Chris Kerns writes on the Zaaz blog about a funky new cross-promotional trend he noticed on CNN.com – on stories with “out there” sort of headlines, you can order a T-shirt with that headline. “Bikini-clad baristas shock customers” is the example quoted in his posting. Kerns says it freaks him out and makes him wonder about what they’re doing to the CNN brand. Personally, I think it’s a great idea. Maybe it’s because I once worked as a sub-editor (my goal in life at one time was to be a headline writer for the Daily Telegraph), but I love quirky headlines and would consider buying shirts with my favourites emblazoned on them. There’s of course, the classics such as “Man bites dog” and “Headless body in topless bar”, and others such as one from today’s paper: “Drink too much and you might feel ruff-ruff” (for a story about a beer for dogs). What headlines would you put on a T-shirt? I might give a bottle of a classic dry white from a remainder sale to the best one submitted.
Web 1.0 still rules
With all the development of flashy new technologies to connect and do business over the past five years, the most popular online tool is – wait for it – email. eMarketer reports that a survey conducted last month for email management company Habeas revealed that 75% of adult email users said they used it every day. Nearly 70% prefer email for communicating with businesses, and the same amount said they expected to still prefer email five years from now.
OK, OK, so this report was commissioned by a company that has a vested interest in email marketing. But common sense still dictates that something as simple and effective as email is going to continue to have a crucial role in online communication, especially since the alternatives are getting increasingly sophisticated and complicated. While a few specialised people will live on the bleeding edge and undertake the work required to stay that way, many people will just go for the simple option.
Getting digital wrong
Lee Huang has written an article for the ClickZ Network which does a good job of outlining the barriers to companies going digital. He writes:
“An organization is a living, breathing, dynamic ecosystem comprised of people with different roles, compensation plans, career goals, motivations, work ethics, and tolerance levels for change. It has many levels of business processes, decision-making, and bureaucracy. Although companies won’t admit it, there are always competing and conflicting business goals within the same company between different business units, divisions, and personnel.
“When a company injects ‘digital’ into an established corporate structure, major organizational changes must take place within the company. The companies that do digital well understand and implement changes to their corporate structure so they can fully embrace digital. Planning and implementing these changes are incredibly difficult because they affect every part of an organization’s ecosystem. To succeed and to stay in business, you’ve got to do it.
“Here are the key mistakes that companies make.
- Don’t have the right people, skills, positions, and compensation plans.
- Don’t have the right organizational structure in place to effectively leverage digital and to integrate it with existing business units.
- Have the wrong people making digital/interactive decisions.
- Haven’t updated existing business processes or created necessary new ones.
- Don’t have any change management initiatives.
- Don’t have executive support.
“This results in:
- Poorly designed, watered-down digital products that have no compelling, differentiating value proposition due to not having the right skills and having the wrong people make decisions.
- Being late to market due to bureaucracy and inability to move at digital speed.
- Lost customers.
- Missed revenue opportunities and revenue loss.
- Loss of market leadership and/or market share.
- Confusion and low morale across organization.
- Frustration and conflicts between colleagues.
- Staff defections. “
I look forward to reading his next column in this series and see his views on how to get it right.
More on the budget
David More’s Australian Health Information Technology blog has published a comprehensive e-health budget analysis, looking at the breakdown of spending in this year’s Federal Budget on e-health initiatives. The analysis is provided by ICT analyst Richard Dixon Hughes. Highlights include:
- One of the major cost saving measures was the abolition of the Access Card project (being managed within the Human Services portfolio) leading to an all up reduction of $1.2 billion over 5 years.
- Previous ICT incentives for General Practice are being abolished and a new incentive payment of $6.50 per patient introduced in their place – however the net result is planned to be a saving of $110.7 million over the next 4 years.
- Cuts to the previous e-health implementation program totalled $10.5 million over three years and were part of a basket of cuts, though it is not clear what the extent and nature of the specific reductions within the e‑Health Implementation Program have been
If the government can’t do it, maybe Google (or Microsoft) can
So now Google has entered the market for electronic health records, six months after Microsoft announced it was doing the same thing. Google has supposedly developed an impenetrably secure computer platform that would allow people to keep their medical records online, so that they can be shared by doctors other than your local GP (particularly useful if you end up in the emergency room out of hours).
Like most of these things, both Google Health and Microsoft’s Health Vault have only been launched in the US so far, although a Google Australia spokesperson told the Sydney Morning Herald today that while there was a strong recognition in Australia of the significant benefits to patients of this type of service, there was “no current timetable” on a rollout of the service for local users.
Message to Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxon – take a look at both of these services; maybe money should be spent developing these universal tools, rather than the tens of millions of dollars that have been thrown at HealthConnect and the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA), so far to no result.
Online analytics and pharma companies
Erika Morphy has written a great article published today in CRM Buyer about the need for pharma companies today to use analytics to sell more effectively. As a Datamonitor researcher is quoted as saying in the article: “Traditionally, all pharma had to do to sell more drugs was employ more sales reps and equip them with the right technology, such as mobile solutions. Now, because their main drivers of profits are being squeezed – the end of blockbuster drugs’ patents and the dearth of new blockbuster drugs coming to market – pharma has come to the realization that is has to be more effective in selling drugs.”
Read the story here.
Where does the Internet fit in the buying decision process?
The Pew Internet & American Life Project has just released a study that reveals that although the Internet is a valuable research tool that helps people sort through product choices, they’re still tending to make their purchases off-line. Surprisingly, this applies even to music purchases, an area where digital downloading is a cheap and simple way to obtain the product.
Pew research director John Horrigan said that just 22% of all music buyers say their most recent purchase was online (either a digital download or ordering a compact disc), while 74% said their most recent purchase was at a store.
As well as being used for pre-purchase research, the Web plays a more critical role after people buy music. Nearly 40% visit the artist’s or band’s Web site, 28% look online for live performances, and 26% go to blogs or sites about the music.
Horrigan told Online Media Daily that the Internet was a “tactical tool” rather than a “game-changer” when it comes to purchase decisions. “Even with a digital product such as music, you still see people learning about new music through friends and family,” he said. “And they want to buy music in stores as opposed to online.”
The study also tracked the decision-making processes for buying a mobile phone and buying or renting a home. It found that:
- The internet helps music buyers connect with artists and learn more about music, but it doesn’t strongly influence what or how they buy
- The internet is an influential source of information and options for those purchasing feature-rich items such as cell phones
- The internet is an efficiency-enhancer in searching for new housing
- Few internet users bother to rate or comment on their purchase, even for a digital good such as music
The Pew survey cited the Internet as a key – but not the most important – resource in mobile phone comparison shopping. Among those who bought a phone in the last year, 39% used the Internet, compared to 59% who asked an expert or salesperson for advice and 46% went to one or more retail stores.
Among those who went online, 48% said it changed the model or brand the got, 43% said it led to getting a phone with more features and 41% said the move saved them some money.
But only 10% said the Internet had a major influence on their purchase. More than 75% bought their devices in stores, and only 12% online.
Time to get with the program
There has been a lot of debate in journalistic circles of late about the state of denial most journalists and media academics are in regarding new media. An article today in ClickZ echoes what organisations like the Poynter Foundation have been saying for years – journalists need to get their head out of the sand and embrace the Internet, because, like it or not, it is changing the face of journalism. Being a good writer isn’t enough in the 21st century; you need to be able to write web copy, operate a blog, do your research and link out to your sources, even use a video camera.
I used to be one of those journalists: I studied hard so I could get into a top journalism program, honed my reporting and feature-writing skills for four years, and believed writing for a quality newspaper was the greatest job there could be (until I would move on to writing best-selling novels). I ended up moving to Australia and the first job I landed was in the rough-and-ready world of B2B publishing, where they expected you to do a bit of everything - becoming an editor much too soon, dealing with people management, taking photos, and, worst of all, becoming familiar with P&Ls and the realities of advertising-based publishing. I hated it at the time, but it took my blinders off and prepared me for dealing with change. I became involved in Internet publishing more than 10 years ago because, with my blinders off, I could see that this was the direction in which communications, including journalism, was going.
I recently did a stint back in traditional publishing and was amazed to see that the attitude of journalists hadn’t changed in the past 10-15 years. Most of my staff, despite being Gen Y, refused to engage with the publication’s website, because they were convinced that regular deadlines, well-designed pages and the feel of a magazine in your hand was what journalism was all about. When I talked about content management systems, email newsletters, multimedia, blogs, etc., they started muttering about job descriptions and the union award. Like others who have been writing on this topic, I blame the university programs, who are still churning out journalists who are too good to do anything other than report and write.
Much as it pains me to say this, as someone who grew up and started their career believing in the purity and hyperspecialisation of journalism, the Internet, new ways of communicating stories, and citizen journalism are all a fact of life today, and journalists who won’t admit this and who won’t widen their perspective and their activities will end up bitter and unemployed.
