Chris Selland's posterous

  • The (Eventual) End of the Content Middleman

    • 5 Sep 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • $AAPL $ADBE $GOOG $MSFT $NFLX
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    via fool.com

    As I suggested the other day about Netflix, the rise of open standards such as HTML5 is going to make it increasingly difficult for middlemen such as Apple and Netflix to extract tolls for delivering content to consumers. No matter how 'magical' the device or 'app' - standards will remove any reason for that middleman to exist.

    For example - since I switched from an iPad to an Android tablet (a Motorola Xoom) I no longer have any need for any sort of WSJ 'app' to read the Journal - I simply read it in a browser.

    This is going to take time to play out - but is long-term inevitable, and is absolutely worth keeping an eye on.

    • Tweet
  • Chris Selland on technology, business and politics | Pundit Review

    • 22 Aug 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Pundit Review Radio
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost

    cselland_1301252693_83

    Long time Boston area technology analyst, investor and marketer Chris Selland, currently CMO at Terametric, (@cselland on Twitter), joined me in-studio last night for a discussion on the terrible jobs situation, the environment for start-ups in Massachusetts and even some local and national politics. It was great to once again meet in-person a Twitter friend who I’ve only previously known through social media.

    The Pundit Review Radio Podcast RSS feed can be found here and you can find us on iTunes at Pundit Review Radio.

    What is Pundit Review Radio?

    On Boston’s Talk Station WRKO since 2005, Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week we give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to the radio every Sunday evening from 6-9pm on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

    via punditreview.com

    In case you missed it last night, a replay of my discussion last night with @punditreview - had a great time, thanks Kevin!

    • Tweet
  • Sunday Night at 6PM - join me on Pundit Review Radio

    • 20 Aug 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Pundit Review WRKO
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost

    If you're reading this, you probably know I have developed a bit of a passion for the intersection of politics and Social Media.

    Which is why I'm so excited to be joining my friend and kindred spirit Kevin Whalen (a/k/a @punditreview) on his Pundit Review Radio show this Sunday evening August 21 at 6 PM.

    I'll be in the studio with Kevin from 6-7 PM (or whenever he kicks me out) talking about (of course) Social Media & Politics as well the Boston tech scene, (t)echonomics, Jets/Pats and whatever else strikes our fancy.

    For those of you in the Boston metro area, WRKO is 680 on your AM dial, and for those of you online anywhere, you can listen live at www.wrko.com.

    Listen in - and call in - looking forward to a scintillating discussion, and would love to hear from you!

    Pundit Review was a blog before there was even a word ‘blog’. The site started in December 1999 by Kevin Whalen as an outlet for a political junkie and over time has morphed into a hybrid blog-radio show. For more than six years, Pundit Review has broadcast a weekly show on Boston’s 50,000-watt talk station WRKO.

    Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin, and until August 2008, Gregg Jackson, gave voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. This unique show continues bring the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 6-9pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

    • Tweet
  • Losing the HP Way

    • 20 Aug 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Cringely HP
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    Media_httpwwwcringely_dagqc
    via cringely.com

    Cultures matter - a lot. And HP lost theirs a long time ago.

    Great read from Robert X. Cringely.

    • Tweet
  • Morton's gets Social CRM

    • 17 Aug 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Customer Service Morton's Peter Shankman SCRM
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    Media_httpshankmancom_bemkb
    via shankman.com

    I've been saying for some time now that the problem with Social CRM is that, while there are plenty of analysts and consultants talking about it - theoretically and hypothetically - to date there have been precious few examples of companies actually doing it.

    Well here's one. Well-played @Morton's - you absolutely, positively 'get it'.

    No doubt Peter's high follower count, Klout score, etc... factored into the story - but it's still a great one.

    Read it.

    • Tweet
  • Google Plus: Early Momentum Squandered?

    • 17 Aug 2011
    • 2 Responses
    •  views
    • Google+ Social Networks
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    Media_httpblogsimages_xphgh
    via forbes.com

    While Google+ got off to a very fast start, it's pretty clear that their momentum is fading fast. I would argue it's far too early to declare G+ dead, but warning bells are ringing loudly.

    I fully admit to being attracted to bright, shiny objects - and as I've said many times before, to also being a Google fan. The initial idea of G+ and features such as Circles and Hangouts were greatly appealing to me - at least on first glance.

    And the instant picture sharing from my Android phone is quite cool - as Thomas Hawk blogged the other days, Google is doing a great job in the photo-sharing arena.

    So why has my time spent on Google+ tailed off so quickly? For me, at least, as nice as the feature set is, it makes little sense to spend so much time on a Social network that is so disconnected from the others - and thus from my Social Graph.

    I don't want to - or need to - be forced to pick a single Social Network to spend all my time on. As much as I like Google+, it does not replace what LinkedIn does for me in terms of managing my professional network. My high school and childhood friends are not on it the way they're on Facebook. It doesn't have the open, discovery capabilities (and pretty soon won't have the growth) of Twitter.

    And it's simply too hard to post to - I use a variety of Social tools, but other than Google websites and my phone, none of those tools (yet) support Google+.

    All of these Social Networks are part of my Social Graph - but Google+ seems to not want to work within that graph, but instead to replace it in its' entirety.

    BHAG's are laudable and Google is known for them, but if that's Google's strategy, they will fail.

    So as enthusiastic as I was early on, my time-spent on Google+ is rapidly tailing off. And it's pretty clear that it's not just me.

    Google's got a lot on their plate, but if they want to keep G+ out of the Graveyard, they've got momentum to reverse - and quickly.

    • Tweet
  • The More Things Change...

    • 13 Aug 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost

    I've finally gotten around to reading Steve's Blank's The Four Steps to the Epiphany these past few weeks, and now just caught his recent blog post Bonfire of the Vanities.

    Both are highly-recommended for all marketers - if you haven't read either, start with the blog post (it's shorter).

    I still remember meeting Steve in the '90's when he co-founded E.piphany, during my days as a CRM analyst at the Yankee Group. He presented ideas which were both ahead of their time, yet timeless, and his writings today indicate that hasn't changed. His post brought a few of them back to me this morning...

    • Marketing is one-to-many, Sales is one-to-one

    I have worn both Sales and Marketing hats throughout my career, and have seen so many times the problems that are caused by misalignment between these functions and the executives who oversee and operate within them. (I actually wear them both right now at Terametric - such is life in a startup - but will almost certainly be giving up (at least) one of them as we scale the business).

    Steve nails the key to aligning the roles:

    Marketing creates a series of marketing activities at each stage of the sales funnel to generate awareness, then interest, then consideration and finally purchase. 

    In other words, Marketing is about moving customers into the funnel - as opposed to Sales being about moving customer through it.

    Or as I've often said about my role - it's all 'evangelism' - when it's one-to-many evangelism I call it 'marketing' and when it's one-to-one I call it 'sales'.

    One of the key implications of that is that marketing's role is to create interest, not necessarily to close the deal.

    No one is going to buy it from the datasheet. In fact, reading these, the only thing your datasheet will do is give a prospective customer a reason for saying “no” before our salespeople ever get to talk to them.

    • Stories > Stridency

    I watched the GOP debate the other night and, like many, I was stunned with how poorly the candidates did in connecting with the audience. Despite the endless discussions of policies and politics - and the cheap 'applause lines' - there was very little ability exhibited on behalf of any of the candidates to connect at an emotional level with voters.

    Marketers need to pay attention to this. While Blank's post contains the requisite funnel graphic (see above) the real power of his post comes in his story.

    Heading to a meeting with the VP of Sales, I almost walked past the crowd into the building  until I heard the VP of Sales call me over to the fire. He was there with our CEO feeding things into the fire.  In fact as I got closer, it looked like the campfire was being entirely fed by paper.  “Here, toss these in,” they said as they handed me a stack of…

    Oh, my g-d they’re burning my datasheets!!!

    Note the participation of not just the VP of Sales, but the CEO, as well...

    • Things have changed, but not that much

    Steve's post recalls a time in his career when he was in his '20's' - considering that I met him in the mid-90's, it's fair to say that was a few years ago. Today's content marketers might argue that the role of web content & 'inbound marketing' in moving prospects through the funnel is more critical than 'datasheets' were years ago - and they are right.

    However, some core ideas still hold true:

    • People buy from people - and tend to do business with those they connect (personally and emotionally) with.
    • Too much information can easily give a prospect more reasons to say 'no' than say 'yes'.
    • The 'Awareness-Interest-Consideration-Purchase' process hasn't - and won't - change, and working with a potential customer through that process requires a combination of one-to-many and one-to-one activities.

    As you think about your marketing and sales strategies - and aligning them for success, these are useful - and timeless - lessons to keep in mind.

    • Tweet
  • Titles

    • 17 Jul 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Jeffrey Bussgang Titles startups
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    Interesting & thought-provoking post from Jeff Bussgang on Titles.
    Today’s post is from Jeff Bussgang of Flybridge Venture Capital titled Why You Should Eliminate Titles at Start-ups. Before Jeff was a VC, he was a co-founder, and before that he was an operator. He tells the story of both of these experiences – and how he learned that internal titles should be eliminated at startups.
    via askthevc.com

    I - sort of - agree. The important word is 'internal'.

    Like it or not, titles matter very much outside the company. Especially in a startup (since, by definition, a startup's corporate brand is unlikely to carry much - if any - weight) a title provides a signal that answers the question "should I spend any time meeting/speaking/engaging with this person?" When you're trying to nail down that big prospect, partner or investor(!) meeting, titles absolutely DO matter - a great deal.

    Inside the organization, however, I completely agree with the need to be fluid, flexible and as non-heirarchical as possible. The focus inside a startup needs to be on getting things done as effectively and efficiently as possible - and, if anything, titles get in the way of that by causing people to focus on their own status within the organization to the detriment of the focus and success of the organization.

    If you needed a title for external reasons, our founder told us, we should feel free to make one up.  But we would avoid using labels internally.  In other words, there would be no "vice president" or "director" or other such hierarchical denominations.

    Why?  Because a start-up is so fluid, roles changes, responsibilities evolve, and reporting structures move around fluidly. Titles represent friction, pure and simple, and the one thing you want to reduce in a start-up is friction.  By avoiding titles, you avoid early employees getting fixated on their role, who they report to, and what their scope of responsibility is - all things that rapidly change in a company's first year or two.

    via Seeing Both Sides: Why You Should Eliminate Titles at Startups

    So, while it can be argued that titles provide necessary structure in larger companies, they have no use whatsoever in the 'inner workings' of startups and are much more likely to cause problems than to solve them. If they weren't so important in 'signaling' to the outside world, then yes, I'd be in favor of eliminating them completely.

    Perhaps we would be better off eliminating Org Charts instead.

    Thoughts?

    • Tweet
  • My very brief thoughts on Google+

    • 5 Jul 2011
    • 4 Responses
    •  views
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    So if I understand Google+ correctly...
    1. I can only share posts with my very small (compared to Twitter and Facebook) 'Circles'
    2. I cannot invite anyone to join my Circles who is not already on Google+
    3. The UI is pretty slick
    Totaling up, Google got (so far) 1 out of 3 right, and they missed the 2 important ones.

    For now, nice UI or not, Google+ is a fail - and not worth the investment of any significant time.

    It does have potential, but if (and only if) #1 and #2 change, I reserve the right to change my opinion.

    • Tweet
  • As you fill your tank this weekend...

    • 3 Jul 2011
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost

    ...don't forget to answer the 'Debit or Credit?' question. Because if you don't, the pump will sit there not pumping gas, but instead stupidly blinking at you - as it did with me (and inspiring my mini-rant yesterday) - until you do.

    But also ask yourself, why exactly has this become such a common question in each and every retail transaction these days? Whether I'm buying lunch, groceries, fuel, etc... - 'debit or credit' seems to have become the question we must always answer before we move forward with any transaction.

    Why do we always need to answer this stupid question, even if my card is clearly not a debit card, and even if, like me, you don't have a debit card.

    Here's why - because Congress, in its eminent wisdom, decided that debit card fees needed to be 'reformed' and were massively reduced - via the 'Durbin Amendment' - as part of last year's Dodd/Frank Financial 'Reform' bill.

    The Durbin Amendment is emblematic of the abject failure of Congress and the President to do the right thing. It would require the Federal Reserve Board to regulate the setting of debit card interchange fees so that they are “reasonable and proportional to processing costs”. It would allow merchants who take debit cards to impose surcharges or dollar limits on transactions, basically overriding the contracts that are now in place with the card networks. One doesn’t have to wade very far into the heated interchange debate to recognize just how bizarre this amendment is. If there is one financial services product that no one has argued, or could possibly claim was at the heart of the financial crisis, it is the debit card.

    Now does this help you and me as consumers? Not at all - we pay what we always paid, and don't see a bit of difference. But for the retailers, since debit card interchange fees (i.e. the fee the retailer pays the card issuer - for the convenience of accepting their card) are now capped at .12 (as opposed to 2-3% for credit cards) there is a massive difference.

    Doing the math on the ~$50 I paid for gas yesterday ($30 last summer - thanks for that Ben Bernanke!) those interchange fees would be something like, well $0.12 for a debit payment, and $1 - $1.50 for credit. No wonder that 'debit' option is always pre-checked - and no wonder that question gets asked so often at the register. That question can easily put an extra buck in the retailer's pocket every time I fill my tank or buy my groceries.

    Of course, none of this is 'free' - because all of this regulation needs to be paid for in the form of new government rules that need to be drafted, bureaucrats that need to be hired and other regulatory apparatus to enforce these supposedly beneficial laws.

    Not to mention that this legislation, while massively increasing the incentive for retailers to take debit cards, has significantly reduced the incentive for banks to offer them. So, in other words, our deficit increases, our taxes (or more likely, our kids' and their kids' taxes) as well as our bank fees (been offered Free Checking lately?) must eventually go up, and those low-income consumers who were paying 'extortionate' debit card fees that Dick Durbin, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were supposedly helping will, eventually, not be able to get a debit card at all.

    The consequences of the Durbin amendment are pretty easy to forecast sadly enough. Someone obviously needs to pay for the debit card system. There is no evidence that I know of that it is a massive generator of profits for anyone so price caps aren’t going to come out of profits. Regulations if they are put into place will simply shift the cost of the debit card system from the retailers to the consumers. At least in the near term the retailers will pocket a good portion of that money in the form of extra profits. Consumers shouldn’t expect to see price reductions. Banks are going to have to figure out how to recover the costs of offering debit cards and it is inevitable consumers will face higher banking fees in one form or another. It is also likely that banks will be less enthusiastic about debit cards and regain for love for the plain old paper check. 

    That's our government at work, spending future generations' tax dollars to solve 'problems' none of us realized we had, and causing each and every one of us little inconveniences - wasting our tax dollars and time, for zero benefit - each and every day.

    Think about that. And enjoy your 'Independence Day'.

    • Tweet
  • « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 18 19 Next »
  • About


    39153 Views
  • Archive

    • 2011 (116)
      • September (1)
      • August (6)
      • July (3)
      • June (5)
      • May (9)
      • April (10)
      • March (1)
      • March (19)
      • February (1)
      • February (24)
      • January (37)
    • 2010 (71)
      • December (28)
      • November (11)
      • October (2)
      • September (1)
      • August (13)
      • July (12)
      • April (1)
      • March (1)
      • February (1)
      • January (1)
    • 2009 (8)
      • December (5)
      • October (1)
      • September (2)

    Get Updates

    Subscribe via RSS
    TwitterFacebookBuzzLinkedInPicasaYoutubeTumblr
  • Sites I Like

    • Terametric
    • Focus Research
    • Enterprise Irregulars
    • StockTwits
    • The Reformed Broker