09.26.06
Information: The Oxymoron Industry
Over the past two weeks, Business Week (www.businessweek.com) and Outsell (www.outsellinc.com) published studies about the information industry. Business Week reported on the job creation aspect of the information industry. Over the past 5 years, the industry lost 1.1 million jobs and currently employs fewer Americans than in 1998. Outsell’s report concentrates on industry revenues, which have grown 6.3% over the past year to a total of $358 billion. Outsell projects that information industry revenues will grow to $458 billion by 2009.
One would like to think that rising revenues would lead to job creation. Apparently not for the information industry. Why this discrepency? The obvious explanations are technology and syndication/multi-purposing of content. In a larger sense, information has become a commodity product – created & distributed by anyone and everyone. Editors, a.k.a. middlemen, are unnecessary.
Using Knowledge inForm as an example, we write and publish our electronic books. Then we sell those books via our website (www.knowledgeinform.com/knowbooks) and through third parties, e.g. the Gale Virtual Reference Library (www.gale.com/gvrl). We don’t have to hire additional personnel to handle the distribution; neither do our partners. Yet we all have the potential to realize greater revenues.
If you are a recent college grad, the information industry probably won’t be your future employer. (Think healthcare.) If you are a publisher or syndicator, you have access to a wider range of content to sell. If you are a writer, you are more easily able to self-publish but probably won’t earn more than you would in years past (information/content is a commodity now). If you are a reader, your cup runneth over.
Posted by Samantha.
09.17.06
Graveyard of the Dodos
A recent issue of National Geographic (www.nationalgeographic.com) related the discovery of a graveyard of 20 dodos. Along with the dodos, scientists discovered fossils of plants, birds, and tortoises. As I attended the AMA Marketing Research Conference (www.marketingpower.com) in early September, I was reminded of the dodos as speakers and attendees discussed the idea that market research is dead. Hal King of King Brown Partners (www.kingbrown.com) even showed a gravestone with Market Research 1775 – 2006. Malcolm Gladwell’s name was tossed about, as well.
The fundamental goal of market research: collecting information about customers’ to understand their needs and buying habits, will always exist. With data collection and statistical analysis easier and cheaper to implement, the focus of the market research project can shift from research to strategic analysis. King advocates continuous data collection, with projects being commissioned to analyze the data. He also pushes for market research departments to become more involved with defining project scopes.
Scoping projects is useful. First, market research departments have to think strategically. Market research projects are commissioned to support the achievement of corporate strategies and goals. If the market research department 1) doesn’t understand those strategies and goals or 2) participate in the creation of those strategies and goals, scoping projects or analyzing data won’t move market research departments further up the corporate food chain.
The goal of every market research department should be to provide market intelligence:
Research and analysis of the market environment in which an organization operates. Market intelligence supports strategic or tactical decisions that an organization makes regarding its customers.
Market intelligence uses corporate strategies and goals as the touchstones for market research projects: informing and forming tactics and strategies. The ubiquity of data means that other corporate managers can purchase/access market research data without a trained MR professional. If a market research department cannot link its projects to corporate goals, its personnel may find themselves extinct as dodos.
Posted by Samantha
09.05.06
The Brand Called You
Such a classic Fast Company cover. It managed to lead so many people astray. Thinking of oneself as a brand imposes an artificiality — creating a persona that one is expected to maintain. That persona can also inhibit the financial growth of you/your company, as Martha Stewart found out. That entanglement of the personal and the professional has recently led to another business divorce: Danny Sullivan and Search Engine Watch.
A legend in the world of search, Danny Sullivan became more than an expert; he was search in many people’s minds. While he did create products, e.g. Search Engine Watch, he didn’t create a company or brand that was larger than he. Accordingly, when he was purchased by Jupitermedia and then Incisive Media, he became a tiny cog in their larger corporate wheels. Ultimately expendable because when he would eventually retire or decide to pursue another interest, his brand would end because Danny Sullivan = the brand.
Arguably, Sullivan was not treated with the respect he had earned and deserved. (For further details, read: http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2006/08/29/danny_sullivan_leaves_sew_ses/ or his blog at: http://daggle.com/060829-112950.html ) But Sullivan made a fundamental marketing error, he never built the company brand – a unique, corporate, impersonal identity. The ”Brand Called You”, best case scenario, means you are a recognized expert on a particular topic. That doesn’t equal a business or even an income. When the winds of change blow, your brand could be obsolete. A company can relaunch itself much more easily than a person.
Danny Sullivan has been a tremendous asset to those of us in the search industry. His contributions should not be underestimated or diminished. Some other company will certainly snap him up. He does serve as a cautionary tale. Reminding all entrepreneurs or experts to create a corporate
