Nitkapedia- My Thoughts On A Bit of Anything

Economists are Nothing More Than Weather Guessers

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:52:00 +0000

We, in the United States, put a whole lot of credence in economists. Why is that? These are the seers into our economic vitality, into our pocketbooks and bank accounts, the keepers of the stories of our destinies of wealth and retirement. These clairvoyants are our layman’s translators to the oodles of data that indicate our financial health.

And the results? These folks are no better than the weather guesser who Monday morning apologized for missing that ‘rouge storm’ over the weekend that caught you and the family outside on your picnic. Now the kids have fevers and you have a cold. Oh yeah, and you have to travel to India this week for work--- fun times with a 30 hour plane trip in a tube of re-circulated air.

Just like weather guessers, our economic prognosticators are correct 100% of the time…. After the fact. How do we define a recession? After we have already been in it. What data do they prefer to use? Lagging indicators. Do they ever say they were wrong? No, just new data came to light that has now been included.

Prime example- our current economic turmoil. Our diviners even had to revise ‘growth’ data after it had been published. (How they looked at data and declared growth, and then a couple of quarters later the same period had negative growth is beyond me. Good thing these folks are not in charge of our corporate financial departments. People go to jail for making ‘revisions’ that large.) Thanks to our leading minds of economic theory and insight, we have now been declared to be in a recession for near a year. If they had gotten it right the first time, we could have known 6 months ago.

Our economists, these smarter than smart folks, missed the signs of our pending risk. Overhyped capital markets. Housing booms across the nation. Inflating prices to unprecedented levels. Rising incomes. Consumer debt levels that rose disproportionately. Yes, I missed those also, but then again, I never claimed to be and economic soothsayer.

So where does this leave us. Who knows? Our esteemed oracles now seem to be all over the weather map. Some are in sunny Florida claiming we are at the bottom, and better times are ahead. Some are in wintry Michigan, saying the next storm is on the horizon.

Oh, I get it. We will know. They will be right in telling us where we are today with our economy…. In about 6 months…. Maybe.

Bailout Blunder

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:08:00 +0000

Wow. It only is getting worse. And I do not mean the economy. How poorly can the government screw up the system?

Maybe I am a Libertarian after all, as I am feel some serious cynicism towards the whole debacle.

I will share with you how I got here.

First as the banking system started to implode, rather than letting efficient capital markets *and Darwinism* guide us through the turmoil, we decided the industry was ‘too important’ so the government stepped up to the plate.

Swing and a miss…. Strike One!

If the US is the world proponent of democracy and capitalism, why is it when a company performs poorly, and takes untoward risk, the government rewards that risk…. By buying it out.

Now we have set a dangerous precedent that any industry that feels it is an essential part of the economy can head to the government for a ‘get out of jail’ card when it screws up to the point of collapse. Sweet…. Now those companies can take any absurd risk desired in swinging for the fences for that proverbial home run. The US government has guaranteed them at least a ‘walk’.

Why do you think that the car companies, housing companies, etc are coming, tin cup in hand, to the government’s doorstep asking for their share of the pie…. Heck, some are bold enough to ask for a new pie to be baked.

Second, after the government says ‘no mas’, this past weekend they decide ‘mas’. Citigroup is just too important.

Swing and a miss…. Strike Two!

Amazing that the government turns around that quickly on its own stated policy and will bail out a company if that one company is ‘too important’. Too boot, the government agreed to bear the burden (thanks to you and my tax dollars) 90% of the toxic assets valued at $300B… no not a typo at million… yes billion!

So this means that a) the government WAY undervalued the bailout plan, if one company is 43% of their total plan, and b) if a company can prove that it is vital to the economy, it can break any rules/guidelines the government has set in place.

Hello Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Exxon, and City of New York. Spend any amount you want on any absurd project. Don’t worry. The government has got your back! Want to invest in that first project for life on Pluto (the non-planet, planet)… go ahead. The returns just might be great. If not, you can just offload that project to the US citizenship.

Then just this morning, I see that the US government is announcing a new program today to ‘ease’ credit for things like auto loans and credit card. Hmmm… so we are encouraging people to go MORE into debt that we already are.

Amazing! The middle class American family spends more than it makes…every year. As a population, we are in debt. Now the government wants each person to be able to go more in debt. Wonderful idea. Rather than encourage positive behavior, just throw more fuel on the fire. Why will GM, Ford and Chrysler have to change their strategies and plans, if the government is going to enable consumers to get more bad cash to invest in poorly made vehicles?

Here comes the sinking fastball. Stepping into the pitch… oh, well… they can give themselves a free base. Swing away.

My Issues with Charity

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:01:00 +0000

I have a personal issue with charity. Don’t get me wrong. I think they serve a great purpose, and I even sit on the board for a wonderful organization (Wonders and Worries). There are many though that have a fundamental challenge they have yet to address, changing the game to affect the issue they are trying to help.

This is very apparent in charities that address poverty. While I support both of the following, I want to highlight these charities as examples of organizations that can do better.

Mobile Loaves and Fishes

One of the most respected and fundamentally good organizations to help provide food for the homeless. With a fleet of trucks, and hundreds of volunteers, MLFs brings food to the people, where they are in local communities. Yet, is this not just continuing the cycle? What incentive is the organization providing to the people it serves to break the cycle, and help them get jobs, income and the ability to purchase their food? With a steady schedule of handouts, and only verbal encouragement to look for opportunity- my $.02-- not much.

What if MLF had the people it served learn tangible and relevant skills in return for the food? Would that not provide a platform where the skills could be applied productively back into the local community and try to break the cycle? Just an idea.

Coats for Kids

Another worthy cause. Helping provide warm clothing for kids who could not otherwise afford. Again though, is this not just a handout? What incentive does this provide to help the families to change their cycle so that they could afford their own warm clothes in subsequent years?

What if CFK could help parents of kids who benefited learn seamstress skills? They could then help repair/fix clothing for extra money, and provide a bit of incremental income to purchase that jacket next year. Maybe not a big difference, but sometimes a small change is all you need.

These are just two examples of charities that could alter their models a bit and create more demonstrable change in the communities they serve. A couple of examples have been highlighted on Tech Crunch today. Check those out.

Can you think of others in your local community? Reach out to them and offer your thoughts and help. Collectively we can make a difference.

Social Media Construct to Address Poverty

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:53:00 +0000

Poverty is a serious issue. It is estimated that 33% of the world’s population live in poverty. 20% are estimated to live in true ‘abject poverty’- meaning always hungry. Not sure what poverty really means? Check out the Wikipedia or dictionary.com definitions. Bottom line, base life sustaining necessities are not adequate.

What is the face of poverty?

It is the homeless vet on the street corner
It is the child abandoned in India
It is the unclothed family in Africa drinking from a puddle in the clay earth
It is the child that enters the local elementary school each morning with the same set of clothes, because those are the only ones they have
It is the family living out of their car, and taking scraps from behind restaurants to feed their family
It is the woman living in the woods, asking for money to feed her baby at the stoplight

How can we make a collective difference?

My posit is that we can look to the same construct so many of us in social media preach:

First: Connect
Second: Engage
Third: Influence (and influence the influencers)

Let’s see how this can work.

Connect:

At the end of the day, we cannot make a difference if we do not first truly understand the nature and magnitude of poverty. This is more than reading the on-line media. This is more than shaking the hand of the guy on the street corner, or worse yet throwing him your spare change.

Remember the old adage, ‘seek first to understand, and then to be understood’. Well, forget the latter, and just seek to understand. Reach out and connect. Spend some time at soup kitchens. Take and hour and visit with the person on the corner. Ask questions, listen, internalize. Do not try to direct or provide answers right then and there. You are not prepared.

Engage:

Engaging first internally (within yourself) is the most important part of the process. It marries the base knowledge you have gained from connecting with your passions. When you find that intersection, you can, and will, make a difference. Doing something because it is politically correct is good, but not sustainable. Doing something because you are passionate about it is sustainable, and provides a greater benefit as your heart and soul are now involved.

Next, engage externally. Link your internally found passion with the community around you. A great example in Austin (my local community) is The Miracle Foundation. Caroline Boudreaux found her inner passion and had engaged with communities in India to help orphaned and hungry children.

This becomes your own personal virtuous cycle.

Influence:

Exerting influence is the tipping point. It provides the catalyst where the impact you make is broader than the brute force you alone affect. Influencing those around you, and having their support causes a synergistic effect, where the ultimate result is greater than the sum of the parts.

The key to successful influence is by connecting and engaging those who are of like mind, and have journeyed through the same process. If they too have experienced that connect/engage process, the community you build will reward handsomely.

Building an Eco-System – Risk of Taking it Too Far

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:04:00 +0000

Business around the world has moved in rapid force towards building eco-systems to effectively compete in today’s markets. The smartest of these businesses have conducted serious reviews to identify what their core competencies are, and focus on developing those, while solving everything else in creative manners.

Think about the ‘buzzword bingo’ lingo that references this:

· Asset light business (AMD and Dell with factories, Rackspace and The Planet for IT Hosting)

· API (I know generic, but linking 2 disparate applications and having them play well together so can focus on building only 1)

· Outsourcing (near anything and everything- from call centers to back office support)

· Services Firms (consulting, accounting, finance, advertising, etc)

· Aggregators (E-Bay, Amazon anyone?)

· Wiki/Blog/Communities (social media on the Web is a fundamental way to build an creation and distribution system for information)

Oddly enough when we take a step back, we see how this had affected our personal lives.

We already see such things as:

· Concierge services (your errand runners)

· Pick-up/take-out/delivery (of near anything now from food to clothing)

· Services (accounting, brokerage, cleaning, lawn service)

It is already happening. How much farther will it go? If my core competency is not working out, will someday I be able to contract with someone who is, and get the benefit for myself? Could I contract out my sleep, and still feel rested when someone else much better at sleeping does it for me?

Is this what we mean by building out our personal ecosystem? Or will we take it too far?

Think Beyond 'Outside the Box' with Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:59:00 +0000

Too many times recently I have seen companies embrace social media through their lenses. All too obvious is the company that creates some sort of portal/blog/community/other that is only relevant to their marketing team or IT department.

This is a recipe for disaster. When will we learn.

True success is still in the hands of the customer. Give them the social media they want, on their terms. Monitor it, measure it, follow it, and most of all let the customer ‘own’ it.

It may not be obvious. A ‘soccer mom’ might not want the latest community on keeping a tidy house community from P&G, but she might be interested in how other moms are helping their Girl Scouts sell more cookies. There is potential there. How to bring it to fruition is not easy…. But essential.

A social media concept must bring value to the customer. When it delivers on that value proposition, the community builds, and you have your audience to work with. Key here, audience to ‘work with’.

One final thought, DO NOT just build the audience and then start dumping ads on them. That will work against the ultimate goal.

Economize our Language

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:04:00 +0000

In this era of tightening belts and cutting back, I figured I would take a shot at lending a hand. However, I am stuck and need your feedback and assistance

My goal is to help the many citizens of the world who use the Latin alphabet, cutting it down by 4%. If we assume that any given word has six letters, this would create a net 1% savings to the bottom line. That would equate to $40M off Google’s expense line--- for the most recent QUARTER. (If you trust the math, move on. If not feel free to read the text Italics below)

Assumptions:

Words average six letters

Normal probabilities for a sample and population event

Words are independent events of one another

Translation

1 letter from 26 = 4%

6 letters a word from selection of 26 = 23%

23% * 4% = 1% (rounded up)

Where I need you help? I cannot figure out where to cut.

First, there are the essentials I do not believe we can cut. I and A are both words in themselves. They have to stay. With the advent of SMS, U is a word as well. Not that I like this development, but it is here to stay (my 11 year old is even staring to use it in book reports… not good).

Next, I am not sure I could recommend P or Q without the wrath of my mother. I seem to remember having to mind those 2 a whole lot as a small child. So while I am still not sure 30+ years later why, they must have some importance if I was supposed to give them so much attention.

How about some of the vowels? We have that darned 6th one. That wily Y. Why is Y a vowel? It is so sly, the rhythm so dry. Best stop now…. So Y seems pretty essential after all.

There might be something to a vowel, as several countries have limited vowels and long names… Kyrgyzstan for example. If a country can cut down on a vowel, can’t we…. Maybe? But which one- E or O (as we have eliminated A, I, U, and Y now)? A vowel is not looking so good after all.

Z seemed like a logical choice, until I realized the wrath of major pharmaceutical companies everywhere would descend upon me. Zantac, Zofran, Zocor, Zyrtex, Zyban, Zithromax… the list goes on. Pharma also seems to think that X is a power letter as well: Xanax, Xenical, Xyzal, and more. Plus Microsoft and their legal team fresh off their Yahoo drubbing would love to level us to protect their X-Box…. Calling it “Bo” just does not carry the same panache.

I hope that you are staring to understand my dilemma. This is not an easy undertaking. I am not ready to give up hope.

I am trying to help our verbal and written economy. This is where I need your help. What letter would you remove from the alphabet?

Slippery Slope to the Bottom

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:17:00 +0000

Interpublic today announced a deal with SocialVibe. Bottom line, this is a BAD idea. Paying consumers to endorse brands and promote to friends is a slippery slope.

On the surface it looks great- winning points to redeem for charitable contributions. Finally liking Madison Avenue and social media. A win for all

I dissent. Take the concept to its logical conclusion. In order to meet the growing demands of its clients (or worse yet- Wall Street) more consumers need to be enticed to promote brands… so what happens?

First is the ‘commoditization’ of the charitable cause. We lose site into making a difference, and contributing to an actual cause. It becomes a media platform to stand on and say, ‘hey look at me’. People can, and will, start syndicating how much of a difference they are making. Yet, beneath the surface it is nothing more than self aggrandizement. In the long run, charitable causes lose communities, as constituents are pulled further from their cause, and not closer to.

Worse yet, SocialVibe and Interpublic start increasing the stakes. They award points that can be redeemed for actual products or services. Then the model falls completely apart, and we get a bunch of ‘brand sell outs’ (I dare not use the more derogatory term) who care nothing about the products they endorse. Soon spam takes on a whole new form as people try to make a few extra dollars using every knows social media tool to promote whatever it is they sign up for to their contact lists.

In either case, brands loose. In both cases the long term sustainability of the model is limited at best. Smart marketers beware.

Then again, I could be wrong. This could be the whole new model. I am not betting my $.02 on it, nor the non-profit on sit on the board for. Their mission is too important.

Listen Before You Leap

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:58:00 +0000

Recently I was at a dinner with some friends. Before I knew it I had ‘opened my mouth, and inserted my foot.’ My failure: too much excitement in wanting to jump in and participate in the conversation. The result: strange looks, my backpedaling, and a long recovery to re-engage (thankfully a few more glasses of wine helped ease that transition).

We are on the brink of social media fundamentally driving and affecting the way companies engage with consumers, constituents, and other stakeholders—both on-line and off-line. The buzz is everywhere. The taste is palpable on the lips and tongues of corporate types and start-ups alike. When the economy truly begins its recovery, my prediction is social media will take off, hitting new heights not forecast before.

My fear is companies will pull the ‘Speed of Internet Trigger’ and want to move fast into social media spaces when their budgets permit. My cautions: avoid the damaging harm of trying to move too fast; avoid waiting until budgets free to start you social media planning as it causes a significant increase in risk.

So, what is the solution? My recommendation is that you start listening before you leap. I have blogged in the past about listening to your customers. It is a low cost, low risk way to start truly understanding today, so that you can act intelligently tomorrow. You do not have to act, yet. But when you do, it will be with grace and elegance, as you will better understand how and where to act appropriately.

You cannot smooth over the ‘foot in mouth’ syndrome with your social media efforts with a few extra glasses of wine.

Olympic Boom to Bust

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:05:00 +0000

Michael Phelps has made history. 8 Gold medals in 8 events, and the most decorated Olympic athlete the US has ever had. In moves big business.

Numbers are being thrown around now that this could help achieve $30, $50 even $100 million in endorsements for him over his lifetime. He could be the next Tiger or MJ. I dissent.

My prediction is that he may sign a deal or two, but that the results from those deals and fervor over him will fade. The deals will disappear, and he will become another quiet success in the Olympic annals.

Why do I believe this? It comes down to two fundamental challenges. First, swimming is not a sport that is splashed (pun intended) in front of the public all the time. Thus there will be limited exposure of Michael in his element to support a brand. Second, the athlete who endorses a brand has to have charisma. While Michael seems like a nice enough guy, I dare say I have not seen the level of charm and natural ‘chutzpa’ required to really support the numbers being thrown about.

Sorry to be such a naysayer at this time of hype and hysteria. Sometimes someone needs to try and be the realist. Part of the appeal of blogs is being able to stake out a controversial position and defend it- right or wrong.

I may be proven wrong, and hope I am.

800 LB Gorilla Misses the Mark with Apology

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:15:00 +0000

Unless you have been under a rock, at the Beijing Olympics, or on a remote island vacation, you have probably heard about the Gmail outage at Google yesterday.

Last night Google updated its blog regarding the outage, and apologized for the incident. While I commend Google for the apology, it left much to be answered, and lacked in nearly all areas of communication.

I am not a PR expert, I am a simple person who expects companies to step up, take ownership and explain things to me--- from my perspective. Google had a grand opportunity, and squandered it with their less than appealing explanation. Here is my $.02 debrief.

Google has always claimed to be open- Where is the transparency?

What really happened and why?
Why was the communication not until ‘everything will be back to normal by the time you read this’?
Why did I have to learn about this through Twitter and follow updates there rather than direct through Google?

Google built its search engine on being simple and clear- Where is that clarity?

OK, so you fixed ‘it’. What is ‘it’?
You are ‘updating internal systems and procedures accordingly’. What are those ‘systems and procedures’?

Google raves about its infrastructure and stability- Where is the restoration of that confidence:

Where any explaination of a root cause analysis?
What are the steps being taken to ensure that this a) does not repeat itself, and/or b) minimizes the chance of it happening again?

Google does not exist without their customer- Why is this from the Google perspective and not the customer?

The ‘temporary outage’ seemed to last at least 1 hour, that is an eternity to users
Why would you get on a blog and apologize and communicate and then go on to say, don’t expect to see that here again?

As my 5th grade teacher used to tell me, ‘A’ for effort, ‘C’ for performance. Too bad we do not get measured on effort.

Dummy It Down

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:20:00 +0000

I was catching up today on my stack of Harvard Business Review. The February issue (yes I am a bit behind) has an article, The Biosphere Rules. I would like to share a few nuggets from the article, as it articulates in detail something I Tweeted about in July:

There are over 100 elements in the periodic table, and a varying combination
of ONLY SIX of them comprise over 99% of all living things
The earliest multi-celled organisms have spawned between 30 and 100 MILLION
species today (if you believe in evolution and not creationism)

The author’s position for the article is in reference to sustainable development. While I am all for that, what struck me is this really applies to a multitude of businesses, and ideas. How? Please read on.

Think about Microsoft Windows. How much of the code do you really use, yet how much complexity was built into it? Same story if you run an IT infrastructure… think about your monitoring solution and how bloated it may be.

At my last job, we discovered that while there were over 3,500 potential monitoring alerts, the top 25 comprised 35% of the total possibilities. By the time you hit the top 100 alerts (just 3% of the total) we were well into the top quartile.

If a combination of six elements can create over 30 million (to err on the conservative) species and comprise 99% of all living things, I think we learn from that? Have we gotten too complex for our own good? How can we make things simpler?

Here is a suggestion as a start…. Ask yourself three fundamental questions, as you evaluate tools, companies, partners, applications, etc:

Is it useful
Is it relevant
Is it simple

There is elegance in simplicity.

Your Brand is Out of Your Control

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:40:00 +0000

It’s an anathema to brand and marketing folks around the globe, but it’s true. Social media has thrown a huge wrench in brand control. Gone are the yesteryears where internal brand and marketing teams carefully crafted messages, controlled content delivery and carefully measured responses.

In today’s dynamic digital media economy, for all the claims that brand and marketing folks make, they just cannot exhort the same kind of control. There are too many blogs, wikis, videos, usenet groups, and the like for anyone, even Google, to get their arms around.

That being said, you should not give up. There is huge opportunity, even better than before, for your brand. Yes, the tables have flipped, it puts ‘the people’ in control of your messaging and branding. That is good!

Embrace it, use it, and learn from it. If you engage in serious and open dialogue, if you react that conversation, you will win in the market place.

Why?

It puts the customer square back in the middle of the bull’s-eye. We have gotten too far from that, as many a company claim the customer is their #1 focus, but really not. I bet you can name at least 10 companies where you think they have lost that magic.

If you let down the barriers, let the customers control the brand and respond openly (ie admitting mistakes) and take action (to address their positive and negative feelings), the brand will become what you want it to be…. Delivery of the right product and/or service to the customer, with their positive endorsement.

Who is Your Unsung Hero?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:45:00 +0000

The Tour de France has ended. Carlos Sastre is on top of the world, as he has won the crowned achievement in cycling. While on the surface this looks like an individual sport, and glorious personal achievement, it is not. Beneath the surface there are many who helped make that happen. From the Soigneurs to the masseurs. From the mechanics to the medical staff. The supporting teammates who lay it on the line for them.

As Jens Voigt was quoted in a pre-race interview. CSC (Carlos’ and Jens’ team) was designed for Carlos to win. “One man to win, 8 men who will die on their bikes for that one man.” I would hazard to guess that unless you are into cycling the names Jens Voigt, Stuart O’Grady, Andy Schleck do not ring a bell. But these men, are the unsung heroes who helped Carlos bask in the glory of victory.

The NFL is not much different. Again, unless you are an aficionado, can you name three left tackles in the league? Can you name one--- on your favorite team? Yet, these guys are some of the highest paid players in the league. Why? They are the unsung heroes. Their job is to protect the blind side of the quarterback (for the large majority of NFL quarterbacks who are right handed), so that the quarterback can complete a pass without being creamed from behind. Who gets the glory—the quarterback who threw the great pass and the receiver who hauled in a fingertip catch. Who made it all possible--- that left tackle guy who no one knows.

Who is your unsung hero? At work? In your personal life? How do they tirelessly do what they do--- day in and day out?

Take a moment and stop to thank them. The rewards will be great.

A Bit on Chinese Numerology

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:34:00 +0000

So I just sent a Twitter on 8/8/8, the day the Olympics start…. At 8pm. Lots of prosperity.

So what about the rest of the numbers you ask? Here goes a shot, as there are always competing interests as to true meanings:

sure
easy
live
death
the self, nothing, never
smooth/flowing
fate/destiny (usually negative)
prosperity
long in time

Combinations are important as well. For example 14 = sure death, while 18 = sure prosperity.

What is your lucky number? How would Chinese numerical traditions apply?

For me — #3. Maybe that is why my motto is also Carpe Diem.

Sometimes advertising transcends

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:36:00 +0000

On rare occasions, advertising transcends the overt, and pulls an emotional heart string. Visa did that here.

Can't Say It Any Better Myself

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:26:00 +0000

So I will only post the link, as Thom sets up an incredibly powerful post.

http://thomsinger.blogspot.com/2008/07/do-right-thing.html

It builds nicely on being externally focused.

Are You Externally Focused?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:07:00 +0000

Recently I have been catching back up on some old standby ‘life lesson’ nuggets. The ones I have been staring at recently share a common thread: the importance of being externally focused. This is one theme that is essential to being successful- both personally and professionally.

I wanted to share three quotes that help capture the essence:

“The tougher the negotiation, the more critical it is to understand that if
someone in the room has to feel okay, it is not you. If someone has to
feel not-okay, that is you.” - Jim Camp
“People listen to you for their reasons, not yours.” - Peter Drucker
“Great leaders understand the important role servant leadership plays in
helping others realize their potential.” – Dan Sanders

These can apply across all aspects of life. Your colleagues, your family, your customers, your partners, even your competitors.

Ask yourself:

Do you make others feel important?
Do you build their vision, their self esteem?
Do you treat others with respect?
Do you practice sound principles- return e-mail or phone messages, follow up on requests?

You can make the impact today. You can build customers for life. You can build enduring relationships. You can build a network of raving fans.

The rewards are great.

Ahhhhh, Isn’t Google the Nice Guy

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:43:00 +0000

As reported in major periodicals, including the Wall Street Journal, Google today announced that they are launching a new tool to measure Internet usage, intended to help advertisers find the best places to build their online ads. The rub for companies who sell that like comScore, Quantcast, and Nielsen, Google is giving it away for FREE. Isn’t that nice, Google wants to help the advertisers.

So while you read the surface of this and say, ahhhhh, the open development of Google strikes again for the benefit of mankind, think again. Google will have in their hands the power to craft where people visit, when they visit, and how much money to charge advertisers to go to the sites where they are directing you to visit.

Get real. Nice guys finish last. As we know, there is NO such a thing as a ‘free lunch'.

It's basic Economics 101: Supply and Demand Curves. The sweet spot in pricing and production is where those lines intersect.

Google is squarely aiming to control, yes control, both curves.

Step 1: Build a brand so that you become the de facto place to look for information

Result: you now ‘own’ the supply, by controlling access to and use of

Step 2: Build an analytics engine to report actual usage patters on the Web

Result: you now ‘own’ demand curve, by controlling access to and use of

Step 3: Exert your control over both curves to move them further out, managing both supply and demand you your optimal gain (in this case to dominate the entire Internet monetization world)

Result: Nirvana- now they can buy any island with the jack (read $) they will make

Google will also be able to squeeze advertisers (mainly agencies who specialize in planning and buying media) out of the market in the extreme cases. Why do you need the creative black magic, if it can all be scientifically metricized (yes, I made up that word).

Complete control….. a side of Cyborg with your keyboard?

How to Monetize Internet Video

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:19:00 +0000

You Tube announced today that it is dropping its 10 minute cap of video posts in a trial for its partners. As the Silicon Valley Insider reports, this is all about trying to monetize videos… more time = more real estate to sell ads.

Once again, I dissent. This still is saying that engagement with the video, and interrupting (or intruding upon it) will be a good monetization strategy. It will not. The only thing this can lead to (in my humble and opinionated perception) is DE-scaling. Increased costs to store and deliver the long form video, without similar (linear or greater) increases in revenues. All in all a loosing proposition.

I do wish the test luck though… it will prove/disprove my hunch.

Try this idea on for size instead. Do not insert ads into the video; make ‘components’ of the video clickable.

Break a video down into visual components and make those retrievable ‘advertisements’…. What you ask?

Examples will help:

You like the shirt the person is wearing, click on the shirt, and it takes you to the site where you can buy it
You wonder what the person is drinking, click on the glass, and it takes you to the product page
You wonder how they played that guitar series, click on the guitar and it takes you to a lesson site

What does this accomplish?:

It reduces the intrusion of the advertising, and invites the customer to interact with the video
It provides a qualified lead when someone clicks
It is ultimately trackable and usable data

Yes, this is a technology shift, and requires some extremely smart programming so it can be seamlessly attached to the video, but is doable. Think about what programmers can hide in pixels of web elements. Think about how today computers can insert ads into sporting events (like behind home plate on the back wall) seamlessly.

This idea also shifts power in the model to the producers of videos. Great! That is what it is about. Empower the people to be creative, and help. User generated content. User generated advertising. User generated recommendations.

Companies like YouTube (and even Flickr could do for pictures) can be the software engine to enable, and the platform to deliver…. Similar to GoogleAds on your blog.

Now that can scale.

The Widget World

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:06:00 +0000

You hear about it every day. Widgets being developed. Widgets being dropped in Web pages. Widgets making up new applications within other software applications. Companies that are based on developing widgets.

We are entering the World of the Widget.

No, this is not the end of the Web as we know it, but it is a demonstrable shift:

SaaS companies are opening their platforms as they look to extend their platforms’ usability, but not bear the burden of the development costs
Social network sites are lowering their walled gardens to try and get help monetizing their eyeballs (I dare not say community, as I am not convinced of that yet)
Media properties are opening their Web pages for users to generate content and insert it directly

Savvy developers are embracing the use of the widget to accomplish their own goals.

Bottom line developers (even small ones in their own home office) are able to ‘syndicate’ their application widgets, and the content within. The power is shifting. Developers can retain control, they can try to monetize on their own, and they ‘own’ the widget and content, which now can have broad distribution.

The logical extreme? Web sites and software applications become a collection of widgets. Web sites and applications become relegated to the status of ‘aggregators’. The Web becomes more fragmented, rather than more consolidated. Companies loose control of their applications and platforms, as developers gain power.

It is not time to be scared. The Widget World is a reality. It may not be the logical extreme I paint above, but we definitely are starting the journey down the path. Smart companies will start focusing resources on how to embrace this change:

How to manage a brand in this environment?
How to offer customer support in this environment?
How to maintain corporate strategy and development in this environment?
The list goes on, and on, and on……..

Better start thinking about this today…. Tomorrow is near here.

Engagement is Not the Answer

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:42:00 +0000

There is increasing noise among the marketing and advertising communities that ‘engagement’ is the measure by which we can determine on-line ROI (especially for video). I fundamentally disagree.

Engagement is a state of being that necessitates physical presence. Take playtime with my daughter. She can tell the difference between me truly being engaged in the play, vs. going through the motions. How does she determine this- by observation and interaction.

How can you do the same in the electronic world of bits and bytes? Until everyone on a system (mobile, laptop, desktop, other) is monitored by a video camera real time, the data is just not good enough.

Did we ever try to measure ‘engagement’ as a metric for television advertising? While I was not around in the beginning of the TV days, I have never heard that metric being used. Computers exposose us to the same risks… getting up to get another beverage, paying attention to something else (like another application/website), or generally tuning out while the clip is playing. In the end to get by these uncontrollable factors advertising/marketing relies on reach and frequency. Then a little roll of the dice to determine impact.

Internet marketing/advertising does help reduce the magic die outcome. It enables us to measure ROI – click-through, purchase, etc. Bottom line, fundamental metrics remain the same--- enough reach and frequency translates to outcomes--- sales. The measure is not engagement.

What is the outcome measure of my engagement with my daughter--- the relationship I build with her. Her sale, our ROI, is increasing the bond of love between us.

Web 2.1- Right idea, wrong direction

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:57:00 +0000

So I blogged a couple days ago about Web 2.1. We are making progress in certain areas. I see others continuing to struggle to get it.

Let’s start with a couple that I am afraid do not get it. I read about the following in MediaPost this morning:

Twing, a search site for forums
Yidio, a search site for videos

Right idea, create micro-communities. Wrong direction, creating community around platform verticals (forums, video, whatever…) fails to focus on the customer. I may be very wrong, but is there a large enough micro-community looking for forums on any/all topics?

Instead, think verticals (or horizontals if you are visual and need to see another direction) based on micro-community by interests and affiliations.

Here are two examples of sites where I think they have it right:

Spiceworks, a free IT tool for small and medium businesses
Tennis.com, the online site for Tennis Magazine

Spiceworks’ micro-community is a collection of IT professionals with similar challenges, experiences, work flows, configurations, etc. Tennis.com has provided their micro-community a site with news, video, blogs, etc for the tennis enthusiast.

In each of these latter cases, the companies put a customer at the center of their micro-community strategy. The former two put a technology platform.

In the end, the customer will win.

Web 2.1- It’s not about Social Networks and Communities

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:10:00 +0000

Pull in the reigns, and slow that horse down. Everyone wants to talk Web 3.0. Before we get ahead of ourselves, can we please figure out the 2.x World.

From the people I interact with, to what I am reading, people are starting to get there. No one has yet clearly described it. So here I am to help.

You see it here first. I am coining the lingo. What we are venturing into is Web 2.1 - ‘Micro-Community’.

Web 2.1 does not take rocket science to figure out, as I did, and I am definitely not a rocket scientist (although I do know one).

It stems from physical communities and your ‘bubble’ within your current community. Take Austin, where I live. That is my community. However, most of my existence resides within my smaller ‘bubble’, my micro-community, in my section of town. Austin has the Tarrytown bubble, the Westlake bubble, the University bubble, the downtown bubble, the Lake Travis bubble, etc. Atlanta, New York, Denver, San Francisco- all the same. There are smaller micro-communities within larger communities, wherever you go.

Add to this the technology aspects:

Open sourcing platforms to encourage development on top of ‘platforms’
Decreasing costs of putting together more customized presences on the Web
Empowering users to create content and communities among themselves

And finally inevitable market forces--- from both sides:

Social sites are trying desperately to figure out how to monetize their members. The smaller and more relevant the audience they can deliver (while at scale for their overall communities), the more appealing to advertisers and marketers. A company can then monetize the parts, at increasing revenue rates, while still managing costs of creating those micro-communities (heck, the smartest will let their members create and manage those micro-communities for them).
Companies are looking to place marketing and advertising spend on-line, but want to do it wisely and with ROI. What better way than to serve your add to 10K target customers, rather than 10M eyeballs of all makes and sizes. A company should prefer to spend $100K of targeted spend, as opposed to $400K of random spend.

Wa-la…. We have Web 2.1.

Now, can someone please help stop the feminine hygiene products from being advertised on Extreme Cage-Fighting Championships?

The Short on the Long Tail

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Nitka) — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:46:00 +0000

The Long Tail is all the industry rage these days. Popularized by Chris Anderson in his book of the same name, marketers have raced to embrace and use this to their advantage. Google, Yahoo and others have ‘reprogrammed’ their algorithms to exploit the Long Tail. It seems that anyone and everyone is/are talking about how this changes everything.

Blogs are reporting how the once popular ‘standard’ Google searches are showing a new order of keyword replies. Industry pundits are claiming that this changes advertising and is turning everything on its head. Small companies are out performing large companies. Standard advertising practices are no longer relevant, and large brands will be left in the dust.

Chicken Little is shouting, “The sky is falling!”

I think not.

Here is my logic:

With enough sample data, the long tail data too falls within the 1st or 2nd standard deviation- it is a law of statistics
With enough market force embracing the long tail, large and small companies alike will start using their keywords/adwords and SEO to exploit that tail—more samples to populate #1
Marketing basics will prevail, marketing is based on adapting to drive awareness, consideration and conversion- whatever drive those three will be used
We are not in 2000 all over again- this is not magic, nor rocket science

Pundits will counter, when the long tail becomes mainstream as you claim, a new one will emerge. True, and that too, if the right thing, will become a standard as well.

The evolutionary cycle holds true about 170 years later. Darwin really was a smart man.