Intermedia

Media Mix - Email isn't just for old people

So I was getting gas yesterday and the guy at the station spent the entire time texting, never looking up or giving his thumbs a rest. Walked up the window, texting. Took my card, texting. Pump in the tank, texting. Pump out of the tank, texting. You get the point. Given the temperature, the gas bill and the number of hours I had been driving, it took everything I had to not say, "Hey, you know what else that thing does? Makes phone calls." It seemed silly to me that he would spend that much time thumbing away when we could probably accomplish a lot more in less time by just making the call.

So here's my point -- it seems like sometimes we get so enamored with a new technology or way of communicating that we forget that some of the old ones still work pretty darn well. We've all read the stories -- email is for old people, teenagers don't read anything in print,  everyone needs a blog, newspapers will be gone in two years, and so on.

We make our media inefficient by saturating them with too much of the wrong kinds of content. Email isn't a bad tool, but we've made it amazingly inefficient by using it for everything from a quick message that warrants a simple quick reply (better for IM). On the flipside, a complex conversation that could be derailed by misinterpretation is much better had in person, or at least by phone, rather than email. Cuts down on the whole, "I wonder what he meant by 'sounds good' thing) Print is possibly the most interesting as we watch the steady stream of news about cutbacks by major media and more publications go online. I can't help but think that this ship will right itself after some too deep cutting. Print can do things that the web just can't -- like sit on a coffee table.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a place for all (or most of) these media, it's just a matter of zeroing in on what they do best and then creating a mix of media, targeted by purpose, audience, timing and message.

CMS Providers: Software or Service?

We all talk a lot about content management systems. It's a topic that's been kicking around for years -- build or buy and so on. Through it all, two things about the conversation never seem to change -- everyone thinks there's something better out there and, as it turns out, there's nothing out there that actually is better.

I've seen a lot of these tools and, at the end of the day, they're pretty much the same. Think about it. For a CMS builder to work with efficiency, some of the features and functionality has to be standard, right? They can't do custom builds for every client AND maintain a reasonable price point. So it shouldn't be a surprise when you buy a product and it's not a perfect fit for your institution's needs. Doesn't do much in terms of consolation though.

A CMS is a commodified product, so competing on technology just doesn't make sense. Today's market leader has so much cost sunk into the latest release that they'll be behind the curve tomorrow. Seems like there has to be a better model.

All of this makes me think to a relationship I've maintained with another software company -- not a CMS provider, but a company that deals with similar challenges in terms of diverse sets of clients with specific needs, fast-moving, web-based technology, crowded marketplace, etc. The company, Vocus, has remained a valued "partner" (key distinction here) as I've changed jobs for one reason. They've defined themselves as a service company, not a software company.

Any time someone asks my why I stay with them, the answer is the same. I love some of their features, but are they significantly better than their competitors? Maybe, but someone will always be able to produce something faster and slicker than what exists right now. The reason I stay with them is the people. They know that I'm paying for the outcomes, the services. They work to understand my institution's needs, listen to my feedback as a customer (and they've done it since day one, so this isn't a long-term customer thing), and actually make changes based on the feedback they get. They know that the technology is just a means to an end.

I think this is an important point being missed by a lot of CMS providers out there. The CMS is a pretty standard tool, so if a provider is going to succeed, they need to compete and win based on the service they provide, person to person, rather than just on the technologies they produce. Not doing so, in my opinion, is a losing battle.

Are newspapers "the man?"

I've spent the past few days in conversations about traditional media, social media and how the Internet is impacting the news business (not pretty). It occurred to me that one of the key problems that traditional media will have to find a way to confront is voice. We talk a lot about how institutional voice is losing ground, thanks to blogs and other social media, in favor of real people who can speak with authority about a topic. People are bombarded with information and are moving towards digest versions of news and analysis of current events. The digester and analyzer becomes the gatekeeper and the person that a consumer of information develops a trust relationship with. So, what does this mean for newspapers?

In my opinion, it means that people are going to be less connected with the [fill in the blank] Times or Gazette as their primary source of news, and instead will turn to columnists or reporters they trust to get to the core of the story in a way that they find interesting and on point. If this is the case, the fast and furious buyout trend that is sending senior reporters packing is exactly the wrong strategy. It eliminates the trusted individual sources with whom readers have formed "relationships" and, at the same time, floods the web and other media with these trusted sources who have plenty of gas left in the tank. Loyal readers can now dump the "institutional" newspaper and plug in to their trusy reporter's blog, newsletter or whatever and continue the news-based relationship beyond the control or reach of the media outlet.

It's clear that the business is changing and it's my sense that newspapers, particularly the bigger, well-established ones, have the opportunity to position their trusted senior reporters as the primary voice and source of information, rather than the paper itself. To use my favorite phrase yet again, content is always going to be more powerful and relevant than the container.

Walking the social engagement walk

Is your organization talking about social media, engagement and networking? Yes? Good. So here's the harder question... Is your organization set up in such a way to support how community is forming in line with these ideas?

I was at a meeting yesterday at which a presentation was given about how people are choosing to spend their volunteer time (less time, more impact) and how they are no longer organizing around geographical regions, rather they are aligning around affinity and common interest. Right on! I said to myself. This session was immediately followed by a discussion of member engagement strategy that was based solely on geography and, when the topic of affinity-based groups came up, they were given almost no attention and described as "complicated to manage." My stomach turned, but in hindsight I understand it.

The organization clearly understands that affinity-based engagement is what's working, but it is hard to manage because one size won't fit all. And, on top of that, say you're an established organiation, with staffing, structures and policies built around the geographic model. Organizing around the affinity model requires a complete rebuild -- not something to be taken on lightly as there is risk involved. But, I would argue that the reward could be great.

The point here isn't to express disappointment with this specific group (which is why I didn't identify it), it's to express the idea that all the buzz around social networking and engagement will never go beyond the tactical unless it becomes a part of the culture, embraced at the top, and structurally supported all the way down the chain.

Alumni engagement - who owns the circle?

I was in a meeting today, talking about alumni engagement, and there was much talk of circles. We talked about how we can help more alumni feel that they are a part of our cicle, which prompted me to ask whether that's really the goal or -- in today's networked world -- if we want to be a piece of their individual circles. Almost like the point of overlap in a venn diagram (see hastily drawn graphic below).

My sense is that few, if any, people have the time to throw themselves into another circle today. And fewer still are going to focus on just one circle (organization). There are just too many competing interests -- family, work, community involvement, etc.

It's not about making people pay all their attention to your organization, it's about making a case for them to create space in their lives to get involved in your organization -- quite possibly instead of something else. This one's not rocket science, but the people most likely to engage are those who are predisposed to engage (my obvious point of the day), which means that they're probably similarly inclined to give their "time talent and treasure" to their kid's school, their professional organization, their Jeep enthusiast club, etc.

If this is the case, it actually does have an impact on how we do what we do in terms of communicating with and providing points of contact for alumni. It means that we need to create multiple points of adhesion throughout the institution, based on affinity (of alumni) and opportunity for engagement (provided by the institution). It means we need to let go.