RE: The Greatest Generation (of Networkers)

The Wall Street Journal‘s Jeffrey Zaslow posted an interesting article entitled “The Greatest Generation (of Networkers)” wherein he talks about the Millennial Generation and their seemingly “subconsious” propensity for using communication technologies such as cell phone texting, instant messaging and social-networking applications (e.g. Facebook, MySpace).

The key concern: How can young people get any work done if they are “hyper-socializing” and holding multiple conversations with others through these technologies?

The experts weigh in.

In one corner: They can’t. The communication that is going on is “futile and trivial” (according to one expert cited in the article). What’s more, the interactions with devices and online networks while in the workplace are a drain on productivity. People are goofing off and employers are paying for it.

In the other corner: They can, and because they are multi-tasking socializers, it actually helps their social skills. They’re able to prioritize, optimize, and nimbly handle multiple streams of interaction while quickly boiling issues down to their essence. This, says another expert, is an important skill in today’s work world.

My take is this:

1. The onslaught of hyper-connectedness is here to stay — in the home, at the workplace, in school, and in society. So, we can complain all we want, but the horse is out of the barn. People will have to adjust to the new ways of always-on, always present interactive communications.
2. People have been goofing off at work since time immemorial. Before the internet it was private phone calls. Before phone calls, it was water cooler chat, three martini lunches, and golf. Then (and now) it has been reading the newspaper or daydreaming. Productivity will always be affected by people goofing off. The prohibition of social networking sites in an effort “thwart” drains on productivity is akin to turning off email or preventing phone calls and can actually send signals to employees that you don’t trust them, as Shel Holtz has been arguing on his blog.
3. “Futile and trivial” conversations have also been going on since time immemorial, and even though folks might not be using social media and other networking technologies to wax philosophic about “important” issues such as the meaning of life or how to end world hunger, the “superficial” conversations occurring through social media can actually lend themselves to building and maintaining relationships — something few would argue is not important in today’s business climate. Not all relationships developed through social media run deep. But what applies to interaction in non-work scenarios also lends itself to interactions in the workplace. For example, I communicate with many friends and family members in short bursts and in ways that might seem “futile and trivial,” but nonetheless important. My friend Brian van Huss put it well: If Nietzsche were alive today, even he wouldn’t be talking/writing/publishing “important” content all the time. But he probably would find time to think about such things. And this leads to my final point …
4. What I’m more critical of is the loss of contiguous, uninterrupted blocks of time to concentrate on whatever endeavors one needs to get done … so, can this generation disconnect from these tools when necessary, disengaging the “surface,” and focusing in-depth on issues that need such attention?
   

Microsoft Stores = Tech Support Nightmare (?)

So, Microsoft has decided to go “head to head” with Apple on the retail front. This made for interesting conversation in my marketing class yesterday, where the day’s topic happened to be retailing. For the most part, my students thought the idea was a bad one, primarily because Microsoft is not “cool.” But apparently so do a lot of others in the industry, despite words of caution on nay-saying. (Note: This latter link alone is worth following just to see Steve Jobs’ “pitch” for Apple stores, circa 2001.)

But my take is this: Microsoft primarily sells software (Zune and XBox as the exceptions). Their software is distributed across many platforms and is largely independent of hardware. Apple sells an experience. It is self-contained and thus easily controlled. Microsoft plans to have something similar to the “Genius Bar.” So if I buy my version of Windows from the Microsoft store, do I have access to the (Microsoft) Genius Bar? If so, I can see a tech support nightmare in the making. I mean, what are they actually supporting? Do they turn people away with hardware issues? With so many possible hardware-software configurations … Yikes.

Outlook is Losing, “Lifestreaming” is Winning, But We Still Need Organization

As I’ve become more involved in researching and participating in social media, it has become apparent that nobody has “cracked the code” on a productivity tool that would manage all of the different social media outlets (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, blogs). In other words, I want one place to go so I can connect to all of these outlets at once, without having to log into each separately. I’m test-driving Seesmic desktop right now. It’s got a pretty decent interface, but seems prejudiced to only Facebook and Twitter (two SM biggies, I admit). Also, it doesn’t allow me to see private replies on Facebook, nor manage who I’m following on Twitter. I like that it runs on Adobe’s AIR platform and is therefore not web-based, but it still offers a limited menu in terms of which sites I can manage.

As to “social web browsers,” there’s FriendFeed, Flock and Streamy. I’m going to give them a whirl.

What’s interesting though is that despite my downloading a 85 megabyte update to Microsoft Outlook this past weekend (rendering no apparent change in the UI), there’s still not a peep from the king of “productivity software.” I did find TwInbox add-in for managing Twitter as an Outlook folder, but it has some quirks with the toolbar placement in Outlook.

The old paradigm of private communication through email, while not going away, is being augmented (and for some supplanted) by “lifestreaming” … an ongoing feed of communications through various networks that allows publication of “what’s going on” to the world, not just a single person on the other end of an email address. The good thing about email is there’s one point of contact, my email address, versus the many that have emerged with social media.

Whoever can get their hands around managing multiple social media outlets is going to be the winner.

People Under 25 Don’t Care About Privacy?

During a Web 2.0 discussion at the recent Association for Consumer Research conference, scholar Rob Kozinets posed the question: Do people under the age of 25 care about their privacy? The context of the discussion dealt with social media and the “trade-off” between being networked with friends (and strangers) and divulging private information. Young people seem more willing to provide information about themselves, in the form of social media site profiles and status updates, for example. So is there a shift in attitudes toward privacy? Are “under 25ers” simply naive about the information that they divulge? Is there a notion of “apparent” privacy (i.e. nicknames and personas that mask real personal data) and “actual” privacy (i.e. real anonymity). Is “actual” privacy really possible these days?

The Power of Tribes

Marketing guru Seth Godin has this notion of “tribes” whereby he advocates the emergence of people/companies/brands that espouse/embrace a cause. This cause can be seemingly trivial (Ukrainian folk dance is the example he often uses), but it is something that resonates with people. The idea is an extension of viral marketing and has been advocated by others in various forms. Essentially, gaining a deep understanding and integrating with an issue that is a passion for 1,000 people enjoys the phenomenon of “network effects” (word of mouth) and has a greater impact than just mass marketing to 100,000 people.

As I have gone through gyrations with lackluster service from Lenovo, I’ve discovered an interesting and devoted tribe around the “cause” of ThinkPad computers. Despite the fact that the ThinkPad brand has changed ownership (from IBM to Lenovo) and in turn gone through transformation of offerings (i.e. design, service level, support), the true believers in the product have set up camp and continue to offer not only better support, but a charming sense of devotion and community. This is happening through a lively and long-running ThinkPad forum that is decidedly more popular than Lenovo’s corporate-sponsored equivalent. The ThinkPad Forum has no official affiliation with the company, although a simple Google search for “thinkpad support” puts it in the top four search results and a search for “thinkpad forum” puts in in all four of the top search results.

When I introduced my problem (rather, a grievance) to both the official and unofficial ThinkPad forums, I received responses faster and in greater number on the unofficial ThinkPad forum. I did ultimately receive responses on the official forum, but not by Lenovo representatives.

It is said that there is a conversation happening online about all brands. The conversation is often the most active as it resonates from passionate tribes that support those brands. To be fair, Lenovo makes no claim to monitor either the official or unofficial forum. But should they?

The Last ThinkPad I Will Ever Own

This post is inspired by frustration, humiliation, and finally disappointment.  After being a loyal ThinkPad customer for almost 15 years, my relationship with the brand must come to an end.  Mind you, this is no small concern.  Brand loyalty is the holy grail among companies and organizations who understand the power of customer lifetime value (CLTV).  Lenovo, the proud (relatively) new owners of the ThinkPad brand apparently don’t understand CLTV.

Despite their being under contract with rival Dell, I convinced my employer to purchase a ThinkPad for me, citing my excellent run with them in the past.  So, I acquired my first Lenovo brand ThinkPad (all of the previous ones, about 8 of them in total, had been made by IBM).  Upon arrival, my brand new premium priced top-of-the-line X200s had a sound problem.  A loud static-y “pop” at the end of playing back audio files.  Not good for a professor who uses the laptop through a loud PA in an auditorium full of business students.  Lenovo customer service had me send it back in for repair under warranty.  Patiently, I did as I was told.  During the week it was gone, I fell back to using my trusty IBM X31 that I’ve had for almost four years now.  The Lenovo was returned a week later with a signed letter from the technician.  Parts had been replaced and it was their goal to ensure “I was completely satisfied” with the service.   After sending it in, waiting a week, and receiving it back, the “repaired” ThinkPad had the same problem.

I called again and was dumb-founded by Lenovo’s request to return it again to the same place as before, despite the fact that they offer on-site warranty service.  They were quick to remind me that I had not paid for that service, which is true.  But my argument with them was that the second time around should constitute an extra effort on their part to go above and beyond their policy in the interest of customer service.  They refused.  With hat in hand, I must tell my organization that the ThinkPad is not what it once was.  Hence the humiliation.

As a consumer behavior researcher, it is an interesting phenomenon to actually feel so let down by a brand that I’ve been loyal to for so long. Lenovo took a great brand and ran the quality into the ground on two fronts: engineering and customer service. I once extolled the virtues of ThinkPads at every chance.  Now, the relationship is over.  It’s sad, really.  Hence, the disappointment.  Hence, this post.  Hence, the case study I intend to write up on this.  Hence, the passionate negative word-of-mouth I will disseminate using every opportunity I have as a consumer and certainly as a professor in marketing — henceforth and forever until the end of time. 

Goodbye and good luck Lenovo.  Your executive turnover and 27.4% drop in year-on-year profits makes sense to me now.

Yours,

Dr. Rader