I really found the post "User Generated Content & Search" from Bruce Clay Inc. quite interesting. The post really encourages businesses to take advantage of user-generated content (UGC), and raises some really key points about consumers.
I myself am a big fan of review sites. This is really semi-connected - but I've moved into a new apartment fairly recently, and am very into decorating. So I was looking for a new comforter and some other appliances. Anyway, I noticed that stores like Target and Wal-mart, allowed customers to write reviews following the product description. What an odd concept, huh?
I'm thinking, why would a company allow negative comments if they're trying to sell a product. But I think this post - "User Generated Content & Search" - made some excellent points. If customers know what they're getting, returns decrease. Reviews actually increase sales. That makes sense, at least with online purchases. I'm often apprehensive to buy things online. Things always look so different than the picture. And the descriptions can be misleading at times.
Also, I tend to base my purchases more off of the opinions of my friends, family, and generally anyone but the salesmen. I guess its just hard to take some sales people sincerely because they just want you to buy. I dunno, maybe that's just me.
Kudos to businesses embracing UGC!
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Information Overload and a PR nightmare
The 2008 campaign in definitely revolutionary due to the use of Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, Facebook pages and YouTube.
Let's take a look at a few of the contenders:
Hillary Clinton:
Barrack Obama
Rudy
John Edwards
YouTube alone is being utilized to help political campaigns, and also to of course mock the candidates because thats just fun!
In all seriousness, I think politicians are beginning to realize the strength of the Web 2.0. Social networking sites alone have the power to put numbers behind a cause. Whether it be to Save Darfur, http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/Story?id=3260220&page=1, or run for President. Look at Steven Colbert! His "fake" campaign that lasted a hot second was able to unite 1,000,000 Facebook users!
The Web facilitates the transfer of knowledge, and unites people, often for good causes. Blogs allow you to post your opinions, let your voice be heard. BUT, are we in information overload? I think Gerry McGovern, web content expert, makes some excellent points about some of the downsides of technology. There is an abundance of easily accessible information out there. It seems that the PR heads of these campaigns have a harder than time than ever. Every time a YouTube video surfaces, there has to be some damage control. But many of the candidates are using YouTube and blogs to get their voice heard, and campaign.
However, candidates and politicians fail to really utilize Web 2.0 when in office. There seems to be a lack of a happy medium. On one hand, as the McGovern interview points out, you have "Daniel Rosen, a candidate for Nevada's Second Congressional district, who promises to make decisions based on a Web site where constituents tell him how to vote." If politicians expect democracy to do all the work for them, why do we even elect representatives? On the other hand, as representatives, don't these people have a responsibility to the US citizens they represent, and the choices they make that impact the population?
At least businesses are starting to pick up on the effectiveness and the importance of the blog, to address the needs and concerns of the stakeholders. Businesses are recognizing that with the growth of Web 2.0, its no longer a one way street. There's less control. Though politicians are utilizing 2.0 applications to by pass the media in their campaigns, in hopes of getting elected. Though this is written in 2004, Mark Glaser explains why Senators are so slow to blog. It doesn't seem like much has really changed. If you want to raise an issue to your Senator - you write a letter, you call in the media. You yourself can blog, and if you have a popular blog, your blog can reach the media. But otherwise, you local representative or Senator probably will not be responding.
Of course it would be great for politicians to personally blog, not just people from their campaign. IT would be great if they responded to comments, and maybe used the Web 2.0 much like many companies have done. And think of themselves as service providers aiming to please their customers - the tax payers.
But on the other side, McGovern raises another excellent point, It's easy to get carried away with this Wired magazine view of "All You Need is Web 2.0," but in some ways the very technology that is meant to solve problems merely makes people more emotional—not more reasonable. We ultimately do a disservice to society by creating this euphoria about what technology can really deliver." Which I think is so true. I think we live in an age where we are overloaded with information. Web 2.0 creates even more information with user generated content. Abundance of accessible information is not the panacea. We are humans, we can only intake so much. But I do believe Web 2.0 opens a lot of doors for communication and understanding, especially in the political arena.
Let's take a look at a few of the contenders:
Hillary Clinton:
Barrack Obama
Rudy
John Edwards
YouTube alone is being utilized to help political campaigns, and also to of course mock the candidates because thats just fun!
In all seriousness, I think politicians are beginning to realize the strength of the Web 2.0. Social networking sites alone have the power to put numbers behind a cause. Whether it be to Save Darfur, http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/Story?id=3260220&page=1, or run for President. Look at Steven Colbert! His "fake" campaign that lasted a hot second was able to unite 1,000,000 Facebook users!
The Web facilitates the transfer of knowledge, and unites people, often for good causes. Blogs allow you to post your opinions, let your voice be heard. BUT, are we in information overload? I think Gerry McGovern, web content expert, makes some excellent points about some of the downsides of technology. There is an abundance of easily accessible information out there. It seems that the PR heads of these campaigns have a harder than time than ever. Every time a YouTube video surfaces, there has to be some damage control. But many of the candidates are using YouTube and blogs to get their voice heard, and campaign.
However, candidates and politicians fail to really utilize Web 2.0 when in office. There seems to be a lack of a happy medium. On one hand, as the McGovern interview points out, you have "Daniel Rosen, a candidate for Nevada's Second Congressional district, who promises to make decisions based on a Web site where constituents tell him how to vote." If politicians expect democracy to do all the work for them, why do we even elect representatives? On the other hand, as representatives, don't these people have a responsibility to the US citizens they represent, and the choices they make that impact the population?
At least businesses are starting to pick up on the effectiveness and the importance of the blog, to address the needs and concerns of the stakeholders. Businesses are recognizing that with the growth of Web 2.0, its no longer a one way street. There's less control. Though politicians are utilizing 2.0 applications to by pass the media in their campaigns, in hopes of getting elected. Though this is written in 2004, Mark Glaser explains why Senators are so slow to blog. It doesn't seem like much has really changed. If you want to raise an issue to your Senator - you write a letter, you call in the media. You yourself can blog, and if you have a popular blog, your blog can reach the media. But otherwise, you local representative or Senator probably will not be responding.
Of course it would be great for politicians to personally blog, not just people from their campaign. IT would be great if they responded to comments, and maybe used the Web 2.0 much like many companies have done. And think of themselves as service providers aiming to please their customers - the tax payers.
But on the other side, McGovern raises another excellent point, It's easy to get carried away with this Wired magazine view of "All You Need is Web 2.0," but in some ways the very technology that is meant to solve problems merely makes people more emotional—not more reasonable. We ultimately do a disservice to society by creating this euphoria about what technology can really deliver." Which I think is so true. I think we live in an age where we are overloaded with information. Web 2.0 creates even more information with user generated content. Abundance of accessible information is not the panacea. We are humans, we can only intake so much. But I do believe Web 2.0 opens a lot of doors for communication and understanding, especially in the political arena.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Referral Controversy
The whole controversy regarding the referral system really intrigued me. In high school I had this naivety that in America you can make your own destiny. You can choose your own path and grow up to be whatever you want to be. And in school, I think you're taught that if you work hard, academically, these dreams will come true. But really - this is not the case. Referrals, "business casual" when you know the mean "suit", and your "30 second elevator speech" are all part of the game. They get you in the door, but they don't necessarily land you the job.
A personal example is that two summers ago, my uncle got me an internship with NASD. I interviewed for a few positions that I was really not qualified for, and then ultimately got an internship I was qualified for. So I mean if you don't have the skill sets once you get your foot in the door, having that connection can only do so much.
From a HR perspective, referrals make recruiting easier and I think it helps maintain corporate culture. How great would it be to work with your friend, neighbor, or something you think highly of? An article from Inc.com raises some great points about sites like Monster.com, "Today, recruiters' chief complaint is about the volume of unqualified candidates they receive from their postings. Millions of people use job boards and many apply to dozens or even hundreds of jobs per day. The result can be overwhelming, making it more difficult than ever to find the qualified candidates among the flood of thoughtless applications."
So maybe its not fair. Maybe this isn't really the land of opportunity if your destiny is perhaps out of your control, your career limited by who you know. But that's life. The best we can do is take courses like this and work not only on the academics and the resume, but also our networking and people skills.
A personal example is that two summers ago, my uncle got me an internship with NASD. I interviewed for a few positions that I was really not qualified for, and then ultimately got an internship I was qualified for. So I mean if you don't have the skill sets once you get your foot in the door, having that connection can only do so much.
From a HR perspective, referrals make recruiting easier and I think it helps maintain corporate culture. How great would it be to work with your friend, neighbor, or something you think highly of? An article from Inc.com raises some great points about sites like Monster.com, "Today, recruiters' chief complaint is about the volume of unqualified candidates they receive from their postings. Millions of people use job boards and many apply to dozens or even hundreds of jobs per day. The result can be overwhelming, making it more difficult than ever to find the qualified candidates among the flood of thoughtless applications."
So maybe its not fair. Maybe this isn't really the land of opportunity if your destiny is perhaps out of your control, your career limited by who you know. But that's life. The best we can do is take courses like this and work not only on the academics and the resume, but also our networking and people skills.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Making Connections
With more people spending more and more time online, both at home and work, there seems to be numerous benefits social networking sites like LinkedIn. These kind of sites seem like Facebook but for strictly business purposes. So, instead of exchanging business cards, professionals can now search each others profiles. This seems like a networking dream, to have access to current information (e-mail)of those in your professional network, and beyond. I think this can also help strengthen weak connections. For example, some of the companies I've interviewed with send me short bios and pictures of my interviewers. But with these websites, I can just look them up and put a face to the name. Another major pro is that this helps divide personal and professional connections. A major problem with Facebook is that the profile you want your friends to see, you may not want your employer to see. LinkedIn has all the networking perks of Facebook, with more of a business focus.
But in reality - how strong are these connections? How comfortable would you be to refer someone you met in LinkedIn? Or how willing would you be to allow someone access to your personal network? And often, our personal and professional networks are blurred. Another problem with these sites is low traffic. People just don't seem to be using them on a daily basis like Facebook.
I'm curious of everyone's thoughts - would you create one of these profiles? Would you use it?
But in reality - how strong are these connections? How comfortable would you be to refer someone you met in LinkedIn? Or how willing would you be to allow someone access to your personal network? And often, our personal and professional networks are blurred. Another problem with these sites is low traffic. People just don't seem to be using them on a daily basis like Facebook.
I'm curious of everyone's thoughts - would you create one of these profiles? Would you use it?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tools for Virtual Teams
As a business student at Kogod, I've had a team project/presentation/paper in literally all my courses, except one. Last semester was absolute hell because I was taking five business courses. Every one had a team project. There are numerous challenges with teamwork in general. Everyone has conflicting schedules, so face time is hard to do. Also, face time can be extremely unproductive. People show up late, without having read the assignment, and it's easy to get off task. Also, so often we're thrown together, with no previous relationship to each other, so there's no real time to "feel" out your group and establish norms. The focus is "let's just get it done."
But with that said, from my experiences, I've gathered some useful tools/tips for handling team project, especially when there are time conflicts. One, I think it helps a lot to know your teammates before you work on a major project together. Technology has made this easy with Facebook and AIM. In one group, we even went out for lunch. I mean this is rare, but it helps establish trust within the group, and gauge everyone's expertise.
The other thing I live by now is GoogleDocs. No longer do you need to do that annoying "I'll send you my part." This is so helpful with group papers because you can build off of what has already been said. I work for the Office of Business Communications here at Kogod. Our website has some pretty good tips from team projects in general http://kogod.american.edu/ArtPage.cfm?ItemID=956&AudienceID=16
So to carry these team-building tools to virtual teams, technology definitely has facilitated communication and reduced costs of flying people in, but I think it has limitations. You lose the non-verbal interactions, and the personal connection when you talk to someone face to face. I think these often make and break the team. So where do corporations draw the line and decide when teams need to meet face to face, and when they can they rely solely on virtual tools?
But with that said, from my experiences, I've gathered some useful tools/tips for handling team project, especially when there are time conflicts. One, I think it helps a lot to know your teammates before you work on a major project together. Technology has made this easy with Facebook and AIM. In one group, we even went out for lunch. I mean this is rare, but it helps establish trust within the group, and gauge everyone's expertise.
The other thing I live by now is GoogleDocs. No longer do you need to do that annoying "I'll send you my part." This is so helpful with group papers because you can build off of what has already been said. I work for the Office of Business Communications here at Kogod. Our website has some pretty good tips from team projects in general http://kogod.american.edu/ArtPage.cfm?ItemID=956&AudienceID=16
So to carry these team-building tools to virtual teams, technology definitely has facilitated communication and reduced costs of flying people in, but I think it has limitations. You lose the non-verbal interactions, and the personal connection when you talk to someone face to face. I think these often make and break the team. So where do corporations draw the line and decide when teams need to meet face to face, and when they can they rely solely on virtual tools?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Google Me
I'm so sorry this blog is late. I've been trying to keep all my balls in the air, and lately that has been increasingly hard to do with all these job interviews. But ironically, this ties into this weeks topic, which touches on reputation -- both my own and the firms that I've been interviewing with.
Brushing up your resume, dressing the part, and trying to sell yourself at all these job fairs are all part of creating your personal brand. It's about translating your reputation in the class room, in your previous jobs, and in your activities. All of these you have relative control over. What's scary about your online reputation is that there seems to be less control, despite how limited your Facebook profile is. Pictures your friends post from that "wild" party can turn up. My friend interned at a law firm where part of her job was to search AU applicants on Facebook. I'm definitely trying to be more aware of what information I put on the Web. And, what information is put up about me.
Also, I can definitely tell that firms "Google" me, because they always ask about these two things - "The Office of Business Communications," and my scholarship through the "Former Agents of the FBI Foundation." The Former Agents of the FBI always draws intrigue - "Wait, you were in the FBI?" "No, my grandfather was...."
Anyway, on the other side. It's been difficult to find out the employer's reputation. Yea, they all have websites, but they all basically say the same thing. I've found it extremely odd how in interviews some will bash the reputation of other firms.
So, I would say that now - more than ever - its difficult to manage your reputation. At least on your own. And I guess this is where companies like ReputationDefender.com come in.
Brushing up your resume, dressing the part, and trying to sell yourself at all these job fairs are all part of creating your personal brand. It's about translating your reputation in the class room, in your previous jobs, and in your activities. All of these you have relative control over. What's scary about your online reputation is that there seems to be less control, despite how limited your Facebook profile is. Pictures your friends post from that "wild" party can turn up. My friend interned at a law firm where part of her job was to search AU applicants on Facebook. I'm definitely trying to be more aware of what information I put on the Web. And, what information is put up about me.
Also, I can definitely tell that firms "Google" me, because they always ask about these two things - "The Office of Business Communications," and my scholarship through the "Former Agents of the FBI Foundation." The Former Agents of the FBI always draws intrigue - "Wait, you were in the FBI?" "No, my grandfather was...."
Anyway, on the other side. It's been difficult to find out the employer's reputation. Yea, they all have websites, but they all basically say the same thing. I've found it extremely odd how in interviews some will bash the reputation of other firms.
So, I would say that now - more than ever - its difficult to manage your reputation. At least on your own. And I guess this is where companies like ReputationDefender.com come in.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Who do you believe?
So for my Capstone class, we had to pick a company and identify a strategic problem. Since we couldn't do Apple, our group decided to do one of their competitors - Meizu.
Meizu, is the Apple clone of China. Since this is a relatively new company, and well, from China, there was very little information given by the company about the release of their iPhone look-a-like -- the miniOne. But there was an abundance of blogs speculating on everything from launch date to product features. Though these blogs were very helpful finding the general consensus on this product (the blogging community seems to embrace the iPhone rip off), I found it hard to decide what was credible. With the launch date for example, I ended up citing information I found in a news article rather than the dates listed in these blogs.
This ties in this Scoble and Israel's chapter on "Direct Acccess." Blogs are valuable tool for companies, especially executives, to create a direct line of communication. Eliminate the third party to protect accuracy. I wish Meizu had a corporate blog...maybe they do but it's not translated. Anyway, I just wanted to add that yea, the news messes up. But I think if you were to poll the general public, people would say that major newspapers, news channels, and radio shows are more credible and accurate than something found on a blog. There's still a lack of trust involving the Internet. Also, I think people don't know necessarily where to find these blogs either. TV, papers, and radio require very little from the audience but to watch, read, or listen. Blogs on the other hand, I think there is more of a search.
Though an official corporate blog is of course going to be credible, what does a company do about all the unofficial blogs? What about the wealth of inaccuracies, misrepresentation, and biases on the Web?
Meizu, is the Apple clone of China. Since this is a relatively new company, and well, from China, there was very little information given by the company about the release of their iPhone look-a-like -- the miniOne. But there was an abundance of blogs speculating on everything from launch date to product features. Though these blogs were very helpful finding the general consensus on this product (the blogging community seems to embrace the iPhone rip off), I found it hard to decide what was credible. With the launch date for example, I ended up citing information I found in a news article rather than the dates listed in these blogs.
This ties in this Scoble and Israel's chapter on "Direct Acccess." Blogs are valuable tool for companies, especially executives, to create a direct line of communication. Eliminate the third party to protect accuracy. I wish Meizu had a corporate blog...maybe they do but it's not translated. Anyway, I just wanted to add that yea, the news messes up. But I think if you were to poll the general public, people would say that major newspapers, news channels, and radio shows are more credible and accurate than something found on a blog. There's still a lack of trust involving the Internet. Also, I think people don't know necessarily where to find these blogs either. TV, papers, and radio require very little from the audience but to watch, read, or listen. Blogs on the other hand, I think there is more of a search.
Though an official corporate blog is of course going to be credible, what does a company do about all the unofficial blogs? What about the wealth of inaccuracies, misrepresentation, and biases on the Web?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)