"So far, so good" is the main message conveyed by new stats from comScore.  More money's been spent online during the first five weeks of the November-December shopping season this year than last, and social media marketing efforts appear to be succeeding, too.

read more

Contrary to popular belief, social media is not naturally more resistant to marketing tricks. It can be gamed. On Twitter, services exist to boost your follower count and give the impression that you've got a vast high-quality network. Bloggers can write articles rich with links that draw the attention of others who would hopefully link back the the article. You can run behind the scenes campaigns to get people to provide positive reviews for your products or services as if they were just some happy customer rather than a hired hand. Or you can hire a small army of part time college students to Digg your content. Social media is just another social system and any such system, real world or online, can be gamed.

But I wonder why anyone would want to do this? Word of mouth marketing works in both directions on social media. For example, a few years ago clever marketers created a viral campaign for the movie "Snakes on a Plane" in which you could have the voice of Samuel L. Jackson call your friends and play a recorded message. The gimmick worked and Snakes became a highly anticipated movie.

But then the movie was released, and it was bad. Negative word of mouth spread just as quickly as the marketing campaign had. The movie never delivered on the buzz generated by the campaign. The same social system that was gamed via clever marketing was used to quickly turn the movie into a flop.

The litmus test that I often use when coming into contact with people, products or companies that display some kind of impressive stat or endorsement is to ask myself if anyone I trust has ever talked about this person, this product, this company or whatever it is being hyped. And if so, was what I heard favorable? Sometimes it comes down to the question: "If you're so great, why haven't I heard of you before?" Everyone and everything deserves a chance but it's only if you've heard of the person, the product, or the company from someone you know that you'll believe they have credibility.

Online, in some ways is more game-able than offline because you don't pay to play as much as you do via traditional media. You have to earn attention within social spheres, and there's a cost associated with that. That cost is trust. No one online has any reason to trust what anyone else says. Marketers may find the shortcuts of gaming the system appealing, but in the end they will backfire. Why not devote those resources to making something outstanding in the first place rather than trying to cheaply trick people into thinking its outstanding? You'll be better of than playing the game.

It's unfortunate — but true — that it's easier to think shallowly about a big problem than deeply about small ones.

In the last post, a business leader and an IT leader appealed to you for help in defining how to deliver a large initiative using a fast-cycle, iterative approach. To force deep thinking, it is important to focus on three key principles:

1. Generate business value early and often. This means determining what combination of people, process, and technology changes need to be in place to deliver the benefits pitched in the business case. The hardest part of this analysis is coming to grips with the real reason the benefits are still on the table and not already flowing to the bottom line. Surprisingly, in many cases the benefits don't depend on new technology because the root causes are human, not technical. For example, moving to global procurement depends on shifting decision authority from the regions to the global center. Once the power grab is sorted through, the supporting process and technical changes are relatively minor. Accelerate value realization by defining the benefits chain — what has to happen in what order to realize value — and working out the dependencies. Just as you don't have to remodel your house in order to get your lazy son to move out, there is no need to work on technology until the people and process changes are well underway.


2. Deliver a portion of the ultimate solution with each project. Breaking a complicated and only partially understood problem into a series of chewable bits is hard. Imagine building a home, one room at a time. At the end of construction, you need to be assured that the home will support your lifestyle, integrate well with the neighborhood, and be cost effective. Without some kind of an overall plan, the front door could open into the bathroom, the only access to the kitchen may be through the garage, and the utilities may not support the size of the house or, even worse, not connect to the city systems. Likewise, systems require a solid foundation (hardware, operating systems, security) and must interconnect business processes, data, and existing systems. Implementing changes a chunk at a time requires backward and forward compatibility with business processes, data and technology. For example, shifting decision authority requires that we move a portion of the business process (i.e., sourcing) to the global center while ensuring that regional ordering continues as is. Since full realization of the business case involves end-to-end streamlining of the entire procurement process, any process, data, and technology changes need to be designed in a way to "plug 'n play" with the target as well. Solving this multivariate equation is hard, so make sure that you have the right people — with savvy IT architecture, business analysis, and project management skills — to help you develop a high level understanding of what's in place and what should be built.


3. Get the money, but spend it right. In many companies, internal mechanisms inadvertently incent large projects over small ones. Listen to what gets in the way:

Approvals: "There is pent-up demand by the business for a whole bunch of requirements that, once the project is finally approved, the business is reluctant to chunk it up."

Funding: "Blame the accountants! When I try to chunk up a large project, I run a high risk of losing my funding between one of the chunks because either a) a higher priority comes through OR b) I could not provide a good enough ROI on an individual chunk so my finance organization kills the project."

Rewards: "I've found myself in far too many meetings where I've suggested a sound plan of incremental successes, only to be shoved aside by either other IT leaders or business partners. After all, where is the glory in winning in small, incremental steps?"

If these barriers are at work, instead of trying to do the right thing, do the practical thing. Pitch the big program and secure the funding. Then spend it right by allocating it in stages based on a fast cycle, iterative plan that realizes value along the way.

It took years to create your messy, fragmented business processes and systems and it's going to take years to fix them up. It requires deep thinking to figure out how to go big by going small. If you spend too much time and money trying to build the ultimate solution, it's likely that your funding source will dry up and you'll have to make due with what you have. Think small.