Is the web finally going mobile?

As I type this (or tap if you will) from my iPhone after installing the new Wordpress app I can’t help but wonder if mobile might actually catch on in the U.S.

I’m not going to be absurd and say it’ll happen tomorrow; but it WILL happen, in my opinion, when the competitors to the iPhone catch up for the mainstream masses; or, conversely, if Blackberry loses it’s top position. What are you doing to be ready for mobile?

Why (Some, Mostly Big) Businesses Don’t Get New Media

Saw a report today from the USC School of Business around social media and online initiatives - and the information was great.

All in all, the biggest reason why there isn’t an embrace of new media yet is that they don’t understand it… not to mention new media is still levels the playing field because the level of adoption of companies under 100 employees is higher than any other segment.

Following those reasons, we also see cost/staff issues (funny, as it’s usually cheaper and there are some great vendors out there to make it happen) as well as network security (seems like not a well-asked question; is it a concern of leaks or a technical concern?).

Big business in general didn’t always correlate new media to a competitive advantage; this tells me that this is the greatest opportunity for the small (Tier 5, Tier 4, etc) companies to use new media to establish beachheads and superiority in the online space before the big guys catch on.

That said, the three things that they saw most useful across the board was online video, RSS, and podcasting. (Editor’s note: glad we picked those areas to focus on) and blogs were near the bottom of perceived usefulness (Editor’s note: can’t pick’em all).

I’m sure, since it’s lack of understanding as the lead cause, since these decision makers don’t always use these tools themselves they fail to see how their employees and customers can benefit.  This USC information basically backs up what a pseudo-competitor (and overall good guy) said:

“They either get it or they don’t.”

My take is that those who don’t see it need to get on the clue train at the next station as it’s already left this one, if they want to be relevant and make money in the future.

The reality is that this is the way a whole generation of people connect; the playing field has changed.  From here on out, there is a line in the sand; a top-down approach as the past has been is less and less effective.  Of course, it still blows my mind that in 2008 over 15% of businesses we talk to over 10 people don’t have a website yet and close to 70% haven’t updated theirs in the last year.  It’s just not seen as a vehicle; it’s many times seen as a static brochure… and then they wonder why they don’t get any results.

I remember vividly a meeting a couple years ago where the potential client (this is more of a Web 1.0 story, but applicable) who was convinced nothing was wrong with their e-commerce store, even though they were only getting a couple hundred dollars a month on their $100,000 investment (obviously denial is not just a river in Egypt).

Their premise was that since no one told them their store was bad (it was atrocious - no product descriptions, no pictures, no search) that it’s not the problem.  Of course, online customers don’t always tell you it’s bad - most times they just leave and tell their friends.

They had no statistics or tracking package, no way to see where people abandoned their carts, what people did.. but it was still fine.  They did it their way with no input from their vendor; they did the graphics, the text, everything themselves because they knew what customers wanted.

Suffice it to say, they’re still failing in ignorant bliss.  Sad to see, but it’s their choice.  Go take their business from them, as the great equalization is still in effect.

What Everybody Ought To Know About Selecting a Web Firm

Was talking around the shop the other day about some of the challenges we see folks face - and one of them is when they select the wrong team for the job, and what projects we know we need to turn down.

I’ll be the first to tell you that we’re the wrong guys to hire for a billboard.  And also tell you that an accounting firm or an IT infrastructure company are probably the wrong folks to hire for your interactive or website needs.  They might know code (which is important - we strong believe those creating the interactive should know how to implement it) but they probably don’t know the creative part.  It’s not their passion - they’re travail de vie (pardon my rusty french).

Take a look at the sites you regularly visit - does your site have the refinement of those?  Does your site look, feel, act, and give the information that those do (of course adapted for your field of work?

Our logic - and experience - on this is simple.  If your roof is leaking, do you call a plumber?  No, you call a roofer.  Yes, there might be water involved - but that doesn’t mean the skills translate.

It’s tough buying things when you don’t know what you’re expecting… there have been more than a few times when I felt at first I was flying blind.  But it’s important to find that influential - or influentials - of people you trust that will give you honest advice as well as put the logic filter on your brain and do some research to find the right partner.

Video is sexy - but Audio can be more effective

An interesting thing that I run into very often is people who want all kinds of video content, esp. long form items.  And sometimes, it really works and is good.

However, there are a lot of times where audio outperforms video by factors of anywhere from 2-4 to one.  Long format content, especially when there aren’t a lot of supporting visuals, is suited perfectly for audio.  Although the “in” thing is video on the ‘net, the reality seems to be that people prefer to take with them audio.

Why?  Well, despite what some advertising agency people will lead you to believe (because you do make more money producing video; way more money, as the project is larger and the agency’s cut is larger) it’s because people don’t want to be interrupted - they may want to learn your content or be entertained but they have other things to do.

There are a couple exceptions to this - when the long form content has a live community around it (a beautiful example of this is TWiT Live - but they still don’t offer video podcasts versions of their content, and I don’t know if they should) but it works because there are a couple thousand people who are becoming friends chatting in real time about what’s going on.

The second is if the long form content requires lots of visuals, like powerpoints and such that keep things moving, entertaining, and informative.  It’s key that these visuals are resized and edited directly into the program as just shooting a powerpoint screen with a camera is unprofessional and very hard to read.

What are your thoughts on the future of online video?

The Unofficial Twitter Glossary

So I’ve been twittering a bit - and I like Twitter. It has turned into a pretty good way to keep up with folks without having to do a lot of work. It’s got some value - not sure what yet, outside of being a cool tool to keep up with folks.

However, as I’m following people about, I’ve realized that there are a few types of Twitterers. Some great - some not so much. I’ve decided to arbitrarily label them and put them into boxes below. Folks can fit into multiple boxes…

Tweeach - A Twitter Leach. Constantly asking others for stuff, and never providing anything back of value. They’re their to suck you dry and have no creativity. Easily identified by their constant asking of stupid or banal questions, and when they do tweet, it’s self-serving.

Celebritweet - Scoble, Calacanis, Laporte. Don’t need to say any more - usually in the 10k-20k follower range. YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary), especially if you’re a fan.

Comtweetian - Hotdogladies, Hodgman. The main motivation of their twittering is to be funny. Again, YMMV depending on your sense of humor.

Twittertool - Twittering because it’s the “in” thing to do, usually about once per day, and usually self-serving, always boring. Hence the “tool” part.

The Tweedia - Twitter feeds from media sources, such as MLive or CNN. I’d rather just subscribe to the RSS feed, but valuable if you use Twitter as your nexus of information.

Tweetspammer - Uses twitter to spew the platitudes of their product or service - or blog.  Usually highly focused, sometimes motivated by a $20 online program that told them doing this will increase their Google ranking somehow.

Emotweeter - Denoted by common uses of the word “Fail” and “Sucks.”  The world is a dark, dark place to them.  Follow with caution as misery loves company.

Housetweet - Usually a housewife (or houseman) who may have kids, but doesn’t do much else so most tweets are cute kid stories and waiting for the hubby or wife to come home.

Gossitweet - A troublemaker.  Either spreading rumors or finding ways to hook up with people for flings.  Online equivalent of a high school gossip queen, which unfortunately, evolves (I use the the term evolve very loosely) into worse as an adult.

Do you have additions or addendums?  I’d love to hear’em.

Camp Baby Johnson & Johnson Blogger Debacle Synopsis

I really can’t add anything to this… the link is pretty much perfect on it’s own.  Read and learn.

Many thanks to @shannonpaul for picking it out and @contactjeff for writing it (on Twitter).

Me on Global Business Podcast Talking Tech

Technology has really changed global and international business… did an interview over at Global Business Perspectives about technology (specifically things like Skype) that have transformed how we do business.

I tried to be as non-techy as possible, especially for their audience… it’s tough for me

A peek into the pitfalls of UGC (User Generated Content)

This blog post from NIN.com - Nine Inch Nails - highlights a very, very interesting situation online.

The media titans, while fighting each other, have created a bit of an uncertain environment.  So many sites rely on UGC - but the blog post correctly highlights that there are tons of sites that could be affected adversely if it’s shown there is no safe harbor with uploaded content that may or may not be copyrighted.

Ars Technica had a great excerpt that was mentioned in the NIN piece:

The DMCA’s Safe Harbor provisions aren’t just important to video sharing sites; they’re important to almost every sector of Internet-based business.

“Nearly every major Internet company depends on the very same legal foundation that YouTube is built on,” said von Lohmann. “A legal defeat for YouTube could result in fundamental changes to its business, potentially even making it commercially impossible to embrace user-generated content without first ‘clearing’ every video. In other words, a decisive victory for Viacom could potentially turn the Internet into TV, a place where nothing gets on the air until a cadre of lawyers signs off,” he said. “More importantly, a victory for Viacom could potentially have enormous implications for Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, MySpace, and many other Internet companies, because they all rely on the same DMCA Safe Harbors to protect many facets of their businesses, as well. The stakes are high all around.”