If you love good ideas, let them go…

When I mentioned the questions and answers service I set up on a site many years ago in my post on responding to negative reviews, it reminded me of something I meant to write a while ago.

Like most people who have worked in digital, I’ve spent many an hour trying to come up with new ideas or ways to evolve an existing one. Sometimes that’s been on behalf of an employer, and sometimes it’s been that search for the elusive ‘next Google/next Facebook’ that I suspect most of us spend time daydreaming about.

Besides the recent high profile sucess of a few Q and A sites, I’ve also seen the former UK rival of 140char.com get acquired. I say ‘former rival’ because towards the end of last year I wound down posting original content on the site and effectively put it on life support by simply collecting links about microblogging on Diigo which are then autposted. Meanwhile Shea Bennett continued to post brilliant content on Twittercism.com, which is now part of the MediaBistro empire (recognition which is heartily well-deserved).

At the same time, I also saw news of startup funding for a company which aggregates affiliate offers, but then automatically selects the one with the lowest price for you to recommend to people. Annoyingly I don’t have the link to hand, but I’ll be digging it out to follow the progress, as this was a suggestion I once made to pivot the Ditto project which I worked on a few years ago. And about 12-18 months ago, I’d started asking a few people about a great idea I’d had for a new startup which worked around content filtering – within the space of a week, I’d seen a news article about someone getting funding to launch just that service!

Image courtesy annais on Flickr (CC Licence)

This isn’t a post to claim I’m hard done by, or unrecognised genius. Question and answer sites aren’t a revolutionary concept, Twittercism was always a far more focused product which continued to build an audience with great content, and there’s nothing to guarantee either startup will succeed with or without funding.

But it’s about ideas, and one of the things I’ve realised over the last decade.

If you think you’ve got a great idea for something, whether it’s a digital idea or in the ‘real world’, there are three alternatives:

  1. Hold it really close, don’t tell anyone, and keep planning that one day someone will drop the £1 million you need in your lap by magic. Someone else might have the same idea, and you can complain that it was your idea first.
  2. Let it go by telling people about it, sharing it, and evolving it publicly. Someone else might have the same idea. Someone else might develop a business around your idea. Or you might find yourself being asked to get involved with people sharing the idea – whether that comes from rich investors or a group of people who think your idea is cool. One of the joys of the virtual world is that there is a huge pool of people who may have similar ideas and viewpoints who have complimentary talents, skills and resources that can help you.
  3. Go and bloody do it. Find money. Bootstrap it. Work on it in the evening if you need to support yourself through the day. Get the lowest minimum version of it out and see if people want it (And not just family and friends being nice).

And that’s really what I mean by saying you should let good ideas go – not just that you should let them fly freely away, but you should give them an engine, and see if they run for yourself. Just don’t sit on them endlessly waiting in case they magically hatch.

Image courtesy ieshraq on Flickr (CC Licence)

The best thing about all this is that it shows a percentage of my ideas are in the same ballpark as some successful businesses, or are in a ballpark deemed worth pursuing by others, which validates them by competition, if not success. Ideas aren’t a finite resource, and now, more than ever, I’m in a position where I’m able to choose the ones I believe are worth pursuing, and to let the others go. And without wanting to overdramatise, there’s something nice about knowing that if I miss an opportunity now, it’s because I’m in the middle of actively pursuing some others, whether it’s microniche publishing, or getting together with interesting digital people in the local area.

Negative reviews – Proof that responding works!

Back when I was Products Editor on motorcyclenews.com, I received a steady trickle of emails and phonecalls on the same theme. Each one was from a product manufacturer or retailer who had received a negative review or forum post and wanted to know what they could, and should, do about it.

Five+ years ago, the answer was mix of the insight and common sense that I possessed at the time. Unless the review or post was libellous (in which case the legal requirement was to remove it), the best thing that company could do would be to respond publicly with a polite and reasoned answer for what may have caused the problem, and if possible, potential solutions. That way they not only reached the complainant, but also the huge audience who would view everything without necessarily posting. It also ensured that the situation was likely to be defused straight away, rather than building up steam.

Photo courtesy Lars Plougmann on Flickr (CC Licence)

If only I’d had the 2011 ‘The Retail Consumer Report’ from Harris available at the time. (h/t Mediapost and Mack Collier). The survey of 1605 U.S online adults reveals:

  • 68% of consumers who posted a complaint or negative review on a social netowkring or reviews site got a response from the retailer, which led to 18% of them becoming loyal customers and buying more.
  • Receiving a response meant 33% went back and posted a positive review, and 34% deleted their original negative review.
  • And given that a big part of making sales and getting loyal customers is based around surprising them with things that make them happy – 61% of consumers would be shocked if a retailer responded to their nagtive comments on the social web.
  • Plus, nearly a third of consumers research on social networking and reviews sites when they’re shopping online.

I’ve finally got some empirical evidence to back up my conversations all those years ago! Funnily enough, the evolution of those conversations was a questions and answers section named Ask An Expert, which asked representatives from suitable companies to be available to respond to reader questions. I’d prefer you didn’t mention the amount of interest and funding sites like Quora have generated more recently!

But it’s actually an even more important approach to me now as a business owner, not only do I continue to advise clients to respond publicly to negative complaints in a polite, responsible, and most importantly, active way, but I also have a responsibility to monitor and respond to comments and reviews of the two businesses I’m running to make sure that we do the best by our clients and customers. And if after all that, you’d rather ignore my advice, Harris research and any negative reviews, then I guess pointing to the example of Craiglist and Craig Newmark won’t change your mind. I can only hope you’re not a client, and you happen to run a marketing or web design and development business!

Will Microsoft and Xbox rule online identities in the future?

A really interesting Microsoft internal team video has appeared on the web, showing the ambition of the Windows Gaming Experience team for your Xbox avatar to become your identity and persona in the digital world.

It’s really interesting in light of some of my previous thoughts regarding Xbox Live Avatars, when I claimed back in 2008 that introducing avatars was a big mistake. And more rcently on both gamification, virtual worlds, and the idea of any company providing a single digital identity for us.

I’m a big Xbox gamer and fan, and I don’t think that Microsoft would be any worse than trusting a single identity to Facebook or Google. I also don’t think they’d be any better, despite the fact that avatars are slowly becoming better implemented and utilised in ways that are actually interesting and useful. My thoughts are probably summed up by the fact every article I see on single identities is tagged in Google Reader with ‘oneidisaf*****gstupididea’ – I’ll let you fill in the blanks. But so much of the momentum for a single ID seems to come from educated white male digital professionals who are comfortable with teir online personas and indeed often build businesse around them.

People are human, fallible, and occasionally secretive for good reasons as well as bad ones. Or will Microsoft introduce a ‘private browser’ setting that puts your avatar in a hat, shades and a long coat if you want to isit somewhere digitally that might be adults only, for example?

There is one other possibility which I’m starting to think about – the sanitised proprietary web experience of being locked into Microsoft or Facebook worlds with an ID which is tied to you for life, and a seedy underworld open web, where you can be who you want, do what you want (within reason), and actually learn, grow and evolve by mistakes as well as successes. I know which one immediately seems more fun and interesting to me.

Why don’t Facebook fans like us anymore?

Some interesting research coming from ExactTarget, including this, picked up via SeventySeven.

It’s an interesting summary of the reasons people have unfollowed Facebook Pages, with ‘The Company Posted Too Frequently’ at 44% of unfollows, and ‘My Wall was becoming too crowded with marketing posts and I needed to get rid of some of them’ at 43%. There’s some mixed messages in there, as acknowledged by ExactTarget’s full report (Available in exchange for an email address and worth the download), as 24% didn’t get enough deals, whilst a different 24% thought posts were too promotional.

So what’s a brand to do?

The need for a clear content strategy:

The thing I’d have love to have seen in the report would be examples of pages cited for each reason. For instance, the 17% who found content too chatty – was it a brand that was being uncharacteristically chatty? Or one you’d have expected to be more informal?

And were people Liking pages which they presumed would be offering constant deals only to find out that it was a publicity broadcasting tool, or a conversational approach? Were they mistaken or being misled by something? Is it wise to try and aim for a middle ground and attempt to please everyone all the time?

It’s something that becomes less of an issue on Twitter – multiple profiles can each target different areas, with plenty of examples of accounts which purely publicise deals, and profiles from the same brand focused on customer support (e.g. Dell).

And importantly, the same report also indicates that ‘unliking’ a page doesn’t mean that people won’t buy from the company – ’63% of consumers said they were as likely or more likely to purchase something from a company after ending their Facebook relationship.’

Some conclusions:

Often said, but still rarely accepted is the fact that ‘Likes’ really aren’t that important as a metric. Obviously it’s nice if the figure is going up, but the engagement on the page, engagement with individual messages, and important off-site metrics such as referrals are far more relevant.

And secondly, when you’re setting up, using, or revising your Facebook page it’s important to set a clear role for it within an overall content/marketing strategy for your brand. Do you want to encourage sales? Customer service? Conversation? You’ll always get a mixture of responses, but if you can provide some clear messaging and singposts to show what the purpose is, and keep it consistent, you’re more likely to be found by people that want that aspect of your business above the others.

Thirdly – I haven’t spotted anything in the Facebook Pages Terms that actually limits the amount of pages a company could operate. Perhaps the profile rules and a hangover from websites has meant that we’re artificially limiting ourselves to one aggregated Facebook Page for a brand or company, when we could potentially be using distinct pages for different purposes?