The presentation dealt with this idea: That mobile communications does not have to be a tactical endeavor, it can be a deep strategic one enabling companies to run leaner, to reach audiences in new and novel ways, to redefine a company organizationally, and create new markets with new revenues. In ‘creating assets and access in the intention economy’ I challenged our thinking in how mobile communications plays the key role in this rapidly evolving story.

Brian writes,

For several years now, it has been ‘the year of mobile’. And yet despite everyone’s best efforts, it hasn’t really happened yet, has it? Why might that be? There were several opinions expressed at MediaTel’s recent ‘Come on Mobile..Stand Up and Deliver’ event.

Potentially mobile offers commercial users a truly unique integrated channel.

First, mobile is personal; much more personal than any other channel. This is a benefit and a problem. A benefit in that if consumers are prepared to accept messages, and if they’re prepared to participate in a dialogue with a brand then the result is a truly engaged consumer. On the other hand if consumers just tolerate irrelevant messages from advertisers they care little about, then the result is…well, at best an irritated customer, and at worst a customer for whom hell will freeze over before he or she ever buys anything from your client ever again.

An illustration – a while ago I received a text from an insurance company asking me if I would be interested in a quote for business insurance. I don’t remember giving this company permission to contact me; and I don’t know who to be most irritated with – the company or Vodafone. Yes I run a small business, and yes I have business insurance. Does that make me a likely member of the target market? I would say no – because at no point did I knowingly give permission for anyone to contact me. I suspect my operator would say yes – I’m in the target market, as I opted in (or failed to opt out), even if unknowingly.
It seems to me that simply assuming that consumers are prepared to be contacted if they’ve opted in, or not opted out is incorrect. Certainly they may have consciously agreed to receive messages, but we all know that the opt-in process generally works passively, rather than actively. This is not right – and furthermore raises a huge question: who controls what is done with data about me? I think that when it comes to the most personal channel – my mobile phone – then I should. I want to be in control; I want to decide who I hear from.

Our mobile marketing channel Qustodian (www.qustodian.com) launching in the UK later this year following a successful launch in Spain puts consumers in control. They decide who they hear from; they control their data; they benefit (in cash) from the use to which their data is put; and they decide whether to stay with us, or cancel their involvement with us – something they can do at any time.

But Qustodian is a very small player compared to the major operators. For this medium to really take off it needs the big guys to start applying certain principles around active opt-in and active consumer participation, as opposed to believing that passively collected eyeballs, maybe modified by a broad discriminator such as a location in any way equals engaged consumers.

I believe that mobile can deliver engaged consumers. It can be used for messages in virtually any format – including film, text, static images. It can be used to guide consumers through multiple materials on multiple screens within one campaign. It can offer promotions. It can transact. It can measure effect. Every click is collected and can be used to measure the effect of any activity.

So why aren’t advertisers queuing up to use this new medium? Why aren’t the agencies recommending it? Is it, as one speaker at the MediaTel event suggested because everyone is still obsessed with TV (an odd remark coming from an organisation that itself spends tens of millions on television, presumably because it works for them)? Of course not.

Is it (as was also suggested) because the measurement is imperfect? But as we’ve seen, it’s potentially superior to anything from a 5,000 homes panel, or from an online system that doesn’t identify individuals. Can’t be.

Or is it because agencies can’t make money from mobile? But what about agencies’ vaunted ability to offer media neutral thinking? Surely not.

I think the real reason is that mobile isn’t really an advertising medium at all; it’s a complete marketing channel with everything that that implies. I’m not sure that we are yet able to think of mobile as anything other than an advertising vehicle. And, until we are, until we learn to think in a different way about communicating with customers, until we turn all the talk about integrated thinking into integrated action, mobile won’t fulfill its huge potential.

SMLXL posts on mobile commerce

Dave Evans

Who gets it and who doesn’t and why? (I say the biggest challenge companies have in adapting is more cultural than anything else.)

I believe that we all “get it” but that there is of course a caveat to this. We all “get” social media, for example, when we are shopping and want the best deal, when we want to know, in advance, that this thing we are about to buy really works for the purpose for which we intend to use it. We want to know where to look for the best jobs, and to be referred or introduced to the best contacts to improve our chances for getting those jobs. On the subject of advertising–being as it is the channel through which we might actually learn of these products and other opportunities–when we are relaxing at home we don’t want interruptions that take us away from the programs we enjoy watching. In this sense, we all “get it.”

However, this odd transformation takes place when we walk into our offices, when we don our “work hats.” Suddenly, we expect everyone to want to pay attention to us (and only us), to show an interest in what we make, and to go out and buy it: To see things our way, and to readily shift attention when our spot or print ad or dinner-time telemarketing call or highway billboard presents itself.

“But wait,” as we say in the business, “there’s more.” We also expect people–customers, employees, suppliers–to do what we say simply because we said it. How much justification, unbiased proof, or fact-based evidence can one really put into a 30 second spot or half page (mostly image) advertisement? As an example of just how little, consider the typical US pharmaceutical print ad: The primary ad components are amazingly free of actual data…but flip the page in the magazine and you’ll see 8.5 x 11 inches of fine print, which ironically contains the actual information needed to properly evaluate benefits conveyed by the smiling couple in the visual ad.

So, there is this whole notion of control–over attention, over the message, over the interpretation of the message, over employees and how they are incented to work–that in many ways, at a practical level, really shows who gets it and who doesn’t. And, it’s often the same people, just in a different context: A middle aged professional walks into an electronics store, wanting to see what’s new and innovative, and to be told, in straight terms, which of these devices makes sense given his stated needs and lifestyle. That same guy walks into the office on Monday and barks at his subordinates, expecting them to do his bidding because “that’s how we’ve always done it” and with little more actual authority than a passing reference to the “SVP” that follows his name on the office door: Same person, operating alternately between “getting it” and “not.”

Social technology disrupts authority, and it does so without regard for the particular subject. The question of “who gets it” and “who doesn’t,” when looked at this way, becomes more a question of “Is it convenient for me to “get it” right now?” This is of course the driver in the push for social technology, embedded in the fabric of the marketplace, of the workplace and in our social infrastructure: By making information available everywhere–regardless of who the actors are–then collaborative behaviors are reinforced across the full range of contexts. It’s difficult, for example, to hold a position–indefinitely and based on only authority–that contravenes the facts when the facts are known to all, and the fact that (we/they) all know this is itself known to everyone.

This is what “Social Media Marketing: The Next Generation of Business Engagement” is all about: As a business leader–where my prior book was distinctly for marketers, I wrote this book for C-level and similar organizational leaders across all disciplines–your employees, partners, suppliers and customers have knowledge that can make your products and services better, that can create a stronger brand and add economic value to your organization. Social technology, applied at a business level, is about creating a strong organizational culture that thrives on collaboration, that listens to customers, and that builds for itself a long-term pathway to profits and growth. But, you have to be willing to operate collaboratively.

So, a personal heartfelt perspective.

My driving ideal remains: To see my son and his generation grow up in a world with less interruption, where the information needed to make a smart choice is available. This is, for me, what the web, and now the advent of social technology is all about. When I talk about “engagement” in terms of business, for example, I talk about it not in terms of “engaging with an ad by clicking it” but rather by “engaging with a business b becoming a part of it.” That is an entirely different proposition, and one that radically redefines the objectives of organizational leadership.

I think it brings people closer to your work?

In the end, we are all a part of this, and we all have a stake in it: Social technology is, in a sense, the infrastructure that will facilitate realization of the solutions needed by the next generation of thinkers, leaders and people everywhere. By connecting, friending, sharing…we can get to know each other, and learn to operate our markets in ways that raise value everywhere through appropriate transparency rather than seeking to exploit information (resources) for the benefit of a few.

If there is one book you should buy to understand what next generation business engagement looks like, using social media then, this is the book. You can follow Dave on twitter @evansdave. Digital Voodoo is Dave’s company

What has changed and what has not!

What has changed since 2007 when I wrote the first book (released in 2008) is that social technology has gone mainstream. As I was writing the first book, Twitter was in use by primarily among digital technology fans and those concerned with the intersection of society and technology: SXSW 2007 was one of the first really notable Twitter events that started to catch mainstream attention, still far in advance of the big uptick in member growth that happened in 2009. Similar story for Facebook: In mid-2007, with 50 million or so members globally, Facebook opened its API to developers, driving new social technology. In 2008 membership crossed 100 million and in 2010 it crossed 500 million.

I started writing the second book in early 2010 while working with 2020Media (Public Relations) in India. It became really clear that this next wave of social technology was truly global at a societal–and not just technology production–level. I saw people doing things with social technology in India, Asia and South America, where I work with video community startup Looppa, that were essentially identical to what was happening in Europe and North America. People were playing off of each other, sharing ideas and experiences to make more informed choices.

In this view, the big change is simply the “now mainstream” adoption of social technology, and as such the mainstream expectation that businesses are likewise participants on the social web, an expectation that is still only partly met in actual practice.

What inspires you and what leaves you feeling a bit glum?

What inspires me is the continued, frenzied growth in applications–across a very wide range is uses–that encourage the sharing of ideas, experiences, and information. In 1995, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, speaking at MIT for the 50th Anniversary of the publication of Dr. Vannevar Bush’s seminal Atlantic article “As We May Think,” remarked that the web should be “a sea of shared knowledge” wherein people could work together on the problems facing the world, and could do so in a context that encouraged “those who followed to accept, adopt or correct” these collaboratively developed solutions. Looking around today at the both the significant challenges and outright problems along with the incredible opportunities and boundless capabilities, the promise of social technology is truly inspiring.

That said, the majority of the social applications are still based on a fundamentally questionable assumption: If one amasses a sufficient audience whose attention can be systematically interrupted, those interruptions can be used to promote or sell goods and services. In other words, in the most cynical view of the social web it’s all about regaining control over the (global) “TV” audience for the purposes of advertising, a business model that is at the heart of the majority of social platforms and technology startups.

If you have a point of view why not leave a comment or question for Dave, or maybe tweet your question to Dave Evans @evansdave.

As many of you know the No Straight Lines project is picking up apace (sxsw keynote) (Do Lecture) (Latin America tour – to come). As a consequence of the work I have been doing with a small team, we have identified that the connected and networked world presents a design challenge to existing companies but also to entrepreneurs – how business and entrepreneurship is taught and how it can be accelerated. The rise of networked platforms like GrowVC which are designed to unleash innovation via crowdfunding is but one example. Another is Local Motors, or indeed mobile developer communities which are bringing a different type of rocket fuel to the party. (also see dotOpen)

On 17th November I will give a keynote on No Straight Lines at Incubate 2.0 on business creation and organization – as what is clear to me, that the networked world must be addressed not through social media per se, but a much deeper and broader understanding of the networked and its implications. For example, how does one leverage open social systems, global connectivity, open innovation and its implications from a skills, tools, process and legal frameworks, and, lightweight (green) business practices to create companies in the future? We need to design and build smart organisations, and understand mutuality as a business model.

The benefits of designing the smart organisation, coupled with the smart business model – purpose built for the needs of 21st Century culture and commerce gets us to ask these types of questions:

1. How does a company decrease the cost to build a car 100 fold whilst also halving the time in development?
2. How does a company perfectly match supply and demand?
3. How does a company use its employees to achieve business and commercial success greater than a $billion ad campaign?
4. How does a fashion retailer make €83m from mobile phone sales?
5. How does a company achieve a 29%+ response rate to its marketing with the subsequent uplift in sales?
6. How does a company spend $60,000 and get a $45m return?
7. How does a hybrid business model of [1] Freemium [2] Subscription [3] micropayment work to generate significant revenues?

From an incubation perspective – incubation has been done traditionally within a space and mostly as a real estate play or an economic development play. Now there are virtual groups allowing and enabling rapid flows of information to be created and shared – networking simultaneously with the creation of multinational micro-corporation, with funding provided by crowds. I argue, the way to start a business today is by being networked, and the way to run these businesses is networked (which is more efficiently done when it was conceived in a networked environment than when you have to transition from a straight line business).

Rethinking Personal Data – is a brief outline of the initial stages of that investigation. in a post published by Telco 2.0 (also part of The Futures Agency), they write,

Given the speed at which technology and online user behaviour is developing and the slowness of regulators in keeping up, the project looks as much at legal/governance issues as commercial, technical and user acceptibilty issues.

In an event organised by the WEF the top 7 issues were:

1.) To create a global ‘trust framework’ for customer data and digital identities.
2.) To re-define the fundamental telco business model and the methods for industry commercial innovation.
3.) To define how to partner better with adjacent industries
4.) To develop more appropriate regulation for cross-border, cross-industry collaboration.
5.) To create a more compelling business case for (fixed/mobile broadband) infrastructure investment.
6.) To clarify the opportunity for Telco Cloud infrastructure.

Telco2.0 point out that, this is the sort of list that existing telco trade bodies can’t really conceive of, and which WEF is uniquely placed to support. But, the striking thing for the Telco 2.0 representative was how important customer data and business model innovation ranked in order of strategic priorities for the telecoms industry (as opportunities and challenges).

Today I am delighted to officially announce my new company, The Futures Agency (TFA). TFA is based in Basel, Switzerland and is currently comprised of 15 amazing people i.e. Associates that are working with me on an independent basis; additional team members will be announced shortly. Think of us as a ‘band’ of futurists and foresight-experts, visionaries, advsiors and idea-curators …and you’ll get the idea.

I will serve as CEO and plan to grow this company into one of the most amazing agencies on the planet, employing these 5 key principles:

1. Knowledge grows when shared (therefore we share everything)
2. Proudly find elsewhere (PFE)
3. Do what you do best and link to the rest (Jeff Jarvis)
4. Spend less time being important and more time being relevant
5. The leaders of the future are connectors – not just directors

The purpose of TFA is to provide our clients with a lot more firepower and emotional intelligence when answering this key question: What does the future bring, and how do we prepare for it…?

Or, to put it more proactively (for those inclined to that sort of thing;): Which future do we really want to create?

TFA offers seminars, workshops, think-tanks and advisory sessions ranging from 3-5 hours to 3 days, with anywhere from 2 to 10 people, worldwide. Some of our thinktanks may use a format called the Disruption Experience which I have been finetuning together with my good friend and world-renowned leadership expert Didier Marlier, who lives in Switzerland as well. Other thinktanks may use our “FuturesExperience” format, and additional formats will be announced soon.  As an example, a few weeks ago TFA undertook a really amazing mission for a one of the largest mobile operators and telcos in Africa; 3 days of serious future-thinking and plotting with the executive team. Hopefully I can share some of those stories with you in the future.

The crowd has the potential to be a larger funding source than anyone of us ever expected

Argues Paul Kedrosky in The Venture Capital Journal July 2010. The Journal tells the story of a start up called Diaspora, which seeking to raise $10k, produced a cheeky video on kickstarter that promoted their, “privacy-aware, personally controlled” social network that allows users to share data on their own terms. This is a key and growing area of debate – the data topic is indeed something I have a perspective on having sat on the board of a data analytics company for 3 years and co-authored a book on the subject.

When Facebook announced plans to change its policy on privacy – Diaspora, partly because it was connected up to the networked went vertical in its fundraising with equates to $200,000 from some 6,400 backer in a few weeks.

Beware the network for those that think only in Straight Lines is my advice. The Journal writes

For VCs and other professional investors who had previously dismissed crowd funding as a gimmick, Diaspora served as a wake-up call

And of course, the power is in the lowering of the barriers to participation – something that a Mr Obama recognised when he raised his mighty campaign war-chest not from the $2000 minimum that some candidates asked as the base price of admission, but the $5′s and the $10′s and the $20′s.

The article also mentions Profounder, which is a friends and family tight knit community funding business, founded by Jessica Jackley of Kiva. My interest was piqued by the presence of GrowVC – a company that I am personally involved with as an advisor, and was pleased to see has about 3,000 registered members who have committed more than $13 million to some 800 startups looking to raise between $10,000 and $1 million.

The power of the network means this, yesterday, an entrepreneur from Australia and a member of GrowVC reached out and I was happily advising his company to connect with others somewhere else in the world as I could see the benefit in the connection. I did not ask what is in it for me – I was just very happy to help.

And this is where we see the crisis of existing venture capital and funding. In the UK 6% of the UK population cannot access a bank account, as the banks will not touch these pariahs. Faisel Rahman who is not part of the crowdfunding story per se, but is in terms of grassroots,microfinancing has enabled through his company Fair Finance to Business 150 companies to get off the ground. I see a pattern, and as Jouko Ahvenainen argues that when you get poor deal flow, you stifle innovation, creativity and the opportunity for people to take control of their own lives.

Are people to be trusted?

It is a question that is explored in the article and this is where some see the wheels coming off – which ever way you look at this however, I have to ask the question, what exactly are we protecting? The biggest culprits of economic mis-mangement exist inside corporations, not on the pavement (sidewalk) asking for some spare change, or trying to make ends meet by doing 3 jobs, or having a dream that requires the type of funding some might leave as a ‘small tip’ at a swanky restaurant.

The rules of microfinancing, and the way in which people bond themselves to things through narrative is important here – what our mass consumer world did to people was to teach them, they were not accountable to each other, and therefore there was no reason to behave accordingly. Whereas, when we are part of creating the story of something, here the raising of a new barn for business, we put something of ourselves into that barn, and consequently we become accountable to each other. We write trust into the fabric of the contract, and with greater transparency via the nature of how networks operate, when that trust is transgressed it will be clear to all.

The rise of these companies once again places great pressure on the legal frameworks that have been painstakingly built over a long period of time. In the same way that Napster and the whole file sharing thing placed great pressure on the legal frameworks of copyright. Once you see legal frameworks creak, you know things have changed.

And in the same way that Rupert Murdoch now rails against the networked world like a character in a Shakespearean tragedy, we will see I am sure something similar in the banking and finance industries – pooh-poohing the ridiculous nature of crowdfounding. I pity them.

And a tip for any chancellor, want to save money? Empower people to take control of their lives – from the likes of GrowVC, Fair Finance to Business, Kiva and profounder there are real lessons to be had.

Do Tent in the background aka Ted in a tent

Last year I had the privilege to speak at The Do Lectures (my review here) (more Do stuff), and though I will not be able to make it this year, I wanted to share my enthusiasm for the 2010 event. There is a great speaker line up - which is designed to do what it says on the tin – to inspire people to go and do something with their lives.

Also I might add – The Do Lectures is an event that is cross disciplinary, and brings in my view an alternative view of how we make business, art, love and life in this networked world. And it is this diversity that makes the experience so rich and rewarding. It is the rule of No Straight Lines vs. the straight line one. As Proust said, the real voyage of discovery is not to seek new landscapes but to look upon the world with fresh eyes.

So from the future of publishing presented by Craig Mod, to John ‘Jay” Burton Rogers from Local Motors, Maggie Doyne building schools in Nepal – these are people as Ivan Illich says are leading a life of action. So unlike other events, if you want inspiration, and hang out with some great people, where speakers sit and have breakfast with you, lunch with you and dinner with you and chat, where you talk to others that have asked the question, ‘why?’ what comes next? What is the alternative, where you will be moved – then Do is the place for you. You can by tickets here. Don’t just stand there, Do something.

http://thedolectures.co.uk