links for 2009-12-13

  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r1.asx
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r2.asx
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r3.asx
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r4.asx
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r5.asx
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r6.asx
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r7.asx
    with the fStream application (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=289892007&mt=8)
  • Definitely worth reminding…
  • Coca Cola
    starbucks
    disney
    victoriaÂ’s secret
    itunes
    vitaminwater
    youtube
    chick-fil-a
    redbull
    t.g.i friday
    skittles
    dunkinÂ’ donuts
    best buy
    nba
    adidas
    kelloggÂ’s
    (…)
  • Seems so obvious, and yet…
    1. Make it all about the HQ
    2. Promote silence
    3. Make it all “talk”
    4. Make it unreliable
    5. Include runaway experiments
    6. Hide all the good stuff
    7. Create information overload
    8. Exclude half your workforce
    9. Create generation divides
    10. Go for Gizmo interfaces!
    (via entreprise globale)
  • Based on the responses of thousands of participants to more than 100 dilemmas, we find no difference between men and women, young and old, theistic believers and non-believers, liberals and conservatives. (…)
    What guides your judgments is the universal and unconscious voice of our species, a biological code, a universal moral grammar. We tend to see actions as worse than omissions of actions: pushing a person into the factory vent is worse than allowing the person to fall in. Using someone as a means to some greater good is worse if you make this one person worse off than if you don’t. This is the difference between an evitable and inevitable harm. If the person in the hospital or in the factory is perfectly healthy, taking his life to save the lives of many is worse than if he is dying and there is no cure. Distinctions such as these are abstract, impartial and emotionally cold. They are like recognising the identity relationship of 1=1, a rule that is abstract and content-free.
  • As some social media experts are now starting to realize, businesses need a little bit more than relationships to justify their spend in conversational marketing. Relationships are difficult to forge and even more burdensome to measure. And while participation and engagement are part of a more effective interactive business communications program now, we can not neglect our responsibilities to the bottom line as well as our dedication to existing customers and prospects.

    Socialized media affects an organization in its entirety. Any division responsible for outside communication interaction, from marketing and public relations to sales and service, will eventually socialize « it’s a matter of when, not if. (…)

  • # Permission, car le marketing de l’interruption ne fait plus recette et qu’il faut maintenant se faire accepter des cibles pour rentrer dans la discussion et [engager] des individus ou des groupes (souvenez-vous que vous avez avant tout à  faire à  des profils, pas des clients [physiques]) ;
    # Proximité, où il est recommandé de s’adapter aux spécificités [locales] (services, tonalité, us et coutumes!) pour toucher de façon plus subtile les cibles et non les [irradier] avec un message générique valable sur l’ensemble des marchés ;
    # Perception, où l’auteur nous explique à  juste titre que sur les médias sociaux il faut savoir se contenter de ce que les utilisateurs veulent bien montrer d’eux-mêmes (sur leurs profils ou au travers de mécanisme d’authentification comme Facebook Connect) ;
    # Participation, où les clients / prospects sont invités non pas à  prendre complètement le contrôle mais à  s’exprimer sur leurs besoins ou leurs souhaits d’évolution.
Posted in links

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*