Balance of power

Anyone who has ever started a blog knows the hardest part is building a loyal following. Bloggers generally build awareness by creating their own content, reporting news, or a mixture of both. For the purpose of this post we are going to focus on bloggers who report on fashion oriented consumer news.

Being a political science major in college, I am going to explain the blogosphere by applying a well-coined theory called, “the balance of power.” A balance of power exists when there is parity or stability between competing forces.  If one were to apply this theory to the blogosphere we would surely witness an uneven scale. What contributes to this unevenness? It’s simple; corporations that produce the content control its distribution. Again, we are talking about consumer oriented blogs here. Let’s explore the world of sneaker blogs. At the end of the day the traffic goes to the blog that produces the best content. The best content heavily depends on who’s posting the freshest news on sneakers. Sure blogs can be successful posting already reported news and adding their commentary, however, in order to become a top-notch blog you need to find a way to gather exclusive information. Thus, bloggers work there tail end off to not only build their following but to also improve their content by establishing relations with organizations and brands (in this case sneaker companies) that produce the content – i.e. they want the exclusive stuff. So where does the power eventually end up? Duh! It ends up with the organizations.

Unarguably the producers of the content are the ones who have the power to make or break a blog’s success. Every once and awhile a blog will break through the barrier and find their way to exclusive content. Maybe, it’s the nature of the beast and the way things are meant to be. It’s what separates the big blogs from the small ones.

Brands who are smart notice

Smart brands value the big blogs no differently than they value the small ones. What the heck am I talking about? Well let’s explore.  AllWhiteKicks.com can’t compare in traffic to some of the larger sneaker blogs because it’s so niche. However, if a brand is looking to tap into the white sneaker market all of a sudden my blog might be more influential than the big ones. It’s niche and has already established a loyal following. More importantly, I would argue that when you give a small blog a piece of exclusive content that blog is more likely to push the content because it helps build their brand equity (aka look what I got!).

I want to be straight-forward with everyone as I am not complaining that my blog does not get exclusive content. I am happy with the relationships I have built over the last two years and have enough content coming my way. I’d like to think I broke through the barrier and established my brand as a go-to for white sneaker news. I basically worked overtime with a team of friends to build the brand’s popularity and make the connections I needed to get the content I wanted. But should it be that hard to do?

What big brands need to realize

Relationships with bloggers are not just about sending exclusive content. It’s about sending the right type of content that will match up with the blog’s audience. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is when a brand sends me information on sneakers that are not white. It’s like I am just another blogger part of a big email list and no one has taken the time to actually look at my site – or even the URL name for that matter. To be honest, I am less likely to open emails from anyone who just mass-messages me. I think any blogger (as do main stream media reporters) would likely feel the same way.

True blogger outreach does not involve creating massive email lists and blasting out information. Real blogger outreach is identifying blogs by influence, creating real interpersonal relationships, and sending information that helps not only the blog but the brand and message you’re trying to spread.

Big companies need to make themselves more accessible to bloggers. The communication process needs to go both ways. The days of sending out content and thinking bloggers will post anything are over. There’s just too much junk out there – bloggers, you know what I mean. Real relationships need to be established between brands and influencers.  It’s all about being human and believing in the fact that people like to do business with good people. It beckons back to the notion revolving around, “help me out, so I can help you out.”

Final thoughts

I want to emphasize again that I am not writing this post out of anger. I am happy with the relationships I have built with the brands I work with. What I think needs much approving is the process in which I had to take to get to where my blog is at today. It’s simple; brands who think relationships can be built behind a desk will hire public relation professionals to do blogger outreach. Brands who really care about getting genuine coverage and establishing long lasting relationships will invest in building influencer/brand relations.

It cant be, “Hey we sent you this content now post it.” It has to be more along the lines of, “How are you today? We wanted to check in to see what content you are looking for or interview you are looking to secure.” Doing the little things right will go a long way. Trust me!

- Jeffrey Cutler

I mention this because from the time I was born until now I have gone to just about any type of event imaginable. Why am I telling you this? It’s because not once did I see anyone at any of these events whip out their iPhone4 to make a Tweet. Not once did I hear the phrase, “Facebook Me.” And not once did I ever hear, “let’s connect on LinkedIn.” More importantly, I certainly never heard anyone brag about how many friends, fans, or followers they have. They simply knew each other’s wives names, backgrounds and major life events.

Being by my grandfather’s side for all these years and seeing first-hand the level of knowledge everyone possesses about one another got me thinking: What if social networking crashed? Think about it for a moment before reading on. Would you still be able to remember everyone’s birthday? What happens if you forgot your friend’s wife’s or husband’s name? Do you actually know even half of the phone numbers saved in your phone? If Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter died how in the world would you be able to stay connected or keep up with what everyone’s doing? The answer is simple – we would actually have to work harder at remembering things. For some of us that might even mean taking notes – ON PAPER! Yes generation-x, as scary as this may sound it is possible to live in a world without online social networking sites.

Can we define Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and others true social networking?

Now that I have you thinking about a world without online networking let’s explore the true intent of this post. Can we actually call sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, “social networking?” Or, are they just product tools that help us obtain the information we need for in-person interaction? Let’s use the Facebook event page as an example. An event organizer sets up an event on Facebook and invites their friends to RSVP. This provides everyone with insight on who’s attending the event. More importantly, it allows individuals to research one another before they attend the actual event.

The point I am trying to make here is that we have the luxury on calling upon Facebook when we need to obtain information – in this case people attending an event. Can we truly consider that social networking? What about the Facebook “Wall” or “Chat” features? Technically they are forms of communication, which is a core principle of “social networking.” Take a look at the posts on your wall or even your friend’s wall. Can we really consider a ‘like’ on a post or a quick comment in a ‘wall’ true social networking? Listen, I don’t have the answers to these questions. I am just tossing it out there as something for everyone to think about.

Recently, I did an in-depth analysis of my own social networking profiles. I wanted to see just how many people out of the 2,000 plus (Facebok + LinkedIn + Twitter) I actually conversed with in-person on a daily basis. When I did the math the exact calculation came to 0.010 percent (roughly 21 people). This is a pretty shocking number isn’t it? And for those of you who know me I am a pretty social guy. I hear so many people out there brag about the number of Twitter followers they have. I would hypothesize the larger the number of followers on Twitter an individual has the lower their percent of daily interaction amongst their followers will be. Kind of counter intuitive for a platform we consider to be social-networking right?

The point of this post is not to bash social networking – because I truly love it. It’s to raise an argument on how we define these so-called, “social networking” sites. Are they robust product tools that allow us to call upon information to enhance the true social experience, which is offline? Or are they platforms that foster a true enriched social networking experience in the place we call the Internet? Again, I don’t have the answers to these questions but my grandfather does. He states, “ You can’t ever replace the true value of human interaction and the importance of a handshake.”

1. A startup forces you to be creative

In any type of startup you will be relied on to think outside the box, whether it’s to solve a complex business problem or to create a new service or product. Unlike being in a classroom environment, your ideas really matter as they directly impact the future success of the business. For a variety of reasons, getting a good grade in class cannot and never will compare to the pressures of being relied upon to think creatively at a startup.

2. You wear multiple hats

As a student you are able to focus your curriculum around your interests. Thus, you spend most of your time in business school around that one particular topic (i.e. Finance, Marketing, Operations Management etc.). At a startup you typically don’t get the luxury of allocating your time towards your interests or particular job description. Often times, you will be asked to step into a role that you have no clue how to fill. Again, your decisions and ability to fill the void in this role will matter!

3. Witness real life experiences

As a member of a startup company you will witness what it’s like to start and manage a business. Whether it is going through a round of funding or closing a big business deal, you will gain first hand knowledge that simply cannot be replicated in any classroom environment.

4. A professional network

It would be foolish for me to say that you don’t grow a network at business school – you definitely do. However, it’s a different type of relationship, as you are still perceived as a student. Thus, it is a student-to-professional relationship rather than a professional-to-professional relationship. It’s hard to explain, but the dynamic of the relationship is intrinsically different. Working at a startup provides you with the same access to distinguished professionals, especially if you are at a venture-backed company.

5. Years of quality experience

Going to business school full-time is a huge commitment. You are giving up two years of real life business experience to go back to school.  Even the part-time MBA students sacrifice as often times they must defer new opportunities (i.e. extended work hours, mandatory relocation, and additional responsibilities), so that they can fit classes into their already rigorous schedule. Many students bank on the fact that their MBA will propel them in the business world. Guess what? While an MBA will enhance your resume, it definitely does not promise success. However, being at a startup certainly educates you and provides you with quality work experience.

6. Learn the present not the past

Business school has a funny way of getting students hooked on learning about past events. While it is unarguably beneficial to learn about past successes and failures, many of these examples do not apply to today’s global business economy. This is often a result of changes in the social, political, economical and technological landscapes. At a startup company you are undoubtedly going to be constantly looking ahead. You will be the one finding new ways to innovate your industry and pushing for change. In short, wouldn’t you want to be the one pioneering a new path instead of exploring someone else’s?  Startup companies will more than likely provide you with this opportunity. You will learn what works in today’s business!

7. More than one way to do things

Business school students often times get frustrated with certain professors who believe that solutions in the book are always right. If you are currently in business school and reading this you know what I mean. Right? The beauty of working at a startup is that there is usually no right or wrong solutions. A good CEO will want you to challenge the business and provide intelligent recommendations on how to change the current course. Moreover, the answers that your company is trying to solve are not given – that’s probably why it’s a startup. In short, a good startup will not restrain you from searching for new answers or strategies.

8. Making money is a good thing

One of the hardest realities any business school student faces is coughing up the dough. Business school is very expensive! While you probably won’t be making six figures at most startups you will be revenue positive. Making money is always better then dishing it out. Especially, for those students who have to take out loans that accrue interest. Either way, working at a startup provides you with both money and valuable work experience, neither of which is possible in business school.

9. Equity is a good thing

One thing you will surely not get in business school is equity. Most early stage startups will give their employees a decent salary and equity in the company. The idea of dishing out equity is that it makes you more invested in the venture. For those who have worked in startups you know what I mean.  Therefore, not only do you get paid to work at the startup you also get a piece of the action. I don’t think I need to explain the advantages of this one any further.

10. A startup is a sure thing

Well its true not every startup will succeed – you will learn and you will grow.  Prospective business school students ask me all the time how to measure the investment of an MBA. I simply tell them, “I have absolutely no idea. I don’t think anyone does.” Some schools may disclose how much their graduates make, but I would like to leave you with this question:  was it solely because of their MBA that they got the job? I highly doubt it.

My final thoughts

This post is not intended to tarnish business school. Experience at a business school definitely forces you to learn the fundamentals of running a business that you might not have otherwise ever learned. However, at the end of the day when I reflect back on my experiences and realize how I got to where I am today, I do question the arguments I presented above. I founded popular sneaker blog AllWhiteKicks.com, recently served as the director of social media at NBCUniversal’s USA Network, and am now off starting my new company – Gunning Point. I believe I got here because of my experiences at Going.com and other startup ventures, and not because of my MBA.

The California Gold Rush

Let’s take a look back on history and compare today’s rush towards social media to the California Gold Rush of the mid 1880’s. James W. Marshall (Pictured below) first discovered gold at John Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, California. News of the discovery brought hundreds of thousands of people to California from the rest of the United States and abroad.

As competition in the region grew between the miners, advances in technology were in high demand. These technological advances of course required capital. This increased the proportion between corporate miners and individuals miners. Gold that is worth billions of dollars today was recovered during this mad rush, which led to great wealth for a few. However, many returned home with little more than they had started with. Not to mention the years of harm caused to the environment from extensive mining.

Our Modern Day Pioneer

The lessons from the California Gold rush have a striking resemblance to today’s modern rush towards social media prominence. Our modern day pioneer is Mark Zuckerberg (Pictured above), founder of Facebook. Zuckerberg’s network much like the early days of the gold rush attracted marketers from around the globe. Similar to the miners today’s marketers are digging in Facebook for their gold – their consumers. The question still remains, “How much gold is left in Facebook for both individual and corporate marketers?” It seems as though the rush for gold is ever growing as marketers rush to find the next gold mine in their industry.

The Future of The Facebook Environment

What does this mean for the current Facebook environment? It means that the space has become more competitive and more expensive to penetrate. Marketers are now required to think outside of the box and are continually creating new technologies (i.e. Applications) and strategies within Facebook to generate an ROI. It will be interesting to watch the environmental impact of this rush. Will a majority of today’s marketers leave empty handed? And, will Facebook keep reproducing gold or will it be drained of its natural resources – its users. I guess we will all have to wait and see.

The Assignment

For those of you who don’t know, I am a graduate student at Northeastern University’s business school. I decided to take Creating Innovative Organizations for one of my summer session two classes. Throughout the semester we have researched and discussed dozens of companies and how they have innovated. During our first class our professor went around the room and assigned each of us a company to research – I was assigned Google. We were told to write a five-page paper on how, when and why our company innovated. In addition, we would have to present our findings to the class at the end of the semester.  At first, I thought that this was going to be an easy assignment. Finding information on Google has to be easy, right? Well, as it turns out – I was right. In fact, there was too much information! It became clear real fast that this was going to be a tough project. How was I going to pick and choose what to talk about in such a short paper? o overcome this dilemma I decided I would need to learn as much as I could about Google. Thus, I did what any other graduate student is likely to do when they are seeking information – I went to the library. Unfortunately, all the good books in the library were taken and the ones left on the shelves were simply too old to use. In an effort to save time (being a part-time student saving time is a big deal), I decided to purchase the books at Barnes & Noble. I also decided to buy The Innovator’s Dilemma by Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen. Many of my professors, including the one teaching my current course, references Christensen often. I figured that at some point I might be able to relate Christensen’s theories to my work.

Disruptive Technologies

According to Christensen, “Disruptive technologies bring to a market a very different value proposition than had been available previously. Generally disruptive technologies underperform established products in mainstream markets. But they have other features that a few fringe (and generally new) customers value. Products based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller and frequently more convenient to use.”[3]  Dan Tynan provides some examples of disruptive technologies in his PC World article The 10 Most Disruptive Technology Combinations. Tynan explains, “Fast-forward to the late 1990s and the introduction of the TiVo and ReplayTV digital video recorders. Time-shifting programs and fast-forwarding through commercials became as easy as pressing a couple of buttons. Suddenly people were no longer shackled to the arbitrary schedules of TV programmers and the obnoxious pandering of advertisers.”Like the best disruptive tech, DVRs returned control to users–and made consumers hungry for even more control over what they watched, when, and where.

Sustaining Technologies

Most new and emerging technologies foster improved product performance according to Christensen. Christensen states, “Some sustaining technologies can be discontinuous or radical in character, while others are of an incremental nature. What all sustaining technologies have in common is that they improve the performance of established products, along the dimensions of performance that mainstream customers in major markets have historically valued.”[4] Most technological advances in a given industry are sustaining in character.

Technology Progresses Faster Than Demand

Christensen observes that technologies can progress faster than market demand, as illustrated in the figure below. This means that in their efforts to provide better products than their competitors and earn higher prices and margins, suppliers often “overshoot” their market. [5] Christensen states, “They give customers more than the need or ultimately are willing to pay for. And more importantly, it means that disruptive technologies that may underperform today, relative to what users in the market demand, may be full performance competitive in the same market tomorrow.”[6]

Christensen: The Impact of Sustaining and Disruptive Technological Change (Page xix)

How Does This Relate To My Google Paper?

After reading Christensen’s theories I knew exactly what to look for while researching Google. What did Google first bring to the market that was so different from their competitors? And, how did Google grow so fast while continually sustaining its growth in the market place? Please remember, I only had five pages (double spaced) to work with. I needed to pinpoint the exact innovations that have led Google towards being the empire it is today.

Innovation One: A Ranking System

Together, Larry Page and Sergey Brin created a ranking system rewarding links that came from sources that were important, and penalizing those that did not. Their goal was to create an algorithm – dubbed “PageRank” after Page – that took into account the number of links into a particular site, and the number of links into each of the linking sites. As they fiddled with the results returned by their work, Page and Brin realized they were onto something that might have implications for Internet search. In fact, the idea of applying Backrub’s ranked pages results to search was so natural. Page and Brin quickly realized that BackRub’s results were superior to those of traditional search engines like AltaVista and Excite, which often returned irrelevant results. Page states, “We thought, why are they returning these results that are obviously not important? They were only looking at the text and not considering this other signal. Once you have it, it’s pretty obvious that this signal is useful in search.”[7] The signal – now better known as PageRank – became the foundation of Google’s vaunted secret sauce. [8]

Innovation Two: A New Way To Monetize Search

Omid Kordestani, Google’s newly hired sales chief, was plowing the fields for enterprise deals, but they were few and far between. With more than $500,000 (and growing) in expenses going out the door each month the company needed to quickly find a sustainable business model. Instead of falling back on DoubleClick, an ad network that specialized in servicing graphical banners, Google decided to create its own unique advertising network. [9] In October 2000, Google introduced its new service called AdWords. An announcement on the main site promoted the new service: “Have a credit card and 5 minutes? Get your ad on Google today.” Despite Google’s fabled devotion to speed and economy, the promotion stayed up in some form or another throughout most of the fall, demonstrating how critical this new revenue lifeline was to the young company. [10]

Initial versions of AdWords maintained the CPM approach – advertisers still paid for impressions instead of click-throughs. But despite that, the service was a hit – revenues began flowing in, and the mood improved significantly around the burgeoning Google campus. [11] This one service alone transformed Google from a search company into a profitable media company. By mid 2001, searches per day had sky rocketed to 18 million, and the Google index surpassed 1 billion documents – making it by far the largest search engine on the Web. [12]

Innovation Three: The Google Atmosphere

Google is a company that started with an argument and progressed into some astonishing ideas. It’s a company that built its core foundation around the ability of its early employees (i.e. mainly engineers) to work together for the greater cause. Thus, it’s not surprising today to see many of these key values instilled into the new wave culture that Google has created amongst all its employees – not just the engineers. Like it’s early days Google inspires employees to work together to solve complex problems and to think of new ideas. The company has created fun and inspiring workspaces that include on-site doctors; massage and yoga; professional development opportunities; shoreline running trails; and on-site cafeterias. [13]

Google also has its famous 80/20 rule whereas employees at Google are supposed to work 80% of the time on their core job while leaving the other 20% for developing new ideas. Of course, they are encouraged to work with other employees during the time they spend brainstorming for new ideas. [14] By fostering this type of atmosphere and enticing employees to work together to create new products Google has been able to come up with some amazing products. Many of Google’s new products are placed in “Google Labs,” an area that allows users to test new prototypes and provide direct feedback to the developer(s).

Lars Rasmussen, Jens Rasmussen, and Stephanie Hannon (Employees at Google) created and launched “Google Wave” a popular online collaboration tool. The core idea for Wave, says Lars, was first thought of by Jens as a way to fix email. Email is asynchronous conversation. Instant messaging, by contrast, is synchronous. Wave is both. [15] This is just one example of the dozens of products that have been created by Google employees.

The End Results

If you are familiar with the Google story you are probably thinking that these three innovations are so obvious. Well, in business school they teach us that in order to find the right answers you first need to know the right questions to ask. Often times figuring out what the right questions are requires additional research. In this case Christensen’s studies helped me conceptualize the information I needed to gather for my research. Please share your thoughts and let me know if you think I picked the right three innovations to talk about!

Source:

1. Auletta, Ken. (2009). Googled: The End of The World As We Know It. New York: The Penguin Press (Page: 1).

2. Jarvis, Jeff. (2009). What Would Google Do? New York: Harper Business (Page: 40)

3. Christensen, Clayton. (2003). The Innovator’s Dilemma. New York: Harvard Business School Press (Page: xviii)

4. Christensen, Clayton. (2003). The Innovator’s Dilemma. New York: Harvard Business School Press (Page: xix)

5. Christensen, Clayton. (2003). The Innovator’s Dilemma. New York: Harvard Business School Press (Page: xix)

6. Christensen, Clayton. (2003). The Innovator’s Dilemma. New York: Harvard Business School Press (Page: xix)

7. Battelle, John. (2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin Group (Page: 76)

8. Battelle, John. (2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin Group (Page: 76)

9. Battelle, John. (2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin Group (Page: 123)

10. Battelle, John. (2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin Group (Page: 125)

11. Battelle, John. (2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin Group (Page: 123)

12. Battelle, John. (2005). The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin Group (Page: 126)

13. Google Jobs. Top Ten Reasons to Work At Google. Vitied July 25, 2010 at http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/lifeatgoogle/toptenreasons/New York Times. Mediratta, Bharat.

14. The Google Way: Give Engineers Room. Visited July 25, 2010 at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/jobs/21pre.html?_r=1

15. TechCrunch. Arrington, Michael. Exclusive: Video Interview With The Google Wave Founders. Visited July 25, 2010 at http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/28/exclusive-video-interview-with-the-google-wave-founders/