Live Tube updates on Twitter now, even

My sister is using it, other people I know who only used to be on Facebook are using it, now TLF is using it.  Twitter must have gone mainstream now...

 

Dear Miss Beer,

I am writing to let you know that you can now follow us on Twitter to get live service updates for the Tube. We tweet about disruption to services, planned closures for the day and changes to accessibility access across the network.

We now have Twitter feeds for each Tube line, DLR and London Overground.

For live service updates and a full picture of our social media, please visit tfl.gov.uk/socialmedia

 

Logos do not create meaning

Media_httpwwwgapingvo_ymjjl

If you ever click through from my tweets to posts on this blog with any regularity, you'll know what a HUGE fan I am of Hugh of gapingvoid.com. Well, it's probably more accurate to say that Hugh *is* gapingvoid.com, but anyway...

Today's offering is, as is often the case, bang on and will strike a chord with anyone that really gets branding. The email that accompanied it's arrival in my inbox wisely said:

Isn't it funny how one of the first things many young startups do, is to spend money they don't have on designing the logo? The thinking being: If we have a clever, highly designed logo, prospects will know that we are a smart, professional organization, just the sort of folks to do business with, right?

The reality is, no one has ever done business with a company because of their cool, clever logo.

The reality is, it's the company's purpose that gives the logo meaning, not the other way around.

Before you ever spend your first dime hiring a logo designer, you first have to do the hard work, answering a few fundamental questions: Why are we here? Why do we do what we do? How are we going to make a difference to our prospective customers? In short, find your purpose, your company's reason for being.

Once you know your purpose, the logo becomes completely insignificant. People will know if you are aligned, and why they want to do business with you.

Spend less time thinking, pontificating about your lovely little logo, and more time thinking about your purpose. You'll get where you want to go a heck of a lot faster.

I have a feeling I'll be referring lots of people to this one, because it says what I'm always saying - but I think Hugh has canned it far better than I ever could.

Digital can pay off for charity - The Independent

Media_httpwwwindepend_xzsbw

Sharing this article, on digital fundraising, published in The Independent on Saturday, that I was asked to contribute to. I wasn't party to the other content or contributions before it was published, so I'm always intrigued to see the context and other opinions afterwards.

Be interested to hear whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed.

When Phil Szomszor decided to run the Hastings Half Marathon in memory of his beloved mum, Brenda, he used his knowledge of social media to maximise donations to St Michael's Hospice, a local charity that cared for her in the last weeks of her battle with cancer.

The 38-year-old digital marketing consultant, who lives in Welwyn Garden City, launched a website (www.teamsteam.org) to raise awareness, set up a page on JustGiving.com to receive money, and used Facebook and Twitter to update supporters.

And he certainly had a quirky story to tell, having persuaded eight friends to join him in tackling the demanding, 13-mile hilly course with ironing boards strapped to their backs, stopping off along the way to press a few shirts, to the delight of the crowd.

"A website provides a good focal point to tell the story around a fundraising effort and we wanted to explain how the challenge would work, write blog posts and display the promotional video," he explained. "However, although the website was useful, the most effective tool was Facebook."

His regularly updated Facebook page acted as a reminder to those pledged to sponsor, as well as a medium through which to thank those who donated, either on an individual basis or as part of a daily round-up.

"The idea was to make the campaign as personal as possible," added Phil. "It's the human interest side that really gets people putting their hands in their pockets – as you saw recently with the Claire Squires story."

It's an excellent point. The reaction to the tragic death of 30-year-old fundraiser Claire, who collapsed in the final mile of last month's London Marathon, was nothing short of remarkable, with her JustGiving.com page in aid of the Samaritans being inundated with donations.

With Gift Aid taken into account, the amount received in her memory has now soared past £1m, with money continuing to pour in from people touched by her story, according to Anne-Marie Huby, JustGiving's co-founder and managing director.

"Facebook and Twitter drove an extraordinary amount of traffic to our site," she says. "The story began with Claire's friends and family making initial donations, and then people who had watched or run the marathon, and then their friends of friends started piling in as well."

Ms Huby believes the situation illustrated the growing importance of social media – particularly Facebook – in the world of fundraising. In fact, around 40 per cent of JustGiving's traffic now comes from the site, and more than £27m has been raised on it via referrals from that social network.

There's little doubt charities need all the help they can get. The tough financial times, employment uncertainty, funding cuts, and the sheer number of good causes vying for attention, means all conceivable fundraising possibilities need to be examined.

For example, a recent report from the National Children's Bureau (NCB) entitled Beyond the Cuts warned that a significant minority of those working with young people may be forced to close in the face of a £405m statutory funding loss over the next five years.

However, despite the obvious benefits of using social media to raise both awareness and much-needed financial help, the fact is that relatively few individuals and causes are making the most of the opportunities opening up to them. A number of reports published over the last few years have highlighted the fact that charities are yet to fully embrace new media, and that remains the case today, according to Rachel Beer, a fundraising expert who runs the specialist consultancy Beautiful World.

"There are woefully few charities using digital media really effectively for fundraising, in many cases because they lack infrastructure, expertise or time, due to restricted budgets," she said. "There's also a reluctance to invest in new, untested media, because it is less easy for charities to predict what the returns will be. This makes it difficult to make a case for investment."

However, there are some encouraging signs, according to Tom Lodziak, digital media manager at the Institute of Fundraising, who suggests there is evidence charities are increasingly using new media in their fundraising attempts.

In fact, YouGov research commissioned by the Institute earlier this year found that 15 per cent of the public had made a one-off, online payment to a charity between October and December 2011. By any measure this is encouraging and hopefully the start of a stronger trend.

Chris Allwood, senior product development manager at the CAF, agrees, but points out that most charities still view social media as a way to engage people who may then subsequently choose to make a donation, whether on or offline.

"Charities are investing very heavily in Facebook and Twitter content by employing people to keep their profiles up to date," he said.

"However, social media and online generally is still not yet a significant source of funding for charities."

The challenge for causes will be how best to use social media techniques, according to Cath Lee, chief executive officer at the Small Charities Coalition. Organisations need to revisit their mission statements, she suggested, and be clear about their ultimate aims and objectives.

"Charities realise there is value to using it to raise profile, recruiting volunteers, getting their message out and potentially raising money, but don't necessarily have the time or skills to implement a strategy," she said.

Mr Lodziak believes mobile phones and text donations will play an increasingly vital role within online fundraising, pointing out that a lot of charities have already signed up to JustTextGiving.

"With the ease of online giving, one-click gifts/donations based on impulse decisions will gain popularity over large annual contributions," he said.

Ms Beer agrees that mobile technology will play a vital role, especially in light of the rise of smartphones and tablets, and hopes charities begin to take digital channels as seriously as they do other forms of media to help fundraising activities.

"They will also need to focus on the media their donors, fundraisers and potential supporters use – and that will be increasingly digital," she said.

There is a little more of this article on The Independent website, so read on there if you're interested and want to add a comment there.

 

Mobile Advertising Spending

A version of this note recently appeared on BI Intelligence, Business Insider's internet industry market research service. If you were a subscriber, you'd already know this! Click here to find out more and sign up for a free trial →

 

 2011 U.S. Ad Spending vs. Consumer Time Spent By MediaMany people think mobile advertising is a huge opportunity in part because it is the medium where ad spend is lagging the most behind time spent (see chart at right).

However, it will almost certainly never catch up. But this doesn't mean it's not a big opportunity.

We recently spoke with Ernie Cormier and Victor Milligan, CEO and CMO at Nexage, respectively. Nexage is a mobile advertising exchange; it connects publishers, developers, ad networks, and real-time ad buyers. It is currently serving 12 billion ad impressions per month and, as such, has a pretty good view of the industry's development and where it is heading.

Here's what we learned about why spend won't catch up with time: 

  • On mobile, as on the web, most people spend a lot of time doing other things than consuming media, like communicating (email) or working. TV, radio and newspapers, meanwhile, are pure media. Ads really only perform well when they're against media. 
  • The amount of time consumers spend on their phones has skyrocketed in a very short period. This explains a good amount of the lag: advertisers are only starting to catch up with the new usage patterns. Cormier told us that "media ad share shifts [are] a 'pause-pause-go' sequence where [brands] pause to ensure the behavioral shift is enduring and take the the time needed to re-orient their business." Despite 60 percent annual growth in the market, he still believes most brands are in pause mode. 
  • Importantly, "the competency gap is catching up," Cormier told us. In other words, advertisers have a better understanding of how mobile ads work, and what they can do with them. This is also the sense we got when we interviewed the head of mobile at Publicis Groupe.
  • While inventory is large the biggest issue is properly matching supply and demand, Cormier said. This is where ad exchanges like Nexage come in. 

Interestingly for the debate on native apps vs HTML5, Cormier also said that approximately 60 percent of mobile ad spend on Nexage's exchange is going to native apps, with the balance to the mobile web. He said that it's not a zero-sum game between the two: some things will always be better with apps, and some things will be better with HTML5. We're bullish on HTML5, but this is largely the conclusion we reached in our report on the trend: native apps will always have their role.

With regard to the time spent/ad spend gap on mobile, while it's important to understand they'll never catch up, it's more important to understand that the debate is a red herring: with billions of people soon to carry smartphones on them 16 hours a day, ad spend doesn't have to catch up to time spent for mobile advertising to be a huge opportunity.

A version of this note recently appeared on BI Intelligence, Business Insider's internet industry market research service. If you were a subscriber, you'd already know this! Click here to find out more and sign up for a free trial →

 

The antidote to apathy

A great conversation on the phone this afternoon reminded me that I meant to share this TED talk by Dave Meslin a few weeks ago, when I first saw it, and hadn't got round to it yet.

Here's the blurb from TED:

Local politics -- schools, zoning, council elections -- hit us where we live. So why don't more of us actually get involved? Is it apathy? Dave Meslin says no. He identifies 7 barriers that keep us from taking part in our communities, even when we truly care.

I particularly liked the Nike ad in the style of a planning permission consultation and it made me think about all of those pages on so many charity websites I've seen, full of information that nobody can engage with because it's so long, badly formatted and is written from the organisation's point of view, rather than with a focus on the reader.

The Five Personalities of Innovators: Which One Are You?

Media_httpblogsimages_uekfi

I found this very interesting and insightful. I'd put myself in the 'Experimenters' group. Where would you put yourself?

Here's an edited excerpt and you can click through to read the full piece on Forbes.com:

'... An effective and productive culture of innovation is like a good minestrone soup: it needs to have the right mix and balance of all the ingredients, otherwise it’s completely unsuccessful, unbalanced — and downright mushy.

... The Forbes Insights study surveyed more than 1,200 executives in Europe across a range of topics and themes. Using a series of questions about their attitudes, beliefs, priorities and behaviors, coupled with a look at the external forces that can either foster – or desiccate – an innovative environment, a picture emerged of five key personality types the play a role in the innovation cycle.

Movers and Shakers:
With a strong personal drive, these are leaders. Targets and rewards motivate them strongly, but a major incentive for this group is the idea of creating a legacy and wielding influence over others. These are the ones who like being in the front, driving projects forward (and maybe promoting themselves in the process), but at the end of the day, they provide the push to get things done. On the flip side, they can be a bit arrogant, and impatient with teamwork. Movers and Shakers tend to cluster in risk and corporate strategy, in the private equity and media industries, at mid-size companies; though they comprise 22% of total executives, at companies with revenues of $25 million to $1 billion, Movers and Shakers can encompass up to one-third of the executive suite.

Experimenters:
Persistent and open to all new things, experimenters are perhaps the perfect combination for bringing a new idea through the various phases of development and execution. “Where there is a will, there is a way,” is perhaps the best way to describe them. They’re perfectionists and tend to be workaholics, most likely because it takes an incredible amount of dedication, time and hard work to push through an idea or initiative that hasn’t yet caught on. They take deep pride in their achievements, but they also enjoy sharing their expertise with others; they’re that intense colleague who feels passionately about what they do and makes everyone else feel guilty for daydreaming during the meeting about what they plan on making for dinner that night. Because they’re so persistent, even in the face of sometimes considerable pushback, they’re crucial to the innovation cycle. They tend to be risk-takers, and comprise about 16% of executives – and are most likely to be found in mid-size firms of $100 million to $1 billion (20%). Surprisingly, they’re least likely to be CEOs or COOs – just 14% and 15%, respectively, are Experimenters.

Star Pupils:
Do you remember those kids in grade school who sat up in the front, whose hands were the first in the air anytime the teacher asked a question? Maybe they even shouted out “Ooh! Ooh!” too just to get the teacher to notice them first? This is the segment of the executive population those kids grew into. They’re good at…well, they’re good at everything, really: developing their personal brand, seeking out and cultivating the right mentors, identifying colleagues’ best talents and putting them to their best use. Somehow, they seem to be able to rise through the ranks and make things happen, even when corporate culture seems stacked against them. Unsurprisingly, CEOs tend to be Star Pupils. What’s most interesting about this group, though, is the fact that, at 24% of corporate executives, they don’t seem to cluster in any one particular job function, industry or company size; rather, they can grow and thrive anywhere: IT, finance, start-ups, established MNCs. They’re the stem cells of the business world.

Controllers:
Uncomfortable with risk, Controllers thrive on structure and shy away from more nebulous projects. Above all, they prefer to be in control of their domain and like to have everything in its place. As colleagues, they’re not exactly the team players and networkers; Controllers are more insular and like to focus on concrete, clear-cut objectives where they know exactly where they stand and can better control everything around them. They comprise 15% of executives — the smallest group overall — and tend to cluster on both extremes of the spectrum: either in the largest enterprises (with 1,000 or more employees) or the smallest (with fewer than 10). This makes sense when you think about it: controllers thrive on overseeing bureaucracy (at larger firms) or having complete control over all aspects of their sphere – at the smallest firms, they may be the business owner who has built an entire company around their personality. Controllers pop up most frequently in sales and marketing and finance, and populate the more practical, less visionary, end of the corporate hierarchy: these are the department heads and managers who receive their marching orders and get to mobilizing their troops to marching.

Hangers-On:
Forget the less-than-flattering name; these executives exist to bring everyone back down to earth and tether them to reality. On a dinner plate, Hangers-On would be the spinach: few people’s favorite, but extremely important in rounding out the completeness of the meal. Like Controllers, they don’t embrace unstructured environments, and they tend to take things one step further, hewing to conventional wisdom and tried-and-true processes over the new and untested. When asked to pick a side, Hangers-On will most likely pick the middle. This is not necessarily a bad set of characteristics to have; someone has to be the one to remind everyone of limitations and institutional processes. While they comprise 23% of all executives – the same no matter the company size – they cluster most strongly in the CFO/Treasurer/Comptroller role, where 38% are Hangers-On. This makes sense; someone has to remind everyone of budget and resource constraints.

No one group can be considered the purest “entrepreneurial group,” but Movers and Shakers and Experimenters may be the closest. They have the strongest tendency to be internally driven, in control and bridle the most at others telling them what to do. Younger, more innovative firms generally need Movers and Shakers at the top, channeling the energy of Experimenters into a vision that can be implemented. As organizations grow larger and more established, however, they need Star Pupils who can translate that vision into a strategy and lead it forward, Controllers who can marshal the troops to execute it and Hangers-On who can rein it in. A firm reaching maturity has greater need for strong processes, as well as those who value control.

As we’ve seen time and again, unbridled innovation is a wonderful thing. But it’s what comes next that’s arguably more important. To get an innovative idea off the ground, it’s crucial to have a cast of characters who can keep that tension between risk-taking and reality at a healthy balance midway between the sky and the ground — where innovation can thrive.'

What's in your cup?

Media_httpwwwgapingvo_vouvs

I liked this thought from Hugh at gapingvoid.com, as it reminded me of a creative presentation I was part of recently, where I really wasn't sure how the work being shown was received:

'"I'm not passive aggressive, I'm decaffeinated."

Energy, passion, enthusiasm… these are the things that often drive one's creativity.

They are also the things we can share to help inspire and drive the creativity in others.

When we share an idea we yearn for it to be met with one or all of the above. We want our audience of one or many to respond to our work with energy… with passion… with enthusiasm.

When they don't, we take it as commentary, or worse, as criticism. But sometimes their less than amazing reaction has nothing to do with us, or our stuff. Sometimes your audience is just too tired, or just too distracted by their own stuff to give you what you want.

They're not being mean, or trying to cut you down with their silence. Their cup is just too full at the moment to make room for you.

What's in your cup?'

Now, I did know that the person we were presenting to had a very heavy workload but I never considered that might have impacted on their response to creative work. But, it's true - and thanks for reminding me, Hugh - things like that can dampen your enthusiasm a bit sometimes, as you go into 'survival mode', focusing on just getting stuff done. It often means at least some of your mind is already working on the next task on the to do list, rather than fully in the room.

It's one of the reasons why we always have good coffee, good biscuits and nice, fresh fruit in meetings - so no one is sitting there waiting for it to end because they need a decent caffeine hit or a bit of blood sugar. And if I ever go to meetings at places where they don't provide those things, I take my own!

Google+ shares increase clickthroughs on ads by 5-10%

 

vic gundotra and brad horowitz

Google's Vic Gundotra and Bradley Horowitz

Google's social chief Vic Gundotra explained why the company thinks Google+ is a success, even though people aren't using the core service very much.

It's getting people to click on more ads.

In a conversation with the New York Times, Gundotra tried to deflect criticisms that Google+ is a deserted wasteland, where people sign up once and rarely visit again.

But as far as we can tell from the Times report, he never actually shared usage statistics for Google+ itself, the social networking Web site that is located at plus.google.com and that looks and works a lot like Facebook.

Instead, like Larry Page did on Google's last earnings call, Gundotra talked about how many active Google+ users were engaged with ANY Google product that is tied to Google+, including Gmail and YouTube. It was 90 million per month at the end of December. Now it's over 100 million.

Like his colleague Bradley Horowitz insisted last fall, Gundotra said that Google+ isn't about creating a social network to beat Facebook. It's about making Google better by adding information about who your friends are and what they're interested in.

Google's slipperiness on the subject made us think that Google was hiding something. We figured Google didn't want to admit that Google+ would be stuck in the perennial #2 spot behind Facebook.

But now we get it. From Google's point of view, Google+ really is a smash hit. Why?

Because when people recommend an advertisement to their Google+ friends, it's increasing clickthroughs on that advertisement by 5% to 10%.

Here's the most important quote from Gundotra:

“We are seeing 5 to 10 percent click-through-rate uplift on any ad that has a social annotation on our own Web sites .... We have been in this business for a long time, and there are very few things that give you a 5 to 10 percent increase on ad engagement.”

That's an amazing result. Google regularly fine-tunes and tweaks its search advertising technology in hopes of increasing clickthrough rates by a few tenths of a percentage point.

An uplift of 5 to 10 percent really is a big deal.

Another way of looking at it: the Google+ service is bait. All Google wants you to do is create a profile and link to some friends with it.

After that, Google really doesn't care if you never visit again. As long as you sign in for any other Google service (like Gmail), and then recommend an ad or a Web site once in a while, so Google can put that information in front of your other Google friends, all is well with the world.

See also: Google+ Is Way Bigger Than We Thought -- It's Totally Going To Change How The Web Works