As they say in Thailand; Same! Same! but different.

I don’t think it’s taking over our lives as such they have just evolved into different technologies that help us communicate faster and further than before. Communication is an inherent human need and anything that facilitates that in a cheap and easy manner will be used in bulk as the word of mouth spreads.

But talking/texting/emailing/posting or any other form of communicating doesn’t take over our lives in the sense that it becomes all that we do. We’ve always done it. Since the time we drew on cave walls - we just do it differently now than we did in the past.

Evolution will by definition be the same

I liken what we now call ’social technology’ to that of the fixed line telephone and the fax (which were then just called telephones and faxes). Instead of having to travel to the other side of the globe to meet for business or write a letter that may take weeks to arrive you could communicate instantly.

• Print replaced the wall drawings and art.
• Email has replaced the fax.
• Mobile phones are replacing fixed lines (I haven’t had a fixed line in my home since 2002)
• Facebook is now changing how we email - when was the last time you organized a birthday party? did you email your friends or use a Facebook list of friends? I couldn’t tell you my best mates’ email address but can and frequently do use Facebook to communicate with him.
• Insert thousands of examples here…

So what we’re really seeing is the evolution of human communication enhanced by technology.

The etiquette is the same

If I call you names you will consider me as rude regardless of the medium. If you’re teleconferencing or videoconferencing then the rules are pretty much the same as if you see people face to face. If you’re broadcasting (YouTube) then the rules in the terms of how you speak are the same as when you did it via TV or the radio.

The only times I’ve seen a need to be careful is with the tone of your written word. I have blogged, emailed and written books on my subject and had some pretty heated arguments because in written form what may be an innocent oversight on your part could be taken as an insult by someone else.

My rule is simple. If you wouldn’t say it to the persons face then don’t be a keyboard warrior.

Social technologies can spread ideas, but that is different!

Of course if you’re trying to do something like spread an idea then the rules are different but aren’t the rules of spreading ideas different no matter what technology you use?

This is of course the part that all marketers are trying to tap into but the rules of etiquette remain the same.

Traditionally we have spread ideas by word of mouth. You use articles in newspapers, publish books or speak at events. You might have tried spreading an idea through a TV show or documentary. Ideas are not advertisements in the general sense, they require more explanation. In his book “unleashing the ideavirus” Seth Godin suggests that marketers don’t utilize permission marketing (aka pull marketing) and discusses how they still (in his words) “continue to throw huge sums of money at old-fashioned interruption marketing”.

It is an obvious point to make that we can use social technologies to spread good ideas and attract people to us rather than try to force adverts at them. This I suppose is what the original question was alluding to but I am answering the question as it was posed to me.

Seth’s book was one of the only ways back in 2001 you could effectively spread an idea. He now gives his books away for free as PDFs and reaches far more people, thus spreading his idea much further. Indeed very recently Seth announced that he will no longer publish books in the traditional way.

This may be the way marketers have to embrace spreading their ideas in the future but again it’s an evolution of communication technology, not an evolution of etiquette.

So it is the same rules as before. But different.

Am I missing something? Opinions as usual welcome.

Competitors are of course a part of the competitive environment but focusing your energy on trying to “pinch their customers” is in my view a complete waste of time. Even comparing your data with them is largely irrelevant. Competitors evolve in different ways to your business so attempting to “defeat” their numbers doesn’t mean anything, even if you do outperform them. Outperforming the competition is of course good especially in terms of market share, but primarily it means you’re doing something right with your customers not that you’re taking away business from your competitors. The only important information you can find out about your competition revolve around opportunities for you to act. If you can’t take an action on information it’s simply nice to know.

Competitive Intelligence starts with your customer

To me, competitive data (the core information that leads to intelligent action) examines the whole marketplace. The whole marketplace is your entire ecosystem and it starts with your customers and prospects. That’s worth repeating, competitive data starts with your customer or prospect. Not your competitor. Your customer is much more important to listen to than your competition. There is perhaps a new buzzword for what I call using competitive intelligence in start ups and it’s called the “lean start-up“. In a nutshell lean simply means speed. Rapidly testing of ideas on the market, learning, listening and reacting to your customers and prospects. This leads to a product or service development approach based on market reality not gut feeling.

Reality of the situation

Competitive intelligence is about the reality demonstrated by the marketplace. It starts with what your customers want and what you can find out about their needs - as well as what else they buy and why from your competition.

Then there are numerous other realities to take into account;

• Legal/governmental - in the analytics industry there are upcoming changes to EU legislation for instance
• Global/local economy - this effects us all greatly as seen in the recent recession
• Market culture - doing business in the UK is very different to Finland, but also less obvious things like marketing to a cultural niche
• Distributers & suppliers - how are they helping or hindering your efforts?
• Other industries - Extremely important to look at how different industries interact with each other
• Technology - What are the new technologies rising to prominence in and around your field?
• Competitors - What do they do that you can’t and why? What do your customers buy from them and why? How do their methods differ to yours?

Looking at the big picture of competitive intelligence allows you to take better decisions for the future and measuring that success or failure is what analytics is all about.

Looking outside the Analytics bubble

I read today that by 2020 70% of people worldwide with an internet connection will interact with social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter. This is pretty important for anyone trying to reach people - directly that statistic has nothing to do with my industry (analytics) but indirectly it’s extremely important if we want to be in business over the next few years to determine ways to measure social media interaction. One of Kwantic’s offerings is around this field and it’s an area we expect to grow in the next few years as more businesses realize this important shift in ways to do research and development, commerce or customer support.

Nokia and Apple

Another example relevant to Finland is Nokia and Apple. The iPhone has risen to prominence in the Smartphone market. The technology for browsing the web on the iPhone is currently stronger right now than anything Nokia have, as are the applications and the usability of the phone in terms of managing payments to Apple. You could say that Apple has especially focused on the markets where they were strongest and know the culture (USA and western Europe). In addition due to Apple patents (legal) Nokia can’t simply copy the technology to their own devices (though that is now been countered by Nokia who think Apple have infringed some of their own patents).

However for Nokia and the smartphone market I see this as a huge opportunity not a problem. All Apple have done is shown how the services and device model can work, something Nokia have been working towards for years. Nokia still have the best business phones in the world. The e71 is still, 3 years since it came to the market, one of the best business phones I have owned. In my opinion it still outperforms the iPhone in terms of connectivity, running call conferences and handling even simple things like calendars and the sending/receiving business contacts (I have owned both phones so I know what I am talking about). They also have Ovi, that with clever crowdsourcing could easily rival the App store and if they develop a business phone which also matches the iPhone for web browsing and application usability they have extremely strong market growth opportunities not only in the west but also in the emerging markets of Africa and Aisa - where they are very strong.

Here is a perfect example of where Nokia could worry about Apple’s numbers and market share but to do so would be counterproductive. What they should worry about is what customers and prospects want in the Smartphone category, which is I believe what they are doing.

Back to the Insight Model

The insight model was designed to show how combining customer data (user experience), with clickstream data (web) and taking into account the competitive environment (outside your company bubble) can lead to intelligent action. Action is the key. In all cases if you can’t act on the data it’s simply nice to know. Actions at least lead to measurable results and they in turn should lead to new actions. That leads to continuous forward motion that drives your success. Looking at competitors alone is only a small part of the whole discipline.

I will be helping with hosting the 1st day and sitting on a panel on the second. I hope to see you there.

eMetrics Stockholm 2010

Eric, in his recent post about Coremetrics hit on a point that resonates with me because it correlates with what I’ve seen in our marketplace.

Eric said and I quote;

For web analytics to truly “grow up” and mature into the valuable contributor to the entire business we all know (or at least suspect) it can be, it has to become a greater priority for senior leadership.

In my book I discuss this in the 8 point process to get to the “cult of analytics” you need to have top executive buy in and the vision to steer the ship with analytics at the core of this vision. So no disagreement here on that. I don’t think however that point is emphasized enough.

Analytics is hard because people don’t get on board. Senior management jumps on board when things get done and I think the biggest problem with analytics today is that the insights found don’t lead to actions or outcomes. Generally speaking they lead to more questions unless you have a superstar working for you. I don’t think IBM is going to make a difference to the “getting things done” part because their focus is selling IT - a typically long, difficult and drawn out process. I agree with Brian here. I do think however we’re going to see BI incorporated more into analytics process (so I also agree with Stephane).

I tend to think the direction we need to move towards is competitive or commercial intelligence (true CI) which is a mix of all the things everyone has been talking about. It has elements of BI, it has elements of web analytics, it is used for marketing and it is used by senior management to make decisions. I agree with Eric here that you need more than one tool to run your business. Right now we’re running visualizations in Kwantic that incorporate data from dozens of different data silo’s using different API’s and imported data, because it’s the only way to be able to find out where to prioritize taking action that is profitable.

Competitive intelligence isn’t just about using Quantcast or Google Trends it’s much more in depth. For me it boils down to culture, structure, data sources, and process. The process has to be the part that has actions as an outcome otherwise the whole thing fails and I think this is where analytics needs to go.

It’s not a full blown certification, that’s what the WAA certification is for, but I’m hoping we can create something that thoroughly tests the knowledge required of an analyst to solve problems and produce actionable information. If we succeed which I am sure we will we will have a test that allows you as an analyst to determine if you have the knowledge required to take certification later if you so desire.

So the point of this post is quite simple. Who wants to help? If so drop me a line, tweet me, call me (+358 50 343 5159), comment below or send a carrier pigeon with your details tied to it’s foot and let me know how you can help.

Because this reply got so long and because it’s moved on from me being critical to me asking for something I decided the reply to Jim and the WAA warranted its own post.

Regards the current certification. Jim Novo convinced me that the certification as it stands with a proctored exam has its place.

So on that score I have been convinced to change my position.

I do however still have a couple of wishes and am still disappointed that the WAA have not addressed what I thought was the most obvious problem with the current WAA professional membership. And it’s not just me, I’m speaking for at least most of Finlands membership and have seen agreement in some way or another from members in Sweden, Belgium, France, the UK and Hungary.

Wish number 1)

I would still like a lighter certification as part of current membership fees (or a very small admin fee on top) that can be taken online.

The deeper meaning of this? A couple of things.

1) When do we get the certification in Japanese? or Finnish? or insert your non english language here? Petri Mertanen (WAA finnish country chair) pointed it out and being in Finland I can tell you that this is a problem for people when you’re asking for a sizable investment. Everyone would prefer to take a test in their mother tongue but it’s understandable that it’s not possible. We don’t expect the WAA to translate everything into 50 odd languages. But we do expect to be catered for as well as is possible in Finland or Japan or even the more remote states in the USA (as one US member pointed out to me - the US is a big country and not everyone can get to the big cities). A light version of the certification means you won’t have to spend a lot of money on the test itself and travel to an exam (even if it’s only  to a selected city in your country) to take it.

2) I believe there is a much bigger market need for this than a proctored exam and also believe it would strongly add value to the membership fee which for all the good intent of the WAA is right now worthless outside of the USA. In the US there is much more value, for a start there are Basecamp training programs, many events that are run and most importantly many more members. If we can double or triple worldwide memberships then the same kind of publicity, advocacy and interest can be brought about in smaller markets. We once got 300 people to a seminar in Helsinki and there are only 30 WAA members. What does that tell you? That interest is there but it’s not worth being a member of the WAA.

Jim has argued that a light version devalues the certification. I want to suggest a way of framing the light versus proctored versions of the certifications.

The Light Version (Web Analytics Association Certified Member)

This Individual has met the WAA requirements to attain recognition as a certified Web Analytics member of the WAA. The WAA certification means the individual has successfully passed an online unmoderated exam covering many web analytics proficiencies. Certification is not an endorsement by WAA, but only an indication that the certified individual has met the certification criteria.

The Proctored Version (Web Analytics Association Certified Professional)

This Individual has met the WAA requirements to attain recognition as a certified Web Analytics professional. The WAA professional certification means the individual has successfully passed a proctored exam covering many web analytics proficiencies. Certification is not an endorsement by WAA, but is a very strong indication that the certified individual has met the certification criteria.

But I am not disappointed with the WAA for this reason, it’s a shame that I didn’t make the cut, yes, but it’s a fair voting system and my wife won’t mind that I don’t have to give up 20 hours a month of free time to help the WAA. No, what I am consistently disappointed about is the fundamental lack of value provided by the WAA and the latest certification process is another glaring example.

What also surprises me is the lack of business acumen displayed by the WAA. If this was free as part of the membership fee it would boost memberships worldwide fivefold but no, they decide to remain shortsighted.

So firstly lets look at the combined price of becoming WAA certified.

1. You need to be a WAA member. $199.
2. You then need to pay  a discounted for members $635 to take the exam (excluding the time you need to study to pass).
3. You then need to travel to an event like the eMetrics to physically take the exam. Average cost (minus WAA discount) $1200 plus travel/accom $1000.

That’s a whopping $3034 without the considerable time investment you will have to make in order to pass. It gets worse though. Not only do you have to invest the initial $3K you then the rumor is that you have to renew every two years at $635 per year. For no other reason than to boost WAA coffers apparently.

Now correct me if I am wrong. The WAA is supposed to be a non-profit organization right? Clearly they must be getting kick-backs from the eMetrics and associated events to do the exams there but that limits the memberships to those that can afford to take not only the time out to travel but also fork out roughly the price of a Rolex watch to get certified.

When I joined the WAA it was primarily because I believed we could set the standards, we could set the bar as to what an analyst should be and what the measurements should be. The people in the WAA have done a fantastic job creating standards, great work went into those and continues to do so.

The certification is no different. The program to create this started in 2007. I know because I was involved very early on for the first few months before a lack of time/resources meant I had to drop out of the creation process. But a big hat-tip goes to Niel Bornman for having the energy to drive this for three years and Jim Novo who has been heavily involved with all the education work that the WAA does. Do they get paid for this? No. So my view is, why should the WAA? It’s volunteer work that has created this exceptional piece of educational material.

In my opinion the WAA is slapping its members in the face. It should be free for any member to take the certification. It should also (even if an extra charge is associated with the certification) be available online and the fact that it isn’t right now is the biggest problem I have with it. We live in an age where I can talk to someone in a remote island at the other side of the world for free over video conferencing and you’re telling me that this has to be done face to face at an event in a selected city? C’mon guys this is really taking the piss!

So is it just me? Is the ranting brit just doing his usual WAA bashing or do I have a point?

Sentiment or attitude analysis is about understanding the mood of the person making a comment or post about a topic.

It’s been my opinion for some time that you can’t measure sentiment with any real confidence in the results, at least when you’re relying on the results of tools. Jim brilliantly illustrated this by showing some sentiment analytics from Twitrratr.

As you can see from the red strikeouts over 50% of the comments here could be categorized as falling into a different category.  Many of the negative comments about Obama here are actually positive but because they talk about “lose” or “won’t” (as in might lose or won’t win) they have been categorised as negative sentiment.

They clearly aren’t negative, they are actually positive “Tod sez Obama could still lose pa, ohio and fla and still get to 270, that’s a favourable playing field” is a positive slant saying Obama could win without those states. It was listed as negative. Twice!

The point here is that even humans can’t agree in many cases on what’s negative and what’s positive in terms of sentiment so how do we expect a machine to do it?

My advice is to treat “buzz” or “sentiment” analysis in a qualitative way. In other words manually analyze whether it’s good, bad or indifferent! Kwantic for instance developed its own in house tools to randomly select comments around key terms.

Our tools randomly select comments and then we use one of our market research professionals to score the context of this random sample. The tool collects enough comments to ensure statistical significance is there and our analysts do the rest.

To me this is the only way to analyze sentiment correctly because only a human can put it into context, get the language right, understand slang and give an accurate picture of what people are discussing.

Comments as always welcome!

Personally I find standing up in front of hundreds of people a nerve wracking experience every time I do speaking engagements so I can only imagine what it is like to put yourself in front of 19,000 people including the Finnish president Tarja Halonen. If she was nervous when she went out there it didn’t show as she got on with the job of battling and eventually defeating the Swedes.

I don’t know much about hockey truth be told but I do know about character, fight and spirit. Finns call it Sisu. Terhi and the Finnish team had plenty of that (as well as considerable skill) twice going ahead with superb conversions and twice being pegged back by a somewhat fortunate Sweden, at least that’s how I saw it.   When sudden death extra time ensued and the Finnish came out they looked hungrier, faster, fresher and far more dangerous than their Swedish counterparts. Suddenly it was all over. Victory was theirs and the celebrations began both on the ice and in the bars in Helsinki!

Salue! and enjoy the moment Terhi, they don’t come around too often and I know like anything else good in life it was hard earned and thoroughly deserved.

Let me first say I have no problem with that approach, especially in immature markets. It has served us well for the first 5 years of the WAA but I just feel in certain cases it is outgrowing this method. I don’t dispute the good work done to date by Jim, Aurelie, Rene, Miles, Dennis, Stephane and a ton of others I haven’t mentioned but do you really think that going forward a global organization based in the USA can service other countries as well as the US?

We had 300 people at the last WAA event in Finland and we got 2 sign-ups for the €1000 or so that was spent by the WAA on the event according to Petri - Finlands country manager.

Is that a good ROI for the WAA? I would argue it’s a very poor return on both the Finnish WAA funds for the year 2009 and for the global WAA. A CPA of €500 per sign up. So where is the mechanism to activate that crowd? How do we get them involved with the local community beyond free events? Where is the benefit for the WAA?

In Finland at least the groundwork of awareness has been generated (300 people is a good size), that’s the first job of a country group or country manager but when you get to a certain size you need more local organization to activate things and that costs real money to take it to the next level. That is the brutal reality.

A global organization can work if it is prepared to heavily invest in local operations. Usually global giants follow the model where the most successful countries are the ones where the steady funds are directed with smaller “exploratory” funds directed to high potential markets.

The WAA can’t do the same thing as it’s a non-profit, they simply don’t have the resources. There are only 2 ways to generate finance.

1) The WAA as it stands now funds operations. The question is how do you allocate budget? Kalle Heinonen submitted a budget request based on reality in 2008 to really build the Finnish membership and it was refused on the grounds that what we’d asked for was simply too high.

2) We generate local funding when certain levels of maturity are reached in different markets. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, France the UK and Spain could be focusing their efforts on supporting local memberships while paying a percentage of subscription fees back to the WAA in order to use the brand and have access to global standards, materials etc.

I am not trying to be controversial for the sake of it, all I am saying is that when a certain level of maturity is reached in the local market you need an increased level of professionalism and finance to run things. I am not saying an EUWAA would help either. I think it needs to be a kind of mature market by mature market kind of franchise.