & Noble  –  Que

Read Full Post »

Moneyball - Courtesy of Sony Pictures.

I finally watched Moneyball over the weekend. I’m not a big baseball fan but it held my interest, partly because it was based on a true story and partly because the movie really wasn’t about baseball at all. It was about old thinking vs. new thinking, about industry politics vs. the heresy of innovation, about dinosaurs desperate to hang on to a failing model that sustains their livelihood even when that model is clearly broken, ineffective and no longer relevant.

The scenes in which Oakland As’ general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) locks horns with his cadre of coaches and scouts over how to do more with less, about how to break the cycle of mediocrity plaguing their organization, about how to get results again is brilliant, not because of the writing or the acting but because it is spot on target. How do I know this? Because I have been in that meeting hundreds of times. Well, not that particular meeting, but in others exactly like it. And every week that goes by, I find myself sitting in that meeting again and again and again.

In the US, in Europe, in Asia, the same meeting goes on almost daily. The conference table is always basically the same, the fluorescent lighting too. The players, they’re the same as well, everywhere I go. Only the vocabulary changes, the industry lingo, but the meeting, it’s the same and it goes pretty much like this:

Billy Beane
: Guys, you’re just talking. Talking, “la-la-la-la”, like this is business as usual. It’s not.
Grady Fuson: We’re trying to solve the problem here, Billy.
Billy Beane: Not like this you’re not. You’re not even looking at the problem.
Grady Fuson: We’re very aware of the problem. I mean…
Billy Beane: Okay, good. What’s the problem?
Grady Fuson: Look, Billy, we all understand what the problem is. We have to…
Billy Beane: Okay, good. What’s the problem?
Grady Fuson: The problem is we have to replace three key players in our lineup.
Billy Beane: Nope. What’s the problem?
Pittaro: Same as it’s ever been. We’ve gotta replace these guys with what we have existing.
Billy Beane: Nope. What’s the problem, Barry?
Scout Barry: We need 38 home runs, 120 RBIs and 47 doubles to replace.
Billy Beane: Ehh! [imitates buzzer]

What we see in this scene is a roomful of insiders with a century and a half of industry experience between them, and yet they haven’t figured out that their model is outdated, that their “experience,” is no longer enough to keep moving forward. They carry on day after day, season after season, doing the same thing over and over again, half-expecting a different result, but then again, maybe not. Worst of all, most of them have no idea what the problems plaguing their organizations actually are. A lot of it is just operational myopia. Some of it is also ego: they couldn’t possibly be wrong. All that experience and intuition, the entire industry’s decades-old model… how could things have changed that much, right?

And yet they are wrong, the model isn’t working anymore, and instead of listening to the guy in the room who sees it and knows how to fix it, they treat him like a punk. When he wants to do something about it, they push back. Hard. In Moneyball, he’s their boss. Imagine when he is just a Director or a VP, or even just an account manager. Imagine how quickly he gets overruled then. I’ve seen amazing people get shut down and pushed out of organizations over this sort of thing. I could give you names and dates. I could make you ill with true stories of stupidity and petty politics, of wasted opportunities and complete operational failures that turned what could have been huge wins for companies that needed them (and customers who demanded them) into case studies in wasted potential. And as tragic as  these stories would be, they are no different from the opportunities that will be wasted this week, and the next, and the one after that, always for the same reasons, always because of the exact same thinking and business management dynamics.

I see that scene, that meeting, that discussion being played out almost everywhere I go, especially when it comes to social media and social business: guys sitting around a table, treating social like it is just an extension of the same old traditional digital marketing game they all understand and desperately want to stick to. And so they make strategy decisions based on models that don’t apply at all to the social space, they insist on using measurement schemes that aren’t the least bit relevant to it or the business as a whole, and worst of all, they make hiring decisions that absolutely make no sense at all for the new requirements of social communications. Why? Because even though the game has changed, no one in the room wants to accept that it has. No one in the room wants to adapt. No one in the room wants to look reality in the eye and do what needs to be done to actually win. Talk about it, sure. Use cool new words like earned media and engagement, definitely. But actually change anything and adapt to a new model? Nope. Not happening. The change management piece that comes with social business integration, the piece that is absolutely vital to it actually working, that piece is still DOA.

Here’s another conversation that also goes on “offline” at every company (agency or brand) around the world right now in regards to hiring decisions that touch on social media management. Here it is again, through the filter of Moneyball:

Peter Brand: There is an epidemic failure within the game to understand what is really happening. And this leads people who run Major League Baseball teams to misjudge their players and mismanage their teams. I apologize.
Billy Beane: Go on.
Peter Brand: Okay. People who run ball clubs, they think in terms of buying players. Your goal shouldn’t be to buy players, your goal should be to buy wins. And in order to buy wins, you need to buy runs. You’re trying to replace Johnny Damon. The Boston Red Sox see Johnny Damon and they see a star who’s worth seven and half million dollars a year. When I see Johnny Damon, what I see is… is… an imperfect understanding of where runs come from. The guy’s got a great glove. He’s a decent leadoff hitter. He can steal bases. But is he worth the seven and half million dollars a year that the Boston Red Sox are paying him? No. No. Baseball thinking is medieval. They are asking all the wrong questions. And if I say it to anybody, I’m-I’m ostracized. I’m-I’m-I’m a leper. So that’s why I’m-I’m cagey about this with you. That’s why I… I respect you, Mr. Beane, and if you want full disclosure, I think it’s a good thing that you got Damon off your payroll. I think it opens up all kinds of interesting possibilities.

Every company has a Peter Brand either on staff or sitting in a stack of CVs. Not necessarily in the sense that they are geniuses with statistics  but in the sense that they see the forest from the trees, that they see what needs to be done, but every time they open their mouths, they get shot down. Worse, if they open their mouths too much, they’re gone. And if their CV doesn’t have the bullet points and keywords that hiring managers were trained twenty years ago to find relevant, they don’t even get considered for the position.

If I see one more social media leadership position go by default to candidates with “big agency digital experience” or “big brand digital experience,” I am going to throw my pencil at somebody’s head. There is the medieval thinking in action, right there. There’s the primary reason why almost every social media program on the planet is failing to produce results, why three fourths of companies still can’t figure out how to calculate the ROI of their social media programs, why most brands see less than 1% of engagement from their followers and fans after the first touch, why “content is king” is failing, and why increasingly, “social media” strategy and budgets are shifting to ad buys on social networks. That’s right: For all the talk about earned media and engagement and conversations, social media account roles are starting to go to media buyers now. (Here’s some insight into it.) Everyone loves to talk the talk. Almost no company is willing to actually walk the walk. That sound you’re hearing is the banging of traditional marketing hammers pounding nails into social business’ coffin.

You want to know why most big brand social media programs aren’t gaining real traction? Why they don’t work without a constant influx of ad spending? Why nobody sticks around when the “free iPads for likes” promotions are gone? Start there: no one in the room gets it. No one in the room wants to get it. And when someone in the room does get it, he or she doesn’t keep their job for very long. You think most companies are going to hire, promote and support change agents all on their own?

So the real question is this: Do you want to actually score some real wins or do you just want to spend big marketing budgets and play at being a digital big shot?

It’s a real question. In fact, it’s the most important question you might ask yourself all year. Because the answer to that question will determine whether or not you still have a job in two years. No wait… I misspoke. The answer to that question will determine whether or not you have the job you want in two years, and yes, there’s a difference. A big one.

When you find yourself looking for your next gig (and you will eventually,) do you want to just be the guy who was SVP digital at (insert big brand/agency here) or do you want to be the guy who took (insert big brand/agency here)’s theoretical social media and social business programs, and turned them into the new industry standards, into the business model that everyone will be copying and basing theirs on for the next decade? It’s a real question. Which guy do you want to be? The dinosaur or the pioneer? If the answer is the latter, then are you going to have the huevos to go against the grain? To take chances on whom you hire, what kinds of programs you launch, where and how you invest your budgets? Are you willing to stick your neck out and do it right? Or is it more likely that you’ll just play it safe, hoping that the system will just carry you for another decade or two, that the CEO or CMO you will interview with next won’t notice that your job was basically to spend ad dollars and shuffle digital board pieces for the CEO’s monthly show-and-tell meeting?

Who do you want to be? What do you want to build? Do you want to just wear the jersey or do you want to win? Hold that thought. Here’s another key piece of dialogue from the movie, after Billy Beane’s gamble has paid off, after he has started turning some wheels in a big way. He responds to an invitation from John Henry, owner of the Boston Red Sox, who tells him this:

John Henry: I know you’ve taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It’s the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it’s threatening the game. But really what it’s threatening is their livelihoods, it’s threatening their jobs, it’s threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it’s the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy. I mean, anybody who’s not building a team right and rebuilding it using your model, they’re dinosaurs. They’ll be sitting on their ass on the sofa in October, watching the Boston Red Sox win the World Series.

And a couple of years later, they did.

So let’s talk about our world again for a minute. Let’s talk about what’s coming, about tipping points, about momentum: Ford not only hired the right guy (Scott Monty) a few years back but gave him the authority to build a solid program there. The result: some serious wins on just about every front, from customer perceptions to purchase intent to customer loyalty and recommendations. Even car design was impacted in 2010 by the importance of social communications in the Ford organization. Edelman Digital seems to be doing something similar (I keep running into some pretty solid folks there, notably Michael Brito and David Armano). Want to see something cool? This is one of the things they’re working on. Starbucks caught an early train with that too. So did Dell. What sucks is that in 2012, virtually no one else has even tried to keep up with them. For all the money being spent and all the “case studies” being pushed around the conference circuit, most companies are still fighting it, still refusing to accept that the game has changed – worse, trying to keep playing with old methods, with old thinking, with old, outdated skills and CV bullet points. But there will come a day when someone will be given the authority to build out this new model, when it will blow everyone out of the water, and when the blindfolds will have to come off. That day is coming. What side of change do you want to be on then?

Old thinking will not score wins here. Old tactics, old hiring, old measurement, they’re all wrong for these new marketing, communications and business models. They just don’t work anymore. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine. Keep watching your margins erode. Keep watching your digital dollars go to waste. Keep laying people off and outsourcing every last business function you can’t afford to keep in-house anymore. Keep pretending the world is the same today as it was five years ago, and that what you were doing five years ago will still be relevant five years from now. Whatever makes you feel better. Keep doing the same old thing that used to work, back before people carried smart phones and iPads. Keep thinking that the guy you just hired because he spent ten years managing digital for a fast-food brand knows fuck-all about building capacity and traction for a social media program, let alone produce concrete business results for you. Keep coloring the same old boxes with the same old crayons and see how far you’ll get.

_ Okay good. What’s the problem?

We need to fill a VP Digital role.

_ Nope. What’s the problem?

All right… Whatever. We need to fill a VP social media strategy role.

_ Nope. What’s the problem?

We need to hire someone with proven global digital management experience, Billy. Someone with Disney or Nike on their CV. Someone with serious digital campaign experience.

_ Nope. What’s the problem, Barry?

The problem is, we’re not growing our Facebook community fast enough, and our content isn’t seeing the numbers we want. We need a…

_ Nope. [Imitates buzzer]

Get unstuck. Watch Moneyball and let the light bulb go off in your head. Then go find your Peter Brand and hire the shit out of him before someone else does. If you’re lucky, you’ll save both your career and your company in the process.

*          *          *

Here it is. A whole book on how to make social media work from a business standpoint. ROI is covered, along with a lot of process elements that tie back to it. If your favorite social business “expert” doesn’t seem to get this stuff yet, don’t feel bad about sending them a copy. Knowledge is never a bad gift.

CEO-Read  –  Amazon.com  –  www.smroi.net  –  Barnes & Noble  –  Que

Read Full Post »