Captology and Microcrowd Influence
I learned a new word the other day, Captology, and it helps me define an area of thought of particular interest (thanks to my buddy Crosby!) I was talking with him about some of my recent posts covering geo-temporal and microcrowd concepts and he suggested that I check out a particular Stanford University website. According to the description on the Stanford University Persuasive Technology Lab website, the definition of Captology:
Captology is the study of computers as persuasive technologies. This includes the design, research, and analysis of interactive computing products created for the purpose of changing people’s attitudes or behaviors.
And they have a nifty Venn diagram that I’ve borrowed so you can visualize the concept.
At the moment I’m thinking of how captology interacts with microcrowds. Specifically microcrowds on Websites, Mobile Devices (iPhone), the desktop, in Virtual Reality (SL), and where this crosses over into in-person interactions with geo-temporal implications.
Definition of Microcrowd (s): noun. A group of people in which members are passive, active or aggressive participants. A Microcrowd member may influence other members with their participation.
Example: When I saw my acquaintance Justin Kan during a Citizen Agency party the other day, our discussion led me to consider some new thoughts about geo-temporal tracking. Justin has no idea, but the conversation and my active participation within a specific microcrowd of people altered some of my evolving thoughts around this type of tracking.
In addition to interacting with this example group in person, I also interact with many specific members online. Twitter, chat, email, blog comments and many more points of distributed contact form my networks within the microcrowds that I interact with. Blackberry and MacBook Pro are my primary connection tools, but within email the browser and other applications I also connect with asynchronous video (live: justin.tv recorded:viddler.com) and more.
I might log into the justin.tv website in order to “watch the content”, but because he lives in my city I might log in to see where he is, or to see if the party I’m going to is worth getting into a cab for (Justin tends to hit the same party scene I do so I can “preview reality”.) This seems like the ultimate in technology impacting me, influencing my decisions, yet this decision is also influenced by the wisdom of the microcrowds because if I didn’t travel a similar SF party circuit as Justin and could not “preview the party” then my party-going decision making would be influenced by other microcrowds. If I find out that the Extra Action Marching Band will be at the party, my passive participation in the microcrowd centered on this band would tip me towards attending the party, even without a “reality preview” through Justin.tv, because I love watching this band. Knowledge of their attendance tipped me into going. Once I’ve made this decision, I might Twitter or email about the party to get friends from my other microcrowds to attend. And so it spreads.
At the Citizen Agency party I might have learned something that changes important parts of my life, or I might learn somebody had a birthday. At a Giants baseball game I might be influenced to care more that someone had just hit a homerun, or I may learn that someone that I know had a heart attack. The information conveyed is not important to this particular post as I’m focused on how information waves spread through and among microcrowds. How the information is relayed and the influence applied from within the community and the technology that is in the hands of community members during the conveyance of the message is important, impacting persuasion and human behavior.
I’m participating in many microcrowds in many different ways; in blogs, with family, on social websites, at parties and general assembly events, on handheld devices, in school, on music and video players. Each touch point that I have with the technology tools or in face-to-face meetings will generally influence what I think about and how I perceive “it”.
This appears to be like memes moving virally towards a tipping point, but I believe it’s also analogous to neuron pathway development, influenced by the volume and type of connectivity and communication of participation.
This post has been languishing in my drafts folder for some time, so rather than sit on it longer, or draw any conclusions, I’m just going to put it out there for discussion … hopefully this spurs some new ideas for you.
Filed under Mashups, Microcrowds, Online Advertising, Tagclouds, Web 2.0, Web Marketing | Comments (2)The Tangible Cost of Bad Trade Show Schwag
Tradeshows and The Schwag they effuse; we’ve got to get real here.
Bad schwag gets thrown away immediately. Not only does it NOT make it onto desktops, it causes harm to the environment. And all of you who don’t believe the environment is an important issue can go flip a duck.
Schwag has weight. When consumers are trying to decide what to take back home in the already heavy suitcase, your schwag will lose unless it has value, real or emotional. Perhaps they do need a new pen or want to give a bag to the cleaning crew. However there is a large probability that your chosen schwag may not do anything except take up space in the garbage of local hotels.
I’ve been to hundreds of tradeshows and seen a lot of schwag in my life. During a 4 year stint I actually produced shows for a living, so the schwag I’ve seen has run the gamut.
I’d currently wager that AdTech has a definite lack of schwag innovation considering the industry which it serves. Where are the call to actions and so forth? I expected to see more companies tying their live tradeshow participation and schwag giveaways to their websites, for example.
I can’t affect company tradeshow participation plans, but I can comment on the schwag, so here we go. There are a few simple rules to make your schwag memorable and worth keeping. Kind of like Internet advertising in a way.
Is it cute?
Does it do anything?
Does it add value? (perceived quality)
At every AdTech in recent memory for example, I’ve seen hats, pens and notepads given away by Casale Media. Their golf hats are BRIGHT red and I mean BRIGHT. You would not get lost on the links in this hat. The notepads are a slightly strange design that are too big to slip into a pocket, yet too small to use for regular note keeping. Their pens however, the pens they give out are by far the best at the show, in my humble opinion. These pens are worth keeping a deep supply of. When I return from AdTech shows in fact I usually find that my red Casale pen has mysteriously gone missing from my office desk within days. Hmm…
I thought it might be interesting to solicit your feedback, dear reader, about the “best in class” of schwag which you saw and/or collected at the recent AdTech in San Francisco. That schwag which is worth keeping… Comment away about your own finds at the show…. like maybe you really loved the Doubleclick iPod mini speakers set for example…. hmm that might make a nice bedside music player…..
Here are some examples to get you going:
Best Pens
Best Flashy Thing
Best Notepads
Best Bags
Best Mints
T-shirts with the best design
Best “Other”
AdTech:day1: Comments on Startups, Bubbles and Buyouts
The Title of the session: Internet Economy: Startups, Bubbles and Buyouts
Moderator:
Roger McNamee: Managing Director Co-Founder - Elevation Partners
Panel:
Alex Gove, Principal Walden Venture Capital
William C. Park, Entrepreneur - transitioning to new role…
Safa Rashtchy, Managing Director, Sr Internet Analyst, Piper Jaffray & Company
Neil Garfinkel, Partner, Francisco Partners
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Directions from the Mod to the audience:
Small company looking for capital go to Alex
Large companies looking for buyout go to Neil
Looking to sell for stock, go to William
Safa just published a new book. check it out. the cartoons are great.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Safa starts:
Why am I leaving? More than just healthy growth emerging after “all the activities” are done. More than a phoenix rising from the ashes” of relatively recent (2001) firestorm. “New resurgence in consumerism”.
We have a new economy, call it web 2.0 if you must, but that term is old now. Hot is Search and Social networking. Next wave “help users get done what they need to get done, not just capture eyeballs”
Mod: What is the one thing this audience of people who want to get rich should be paying attention to?
Safa: Spending is done by older people and I think we are ignoring the older generation. Increase Global consumerism.
Mod: Alex, what does the audience need to do to get money from you?
Alex: Online marketing, Lead gen markets are hot - but VC’s are looking for true partnerships, they don’t want to simply be an ATM for entrepreneurs. “…Perhaps the entrepreneur is investing their own money, what we really want is…”
Mod: “Stop, we’re getting into a commercial pitch here”
Alex: Ok, let me try this “…if you have one competitor then you have 3. If you have 3 competitors then you really have 9. If you are very early with a unique new idea, we will listen.
William: We are looking for long term trends. Something that can power a wave of consumerism. Companies that can ride a long wave and not just a short break will attract our attention.
Neil: “… a meshing of cultures and long term goals iss extremely important. People are what differentiate the potential value of combined companies.”
Mod: We’re going to jump into a hole here…reluctance on the part of Advertisers to commit themselves to the web (as opposed to “traditional” media) especially because of the numbers.
Neil: Relevancy and Reach is a part of the primary pitch from Behavioral targeting firms. One limit for BT is how many targets are available. Data volume being collected is larger than the companies have ability to parse in a useful way. (challenges that demographics do outperform BT, until granularity of BT data let’s effective targeting succeed). Granted, BT does outperform Run-of-site.
Safa: “Right now internet usage is still very much like a utility. When I chat in IM, is that the most effective time to target me? It’s like I’m talking on the phone. Would you target me while I’m on the phone?”
Mod: As an entrepreneur, the traditional paths to success are:
1) Create an incredibly valuable product functionality
2) Build a real company framework and make it work, growing through the small and medium sized stages, exit at the end.
Do you have a benchmark that gets you excited about a company?
Alex: Importance of team cannot be under-stressed, but it’s also impossible to predict which features of a company will appeal to a company (like Google). Companies must have UNIQUE assets in order to become one of the chosen few. [anecdotal: Each Google M&A screener looks at 10 companies per day]
William: Companies in the Lead Gen markets are making money hand over fist. Some make 40-50% margins. But the thing that makes us hesitate about investing in this market is the constant risk of Google making changes to their algorithm which impacts the revenue stream of these firms. We can’t take the risk.
Safa: “Defining Lead Gen is difficult” as many companies simply create as large a net as possible to try and capture “leads”. Not all Lead Gen is created equal.
Mod: What are the most effective Lead Gen techniques you see today?
Safa: Actually Search is the best way to qualify Leads because you know more about what the user is trying to achieve.
William: Saw a nice lead gen company focused on the higher education vertical, but they focused only in one vertical.
Mod: there are a lot of lead gen business but they are not all equal in quality of their own processes as well as the leads” they generate.
Neil: “comScore is no more accurate for measuring audience than Nielsen.” I look forward to more accurate targeting in the near future.
Mod: Are “things” coming in your door which are too expensive for the investment market to consider?
Neil: “I’m not sure how you can say things are too expensive? Our returns are still double digit, so things are not yet too expensive, but look backwards. Things are underpriced!
William: On the private equity side, Doubleclick did a very good job of resolving their troubles and rebuilding their value. I’d do all Doubleclick deals if I could. If business is very profitable and growing, hold out for the Doubleclick exit (referring to the $3 Billion buyout.)
Mod: Different types of capital are appropriate for different stages of a company depending on the stage and status the company is in.
General responses to that last aphorism, then question time for the audience….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I asked the panel: What are the most valuable upcoming categories for Lead Generation, that are not super high value/per lead or super-saturated already. They answered “Education”. I said that was a well known market already. Others in the audience chimed in with ringtones and other “known” markets, nothing new out there…at least no new ideas were forthcoming from the VC’s.
Mod: Great tips. “Start with the big number, work back to the little numbers” in order to hook in an investment bank. “Get your capital in the country where you have the most users.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The takeaway:
- Start-ups with bright ideas and very large companies that are well established attract the most attention from people who can offer them money. For VC’s, the middle market, say forty to several hundred million dollars in valuation, is very hard to work with.
- There is no bubble, the current environment is rational, at least where is comes to investment money being handed out.
- Buyouts are rare. To be attractive, be as unique as possible.
