fredmcclimans.com - Latest Comments

Re: Mr. Heisenberg meets #BigData?

Philip Sheldrake — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:05:07 -0000

Thanks for the good read Fred. I think you're touching on real-time complex event processing here (eg, http://www.oracle.com/technetw...

Re: Klout, Big Data and the Meaning of “Opt Out”

Max Beggelman — Wed, 02 May 2012 12:08:06 -0000

It's most likely just an issue of minimal implementation - it simply deleted the public profile page which functioned as a centralized collection of his information, while still keeping his data. Obviously, they were never going to remove his data from the Klout system, but they probably only put the bare minimum of effort into their "privacy" features, and failed to account for all the places on their website that his data may show up.

It seems to be a common problem in businesses that depend on heavy data collection: the privacy features are only provided as a token effort to avoid bad press like this, rather than out of genuine concern for users' privacy, so mistakes like this are common. Typically they just yank the public profile or listing, but fail to do a full privacy assessment and ensure that the information has become completely inaccessible and won't show up elsewhere. Facebook, for example, is a chronic offender.

How to fix it? Honestly, I don't know. It's all public information, so it's nearly impossible to stop Klout from collecting it. Raising a complaint might work, but I doubt they'll make it a priority. Privacy laws in the EU might be strong enough to support a legal case, but not in the US. Businesses can collect your data, and as long as they're up-front about it and have a privacy policy, there really isn't anything you can do about it.

Re: Klout, Big Data and the Meaning of “Opt Out”

samfiorella — Wed, 02 May 2012 01:13:48 -0000

Well, let me thank you for raising my lack of respect for Klout and its metric-measurement (notice I did not say influence measurement) to utter disgust for their practices. I understood that this is a business for them and that they use the vanities of marketers to power their IPO/acquisition path but was blissfully unaware that they manufactured ghosts when you opted out in order to keep their engine running.

They don't invite people to opt in and so I never chose to be a hamster on their wheel. But I chose to jump off. To continue to scan my online activity after I've opted out and share their spin on that data publicly is downright disgusting and frankly, unethical.

But sheep will be sheep and I guess Klout-addicts will continue to follow them till they're led off the cliff.

Re: Klout, Big Data and the Meaning of “Opt Out”

Mark W. Schaefer — Tue, 01 May 2012 21:40:44 -0000

This is hilarious ... and sad. I guess I have to admit that I am the one who "discovered" Sam and his story for my book Return On Influence. The story was pretty much ripped off from the book by Wired (as was 75% of the article actually). Nevertheless, I feel some guilt for elevating Sam to poster child.

I really find this alarming that when a person opts-out that the ghost in the machine lives on. This certainly is a hint of what we will all be facing with big data -- we are a number to be manipulated by the machine, forever it seems. Even Orwell would be amazed at where this is all heading.

Thanks for the thought-provoking and well-written post.

Re: Disruption and (non) Innovation, Part II

Fred McClimans — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:31:47 -0000

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my post - I appreciate the feedback.

As you pointed out, Christensen's theory of Disruptive Innovation addresses and frames, fairly
well, many of the business trends and cycles that we see between emerging Davids and established Goliaths. But these posts are not intended to be a discussion of Disruptive Innovation in that sense.

Rather, I'm looking at disruption and innovation as unique, but often related, concepts and how they are applied by, or influence, individuals, businesses and social organizations. This includes how they can minimize the risk, or maximize the opportunities, that they present.

I'll leave the discussion on Disruptive Innovation for another time.

Re: Disruption and (non) Innovation, Part II

Fred McClimans — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:45:13 -0000

Hey Phil - I think what you are pointing to is really how certain environments can lead to more/better communication, exchanging of ideas, collaboration, etc. which serve as catalysts for innovative ideas to form and take root. In that sense, the use of strategies that create or leverage the right platform/ecosystem can definitely make innovation more likely. To flip it around, creating or using a business/development strategy that limits individuals can have the counter effect, and stifle creativity and innovation. I have a suspicion we'll be talking about this more...

Re: Disruption and (non) Innovation, Part II

thinkdisruptive — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:36:25 -0000

Your two articles together suggest that if you have read Christensen, you didn't understand any of it. Disruptive innovation is a specific type of innovation. It's a theory about markets, and how Davids emerge, seemingly from nowhere, to take on and defeat Goliaths. It describes why the incumbent (Goliath) is encumbered by their success and heretofore market dominance, and is unable to defend itself against the disruptor, even when they anticipate and see the market change coming.

Disruption and disruptive, as words on their own, obviously have more expansive meanings, but disruptive innovation has a single meaning, as a theory describing the process above, how and why it happens and the attributes shared by all disruptive innovations. It's value is in helping to predict when disruption is likely, and therefore useful for product design, investment, business modeling and marketing strategy. All the excess stuff that you describe does nothing but confuse, and is no better than the myriad startups who think being disruptive is a customer benefit (and who came to you saying they had a disruptive strategy).

If you want to discuss disruptive innovation, you should talk about the theory. If you believe the theory has failings, talk about the failings and why. It isn't helpful to overlay it with stuff that has nothing to do with the theory to try to explain why you don't like the language.

Re: Disruption and (non) Innovation, Part II

Phil Simon — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:04:21 -0000

Interesting post.

By definition, a strategy is not the same as an innovation.

True, but platform- and ecosystem-oriented strategies are more likely to result in innovations, right?

Re: Dealing with Corporate Chaos – The value of the right strategy

Jeff Wilson — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:30:38 -0000

Hi Fred,

First time commenter, long time reader.

Interesting insights particularly in light of J&J building crisis around their Baby Shampoo. The match that lit the fire in this case was a consumer advocacy group, not unlike what Green Peace did to Nestle a while ago. Now the fire builds with each consumer reaction and social share.

So far the folks at J&J are defending and denying; a poor strategy should the accusations turn out to be true. Defend and deny is great if its small, but on an issue like this that is so emotionally charged, the chaos/risk grows exponentially to affect not just baby shampoo, but all J&J products, their bottom line and ultimately share price.

It will be an interesting case live study to watch and ask the same questions you have raised here. I can certainly guarantee their competitors are watching and planning. The savvy ones will be creating their own strategies to take advantage of that weakness creating even more chaos for J&J.

What are your thoughts on that?

Jeff - Sensei

Re: Are We Ready to Add Cause to Social Check-Ins?

jayiaco — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:32:14 -0000

First, I'll specify that having lived in the mountains for a handful of years, I was technologically stunted (although I ran two blogs and a paid marketing company on Google Groups). Since returning to the real world I was slow to get in and now find my perfectly good blackberry to be a glorified rotary dial grandma phone with a typewriter function. And when I first tried 4square, I couldn't get into it. I don't use Facebook either evidencing my viewpoint not meaning necessarily anything bad for a company. That being said, here's my point/counterpoint.

I agree on the efficacy of such use for many social media platforms. If the sometimes comedic, sometimes dangerous Flash Mobs are possible, Flash Caring shouldn't be that much harder. If I just coined a phrase, I would like to trademark that now. I'm no Einstein and thereby lack the patent office insider info to get it done right now, so you can just act as my back up once it's stolen.

The disagreement is why 4square? Why not hit up elance.com for a programmer to throw together your framework and start from "scratch" (quotes are only being used since I don't personally believe in reinventing the wheel and most of the work is done for you). BOOM! FredSquare.com is born.There's probably a better name but its' a little catchy.

Anyway, the entire model can be the same as 4square for the most part (especially from a mobile aspect) and since it's about charity and caring, throw in a feature like Caringbridge.com to let people tell their story and promote each cause to their email lists of friends and family for you. Throw out all the "check-ins" for the sake of "check-ins". I don't care that Johnny is Mayor of Haagen Daas in in Bronxville unless they're raising money for something.

Maybe I've said too much. Do you have a link to start up VC firms?

Re: 5 Questions: The Value of Direct vs Indirect Influence

getlimed — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:22:34 -0000

So true. And yes, hopefully everyone will find a way to work together. It will be interesting to see how these areas of businesses restructure around this evolution into sm and content

Re: 5 Questions: The Value of Direct vs Indirect Influence

Fred McClimans — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:56:34 -0000

Thanks for the feedback and comment. You are right - social media and content planners will place an increasingly important role moving forward. Ultimately, I think that each of these will become unique sub-components of the IR/AR/PR/Mktg/etc. functions. Hopefully they will have a common coordinator to make sure that they have a common message (perhaps this is the ultimate "glue" that ties the various silos together?).

Re: 5 Questions: The Value of Direct vs Indirect Influence

getlimed — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:08:41 -0000

You could also add social media and content strategy planners to your list of Indirect Influencers. The casual style of social media makes their PR-esque influence more akin to a sort of brand friendship/connection.

Re: Are We Ready to Add Cause to Social Check-Ins?

Jesse de Agustin — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:01:26 -0000

Hi Fred,
I think of one "checking in" by means of saying "I'm here and here is why" as some kind of justification for said "check in" that is expressed through the social media landscape. I can also see this evolving to different instances - i.e. kids don't tell their parents they've found their friends at the movies, they simply "check in", provide justification and parents are notified like any other FourSquare check-in! I'm sure some parents would feel the "human" element of "communication" with their kids has gone awry. (Even though, according to "communications theory" the kids are still communicating.)

I do think your argument can evolve the check in - my only concern is that when people check in it seems that it is a "stream of consciousness" type of thinking. Currently people don't seem to (initially) tweet about why they're checking in to a location.....maybe they want food....I'll see people check in, (post to twitter) and subsequent tweets will give justification as to why they're there. Having people check in "remotely" is an interesting idea - perhaps we'd need a way to differentiate those who are "there" (for support, but not physically at the event) and those who are actually there. I can definitely see those who are at the event "remotely" contributing to a cause.

But creating "locations" from events, or causes can provide a resonating "call to action" and a meaningful way for people to provide justification for why they are at a particular place - and make that social event even more memorable - through interactions with people at different vantage points.

-Jesse

http://www.about.me/jesse7
linkedin.com/in/jessedeagustin

Re: 5 Properties of Influence You Need to Understand

Fred McClimans — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:39:57 -0000

Jessica - Glad to be in YOUR tribe. Thanks for the feedback. Influence is like the tide - it ebbs & flows and constantly changes based on both perspective and context (and it interpreted differently by each individual). I'm glad you enjoyed the post! - Fred

Re: 5 Properties of Influence You Need to Understand

Jessica Northey — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:13:15 -0000

Great post! thank you for sharing. really thought out and well worded! thanks for being in my tribe!

Re: 5 Properties of Influence You Need to Understand

Fred McClimans — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:37:31 -0000

Thanks Jeff. You are right - all to many think that by quantifying influence they can understand the nature of influence, yet that simply isn't the case. Your example of Situational Influence is very similar to what I would phrase Contextual Influence - both vary by time & situation, and there is no single "influential" entity in any situation, rather, there is typically a mixture of influential factors that shape our world. Understanding the underlying concepts of influence is just the beginning in being able to determine the "who, what, when, where & why" of events in our world today.

Thanks for your feedback - I think it is about time we sat across a table and tried to sort this mix out!

- Fred

Re: 5 Properties of Influence You Need to Understand

jeffthesensei — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:21:33 -0000

Hi Fred,

Great post and good to see you delving deep into the unknown for answers, or at least, damn good theories. As you know, the Nature of Influence holds a tremendous fascination for me and i believe is largely misunderstood, even by some of today's leading minds. My current exploration is on Situational Influence; a difficult but wondrously complex layer of influence that seems to be the gravitational pull for the ebb and flow you describe.

Good to have another adventurer on the journey.

To the journey!

Jeff - Sensei

Re: Who is influencing your next deal?

Fred McClimans — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:18:19 -0000

Nice point Alan. Taking it further, when considering who is influencing a deal, you also have to take into account the level of impact a particular individual/group may have at the various stages of the deal cycle. Your competitive influence matrix needs to involve more than two axis. Thanks, as always, for the feedback (that makes me think about the subject just a little bit deeper).

Re: Who is influencing your next deal?

Fred McClimans — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:14:12 -0000

Thanks Cheryl. You hit a key word - ecosystem. The buy/sell relationship is almost never a 1:1 relationship, it it built on the relationships of many (some obvious and some so deeply buried they'll never find the light of day!). Thanks for the feedback and support - Fred

Re: Who is influencing your next deal?

Cheryl Burgess — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:37:49 -0000

Fred,

Corporate 'ecosystems' are full of important individuals, whose impact on purchasing decisions is both pivotal and misunderstood. It is truly challenging and very important to know the key influencers.

Great insights!

Cheryl

Re: Who is influencing your next deal?

Alan Berkson — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:00:52 -0000

Like any force, for influence you need to understand the velocity (level of impact on decision) and direction (positive or negative).

Re: Who is influencing your next deal?

Fred McClimans — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:05:14 -0000

Thanks Lewis. Your "secret sauce" comment is one of the most important, yet often overlooked, ingredients in making any good deal (often because they don't realize the significance of being able to counter - or take advantage of - those that are influential in the business operations of their potential customer/partner). Of course you know what has to come next.... "Why an advisor can be your best negotiation tool?"

- Fred

Re: Who is influencing your next deal?

Lewis Poretz — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:20:32 -0000

Fred - love the way you break this topic down. Great chat today. Thanks for doing what you do....

The secret sauce ->> If you can figure out just who your prospective client is listening to...

Re: Professional Services: Do you know the difference?

Chris_Gaun — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:55:06 -0000

Excellent.