Vivek Wadhwa doesn’t lack opinions–and this makes him extremely fun to watch. Check out this recent video of him describing social commerce site Groupon on Bloomberg West. In his words, it’s a Ponzi scheme.

The interesting thing about the video is that, afterward when other experts were asked to comment on the “P” word, they all demurred. No one wanted to go down that road. This doesn’t make Wadhwa wrong. Guests on TV shows aren’t supposed to take middle-of-the-road stances.

But them’s fightin’ words.

Simon Says

By and large, Web 2.0 companies have much more sound business models and actual revenue streams, especially in comparison the vast majority of its 1990s counterparts. But an $8 billion valuation for LinkedIn? $70 billion for Facebook?

Feedback

Anyone else think that this is a bit high? Haven’t we seen this show before?

Ivan Schrank: Youth is wasted on the young.
Roger Greenberg: I’d go further. I’d go: ‘Life is wasted on people.’

Now, I really didn’t agree with either sentiment when I saw the movie a few weeks ago. I was reminded of it again for some reason while recently attending a local party. I found myself in a conversation with an extremely bright woman about SEO and social media.

Long story short: we became friends on Facebook and the woman is much younger than I had thought. Barely out of college, I was amazed that she is able to comprehend concepts lost on people twice her age. She gets the importance of Google page ranks, keywords, backlinks, and the like. Beyond knowing what these are, she knows that utilizing them effectively–much less mastering them–takes time, money, and effort.

Yes, this woman is wise beyond her years, especially in contrast to the two types of SEO characters in the last few months:

• Those who fail to understand the importance of it it.
• Those who think that it’s a box to be checked.

Beyond SEO

Beyond SEO, though, I could be talking about something else, say social media. Many small business owners just don’t get it–or think that setting up a Facebook page means that they’re “doing” social media.

They’re not.

Of course, if these people just let it go, that would be fine. Except they don’t. They erroneously think that SEO is a myth or social media is all hype because they’re not doing either right. Yes, WordPress plug-ins can expedite things, but installing a little code will not catapult a small business to the top of popular searches.

Simon Says

Heed the following rule and you’ll be better off: If you want more out of something, put more into it.

Feedback

What say you?

Phil Simon on One on One with Steve Adubato from Phil Simon on Vimeo.

Phil Simon on One on One with Steve Adubato from Phil Simon on Vimeo.

In case you missed it, Google announced In-Page Analytics. I started playing around with it and it looks pretty neat. This looks a bit like heat maps, offered by sites like Squidoo. So many toys, so little time…

Back in November, I completed my switch to a WordPress site and my only complaint is that I waited so long. I have become a bit of  WordPress nut over the last few months, obsessed with different tweaks, plug-ins, and widgets. It can be very addicting.

It’s not all roses, though. At least for me, the problem with having so many website options parallels “white board” software development. More often than not, I’d argue that in both cases there are major benefits to restrictions and parameters. Take away practical limitations, and it’s almost hard to decide on what to do, how to do it, and where to put it.  And this is with a committee of one (me). Imagine a team of five people, even with relatively similar viewpoints. Can someone say “creative differences”?

Too Many Options

I’m hardly the first to write this, but colors, font sizes, layouts, column widths, and the like are quite important on web sites. A recent post by Jim Connolly does a great job of explaining why these things matter so much. Connolly cites the benefits of the Headway WordPress theme, and I’ll admit that it does look pretty cool. Still, I shudder to think about being able to easily alter anything and everything. It’s akin to going to the supermarket and having to decide among 50 different types of potato chips or orange juice.

Remember that most people don’t like having to figure out where everything is upon revisiting your site. Facebook’s redesigns have met with, at best, mixed results.

Simon Says: The Balance Between Too Busy and Too Simple

My primary complaint with many websites is that they’re too busy. I won’t call out any by name here, but we’ve all seen them. When compared with particularly chaotic sites, give me simplicity any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

But there is such a thing as “too simple.” I know of sites that lack core functionality expected and even required these days, such as search bars. Yes, I know that I can use Google to search within a site. It’s sad when I have to resort to that, though. Adding a search widget or snippet of code isn’t terribly hard and, to be sure, the squeeze is worth the juice.

Also, as Connolly points out in his post, you’ll never make everyone happy. Don’t try. I’d argue that the best sites use their real estate wisely and don’t constantly make major changes to layouts. As for truly innovative layouts and designs, they’re few and far between. Check out the new blog of my developer, Shiri Amram.

Feedback

Where do you stand on the trade-off between simplicity and busyness? Which parts of sites these days are essential and which are annoying? Are you an tinkerer like me?

Like many people these days, I have been following Chris Brogan’s recent iPad problems. Given the recent hacks on his site, I doubt that it’s his biggest problem these days. At least for Chris there’s a silver lining with being so popular: His loyal followers are helping him as much as they can. (Go community!)

iPad Issues

A few weeks ago, I complained about the iPad’s lack of multi-tasking. Along these lines, Chris has pointed out some compatibility issues with different applications relating to word processing and presentations, both of which are critical to a high-profile speaker like him. These have frustrated Chris and, based on reading his posts, they would drive me nuts as well. (As my friends know, I’m hardly the most patient person in the world. There. I’ve said it.)

Then yesterday I listened to an interesting podcast with my friend Scott Berkun on the “boring” future of user interfaces. Scott questions why many people unnecessarily complain about traditional UIs and platforms. Aren’t our existing ones good enough? What specifically is so deficient about mouses and keyboards? Are they preventing you from doing something in particular?

I started asking myself the following questions:

• Am I becoming permanently ingrained using “my” technologies in a certain way? Like many, I was outraged at the new UI for MS Office 2007.
• Am I looking for reasons to reject new technologies, applications, and versions–especially when they’re not essential and very different?
• Technology-wise, how many things can one try (much less effectively use) on a regular basis?
• Is this just prudence? (I can’t tell you how glad I am that I never upgraded to Microsoft Vista.)

Now I know that this isn’t just me. More than a few people have told me that they’ve struggled without a “right click” button on Apple computers.

Simon’s Second Law of Technology

All of this leads me to my second law: Change becomes harder the longer that you work with existing technologies. This accompanies my first law: Never buy the first version of anything.

Feedback

What do you think? Are you finding change harder as you get older and more accustomed to doing things in a certain way? With so many new things out there, are there limits to how many technologies and toys that you can digest?

“This is like déjà vu all over again.”

- Yogi Berra

Last week, I railed against sites that appeared to be stuck in the 1990s. In my view, many sites lack a compelling reason (read: content) for people to ever come back. It’s something that I’ve discussed with quite a few people lately.

Against this backdrop, I recently read an interesting post detailing the six reasons that companies are resisting social media. I’m a little surprised that more organizations haven’t gotten with the program. According to some numbers I’ve seen, something like 80% of organizations don’t use social media at all. What’s more, according to a Robert Half International study (admittedly a whopping seven months old), 54% of companies ban their employees from using social media at work.

Haven’t we been here before?

Does anyone else remember the discussions that took place in many business circles in the mid- to late-1990s? I have vivid recollections of many senior people doubting that their organizations even needed a web presence. Period.

Fast forward to today. I can’t help but think of the following questions:

• Have you heard anyone make the “websites don’t matter” argument (sans intoxicants) in the last five years?
• Do you see any parallels between that period and the inception of social media?
• Is everything old new again?

Photo by Cwithe , used under the Creative Commons license.

I don’t know how to accurately categorize the following story. I can tell you two things, though:

• it’s completely true
• it offends my business sensibilities

Background

A guy from a company that makes project management software contacted me on via my site to discuss writing and content. Let’s call him Steven for the purposes of this post. I offer these services on my site and I was thinking to myself, “Maybe I have scored a paid writing gig.” Ka-ching, right?

Nope. It turns out that this ostensibly intelligent guy had an entirely different idea. Y’all ready for this?

After a few emails, Steven and I set up a time to talk. Steven told me that his company employs a full-time writer of some sort to blog about project management issues. In a nutshell, Steven wanted me to resyndicate his company’s content, of course linking back to his company’s site. Below is the crux of conversation to the best of my memory:

Me: At the risk of being entirely selfish, “What’s in it for me?”

Steven: Well, you get content on your site.

Me: My site is vendor-agnostic. I’m an independent consultant, speaker, and writer. That aside for the moment, would I be able to post my content on your site if I agreed to your proposal?

Steven: No, we don’t really allow that.

My cynical but probably accurate translation of Steven’s “pitch”: Will you help promote our company without any money or exposure in return?

Rant

I almost don’t know where to start here. First up, I called my sometimes therapist Jim Harris in disbelief. He agreed that this was an interesting proposal, and by “interesting” he meant completely insane.

Second, what am I? The Smart Data Collective or some other type of aggregator? Nothing against aggregators but it’s pretty clear that they take the content from other bloggers and sites. A 30 second review of my site ought to eliminate that theory.

Next up, I pride myself on my independence. If I’m going to sell out, at least I want to get paid, right? Overt advertising is one thing and I do have a few affiliate links of my site. But to routinely pass off another company’s posts as valuable “content” for my readers would erode or destroy the credibility, brand, and reputation that I have spent a long time building. I don’t need a branding expert like Chris Brogan to tell me that.

On a different level, I understand the freemium model, outlined in Chris Anderson’s  Free: The Future of a Radical Price. I do my own share of guest posting, albeit on a limited basis. I’m completely fine with having others guest post on my site, but those are one-off posts designed to give my readers a different view point. Steven wasn’t suggesting limited guest posting and, at least to me, a one-way street makes absolutely no sense.

Feedback

Am I overreacting again? Does this make any sense to you? What harebrained ideas have people proposed to you?

Jim Lavoie, Chief Executive Officer, Rite–Solutions

Phil’s note: I had a bit of a problem with some of the sentiments expressed, as you’ll see below.

• Key in a knowledge economy: solving relationship puzzle
• We live in a social world, expect when we conduct business.
• In military model, hierarchy reigned supreme.
• Change from command and control; less about “do what I say” and more about “what should we do.”
• Organizations need to do more than provide a paycheck; employees need to feel a sense of purpose.
• Old management tips (read: treating people decently) is still key.
• Five new competencies: honesty, parity, “humbition”, transparency, appreciate the power of relevance
• survival, safety and security, socially suited, suitable stroked, relevant
• Younger folks want to be relevant even if they don’t know the problem.
• Is technology helping us or getting away? Technology is an enabler but too much is a hard sale. “No matter what technology you pick, it will be wrong.”

Phil’s note: Maybe Jim should read my new book.

Francois Gossieaux, author of the forthcoming book The Hyper-Social Organization.

Phil’s note: Interesting topics and I’ll have to check out Francois’ book.

• As companies became big, they became less social.
• SM provides us with a massive platform for participation.
• Reciprocity is a reflex
• Social and market contracts; tapping only the second has its limitations.
• Think tribes, not market segments
  • e.g., women-owned small businesses
  • find the leaders of these tribes
• Think knowledge network, not information channel
  • 60% of all buying decisions are taking place sans information about the company (source: McKinsey)
  • Content has to travel through knowledge networks
• Think human-centricity, not product- or company-centricity
• Think emergent messiness, not hierarchical fixed processes
  • Use existing hierarchies to handle “messiness.”
• Successful companies turn all business processes into social ones
  • They don’t just run “traditional” programs in social media
  • Example: product development
  • Why? – scale, increased quality, increased passion, increased word of mouth (WOM)
  • Only example not found – “social” financing.
• Customer acquired through WOM is likely to have twice the value to organizations than those acquired through traditional marketing means.
• Many companies stay in “permanent pilot” states
• There’s an enhanced need for cross-functional teams; things don’t fall neatly into only one category anymore.
• Intuit has a center for excellence paid based on results by each department.

Greg Matthews, Director of Consumer Innovation at Humana

Phil’s note: This guy is wicked smart and he had one of the best responses from the group of all the speakers. I only wish that all speakers watched this very dynamic guy.

• The social enterprise hasn’t been created yet, but we are moving in that direction.
• We’re not going to make people come to us; we will go to them.
• New demands
  • Control reality
  • Information security
  • Workforce culture
  • Intellectual property
• It’s not about forming committees, building websites, establishing a charter, etc.
• Humana used Twitter for customer service pilot for the last three months, trying to get tweets into the regular customer service queue.
• Created social media policy at Humana via crowdsourcing; ratified by executive committee.
• Next step, possible business development
• Moving towards quantification, better business decisions
• Using geo-tools to improve social media usage/understanding
• Measuring who knows what about what will enable better employee productivity; structure organization around the real way that work gets done.
• There are many different ways to engage people; some are less obtrusive than others.
• How do we connect with healthy behaviors? Don’t just focus on sick people.
• They looked at fitness communities; they didn’t bill their own. Twit2Fit (an existing Ning network) served their needs and had an established user base.

Phil’s note – this is a key point. Sometimes, you don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

• Would using an elite athlete increase the engagement? Humana used a professional runner. Answer to question: Yes, by over 300%. Small experiments have shown promise.
• Key point: Humana did not even mention that they were behind this to the general public. Again, it’s critical to use subtle ways to promote/marketing.
• Social gaming is huge, as many have noted. Leverage the power of the social interaction. Which group of kids will walk around the world first? This game has actually turned into a revenue-generating product.
• Mobility is also enormous for social media/networking.
• The biggest contribution that Humana has made is getting out of the way.
• They have some basic measurements but they’re essentially statistics at this point. True “drivers of effectiveness” aren’t really available yet.
• Business ownership is essential.
• He had to focus this on a full-time basis; it wouldn’t have worked “in his spare time.”
• Executive sponsorship is not necessarily required; at a minimum, though, they can’t oppose it.
  • Business unit leadership may be enough at least to start.
• Find the people internally with a passion is critical; it makes up for different deficiencies.
• They have used Yammer for internal communication; if execs don’t like the fact that Yammer is the tool of choice, then they are forced to introduce alternatives with comparable functionality.
• Legal team has to take a bit of a leap of faith; long-term value must exceed short-term risk.