This morning before perusing my business mailbox a tweet by the omnipresent tweep @GuyKawasaki struck a chord with me. It’s one of these awesome TED videos that makes one sit back, relax and fully absorb the message.
Bay Area hotelier ‘joie de vivre’ Chip Conley argues that we as business leaders, investors and politicians are taught to only manage the tangible. With a staggering 94% of business leaders believing that the intangibles eg IP/intellectual property, culture and brand loyalty are important to their business, only 5% have the means to measure the intangible.
With 60% of the world’s GDP now made up of services, i.e. intangibles, the call for better measuring the intangible aspects of (business) life becomes even louder.
Speaking of GDP, the now famous example of tiny Himalayan state Bhutan has set a modest yet great trend in motion of looking beyond Gross Domestic Product to something called GNH/ Gross National Happiness. Some 40 countries worldwide have taken up the challenge of counterbalancing traditional, tangible perspectives on their wealth by happiness metrics as well, including France. Bhutan by the way does not create happiness, yet make the conditions for happiness to thrive, a happiness habitat. Perhaps we should rename the title of the dutch managementbook ‘de geluksfabriek’ into ‘happiness habitat’ after all.
With Conley I too wonder: “Why is it that business leaders and investors quite often don’t see the connection between creating the intangible of employees happiness with creating the tangibles of financial profits in their business?”. We don’t have to choose between inspired employees and sizeable profits. We need business leaders who know what to count.
In the midst of the perhaps biggest environmental catastrophe ever – the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf – sustainability demonstrably rising on the executive agenda provides some inspiration. Even in this economic downturn companies now see the business benefit of ‘going green’ both in terms of bottom line cost reduction opportunities and top line growth. Has the green revolution now really reached the executive boardroom?
A survey (‘Action amidst Uncertainty’) released by Ernst & Young last week indicated CXOs are now serious about riding the green wave. Some 70% of all CXOs participating – three hundred global corporate executives from 16 countries with at least US$1b in annual revenue – indicated to significantly increase spending relating climate spending.
The key 5 take-aways for me from this E&Y survey:
1) Whilst sustainability is getting senior management attention, only in 30% of cases is the role accountable for making sustainability work a full time job. In two third of all companies, the ‘CGO’ (Senior Green Officer)does not report to the CEO (yet).
2) Whilst the western world still predominantly seems to react to the green wave – spurred into action by changing legislation – Asian companies take a far more proactive attitude – thinking (& acting upon) green innovation and sustainable products.
3) The lack of global standards and regulations does not slow climate change investments. Other market drivers, such as equity analysts’ growing interest in climate change performance, equally drives the market to go green. The lack in global standards does not hamper the audit industry either; the majority of surveyed companies (62%) do prefer to have their sustainable progress benchmarked by an independent 3rd party.
4) Two so-called ‘HR-issues’, the lack of required skills and lack of awareness, both would call for a more ‘open’ attitude to solving the green jigsaw puzzle, for instance by adopting social innovation and Enterprise 2.0 strategies in an effort to better assess real needs and wants in the marketplace as well as to build a platform for online co-creation and recruitment. Both inside and outside the enterprise.
5) Whilst 2/3 of companies are involved in active dialogue with suppliers on the sustainability issue, only 1 in 3 companies actively collaborate with their suppliers in order to make tangible green progress. The survey does not mention active involvement with customers surprisingly enough (was it included in the questionaire at all?!). Especially in B2B environments one would expect customer advisory or innovation board to touch upon the green theme.
When are companies like BP finally going to realize that the disciplines of Social | Green | Business are inextricably and increasingly linked? As the E&Y rightly summarizes “Integration is essential for successful execution.“
/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/logo_DQ_kleur_2018-1.png00Paul Hassels Mönning/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/logo_DQ_kleur_2018-1.pngPaul Hassels Mönning2010-05-31 17:42:232012-01-23 10:26:59Action amidst Uncertainty | green revolution in the boardroom?!
Recently I had the opportunity to attend the Great Place to Work event in Amsterdam. This platform brought together nominees for the GPtW award, i.e. the best employers in the land. My 5 key take-aways from the session, in random order:
In the category medium-sized companies there was only 1 public organisation, i.e. the RGS Enkhuizen (a secondary school) nominated (congrats btw). Having spoken to its dean, it became clear how much room for mutual learning there still is. Too many schools isolate in splendid isolation and show to learn little from more advanced peers in the nation (or abroad).
In general, there is a 20%+ gap between GPtW nominees and ‘the rest’ of the pack. Dutch employers on average score a meagre 58%, whilst top GPtW companies score almost 80%. Roooom for improvement therefore.
The value of employees’ personal vision statements as input to build a more sustainable joint company roadmap and vision. Personal vision statements can also help better (re)connect employees which benefits work satisfaction, employee retention and generally a better flow of ideas. Just to name a few. A personal vision is all about knowing who you are, what you want (short & longterm) and what you’re best capable of. Aspects that seem so obvious, that most of us professionals or companies spend little time exploring, formalising or reshaping. Yet when shaped together, a personal vision becomes a very powerful perspective as Ilse Nelemans and Salem Samhoud describe in their book on this topic: “You Are Who You Will Be”.
Almost all of the nominated companies operate in the business of consulting, professional services and IT. Is there a relationship between verticals and score or has GPtW simply not been marketed as enthusiastically in eg manufacturing?
Authenticity counts. A number of videos of best places to work were shown to the crowd. Whilst all companies video-taped stressed the need for authenticity, personal touch and so on, only 1 company (NetApp) came with a video from the heart: not scripted and without auto-cue.
GPtW nominees perhaps have better managed to redefine the meaning of work to their employees, customers, partners and themselves. What’s your definition of Work 2.0?
Two recent events brought me new insights into European (German especially) and US differences when it comes to social media. A SKYPE phonecall with a German psychologist-turned-market researcher (now residing in San Francisco/ USA and married to a former Capgemini colleague of mine) as well as a private trip to the capital of Europe, Berlin. Let me briefly share these with you.
Almost two weeks ago I had the privilege of getting a sneak preview of the Twitter qualitative Survey carried out by Rheingold. In a pleasant evening SKYPE call Rheingold’s research director Patricia Sauerbrey Colton introduced me to the Study background and detailed findings. The Study was carried out in both the USA and Patricia’s homeland Germany thru some 132 individual explorations. Its main objective; to assess the cultural differences in the attitude towards and usage of Twitter as one example of social media.
To the Americans “Twitter’s promise provides a perfect fit to American culture. A nation of immigrants, Americans are constantly on the go and always setting the stage for themselves in front of new people. The quick chat here and there reassures them and provides confirmation [or conformation?, PHM] of social acceptance.” Twitter provides the virtual equivalent of realizing one’s American dream: “from dishwasher to follower millionaire [followed by 1 million+ people].” And indeed almost on a daily basis I do keep getting follower notifications of Cross Atlantic tweeps who are well underway to following 50,000+ people. One million, here I come 😉
According to Rheingold’s Study, Germans on the other hand are apprehensive of Twitter representing merely ‘hot air’ [heisse Luft?, PHM]. “Something this easy can’t be anything”.
Marketing is tempted to leverage Twitter’s benefits. Yet whilst American marketers see Twitter as a valuable instrument to help build reputation, awareness and pipeline – their German counterparts do not ‘unbedingt’ jump the Twitter bandwagon. “Twittering is seen critically in Germany” (…) and twittering brands run the risk of being seen as ‘unreal, undecided and unsustainable’. More to come on this Rheingold Study – detailed findings are confidential and allegedly will be disclosed this Spring.
Whilst in Berlin last week, I came across another 2.0 Survey by the Stiftung Warentest. Entitled ‘Caught in the Net’[Gefangen im Netz]. Broad coverage on both German television and the Frankfurter Rundschau highlighted a number of major security flaws and anomalies in most social media networks (Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace coming out worst). Bottomline finding: social networks should improve security, users should be careful in sharing information on the net.
Only last December, Facebook’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg stressed that in his opinion ‘there is no such thing as the private domain’. In other words, all data and information shared are up for grabs. Ironically, Zuckerberg does care about his own privacy. A key cultural difference between Europeans and Americans in this regard concerns data privacy. The Europeans regard this as a universal and individual right. US social media networks like the aforementioned consider it good practice to share user data and information with other 3rd parties ‘inasmuch as new services to our customers and community can be offered’.
I’m wondering what cultural differences across various market segments or verticals as well as between B2B and B2C will appear from the imminent Social Media Marketing ROI Benchmark Study in the Dutch market – and to what extent companies with an Anglosaxon vs Rheinland or continental European background will mirror the findings shown above.
/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/logo_DQ_kleur_2018-1.png00Paul Hassels Mönning/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/logo_DQ_kleur_2018-1.pngPaul Hassels Mönning2010-03-31 22:17:492019-01-17 11:11:42Cultural differences in social media marketing
The stormy progress social media have made and are still making in the world around us and in business in particular, has intrigued me to a great extent for a considerable length of time now. As I believe my earlier posts have underlined, I am a firm believer in its value in amongst others communications, market understanding, lead generation, recruitment and innovation. At the same time, I am often puzzled by the way corporations and professionals use social media. As a kind of 21st century goldrush, some people seem to think that as long as you’re on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook you’re cool and new crowds of people will instantly flock as followers in your path. I have spent considerable time on Tweetdeck or Hootsuite staring at the timelines and profiles of some companies and individuals that have either been set up months ago and show many a sign of degradation or standstill, or boast an impressive number of 20,000+ followers per individual twitter-adept. As if number of followers has new business meaning and value per se, as Social Media Today already reflected on in their post.
Surveys across the globe at the same time show business decision makers in marketing and beyond firmly believe in the value of ‘going social’. Social marketing budgets are constantly going up, says ‘The CMO Survey’. At the same time, as my observations based on a daily perusal of various blogs, vlogs and other communities over the past several months or so show, businesspeople still do not know where to start their social journey, what good or not so good practices are, and what the actual return on investment looks like.
What would bring really differentiating quality to the field of social media marketing and how could one best assess its ROI? End of 2009 this inspired me to testing the ‘PhD waters’ at my ‘old’ university, the State University in Groningen, the Netherlands. I was wondering whether one would be supportive of a PhD assignment in which to assess the ROI of social media in B2B. Prof.dr. Peter Verhoef and dr Jelle Bouma confirmed the market potential for a similar venture and applauded my initiative, yet equally stressed its long term nature and the many many hours away from loved ones, hobbies and family. These aspects and perhaps even more the dynamic nature of SMM & web 2.0 vis-à-vis the six or seven years of a PhD trajectory lead me to the belief this would not be my cup of tea – in this lifetime.
Yet the feeling the field of SMM/ social media marketing would benefit from further business-relevant study remained. Inspired by an intensive dialogue with people like Rijn Vogelaar, Frank Sibbel, dr Sonja Gensler and several other marketeers, business people and other 2.0 thinkers the foundation was laid for the first intensive SMM / Social Media Marketing ROI Benchmark Study, set up in close collaboration with Calibrero’s Ewald Jozefzoon.
The Study’s objectives are threefold and include a (proper) assessment of good (and not so good) SMM/ social media marketing practices, the establishment of a baseline per participating company as well as a proper assessment of the actual ROI over time. I will be happy to keep you abreast of relevant developments inasmuch as the participants allow us to publish to a wider audience.
As we expect the number of SMM early adopters per market segment to be relatively low, I am curious about whether (which of) my personal hypotheses will hold true (and I would kindly like to invite you to add your views as well as add any fresh hypotheses of your own):
– Despite the allegedly better potential in B2B, the B2C uptake will be biggest – Most SMM initiatives have started bottom-up thru the ranks or outside-in thru a 3rd partner or consulting firm
– The approach is still relatively operational to tactical with much emphasis on tools and 1.0 publishing and ‘shout-outs’ rather than new listening and proper dialogue based on a SMM strategy, new insights and clear objectives
– In those companies that have started their SMM roadmap small, with senior management and multi-disciplinary involvement rather than communications or marketing alone, both its sustainability and measurable ROI are bigger
– Organisations with an Anglo-Saxon culture and background will be swiftest in SMM deployment, quite possibly also in reaping its benefits
– Those organisations with a long term attitude to 2.0 will be better rewarded by their customers in terms of higher customer satisfaction rates and more (renewal) business
– Although the Study itself will predominantly take a horizontal approach, it will be interesting to assess or view any vertical differences that may exist. To my mind, there will be no significant differences (yet) or (should I say like-for-like difference) in the kind of best practice that players across several market segments are in the process of deploying. However I do expect there to be clear front-runners per verticals or sector in terms of their approach and tangible ROI.
Time will tell. And hopefully you as well. I look forward to seeing your builds to these thoughts and a fruitful Study over the next several months.
We use cookies to ensure you the best experience of the dutchmarq website. When you continue to visit our website, we assume you are okay with this. See the dutchmarq privacystatement for further details.
