Some words are red flags to insurers and using them could mean that your claim might be delayed or even denied.

1. "I Think ..."

Never begin a statement regarding a claim with these words. If you aren't sure, don't guess. What you say could cause your claim to be delayed or denied, says attorney Vedica Puri. And if you're wrong -- say, you report driving at 30 miles per hour before an accident but police later prove you were going 50 -- it could hurt your credibility.

Particularly beware of speculating on blame or causation. For example, if you suggest that a water leak is due to a construction defect, you could give the insurer an out if that's a policy exclusion.

Stick to the facts. Should the insurance rep ask you a question you can't answer, simply say, "I don't know." If the person is taking a written or recorded statement, ask for a transcript to review for misstatements.

2. "I Got Whiplash"

Fraud costs auto insurers up to $6.8 billion a year, reports the Insurance Research Council. And suing for damages caused by whiplash is a fraudster favorite ("Oh, my neck!"). Merely mentioning the term is likely to get your claim flagged for further investigation, says Amy Danise of Insure.com.

Whiplash is a specific diagnosis. If a doctor says that you have it, then you should report it as such. Other wise, if you feel neck pain, just refer to it that way.

3. "It's an Experimental Treatment"

Truly experimental or investigational medical procedures are typically not eligible for health insurance coverage. So if a doctor tells you he wants to experiment with a treatment, don't represent it using those words. "In medical terms it may not actually be experimental or investigational," explains Danise. "If it's proven effective, your doctor deems it medically necessary, and it's not an exclusion, it should be covered." Verify with your doctor that it meets the above litmus tests before going to the insurer.

4. "My Basement Flooded"

With homeowners insurance, "flood" is a red flag. "The word refers to an act of weather or an overflow from a nearby body of water," says Danise. "And a standard homeowners policy doesn't cover it. You'd need flood insurance."

So don't use the f-word if your basement is knee-deep in water because of a burst pipe. Damages from such an incident should be covered by a homeowners policy. But calling it a "flood" could muddy the waters, so to speak.

5. "Just Send Me a Check"

When filing a home or auto claim, don't emphasize that you're just looking for the cash.

"If you were to say, 'I don't care about the roof leak, I just need the money,' that admission could slow things to a halt," says Puri. Technically, you're supposed to use the payout to make the repair for which you filed. While it's true that most insurance companies aren't going to check up on you, you'll certainly raise the fraud unit's suspicions if you imply that you won't. And then you might lose out on the money altogether.

http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/108074/5-things-never-to-say-to-your-insurers?mod=insurance

Millions of consumers intent on grabbing holiday deals by way of mail-in rebates are likely to see fewer checks this year and more plastic designed to lure them back into the store, retail experts say.

The switch from paper rebate checks to plastic rebate cards isn't new, but the captive marketing it provides to retailers and manufacturers is growing, especially in a down economy, according to those who track the industry.

Industry estimates put the amount of rebates paid in plastic at $4.2 billion in 2008, up by more than 50 percent from the year before, a number that is expected to grow even more this year.

Instead of a rebate check, the prepaid rebate cards are branded either with a store name, known as a closed-loop card, or a major credit card logo, such as Visa or MasterCard, known as open-loop cards.

The only way to redeem the funds is to buy something, though a few rebates allow you to get cash at an ATM.

“The future of rebate cards is tremendous, not just for the captive marketing where consumers come back into the store for purchases, but the ability to track and manage that data,” said Brian Riley, research director for bank cards at TowerGroup, a research firm that tracks consumer credit card spending.

As many as 60 percent of consumers eligible for a rebate never bother with the paperwork or online process. Much of these unclaimed funds remain as a stream of pure profit for manufacturers and retailers.

The move to plastic makes rebates even more attractive for businesses. A rebate check costs about $1.85 to produce for a manufacturer, while a plastic rebate costs about 6 cents, Riley said. “That alone is worth millions to retailers and manufacturers,” he said.

The plastic cards, though they encourage spending, can also cause consumers to leave money on the table. If consumers don't use the entire amount, leaving perhaps a few dollars or cents as a balance, it is nearly impossible to use the remainder, consumer advocate Edgar Dworsky said.

“It's not like a store gift card where you can easily check a balance,” said Dworsky, who runs the Web site ConsumerWorld.org . “It's the gift that keeps taking. I see no redeeming value in these cards.”

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/25/cards-supplant-mail-rebate-checks/?success&dsq=21006425#comment-21006425

    
 

The best networkers know how to reciprocate. Open up your Rolodex and connect those you know, and others will do the same for you

By Dan Schawbel

In August, Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported that approximately 80% of human resources executives rate networking as the best way to get a job right now.

This should come as no surprise. People conduct job interviews—job boards don't. Job boards list positions either already taken or nonexistent. A job board doesn't build trust with a hiring manager, whereas your business contact personally recommending you for a position carries a lot of weight. The sooner you start networking, the more dividends it will pay later in life, as executives almost always get jobs through who they know.

If you're introverted, then a social network like Facebook, with its 300 million user population, is an anxiety pacifier and a place where you can start a conversation online and then talk offline later when you feel comfortable. Social networking allows you to connect with more people in less time, around a shared interest like sports, politics, or the stock market. You have the choice whether you want to start your own network or become a participant, or both.

Using social networks and blogs for networking is about reciprocation. You need to promote other people who work at companies you're targeting and business leaders you respect. "Promote what that person does well to your network through a newsletter, a link back to their Web sites on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook, or feature them as an expert on your blog," says Lewis Howes, author of LinkedWorking and owner of sportsnetworker.com. Shining the spotlight on someone else will build rapport and position you as a value provider. The end result is an addition to your network that will more than likely reciprocate down the road.
Background Checks

Of course, you have to be careful. Conduct a background check before attending a networking event or reaching out to people online. This doesn't mean going to the CIA or your neighborhood police station. You can use search engines, social networks, and private information shared between friends to find out exactly whom and what you're getting involved with.

In addition to finding information that allows you to filter out any dubious prospective contacts, you'll discover useful information about the people you do decide to contact. "Jot down three things that you learned about them doing the preliminary research, and then when you connect with them, ask them about their story," explains Scott Bradley, a social media strategist and founder of Rapid Results Marketing Group. It'll show that you care.

Indeed, you don't need an immediate personal agenda when social networking. Connect other like-minded people you believe will mutually benefit from one another. For example, if you know that one of your friends is working on a project that another one of your contacts has experience with, why not send an e-mail introducing both? Although you may not feel any immediate career boost, you'll be viewed as someone they both can go to as a resource.

"When you connect others, you become their center of influence," says Lewis. This method of networking becomes easier as your database grows, but the result is that more people will come to you in search of help, and you'll be able to make those introductions. In return, people will make introductions for you and open up their Rolodexes.
Hunt Down Contacts

Unless you're a celebrity or are extremely visible online, people aren't going to race to your doorstep looking to work with you and be part of your network. Instead you have to pursue relationships like you're hunting prey. Even when you have contacts, they won't always be an asset to you unless you cultivate them by actively engaging them and by figuring out ways to support their own goals.

It's the small things that count. Commenting on a contact's Facebook status or sending a holiday card can have a larger impact than you would imagine "Relationships are like muscles—the more you work them, the stronger they become," says Keith Ferrazzi, author of New York Times best-seller Who's Got Your Back.

Don't be intrusive or aggressive, however. Respect people's time demands, and don't go overboard trying to impress them. People are looking for genuine conversations, not self-promotional spiels. Instead of bragging about your accomplishments, listen to what they have to say first and make them want to hear about what you have to offer.

"A guy in my office connected with a well-known actress over Twitter because both their kids had a really bad flu at the same time," says Ferrazzi.

It's the best-connected people who are the most productive at work and have the most-helpful mentors. Start today by contacting at least one individual you've never dealt with and asking that person if she or he needs help. The response you get will surprise you.

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091013_609903.htm

 

Ivanka Trump on Building a Brand

Whatever it is you're looking to do or make or sell, you build your business on the assumption that you can do it better, smarter, and more efficiently than the competition. Otherwise, what's the point?

The more I thought back on my mother's experiences (in shopping for jewelry) in high-end stores, the more I recognized an opportunity for a luxury jewelry line created for modern women based on their lifestyle needs and tastes, women who weren't waiting around for their husbands or fathers to buy them a fine piece of jewelry as a gift. I had in mind a customer with a sense of flair and fashion that perhaps wasn't being reflected in the designs of some of the more traditional, high-end jewelers; women who wanted to invest in fresher, more vibrant heirloom chic pieces. And above all, women who were perhaps looking for guidance from their more fashion-forward daughters on what to wear—as opposed to looking to their mothers.

As I kicked things around with Moshe Lax, a diamond vendor who's now my partner in the Ivanka Trump Jewelry Collection, I realized there was a void in the marketplace waiting to be filled, so we struck a partnership deal and set about filling it. Moshe already had a location on Madison Avenue, so our first move was to close his family-owned store and redesign the whole space from top to bottom. The first order of business was retrofitting the space and creating a signature style, identity, and logo for our emerging brand.

Along the way, I made some mental notes on what we'd need to do as we introduced our collection, and I share them here for the way they apply to the launch of any new business, product, or service:

Do a comprehensive trademark search. This is an obvious first step, but you'd be surprised how many startups hit a wall when it turns out someone else already owns their brand name. In our dot-com age, this means you'll have to secure the accompanying domain name as well.

Develop a powerful identifier. Your look and logo are incredibly important. These days, your Web site design is also a part of that "look" (check out ivankatrumpcollection.com), along with your packaging and collateral materials. Spend some time on these, because they'll be the image that goes home with your customers, whether or not they make a purchase or sign on to your service. Be memorable.

Do not confuse supply with demand. Another basic: Just because you have an item in plenty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of people will want to buy it. Identify the demand for your product first, and then dive in. Luxury condos offer a great case in point. Developers will pitch a site as ideal simply because other developers are building similar projects on the abutting properties. But we're not talking Field of Dreams here. "If you build it, they will come" might be a powerful message in a tearjerker baseball movie, but an overdeveloped resort area can be a huge negative.

Identify the void in your market, and position your brand so that you uniquely fill it. If you mean to provide a product or service that's currently unavailable at your planned price point, be sure to know your competition at the high and low ends. There might be a reason why no one is trafficking in that unclaimed middle. If not, find it, and fill it.

Create a strong and consistent identity. Whatever you want your image to be, establish it early and stay true to your identity. Without an established reputation, you don't have a brand, so take pains to keep on point and on message. Otherwise, you'll miss your target. For example, Trump is synonymous with luxury, glamour, and elegance. Every project we undertake reinforces that reputation. To deviate from these principles would undermine our brand's values.

Define your market. Figure out who your target customer is, even if it's not obvious at the outset. The better you know your customers and their needs, the more easily you can sell to them.

Make sure your team understands your mission, your vision, and your objectives. You'd be surprised how many salespeople I meet who don't understand their own product or share their boss's vision. At our hotels, we have a two-day acclimation program to thoroughly explain to our new hires who we are and what the Trump hotel collection stands for. Get your team on board, or you'll have a team of free agents moving to their own agendas.

Focus on customer service. In a competitive market, every business is a service business. The customer is always, always, always right. Even when he or she is wrong. Be sure to put a system into place that gives your customer a voice—and, just as important, be sure to listen to it. The CEO of Orient-Express Hotels (OEH) randomly connects to three rooms across the portfolio each day, introducing himself and asking guests how they're enjoying their stays. Do the math: three calls, 365 days a year … that's a lot of feedback.

Foster brand loyalty at every opportunity. One of the indicators of our success on the real estate front is that we have many condominium owners who buy units in more than one Trump building. We nurture these relationships and make sure our repeat buyers know that we value their business by giving them a first look at some of our properties in presales, supporting their philanthropic initiatives, or perhaps even offering them accommodations in one of our hotel properties.

Hold off spending whenever possible. You need to spend money to make money. This is especially true when launching your new brand, but if you're not careful you'll find that the majority of your expenditures will have minimal impact on your success. Do your research first before spending heavily in any one area. Look closely at your product design, your target segments, and your marketing strategy—then allocate your money to where it will do the most good.

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2009/ca20091013_957704.htm?chan=careers_managing+index+page_top+stories

 

The U.S. Is Outsourcing Away Its Competitive Edge

Today, many people are looking to high technology sectors — like alternative energy — to be the growth engine that revives the U.S. economy and gets it back on track. They're in for a shock. During the boom years, when all seemed well, capabilities that underpin innovation in a wide range of products were continuing to deteriorate.

As my Harvard Business School colleague Willy Shih and I described in "Restoring American Competitiveness," a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, the U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing the ability to manufacture many of the cutting-edge products it invented. These include the batteries that power electric and hybrid cars, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for the next generation of energy-efficient lighting, critical components of solar panels, advanced displays for mobile phones and new consumer electronics products like Amazon's Kindle e-reader, and many of the carbon fiber components for Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.

The culprit is the outsourcing of development and manufacturing work to specialists abroad. The result: a damaging deterioration in the collective capabilities that serve high tech. This industrial commons includes not just suppliers of advanced materials, production equipment, and components, but also R&D know-how, advanced process development and engineering skills, and manufacturing competencies.

Making matters even worse is something that has been largely ignored: In addition to undermining the ability of the U.S. to manufacture high tech products, the erosion of the industrial commons has seriously damaged the country's ability to invent new ones.

The prevailing view of the past 25 years has been that the U.S. can thrive as a center of innovation and leave the manufacturing of the products it invents and designs to others. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This logic is predicated on utterly false assumptions about the divisibility of R&D and manufacturing and basic competitive dynamics.

In many cases, R&D and manufacturing are tightly intertwined. Unless you know how to manufacture a product, you often cannot design it. And, to understand how to manufacture it, you have to have manufacturing competencies and experience. The notion that you can design a product in the serene world of the R&D laboratory without any knowledge of the rough and tumble world of production is ridiculous.

To innovate, you need great two-way feedback. You need to transfer knowledge from R&D into production, but you also need to move knowledge from production back to R&D. The act of production creates knowledge about the process and the product design.

Follow the HBR Debate

This Topic: Does the U.S. Need a Manufacturing Sector?

Gary P. Pisano: The U.S. is Outsourcing Away Its Competitive Edge

David B. Yoffie: Why the U.S. Tech Sector Doesn't Need Domestic Manufacturing

Robert H. Hayes: Global Outsourcing Is High Tech's Subprime Mortgage Fiasco

Andy Rappaport: Outsourcing Isn't a Problem for Silicon Valley But Is for Detroit

Willy C. Shih: The U.S. Can't Manufacture the Kindle and That's a Problem

Is Short-term Thinking Eroding U.S. High Tech?

Ed Catmull: Pleasing Wall Street is a Poor Excuse for Bad Decisions

David. A. Patterson: Scientists and Engineers on Boards Will Keep Focus on the Long Term

Is Washington the Solution or the Problem?

Stephen R. Hardis: Beware of Gov't Solutions for America's High Tech Industry

David A. Patterson: Restoring DARPA Is the Key to Preserving the U.S. Lead in IT

Deborah L. Wince-Smith: Washington Must Help U.S. Regain the Lead in Manufacturing

Robert H. Hayes: Gov't Should Enlist Foreign Companies' to Rebuild America's Industrial Infrastructure

Yes, there are some instances where R&D and manufacturing are separable. But these are the exceptions. In the vast majority of high tech products (and even some low-tech products like apparel), knowledge about manufacturing helps you design products and get them to market quickly. What this means is that when manufacturing capabilities migrate from a country, design and R&D capabilities eventually follow. That's exactly what's been happening in many high tech industries in the U.S. over the past 20 years.

Now let's turn to a dangerous misconception of competitive dynamics that proponents of outsourcing propagate. Here's what they would have us believe: You focus on R&D and turn over the low-margin commodity manufacturing to contractors in Asia. You make out like a bandit because you have the intellectual property and your contractors have so much competition they cannot afford to charge you more. Markets are great.

Wait a minute. All this assumes your manufacturing partner is content to subsist on your table scraps. But what if they have their eye on the prime rib, too? Well, once they have learned to manufacture your product (and your ability to manufacture has eroded), they are in a much better position to move up the food chain into manufacturing and designing more sophisticated components and subsystems and, eventually, the entire product.

This is exactly what has happened in high tech industry after high tech industry. Unless business executives operating in the U.S. recognize the importance of manufacturing and grow wiser about outsourcing, the industrial commons — and the country's economy — will continue to decline.

Gary P. Pisano
Harry E. Figgie, Jr.
Professor of Business Administration
Harvard Business School

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hbr/restoring-american-competitiveness/2009/10/the-us-is-outsourcing-away-its.html

Just an amazing machine training here in San Diego, BMW Oracle giant trimaran challenger for the 2010 America's Cup, bring the cup home boys and bring BOR back to San Diego, she has been adopted by San Diegans

 

MAUREEN CAVANAUGH (Host): I'm Maureen Cavanaugh. You're listening to These Days on KPBS. Talking about change and making it work are two very different things. Companies struggling to survive in today's recession are talking about making big changes in everything from the number of employees they need to the type of products they offer. But many businesses find change doesn't work unless a plan is put into place to manage that change effectively. It doesn't matter how good your new ideas are, unless the people who have to carry them out know what they should be doing and like the idea of doing it. One man who has been teaching business and motivating business managers for years, is now dealing with the subject of making change work. My guest is Ken Blanchard. He's described as a business guru. He is a business trainer and consultant, author of the bestseller, "The One Minute Manager," and co-author of the new book called "Who Killed Change?" And welcome, Ken, to These Days.

KEN BLANCHARD (Author and Business Consultant): Maureen, nice to be with you.

CAVANAUGH: In the interest of full disclosure, I want to mention that KPBS worked with Ken to produce a TV special based on his book called "Gung Ho." We want to invite our listeners to join this conversation. Tell us the kinds of changes taking place in your workplace. And are those changes working, and if not, why not? Call us at 1-888-895-5727, that's 1-888-895-KPBS. Well, Ken, how important, I wonder, is good management during a recession? Now I'm wondering, don't all businesses, aren't they just hanging on during times like these no matter what management is doing?

BLANCHARD: Well, I don't think so. I think management is so important – In fact, Jim Collins, who wrote "From Good To Great," has just finished a book about, you know, why great companies fall essentially. And he said it takes a whole team of people to take a company from good to great but it takes one lousy leader to take it into the toilet. And at this time, I think people look towards leadership, and, you know, I'm sharing with people. There's three things, I think, that leaders need to do in their organizations. Number one, they have to be bearers of hope. You know, I think we've been through things before maybe not as drastic as this but what's the history? Where are we going? You know, if you're not a bearer of hope, then everybody'll be down. I'm always amazed at the – in the Bible that Jesus said over 300 times, 'Fear not,' and so I think you have to be a bearer of hope. Second one, which is very important, is you have to look at your people as your business partner. I think too many organizations, top managers get behind closed doors and say what are we going to do and who shall we let go and all these kind of things. They don't ever involve their people in it. I mean, our business is down. We actually had our best year in the history of the company last year but we could see it starting to head south in November and December and January kind of tanked and what we do always, anyway, is we share the balance sheet with everybody in our company and we, in fact, a number of years ago, brought a guy in from Colorado to teach everybody, include people in the shipping and – area to read a balance sheet. And so we shared it with them, even talked about how we deal with our credit line with the bankers and all, so everybody has the facts and then you say, okay, you know, given that, you know, we're going to have to cut a fair amount of expenses but what also helps is we're going to have to increase the revenues if we can. You know, how can we do it? We had a 30th anniversary celebration at the Hotel Del and it was going to be purely a party but given the situation, we turned in about half of the day to bring an outside group in to work with 350 people on suggestions for cutting costs and increasing revenues and all, so people really feel like they're part of the thing and so as you implement change, they feel that they've had some kind of voice. People will resist change when it's done to them, not with them.

CAVANAUGH: Exactly.

BLANCHARD: And I think that's the whole emphasis in "Who Killed Change." It's a funny – fun "Columbo," "CSI" book, you know, it's the third change killed this week and Detective McNally's going to get to the bottom of this.

CAVANAUGH: What is the third challenge that – for leadership now?

BLANCHARD: Well, the third one is that you need to maintain and be a servant leader. A lot of people say, what is that, the inmates running the prison or trying to please people? No. Servant leadership has two parts. One is setting the vision and the direction. That's part of being a bearer of hope. You know, where are we going, what are we going to try to do, and we need your help. And then the second part—and that's the leadership part of servant leadership—is how do we get there and that's when you really theoretically and in reality turn the traditional hierarchy upside down and now you work for your people. Your job is to help facilitate and cheerlead and support and encourage them to live according to the vision and values and the dream and strategy that you've all set up. And so, you know, this is not a time to become self-serving because enough self-serving leaders got us in trouble, you know, thinking that all the money and power and recognition ought to move up the hierarchy. And, you know, I think the key thing is that leadership is not about you, it's about the people you work with.

CAVANAUGH: Let's go back, if we could, Ken, to talk about the failures that got us into this mess that we find ourselves in in our economy. There – Would you say that you can see that there have been failures of leadership in some of the top companies of the United States that sort of propelled us towards where we are today?

BLANCHARD: Yes, I think, you know, there's two parts of great companies. One is what is the result you get, and the second is what are you doing with your people? And, unfortunately, Wall Street and other operations like that, they think the only reason to be in business is to make money and make profit. And I think a lot of times people take short term risks and do stupid things because it's going to look good to their bottom line. And I think a lot of greed and stuff like that was going on where people were making stupid decisions. I remember when I was young—and this might date me—is, you know, I was actually thrilled when I got approved for a credit card. You know, I mean, that was a big deal. And now my dog could get a credit card. And, you know, I think we've gone way overboard on trying to microtize everything so everybody should have the exact same opportunity without necessarily the work or the resources. And I think that that was all about, you know, getting results and doing this and wheeling and dealing.

CAVANAUGH: But if you look at it one way, the employees on Wall Street were creative enough to come up with these products, these derivatives, to sell and to make great profits for their companies. So in a way, they were very productive and they were very creative but they just went in a very wrong direction. How could management have stepped in and said, you know, this is not – even though this is very lucrative, this is not the way our company should go.

BLANCHARD: Well, I think that's where, you know, you need a company that manages by a set of operating values. Our number one value is ethical, you know, and doing the right thing. Number two is relationships. Number three is success, running a profitable – Number four is learning and we rank order those and when we have an issue we sort of say, let's take a look at this, you know. So, you know, if somebody in our accounting department comes and says, you know, Ken went to four different places this week but we have a contract that says round-trip airfare to each of those places, should we charge everybody a round-trip airfare because, you know, that's what the contract says. So you say, okay, is it legal? I guess that's legal there, but is it fair? You know, if you make that decision, how will it make people feel about themselves? You want it published in a local paper, you know? You need some ways to make decisions that make sense. You know, the classic case years ago is Tylenol when somebody messed with it and some people were killed outside of Chicago. They had a board meeting. The first thing it says, well, let's take it off the market in Chicago. Then a guy on the board says, let me just review our operating values. Number one is the health and safety of our patients. Number two is the wellbeing of our people. Number three is our relationships with our community. And number four is the satisfaction of our stockholders. And if they can tamper in Chicago, why are we going to wait until somebody gets killed in San Diego? You know, we should take it off the total market. I mean, that cost a lot of money. And they're all, why? Because that's a set of operating values. And I think if you don't have any, then it's expediency and all those kind of things and so I've done a lot of work with Southwest Airlines, you know, and I was down there last summer when the gas issue price was a problem before the economy. But, you know, they have a set of operating values, you know, that says, you know, we are warrior spirits. You know, want people to do everything they can but we want a servant heart and a fun-loving attitude. But here's the business we're in, you know, and here's what we're trying to do so that we don't start doing crazy stuff.

CAVANAUGH: I'm speaking with author and business consultant Ken Blanchard. He's the alter – author, that is, of the bestseller, "The One Minute Manager" and co-author of the new book called "Who Killed Change?" We're taking your calls at 1-888-895-5727, and right now we'd like to go to Patrick in Encinitas. Good morning, Patrick, and welcome to These Days.

PATRICK (Caller, Encinitas): Oh, thank you very much.

CAVANAUGH: Yes, how can we help you?

PATRICK: Well, I work in an industry, I'm in the automotive industry. And, let's see, it's run the exact same way that it was run back when it was horse trading, years and years ago. It has the same lingo. It's kind of immune to change. It's – oh, I don't know…

CAVANAUGH: Do you work at an established car dealership? Or…

PATRICK: Yeah.

CAVANAUGH: …a parts…

PATRICK: Yes. Yeah, a car dealership.

CAVANAUGH: Okay, so Patrick is talking about the auto industry and we know that's one of the most troubled industries in America today. What Patrick's saying is, they just don't change.

BLANCHARD: Well, that's why they're in trouble. I mean, how long did we know that the Japanese and all these other foreign companies were beating us to the punch? And what were they doing? And so you have to have four things in mind and we talk a little bit on this, in "Who Killed Change?" If you want to be an organization that wins, you got to be customer focused, you know. What does the customer want? What do they need? You got to be cost effective. You know, you can't be spending money you don't have. But you've got to be fast and flexible, you know, and quickly moving and you got to be learning. And I think that's the problem, you know, is when you operate the way you have for a long time, you become a dinosaur and then you get into a rapid-changing time and you're supposed to be a gazelle but it's pretty tough for a dinosaur to be a gazelle unless they have some leadership that says they really are. But, I mean, look what Saturn did at one time when they were separated. At least nobody knew they were part of General Motors. You know, they really created something that was really kind of special and so Tom Peters called those skunkworks, you know, where you get small groups of people, and I think that's in every industry. We can't sit around. The only people that like change are, you know, babies with a wet diaper, you know, and so we don't like it but we need to be ready for it because the only thing you can count on today is death, taxes and change.

CAVANAUGH: That's so true. And I want to go back to something that you said before because I think this is so interesting, the idea that so many people can be responsible for the success of a company but all you need is one really lousy leader and you can have a company really sort of go into the tank. And I'm wondering, is there something wrong or – or let me put it this way, is it possible that we could do a better job in companies and corporations in choosing leaders? How is it that people rise to a leadership position that don't really know how to lead?

BLANCHARD: Well, it's interesting because when they do that, you know, sometimes people really wonder, you know, and you really – The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and, you know, that ought to be really checked well. But sometimes, you know, in a financial deal, you know, they'll come in and then they'll bring a leader in from outside that doesn't know the organization, doesn't know the people, and has a big ego and thinks it's all about them. They're usually people from the outside that the people inside didn't have too much to say or to take a look at them.

CAVANAUGH: How important is it for a leader or a management team when they sort of really make a mistake to just say I'm sorry, acknowledge that mistake. How important is that for the company to recover and move on?

BLANCHARD: It's very important. I wrote a book with Margaret McBride called "The Fourth Secret of The One Minute Manager," which is the one minute apology.

CAVANAUGH: Oh, yeah.

BLANCHARD: And we wrote that really when, you know, Clinton was going through his whole thing with Monica Lewinsky, and just sad that the guys like Clinton, Pete Rose in baseball, you know, some of these steroid guys and Richard Nixon and all, when you make a mistake, you know, 'fess up, you know, I really goofed up. I knew Ken Lay for over 20 years, you know, from Enron and called him immediately and said, Ken, what a great opportunity this is for you to have a ministry, you know, I mean, because I knew him well enough that he didn't know what was going on. He was kind of an abdicator rather than a delegator. And he just needed to come forward and say, you know, I really screwed up, it was on my watch, and we'll do everything he can. But his lawyers were telling him this and that.

CAVANAUGH: Umm.

BLANCHARD: And so, I mean, one of the things I like about Obama, you know, and I, you know, have, you know, like everything but is when he makes a mistake, he doesn't blame somebody on his staff. He steps up and takes the hit, you know, I made a mistake, you know, on that, we should've looked at these people a little closer. And – But I'm in charge, you know. And I think – And then it's over with. Remember Shaq, the basketball player, made some comment about Yao Ming, the Chinese player, and he was kidding but some people were offended. He came right out and said, my sense of humor sometimes gets me in trouble but I want to apologize for anything and, boom, everybody forgot about it or at least he can get by it. So when you make a mistake, admit it and then people will rally around. Okay, what are we going to do about that mistake? At WD-40, they call a mistake a learning opportunity.

CAVANAUGH: That's a good way to look at it. I'm speaking with business management consultant and author Ken Blanchard. We're taking your calls at 1-888-895-5727. And we have a caller from Canada on the line. Harry is calling us from Newfoundland, Canada. Good morning, Harry. Welcome to These Days.

HARRY (Caller, Newfoundland): Good morning. Thank you very much. Good morning, Ken.

BLANCHARD: How are you, Harry?

HARRY: Doing well, thank you. How are you?

BLANCHARD: Good.

HARRY: My question, Ken, is in a lot of the work that I do, a lot organizations have the need for change but fear of change has gripped the organization. How can we help leaders overcome the fear of effecting change?

BLANCHARD: Well, I think that what the leadership first has to do when they're talking about change – it's so interesting. Most people want to announce a change and then they want to talk about the benefits. Some interesting research has been done to show that people actually have six concerns around change and three happen before you get to impact. And one is, tell me what you got in mind, and I think people won't be as fearful if they know what you got in mind. You know, where are we now, where do we want to go, what's the situation? And even involve people in setting up the business case. We talk about this in "Who Killed Change?" The second thing they have is, once they know about it, they have personal concerns. You know, how will I survive and all. And you need to create an avenue where they can get those concerns out. It doesn't mean you can solve all of them but, you know, what you resist persists. And if people have no avenue to share their concerns, they're going to gunny sack them and keep them and dump them on later. Third, they're interested in impact concerns. One, how's this going to be done? What's going to go – be first, second, third and all? And all of those, the more you involve people, the better you are. And as I said earlier, that I think people resist change that's done to them, not with them. And I think the biggest thing we say is, you have to increase the amount of involvement in the change process rather than thinking that all your people around you are dumb. And I think that's what they fear is that somebody above is going to act like they know more about your business than you do and you're right there in the action.

CAVANAUGH: Ron is in Alpine and he's on the line. Good morning, Ron. Welcome to These Days.

RON (Caller, Alpine): Thank you for having me. Good morning, Ken.

BLANCHARD: How are you, Ron?

RON: Good. I'm currently – I've taken over the management of a division of a company that's had a long history of failure and we're trying to move from that culture of failure to a culture of success and, frankly, having some difficulty doing that. So, you know, I've looked at a number of issues like systemic dysfunction and learned helplessness. Could you give me some ideas on how you make that – what I guess I will call a quantum leap from failure to success.

BLANCHARD: Well, I think, of course, you know, your first aspect is diagnosis. What's the problem? And a problem exists when there's a difference between what's actually happening and what you'd like to be happening. And identifying those problems would be good to, you know, talk to as many people as you can, you know, because if they know the information, they know that it's – the company's not being successful or hasn't been and people certainly would like to win so, you know, how do you really set up, you know, so that everybody understands, you know, where the gap is between the actual and the ideal. And then, you know, one of the things you need to look at is find out who are the people who are excited about change—we call them early adopters—and see if they can – you can create a kind of a change leadership team with people who are excited about it. But, also, put some of the resistors on the team, the people who are dragging their feet, you know, so that they can be heard so people feel that there's a good cross section of people. Don't try to do it all by yourself. And I think if you, you know, get a good sense of what the problem is, get a good cross-section leadership team that can sort of say, okay, how are we going to kind of do this, and involve people as much as you can, but, you know, sometimes, you know, you got people that are just going to have their feet in the mud all the time and it's going to, you know, you're going to eventually be out of business. With those people, as WD-40 says, you have to share them with the competition, you know, so, you know, don't feel you can save everybody. But I think you need to share the present reality of the situation and that we have to change and I want you with me not against me and how can we do this thing together?

CAVANAUGH: Another caller is on the line from Encinitas. Bijan is on the line with us. Good morning, Bijan, and welcome to These Days.

BIJAN (Caller, Encinitas): Good morning, Ken. Bijan Zhe (sp) from Encinitas.

BLANCHARD: Hi, Bijan, how have you been?

BIJAN: Fine.

BLANCHARD: I feel badly I haven't talked to you in a while.

BIJAN: I'm terrific, thank you. It's a pleasure to hear your voice, definitely, a voice that is familiar to all the world. And the question I have, Ken, that now that we have all these problems and Wall Street and our economy, how can we gung-ho these organizations to path of success? That we can turn the corner and become successful and empower organizations to be successful and our government to be successful?

BLANCHARD: Well, that's an interesting challenge that Obama and a lot of people have but, you know, Bijan, I always say that effective leadership first starts with a clear vision, you know, and kind of maybe with some of these businesses redefine what business they're in in relation to customers. You know, I was working with a big bank recently and they sent me their mission statement and I got in front of the president and all I said, I'm so glad you sent me your mission statement, I've slept so much better since I've gotten it. You know, if I can't sleep, I pick it up and read it. Uh, you know… It couldn't motivate anybody, you know. I said, I think you better consider yourself in the peace of mind business, you know, that if I gave you money I would have the peace of mind that you would try to protect it, maybe even grow it and all. And I think we have to define the business we're in. What's our picture of the future? If we do what we're doing, what would happen there? And then what are our operating values? I think the whole thing starts with a compelling vision that says, people, this is where we're going. Because leadership, Bijan, as you know, is, you know, about going somewheres and if people don't know where you're going – so I think a lot of these organizations just need a redefining of a vision and where they are. And one that he's talking about "Gung Ho," really says that what people are doing is really worthwhile work.

CAVANAUGH: You know, Ken, you talk a lot about management and leaders and how important they are. In my final question to you—we only have a couple of minutes—I wonder, though, it seems to me that the people on the front lines, workers, these days really sort of feel very nervous and not very gung ho because they don't know whether or not this company is going to say goodbye to them or they're going to have to look for a new job or – What do you find employee morale is like now and how do you improve that?

BLANCHARD: Well, you know, I think employee morale is down in places where, you know, the top management doesn't share information and do things behind closed doors. But it's not, you know, unrealistic at this time to have a few worries but you can't let it dominate you, you know. Pain is inevitable and happiness is a choice, I think the Dalai Lama said that. And so I think you got to take a look at, well, what are the skills I have, what could I do? Suppose my job ended here, how am I going to rebound? What can we do as a family and all, and start being proactive in terms of what you're – what you can do and what are some of the options and all and so don't wait for things to happen to you, start thinking things through, gather the family, share the facts with them, you know, and what are some of the options that we might have to do? So be proactive rather than reactive.

CAVANAUGH: It's hard when a company comes with you with a change plan though if you're feeling nervous that way. It would be your advice to just go for it?

BLANCHARD: Well, you know, I think nothing's guaranteed nowadays and so – I wrote a book with Don Shula, the old Miami Dolphins coach, and he said, success is not forever and failure isn't fatal. And he only gave his players 24 hours to bemoan a defeat or celebrate a victory, and then they would, you know, go right on to the next game. And I think that you can't, you know, live in the past and you can't live in negativity, you have to sort of say, okay, what…

CAVANAUGH: What's next?

BLANCHARD: What's next? What am I grateful for? What are the skills I have? Is this the time to maybe go back to school?

CAVANAUGH: Ken Blanchard, I want to thank you so much for being with us.

BLANCHARD: Yeah, thank you so much, Maureen.

CAVANAUGH: Ken Blanchard, the author of "The One Minute Manager" and co-author of the new book called "Who Killed Change?" You can hear this segment again online at KPBS.org/TheseDays.

http://www.kpbs.org/audioclips/7215/

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/jun/30/business-guru-ken-blanchard-talks-about-environmen/

 

Tagged photos and videos
Friends love to tag friends photos, especially when the photos are embarrassing. They think it's funny, you don't since the tagged photos become public.
Solution: Click on "settings", "privacy settings", "profile", "photos tagged of you" and set the settings on "friends only"
The same procedure applies to videos since videos can also be tagged and can be much more embarrassing.
They can still have fun, but you control who sees the photos, you control your image, you control your brand

Amazing how technology works, who would have known in 1981 when very few had home computers. In business school, I did a thesis on communication, that was at the beginning of the fax machines era  and teleconferencing was a brand new idea affordable to only large corporations, who would have imagined that Fax machines would invade our  homes and be obsolete as fast as they did and that we would be teleconferencing from home or the road on portable computers for free. Now think about how that applies to social media... the potential of social media already is amazing us and we are only in the equivalent of the 1981 era of online news media...

Smith Business interview with  University of Marylands Robert H. Smith School of Business, Kevin Fallon, who heads up the Office of Career Management, provides tips for job seekers. He encourages those in the market for a job to follow through on leads, take advantage of networking opportunities, and leverage social networks.

 

Willy Ronis was an icon of French photography, with Cartier Bresson, Doisneau and Brassai, he was part of a movement in photography called 'Humanist". They used their talent to depict everyday life in France, after the war, through beautiful images. They were artists and reporters, painters of life and light

The vast majority of ads don't register with consumers. Here are seven straight-up reasons why your message probably isn't getting through

By Steve McKee

Recently, an AdweekMedia poll of LinkedIn members posed this question: "Of the ads you see in a typical day, how many engage your attention?" A remarkable two-thirds of respondents said "a small minority of them." Another quarter answered "none of them." Together, that's 91%. Only one in 100 respondents said "most of them."

Ouch. While polls like these have their limitations (we often can't—or won't—tell the truth about our own purchase behavior), I suspect few us would doubt the overall conclusion that a lot of advertising doesn't work very well. Your own advertising may even fall into that category.

If you find yourself nodding your head and wringing your hands right now, keep in mind this simple business axiom: Companies get the advertising they deserve. If your advertising isn't working, it may be you that's the problem.

The good news is that you can take steps to fix it. Certainly the economic environment is playing a significant role in how well (and how quickly) prospects are responding to your advertising, but blaming the recession is ultimately unproductive. After all, you may not like the hand you've been dealt, but your competitors are holding the same cards. It's how you play your hand that counts.

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest seven reasons why your advertising may not be pulling its weight. Use them to evaluate your efforts, but don't rely on your judgment alone. Ask a trusted and objective colleague to give you his or her honest opinion as well.

1. It's boring. Yep, boring. Why do we watch TV, listen to the radio, read the newspaper, or go online? Three reasons: information, entertainment, and engagement. Ads that fail to offer at least two of these three benefits flop. Just as nobody reads every story in the newspaper, nobody pays attention to every ad. You have to engage your prospects with something that is interesting or entertaining before they'll give you their valuable time and attention. Creativity has always been the coin of the realm, but in our time-starved culture it's truer than ever.

2. It's boorish. You shouldn't think of your advertising as being about your brand, you should think of it as an extension of your brand (see "A Practical Guide to Branding"). If it's loud, annoying, insulting, offensive, or self-centered, people will think the same of your products or services (see "The Cocktail Party Test for Advertising"). Remember the first sentence in the best-selling hardback book in U.S. history, The Purpose Driven Life: "It's not about you." What's true in life is true in advertising; if you focus only on what you can get, you're not going to get much. Instead, focus on giving, and good things will begin to happen.

3. It's safe. The first time I saw a Ford Taurus (F), I took note, and I suspect you did as well. So did a lot of other people, and the Taurus went on to become the best-selling car in America. If the Taurus had been another in a long line of boxy sedans, it probably would have been just another car. Instead, it turned automotive design conventions upside down and made history. While being different isn't in and of itself a guarantee of success, what you do is a lot more likely to get noticed if it hasn't been done before. And keep in mind that when you do something different, people may not like it—at least initially. Most of us were shocked at our first sight of the Taurus' curved lines, but it went on to have significant influence on automotive design. If you worry too much about offending someone, you're likely to not attract anyone.

4. It's trying to do too much. As the poll results above demonstrated, most people don't engage with most ads. And even when they do, for how long do they pay attention? Thirty seconds? Ten? Five? The best an ad can do is communicate one single, compelling idea, and in the age of the Internet—when people know they can go online to get all the additional information they need—it's crazy to ask an ad to do more than that. Just because you have a lot to say doesn't mean your audience will sit still and pay attention. Do your best to make a simple, singular point. Do it with flair, and given enough exposure (see next point) it might just get through.

5. It hasn't been given time. You can't rush bread out of the oven. You can't hurry a seedling out of the ground. All you can do is prepare the ingredients properly, tend the garden with care, and wait for the loaf to rise and sprouts to appear. The same is true of advertising. If you expect too much too soon (especially on a limited budget) you're sure to be disappointed. Think about your own consumer behavior—how many times do you need to be exposed to a marketing message before you take action? Depending on your prospects' level of interest in the category and frequency of purchase, it could take weeks, months, or even years for your message to sink in.

6. You like it. O.K., this one may sting a bit, but you are not the best judge of your own advertising. You can't be, because you simply know too much about your brand and have too much affection for it to remain objective. Look at Burger King (BKC). Its advertising over the past few years has been quite successful in appealing to the company's core target audience of young men, but many Burger King franchisees could personally do without it. The smart ones recognize that they're not the target and leave it alone. Your advertising is not only not about you, it's not for you. Both points seem counterintuitive, but that's why this stuff isn't for amateurs.

7. It's not an advertising problem. A common mistake many companies make is trying to use advertising to fix another problem. It may be faulty or outdated product design, an uncompetitive cost structure, customer service letdowns, or any number of other things. It's not as if they do so intentionally; it's just that it's a whole lot easier to put on a new coat of paint than it is to fix the foundation that's causing the drywall to crack. No company executes flawlessly, but until you can maintain a solid track record of excellence, spend your money on internal improvements rather than advertising. Paint may mask the problem for a short time, but soon new cracks will begin to appear.

There are, of course, many more reasons why advertising underperforms, from poor media placement to bad strategy to competitive countermoves. But the above missteps are so common—and so commonly misunderstood—that simply putting them out to the curb would go a long way in making advertising better. Not to mention making television much more bearable to watch.

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/sep2009/sb20090911_201004.htm?chan=smallbiz_smallbiz+index+page_top+small+business+stories

 

Most companies are embracing social media—but too many are wasting their efforts through sloppy management

By The Staff of the Corporate Executive Board

More than 70% of companies are already using social media; many are planning to increase their spending on social media across the coming years. Whether for learning from customers, building their brands or a range of other hoped-for outcomes, companies are clearly diving in.

Unfortunately, few have thought very hard about managing these initiatives. In a classic case or "ready, fire, aim," companies are committing resources to social media efforts with very little process behind them. The result? A hodgepodge of unrelated initiatives, wheels re-invented and resources wasted.

The Corporate Executive Board has found that the best companies recognize that social media are just another set of promising tools and as such are to be understood, mastered, and used efficiently. Importantly, they also recognize that how they manage their social media efforts depends on where they are in the journey from initial discovery to mainstream use. That journey has three stages:

• Discovery: At this stage, the organization is just finding out about the potential uses (and risks) of social media for its purposes and making initial forays. The goal: understanding ("could this work for us?"). Since few resources are necessary at this point, companies don't need heavy managerial oversight. But they do need downside protection. Clear, well-communicated policies on everything from information sharing to appropriate language is in order.

• Experimentation: As an organization does more with social media, the importance of learning efficiently becomes urgent. At this point, companies need tighter oversight and coordination of efforts. There are a number of ways to create that kind of transparency and sharing, ranging from steering committees to tiger teams" to social media czars. These bodies should develop and steward a learning agenda for the firm's efforts, using each initiative to deliberately increase the institutional knowledge of social media use.

Measurement standards also become more important at this stage. The best companies settle on a consistent set of measures for similar initiatives, using that data to test and learn over time. Metrics like track-backs, for example, can clarify better or worse social media vehicles for a given objective.

• Adoption: While few companies currently find themselves in this stage, those that do loosen their managerial posture, moving away from oversight toward support. Here, the role of any central or dedicated management body should be one of education, coaching and provision of expertise. Some firms are building centers of excellence, repositories of people and knowledge about using social media. Metrics should shift here too, tailored for assessing efficiency and effectiveness of specific initiatives.

The short story: Social media isn't a fad about to fade away; it's a good idea for your organization to learn how to use it to your advantage. The best companies will learn faster and get more out of social media by aggressively managing their efforts.

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/sep2009/ca20090911_598255.htm

http://www.slideshare.net/mzkagan/what-the-fk-is-social-media-one-year-later

It is the million dollar question for social media and social computing efforts. “What is the ROI (Return of Investment) for social media?”  I just got asked this for the gazillionth time last week.  According to Wikipedia, ROI is the “ratio of money gained or lost on an investment relative to the amount of money invested.”  On the flip side, business value is defined as an “informal term that includes all forms of value…expands concept of value beyond economic value to include other forms of value such as employee value, customer value, supplier value…many forms of value are not directly measured in monetary value.”  What I and  the rest of my peers in the industry have discovered is the actual monetary investment necessary to deploy 2.0 technologies is very trivial.  So why do some many executives ask for up front ROI?  Why not ask what is the business value? What is the value being created? Caution: Business value isn’t ROI in sheep’s clothing but is intrinsically implied by exec’s questioning.   To add to the “why” questions….”why is it that nobody asking for the ROI of current collaborative and/or 1.0 technologies such as your external website or email or instant message….better yet – the phone sitting on your desk?  Why does social media get held to a different standard?

In a recent Information Week Global CIO Virtual Event, one executive stated that the cost of providing social computing is so “trivial” that it is not difficult to say the ROI of infrastructure is guaranteed.  I agree with that.  If we really want to dwell on ROI, then the discussion could be very quick.  You literally would only need to “return” very little back to the company.  Depending on if you use Open Source or commercial grade technologies, your investment could be as low as picking up a case of “two buck Chuck”.   Let’s run a scenario for a mid-size company (50,000 employees).

$500,000 invested for four to five technologies (heavier emphasis on commercial grade software)

Industry average employee burden rate is $100,000

Then, break even ROI is the efficiency or savings of 5 people or less than half of one percent of your workforce power

In most companies that I have worked for over my career, senior executives typically don’t bat an eye at this degree of expenditure.  Heck, for some corporations, the $500k is what they spent just for the first day of their annual sales conference.

Toby Redshaw, Global CIO, Aviva, made a recent statement during the Information Week Global CIO Summit,  that IT gets “trapped by accountants”.  He advocates to look at the bigger picture, even go beyond productivity measurements.  Toby states that investing in and utilizing 2.0 technologies isn’t about productivity. It is about solving business challenges such as staying ahead of the competition, accelerating speed of decisions & quality of decisions. Social technologies have the capacity to stop un-innovation.

So if the financial investment and monetary return is trivial, than what is really going on? My theory is that it is not about the ROI.  Decision makers use ROI as a blocker.  Your executive is exhibiting several anti-patterns. Fear. Control. Intangible Means Unmeasurable.  Jen Okimoto from IBM did a great job of laying out the classic anti-patterns for web 2.0 during the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston (see Jen’s: Anti-Patterns slide deck).

Knowing that you are dealing with classic anti-patterns, what can you do? 

Focus on the business value, but be cautious to clearly lay out that business value is not always, nor likely to be  monetized in the near future.

Do benchmarking of your peers and the industry.  If few industry peers have mastered the ROI, then likely you won’t either. This can “normalize” your efforts.

Become close partners with your controller or finance person. Jointly work on a proposed business value model.  Let your credible finance person deliver the message that monetized ROI for social media is currently elusive.

Identify potential business challenges and focus for the emerging technologies.  Partner with line of business stakeholders to align early use cases to test and prove out the delivery of desired value/results.

Work with your security and HR teams to do a risk assessment. The assessment will  identify the associated risks for deployed solutions AND also the risk of inaction. Knowing the risks in advance allow for informed vs. fear based  business decisions to be made. 

Reverse mentoring for executives who fear and want to control social media.  The next generation work force can help shed light on the use and value of the tools.  Executives will better understand that it isn’t a matter of “if” but “when” your workforce will evolve the way they work. They may have an “a-ha” moment that the change has already occurred at the grassroot level.

Get external 3rd party validation.  Yes, I know you are THE expert.  But sometimes a resident expert is viewed as a biased evangelist.  Get your CxO on the horn with a peer over at another company deploying & reaping value from 2.0; call in your favorite analyst to talk about emerging technologies and why to embrace vs. fear them; leverage the number of super duper consultants out there.  My experience is that light bulbs go off when someone else repeats exactly what you have been saying for the past 6 months.

Lastly, have patience.  In order to survive this journey you must be in it for the long haul.  Make sure you are surrounded by peeps that can be your emotional support team. You will ask yourself numerous times “WHY am I bothering?”  Getting a regular pow-wow with people just like you at other companies. It  helps keep you refreshed, renewed and potentially find new avenues to achieve success.  You are a change agent.  A pioneer.  It will be challenging.  In the long run- you will succeed!

http://ow.ly/oizQ

Because I Can with Adam J. Kovitz

“There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it.”

- George Bernard Shaw

Several years ago I predicted a major networking revolution and started a publication about it (you may have heard of it…wink, wink). The networking revolution happened, it’s here and it continues to revolutionize. Nonetheless, what I find ironic is how from time to time I still need to defend the term “networking” despite the fact that it is commonly accepted that one must network to find business, information, jobs, etc., yet most people don’t understand the true nature of networking. Metaphorically, I feel like we as a society spend too much time driving the car without really understanding how it works.

So at risk of my own sanity, my relationship with my wife as well as my partnership with Douglas Castle (who does not care for the word “networking”), I will attempt to “get under the hood” of this jalopy we call “networking” and make sense of it. I will try to do it in a way that is easily understandable – this month I’m leaving the mathematical formulas off to the side.

Why am I doing this?

Because I just can’t shake the feeling that besides getting more business, information and jobs, there is something vast, mysterious and wonderful to this networking thing that is significant, and also…

…because I can!

The Origins of “Networking”

Since Eve first met Adam (distant relative) people have been looking for ways to find business, exchange information, get their next job. They never called it “networking”, though. They would use terms like “talking”, “conversing”, “rapping” or simply “communicating”. So where did the word networking come from?

In 1930’s Jacob Moreno, a psychologist, conducted a study on a group of elementary school students and their interactions. Moreno represented the relationships in what he called a “sociogram”, which depicted a networking structure of a social system, which caused enough interest to be published in the New York Times.

Eventually the term “networking” came to be used in both telecommunications and computing. One communications device on its own is practically useless, but several arranged in a network have increased utility. In 1980, Metcalfe’s Law attempted to mathematically demonstrate this.

It was also around this time that business networking organizations like Ali Lassen’s Leads Clubs (now known as Leads Clubs International), LeTip International and eventually BNI would make the connection that human beings are the most sophisticated computers and communications devices that we know of and that they are capable of being organized into a social structure for the purposes of developing business through cooperative means. This concept became known as business networking.

The growth and popularization of the internet and World Wide Web further revolutionized networking. What had first started as bulletin boards grew into email, blogs and social media thereby giving people the means to develop relationships all over the world. But the implications of this are what astound me.

Theoretical Considerations

Before we get to the implications, we present a major academic obstacle of networking. Despite the fact that networking is important and is the basis for the way we conduct business, solve problems and accomplish goals, why aren’t we studying it more? The answer is that we are – in the emerging field of social network analysis (SNA). If this is the case, where can one go to get a degree in Networking (other than computer networking)?

The answer is: not too many places.

If you pay attention (as I do) to the majority of research done in social network analysis, you will notice that it is a cross-disciplined study that combines areas of computer science, sociology, psychology, communications, anthropology, biology, economics, statistical analysis, geography and even religion.

This is significant to me…it should be for you as well.

What other field of study would be of interest to all these disciplines? Find one…I DARE YOU.

I have stated in previous writings that I believe that networking theory and its many facets, including the study of Relationship Capital is the closest thing we have to understanding “life, the universe and everything” (oh…and by the way it’s the best way of determining the ROI of any network). Einstein referred to this elusive, almost asymptotic goal in mathematical terms as the Unified Field Theory, but to no avail. Could it be, though, that the study of networking mirrors the age old spiritual saying that “all paths lead to the truth”?

What does all of this mean?

For one thing, a paradox…no one is a networking expert, yet everyone is a networking expert…congratulations!

Secondly, networking touches upon just about every discipline that exists. Therefore, to fully grasp the totality of networking, one must be well versed in all studies – a true generalist. The major challenge is that each discipline approaches networking differently (a computer science person will look at networking differently than someone in communications or media).

Practical Considerations

No matter how far down the networking “rabbit hole” one chooses to traverse, no one can doubt how much the networking revolution is changing lives right now…no matter how theoretically academic or pragmatic you are about networking. Even to properly master networking as a jobseeker or business owner, the number of hats needed is considerable.

Certainly influence plays a large role…a recent report on CNN.com - “Obama's health care message hard to control online” touched on how the Obama administration, noted for being well-versed in social media to win the now-famous Election of 2008, has been loosing its edge as of late (in this case the backdrop is U.S. healthcare reform). What I found were the following significant “nuggets” about online networking that I feel are relevant:

· “They're also wondering if it's possible for any one person -- no matter how powerful -- to control public dialogue on a medium like the Internet, where conversations are driven by millions of users instead of TV pundits and heads of state.”

· “All said Democrats have made a number of ‘online gaffes’ that have drawn attention away from their talking points. [David All, founder of TechRepublican.com] said there is "so much noise" in the health care debate online that the party's missteps are overshadowing its message.”

· “In trying to get their message across, administration officials have ‘just as good a shot as some 20-year-old college student from Chicago,’ [Mark Milian of the Los Angeles Times] said. ‘It's just they have more people behind that issue. They have a greater pull.’”

 

Again, no one’s an expert at networking, yet everyone is. Again, too, there are many hats needed to tackle an issue such as U.S. healthcare reform. From a networking standpoint, to gain any ground, and win this battle of wills and influence, the following skills are just a few needed:

1.) Communications

2.) Leadership

3.) Marketing

4.) Consensus-gathering

5.) Technical know-how of social media tools like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.

6.) Team-building

7.) Vision forming/focus

8.) Diplomacy

9.) Attention to detail.

 

Again the implications of this are considerable.

As the internet continues to allow us to become more and more connected, we are being forced to do more and be more. We must be the CEO’s of Me, Inc. to develop our own brand and manage our careers, we must also be the ambassadors of the Country of Me – each of these job positions has a wide range of skills to master. Once more a paradox reveals itself…a country as well as a corporation requires a team of individuals united under a common purpose with varying complimentary skills to accomplish mutually-benefiting goals.

Pushing the Envelope

Just like Michaelangelo gazed upon a block of marble in 1501, saw his now famous statue of David within and used his artisans tools to reveal the image inside it, so we are revealing the human organism of mankind with tools like the internet from the marble block we call “networking”. Each step we take in understanding further – each technological advance we make reveals just how closely connected we all are.

Being closely connected has implications of its own:

1.) Hurting another means hurting us all

2.) Competition is not as effective as cooperation

3.) Major decisions must be made with sustainability in mind

4.) No one wins unless everyone wins

5.) Communication is key to making sure everyone works properly together and understands their purpose.

As one analyzes any effective network (country, corporation, networking group) you will notice that the above characteristics are prevalent. Shouldn’t, then, this also mean that any dysfunctional or seemingly divided network indicate a lack of such characteristics?

If so, understanding networking and the current networking revolution we are part of more than we already do today increases awareness and allows us to better correct such systemic issues for better results. I believe in time, raising networking awareness can eventually put an end to violence, poverty and hunger. Isn’t it time to put such things behind us?

Why?

Because we can.

http://thenationalnetworker.blogspot.com/2009/09/because-i-can-understanding-networking.html

 

Another company that does not get social media. Spectracide started a Facebook fan page to do what? Advertise.

The traditional marketing crowd just does not get it. Social media is about listening and engaging your customer.

The traditional marketing crowd is trained for one way communication, they are trained to broadcast a message, not listen and even less engage. We have seen that trend for years with companies removing contact information from their website, can you imagine, customers wanting to talk to companies, who do they think they are? Or communicating with customers is too time consuming, or customers only want to complaint... The easy solution was to remove all means of contact.
Social media is a new powerful way to communicate and build relationship, the fast growth of social networks is very tempting to the traditional marketing crowd, they jumped on it and created fan pages to do what? Traditional push advertising!!!!

They have a unique opportunity to engage their customers and prospects, create relationships, communicate, listen to their ideas and complaints, seize the opportunity to use the feedback to improve customer service, products, get new ideas... why? Because they do not get social media.

10 years ago I used social media techniques, before the concept of social media even existed, before social networks. I used our corporate website to engage our constituencies (customers, users, prospects, media). What I found was a goldmine of information that allowed me to build credibility for a new product on a new market, get massive exposure in media traditional and online, build relationships that outlasted my presence in the company and turn perceptions around.

Why, because I took the time to communicate honestly and candidly with our constituencies.

Was it worth taking the time, you tell me; our sales increased from $1.5mm to over $4mm

Social media marketing is nothing new to me, that's how I built my entire career, my business philosophy, social networks just give me a technology that was not available then to do it better.