This is twitter.com/mjayliebs's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following twitter.com/mjayliebs's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
twitter.com/mjayliebs
Recent Activity
Please do not mistake an intellectual commentary, stated with passion as agita. Open conversation should be just that, open conversation. I did not attack anyone. I apologize if you feel as though my one comment on a public forum is unworthy.
Toggle Commented Mar 24, 2011 on Why #BTVSMB? at Digital Strategy
1 reply
Rich, I do not disagree with your thought process. I do think it is important to have an extended discussion. I would like to understand if #BTVSMB is an open group or a partnership between Digalicious and PMG. My meaning is that while you likely do not make any money on the events, companies never make money on events (except the event companies). Digalicious and PMG do gain brand awareness by doing the events - There is nothing wrong with that, you and Nicole do all the work!! In my world, it is a sales activity. I personally take offense to the notion that local people can not be held to the high standards you set forth. I also offered to fund the event further, which could have further defrayed the costs of the event for people who saw the $35 as a barrier. It is about community, thus we should be doing everything we can to expand it, no? The networking is great, I agree. If you are true to the last sentence of your post, which I hope you are, what are the boundaries? Are there dates that can or should not be used (who owns the calendar)? Can anyone use the #btvsmb tag and logo calling an event #btvsmb. I am glad to hear you say it, just would like to understand the boundaries and repect them.
Toggle Commented Mar 23, 2011 on Why #BTVSMB? at Digital Strategy
1 reply
Rich, Nice post, I could not agree more. In discussions on Social CRM, this has be top of mind for a long time. Friend Wim Rampen (@wimrampen) writes a lot on this topic "Helping customers to get their jobs done". In a response to a highly technical blog post, I penned a response, here is the last paragraph of that response: "I will leave with the final thought. The entire goal here are for business to create sustainable organizations. Ones where people like to work and customers like, value and appreciate the products and services offered. I will suggest that we spend more time helping companies to isolate the tools and components they need to accomplish their goals and less on definitions and generalities. If we focus on what our customers need to get done, and efficient methods to accomplish that, we will be good!" -Mitch
Toggle Commented Aug 17, 2010 on Why Did You Start Your Business? at Digital Strategy
1 reply
John, This is an interesting perspective. While I will not dispute the relationship, I believe you have short-changed the value of Social CRM. In other words the picture is incomplete. What is missing is the following (and my list is also incomplete, just some top level ideas). 1 - What is in it for the customer? This is a very company centric, Inside-out view of what Social CRM can and should be 2 - Communications/Process - You silo CRM as about data, but nothing about process. Data without process is not really valuable. I will not dispute the IRM addition, just mention that Social CRM is a lot more than you state. Mitch
1 reply
Interesting post and I sense a more interesting conversation happening :-) I resemble some of the comments, but that is ok. It comes down to value, right? I do both, tow the corporate line at times, on Twitter and Blogs. Jumping blog platforms, sharing information based on channel and context. For me, the context is both the channel and the account type, corporate or personal. Reading some others posts, not technology, but culture, two themes seem to be emerging. 1- People do not really want a relationship with a brand, they want what a relationship can offer (better service maybe). 2 - People would prefer (and possibly trust) people, not companies. What is especially true for people new to me on Twitter or Blogs they see what I am saying first (most often) before they see what my corporate identity is (what is my angle). As a vendor, I usually have bit of an uphill battle to show people that I am trying to simply working to add value to the conversation (like Phil does). I think people begin to respect me (then my company by association) over time - If my sometimes sarcastic tone can be tolerated of course. Mitch
Allen, Good information, timely (as Phil mentioned) and a conversation worth having and extending. But, that is the point, right? On almost any topic, conversations push forward the thinking and there is a real benefit. I do also appreciate the mention. I believe that SugarCRM is going to get better at this, as it is important. Smart people like yourself are also pushing the conversation, in a very professional way, suggesting how things can and should be done. I would also like to suggest that many conversations can and should be platform agnostic. I recently opened up a topic, Phil commented on a SugarCRM blog and I continued the conversation both on his blog and I wrote a follow-up piece on a third party site (CustomerThink). The conversation actually started on a Google Group, hosted by Altimeter. While this particular topic may actually have been a little scattered, many folks summarized the conversations AND (this is a really important point) gave attribution back to the genesis of the conversation. My extra tidbit here, it is not only about what you say on your blog, but how you participate in the conversation when it is not on "your domain". I am very comfortable in stating that I spend a lot of time 'elsewhere', not in a vendor specific way, rather just to participate. Phil is clearly an example of that as well. Because this is a metric which currently defies easy measurement, doing it just 'feels right' but that can be a hard sell. The intent needs to be transparent as well, pushing thinking forward is a good thing for everyone. Thanks for the platform! Mitch
Interesting perspective - one that is ripe for debate, and one that I am not sure I agree with. I am open to the debate, but sense that it is bigger than just Social CRM is also about what it means to be a Social Business. I believe that the concepts of Social Media are somehow being misconstrued. Social Media is a set of technologies (a little more than just a channel, I will agree), what people do with them is the real issue (which you do point out). In a previous post on Social IRM you try to make the case that Social Media is WOM, "everything social media enables is a new form of word of mouth", which I also agree with, Social Media is an enabler, and people need to be cautious with it. But, it is an enabler, because it is technology, it helps to amplify the message (good or bad). Here is where I think things need further debate and clarification: " the principles of social media - respect, trust, and a true value exchange between brand and influencer." Social Networks are about trust, what is said in Social Media may or may NOT establish trust - they should and are part of it. Take this comment - it is on a blog, it is respectful, do you trust it? What if you did a couple minutes of research found out who I am, and what I have written before, does this add to the trust barometer? How about if you happen to know someone who commented on one of my previous posts, and you respect that person, that might alter the equation even more. I am going down this path, because there are lots of reasons to make Social CRM or just Social Business part of the conversation. There are many that say that a Social Media strategy is about executing on an engagement strategy. Social CRM is about that - in reading the description of Social IRM I am left with not a relationship, but a score of that person. I read that post a few times, and I missed the part about the value in exchange, what do they get? Respectfully - Mitch
1 reply
I know people will likely be annoyed at my take, but, hey that has never stopped me before. This is an interesting example of relationships in the social world. The blurry boundaries between personal and professional, representing yourself or your brand. In this case, my read is that the lines became blurred at the request of the blog. Rich did not reach out to Rebecca due a previous personal relationship - thus there is some level of culpability on Rebecca's part as part of Alice - to help (either directly, or indirectly) Rich find a replacement. Nothing to do with being ill. One phone call to a peer, one email to a friend - some level of effort. Rodney, I do not know you, but my objective opinion is that you are coming off stronger than Rich. If your true objective was to come to Rebecca's defense, then your tone and approach would have been much different. By taking the approach you did, all that happened is the debate became about you and Rich, less about Rebecca. You replaced one "accusatory blog [which] is unwarranted, unnecessary, petty, and speaks volumes to your immaturity" your words, which I do not agree with with a stronger attack, does that make it right? It is unfortunate that it gets to this level - but it highlights the simple fact in this social landscape that is social media - we are all representing our personal and professional brands when we jump online. While it may not make or break the company, the brand of Alice is damaged in this northern New England town - that happened before this blog. Mitch Lieberman SugarCRM Champlain College Dad
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2010 on Disappointing Alice.com at Digital Strategy
1 reply
Paul, Insightful as usual, thanks for sharing. Congrats to the Yankees, and Jeter as well. I am not going to jump on the 'me too' bandwagon, but offer a link and then we can all think about the relevance to your post. I am not sure if you read Wired this past month, if not you should grab a copy. There are two interesting articles, which may offer a unique perspective here. The first is "The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine" http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough. In the article - New York University new-media studies professor Clay Shirky is quoted a few times. Now the context is media (not social, regular old media), so a little bit of a leap is in order, but not too much: "There comes a point at which improving upon the thing that was important in the past is a bad move," Shirky said in a recent interview. "It's actually feeding competitive advantage to outsiders by not recognizing the value of other qualit ies." In other words, companies that focus on traditional measures of quality—fidelity, resolution, features—can become myopic and fail to address other, now essential attributes like convenience and shareability. And that means someone else can come along and drink their milk shake." The second article is about Craigslist. The relevance here may be a greater leap, not sure...folks can decide for themselves. My connection is that it is utilitarian, it works and it does not change. By the way, you did not hit on my biggest pet peeve in the hotel industry - WiFi. Why is it that the 'upscale' and 'cool' hotels, plus the highest level of brand hotels all charge a premium for WiFi, while the stalwart for the road warriors (Hilton Garden Inn and Marriott Courtyard) give you free WiFi? Mitch