A few months ago, I went shopping for clothes in a real, brick-and-mortar store at the mall. I don’t particularly enjoy shopping, and my experience inspired a blog post about the future of brick-and-mortar retail that has now become one of my most-viewed/linked posts ever. In it, I basically pointed out that the physical store shopping experience hasn’t really changed in decades, and that that’s a huge problem for retailers catering to consumers in the midst of a massive shift in buying behavior.
The retail sector broadly is grappling with any number of new ways to connect to customers digitally: the now-table stakes ecommerce offering, to social presence, to in-store analytics and beacons and much, much more. Some retailers have embraced this new paradigm of selling enthusiastically, while others have ignored or even fought it. While this is often framed as a cultural issue (cue “legacy retailers resist change!” lede), I’ve long suspected that it often has a lot more to do with incentives and business strategy.
Since I wrote that post, Apple Pay was released to much acclaim (my take here). The reception to Apple Pay in the retail world has created some key signals that I believe are relevant to everyone in ecommerce and marketing tech today. Namely: how important are building relationships with customer experiences, really? And what are each company’s priorities for its own (inevitable) digital transformation? Apple Pay has helped answer these questions and gives us some clues about how different retailers see themselves relating to their customers.
Two pieces of analyst research have hit the wires recently that confirm what many of us already knew: no one really knows which way is up or down in marketing tech.
The Forrester Enterprise Marketing Software Suites Wave (thank you for not saying “marketing cloud”) and Gartner’s Integrated Marketing Management Magic Quadrant both hit within a week of each other last month, and have now created a lot more confusion than they resolved. While these reports aren’t technically direct comparators (or, for their firms, competitors), you sure wouldn’t know that by reading their respective descriptions of the market, which sound substantially identical.
Between the hair-splitting that included/excluded vendors from participation and the obvious heavy influence of vendor marketing in report rankings, it remains to be seen how this research will be received. Nevertheless, these conflicting reports suggest two things to me: first, the analyst community continues to struggle to comprehensively understand the burgeoning marketing tech space; and second, that a crowded market space has promoted vendor marketing near the top as a source of information.
Two weeks ago (before taking some vacation), I wrote a critique of Glenn Greenwald’s recent TED talk on the importance of privacy in which I accused him of pillorying a silly straw man argument instead of substantively considering the issue. Having had some time to reflect, I feel like it’s only fair for me to better articulate my own view on the actual question that I wish Greenwald had used his platform to address: how is privacy going to work in our modern, wired society, and what will it actually mean for us in practical terms?
In preparation for a speaking engagement I have coming up, I spent some time recently organizing my thoughts on these questions. Like everything else on this blog, they are a work in progress; but here’s a summary of what I’ve come up with so far. In short: individual privacy is certainly important, but not to the exclusion of other public interests as well.
An example of some of the hard-hitting questions at the TED Global conference.
Last week, the TEDGlobal 2014 conference was held down in Rio de Janeiro. Among the global luminaries delivering the brief nuggets of info-tainment that has made TED so famous (and somewhat infamous) was Glenn Greenwald, the journalist and erstwhile attorney, who rose to fame last year when he and Laura Poitras helped leak classified documents from the NSA with the help of Edward Snowden.
Greenwald’s speech was largely a spirited argument against the familiar trope that “if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear” from government surveillance. Greenwald attributes this argument to people like Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose respective companies he likened to Bentham’s Panopticon, the home monitors in Owell’s 1984, and even the Abrahamic god for the pervasiveness of their products’ visibility into their users’ lives. In Greenwald’s view, not only is this argument deeply cynical when deployed by wealthy technology tycoons who have the resources to essentially purchase their own privacy, but it’s also inimical to modern notions of liberty.
Of course, he’s correct on both accounts – but it’s utterly irrelevant, because Greenwald’s speech was also a classic example of skilled rhetoric: presenting an odious straw man as his opponent, making obvious points cutting it down, and claiming a moral high ground with maximum indignation to boot. (My high school debate coach would’ve scolded me for such an obvious strategy.) In other words, Greenwald swung at a softball. Here’s the real, and more challenging, argument that Greenwald could’ve used his global platform at TED to grapple with.
Some pretty interesting news came out of the Salesforce/ExactTarget Connections event in Indianapolis the other week.
The first, nearest and dearest to my own heart, was the announcement of new web and mobile analytics features in the “ExactTarget Marketing Cloud,” as well as new enhancements to the Journey Builder application, which uses Salesforce CRM data to personalize mobile application experiences. Interestingly, SFDC/ET has chosen not to brand their digital analytics module. It’s simply an “embedded” (read: standard) feature in the ET Marketing Cloud. Analytics, once again, as table stakes to the marketing platform.
The second, and potentially more groundbreaking, item was less of a formal announcement than it was a clever form of “leak” from Marc Benioff via Twitter:
There on Wednesday, October 15th, the first major product keynote of Dreamforce 2014 is titled “Analytics Cloud Keynote.” Yep – Salesforce is about to (formally) get into the analytics business.
These developments are directly related, and aimed squarely at incumbents like Adobe, IBM and Google (in different ways).
Recently, I’ve been asked for career advice from a couple of undergraduates and recent grads who are interested in technology and analytics. I’m always happy to talk with these folks – it wasn’t so long since I was in their shoes, and in the years since, I’ve enjoyed the benefit of some very generous professionals who were happy to share their experience and career advice with me. I believe it’s very important to pass the favor forward.
One big question that I hear a lot is: should I get an MBA? (Sometimes, another graduate school program is mentioned, but the MBA is far and away the most frequent.) If so, when? And from what school? Do I have any tips or advice for getting into School X?
There are any number of viewpoints on this question: myriad online MBA applicant forums, recruiting networks, and a whole cottage industry of application and GMAT consultants (not to mention the test prep textbooks). I am, of course, not a part of any of those, and as such hold a relatively contrarian view of the grad school question.
Nevertheless, my advice comes down to a supremely unsatisfying: it depends. A person’s suitability for an MBA program depends on a lot of factors which I’ll try to outline in this post. Here goes.
Sometime over the summer, Facebook officially surpassed IBM in market capitalization:
I’ve been thinking about this rather momentous shift in market value for a while now. There are interesting business dynamics behind it, which I’ll address in a moment; but what I’m particularly fascinated by is how the surge in market valuation of this (very) young company reflects the rapid maturation, and bright promise, of the social web itself.
It’s increasingly clear that the consumer web of the future is being built around what we today call “social” frameworks. This is being driven by two key trends:
- Changing user behavior that builds on the network effects that social platforms encourage; e.g. as more and more of my friends and family adopt Facebook as a central node for communication/coordination/sharing, I too communicate/share more; and
- The steady increase in new users, across diverse markets, quarter on quarter.
This is key to the major social companies’ strategy to create virtuous cycles within peer groups: capture more new users, offer them appealing new services (all free!), and get those users to “engage,” which exerts greater pressure on the rest of the peer network to also join the service. There is abundant evidence that this strategy is working (though certainly more for some companies than others)
As social scales, in both terms of “breadth” (market penetration) and “depth” (pervasiveness into the web experience), how will it change? And what does this suggest about the social web just a few years away?
What Apple unveiled at their big September 9th event was, without hyperbole, revolutionary. I’m not talking about the watch (I remain a skeptic there). I mean Apple Pay, the company’s new mobile payments service.
Let me go on record: Apple Pay is a big, huge deal. Most of the early reviews/criticism have focused primarily on its applications for in-store purchases (and indeed, Tim Cook cited big retailers like Disney, Macy’s, McDonald’s, Whole Foods and, of course, Apple itself as examples), but the real implications – and biggest value – of Apple Pay actually go much, much further than that.
Apple Pay really represents Apple’s strongest move yet into online commerce and identity brokerage. It’s a sharp elbow in the ribs of Google and Facebook (in different ways), and a beautiful example of some of the smartest strategy in the industry. It’s also a clear call to action for merchants and marketers: true mobile commerce is nearly here. Start getting ready. Now.
More after the jump.
I recently wrote a post about how SaaS and mobile technology have completely changed the landscape for enterprise productivity. It’s just another example of how “software is eating the world” – in that case, untethering the means of “doing work” from traditional modalities (like a perpetual license OS and hardware stack). What I want to talk about today is how we’ve effectively untethered productivity not only from how it used to be done, but also, increasingly, where.
In the last several years, we’ve seen tremendous growth in cloud-based productivity software: everything from CRM to marketing tech to bread-and-butter tools like word processing and spreadsheets. This is opening up new use cases that just weren’t possible before, driving prices down, and drastically changing the way many organizations collaborate. But it has also had another effect whose impact has just begun: changing the way companies think about localized office environments, versus remote working.
In the same way that industrial-era concepts like “punching the time card” or “being on your lunch break” don’t really fit the reality of the world many of us live in today, the traditional office-worker model is quickly tracking towards obsolescence. The arguments for it are mostly driven by executives’ traditional cultural choices rather than business requirements – not unlike wearing a suit and tie to the office used to be. In the same way, I believe we’re living in the twilight days of the centralized office working model.
Even for major vendors, the marketing technology space can seem like a confusing place sometimes.
Broadly speaking, I see ever-increasing numbers of three types of “martech” vendors: highly focused point solutions; mostly point solutions whose marketing overstates what their solution specializes in; and the truly integrated suites. Vendor name recognition increases accordingly: in the first category, you have all of these guys (good luck keeping track). By the end, you’re left with the familiar names: Adobe, IBM, Salesforce, Oracle, etc. (Check out my high-level tally of big vendor acquisitions.) Keeping track of who does what has become harder and harder.
Every year, more and more companies realize they’re outgrowing their basic tools and want to explore what else is possible to elevate their marketing; or they want to improve or change strategy in a specific tactical area. But the cacophony of marketing tech vendors results in both confusion and paralysis of analysis, and it’s generally a mess. Leaders in these companies often have a simple, common sense question: “where do we begin?”
I’m going to propose an answer to that question.