Daniel Hetherington

Love this Dan – I think platforms models need to be reshaped. I’d rather pay Facebook and Twitter to use them, and know what I am getting into (to your point) clearer language, than have everything be ambiguous as it is today. Perhaps we will see a shift to those models, The dating apps all offer a premium service and certainly have users. I wonder if that entices advertisers more as they could potentially be getting a more engaged user set if you are paying for it. I know I would be on twitter way more if I was paying for it.

It’s amazing to me how disconnected people can be from this topic, but, as we’ll see on Wednesday, the system is designed to be opaque and inaccessible. It also subsidizes most of the content we consume, so there’s a clear business interest to keep the system in place. By focusing the question on “how much is your data worth?”, we shift the onus to the consumer to “demand” change and, in the process, apparently set a low bar for any potential market.

But … what if a tech company wasn’t tied to its ability to sell ads to monetize its products and services?

Apple is such a company and has lead the way on advocating for consumer privacy (for entirely altruistic reasons, of course). With changes to iOS, users are now opted-out of ad tracking and targeting by default.

https://mashable.com/article/ios-14-5-users-opt-out-of-ad-tracking

Should this be the default for all tech companies? Would there be unintended consequences of this standard?

Would we all be better off asking what it would cost companies to get us to turn tracking back on, rather than a hypothetical once we’re already fully into their ecosystem?

I am not surprised by this information at all. I would never have guessed that high, but it is still not a shock.

Nice to meet you, Dan! I like to the concept by Bill Gates and agree that proper processes should be put in place before integrating automation. I work in Production and automation has been a huge initative for our sites to reduce costs and increase output. However, inefficient processes in warehouse and getting components to the actual production floor result in underutilized resources and downtime on our new automated lines. Our site should have first focused on improving these processes in warehousing before investing into automated lines that are ineffectively leveraged for optimal use in production.

I hear this a lot from clients: the possibilities of AI are so exciting!

The reality of getting there, however, are far more mundane and complex. As Mr. Gates so eloquently put it, the technology magnifies rather than reimagines existing process.

You point out two obstacles which are considerably more onerous than most expect: organizational buy-in and “higher value” tasks.

On the former, human nature prizes specialty. “My way” of doing things is a result of some unmeasurable benefit, not my own preference. While we can broadly commit to a process in many cases, we could do a Learnthon alone on all of the ways I have seen process collapse based on all degrees of nuance (What is a “campaign” and who gets to decide? Can campaign have multiple KPIs?). Unified data without nuance (i.e. context) is borderline without value and nuanced data can become borderline unusable as by nature it is not easy to unify.

On the higher value tasks, we tend to underestimate the limits of our own ability. Creative / Mental burnout is real, as many of you no doubt have felt often over the last year. If our “human” edge is that machines react to signals they recognize whereas we can interpret and create beyond their ability, is there a limit to “how much” of that we can actually do? Do we need the mundane as an offset, if for no other reason than to have occasionally less taxing work to mentally recharge?

This is one of the many experiences that has led me to embrace the “1% better” approach. In addition to keeping things focused on improvement, it helps to manage ambitions. Rather than tackle the incredible, we make change more manageable. This in turn should make it more achievable, but also helps to minimize unintended consequences should they arise.

This is a really timely post and very relevant to this week’s reading. I enjoyed comparing your post to the article “Your Company Doesn’t Need A Digital Strategy.” Particularly this part, “Build essential leadership capabilities, not just technical ones. The top digital leaders think of digital transformation not as a project, but as a capability.” Companies don’t need an improved digital strategy, instead a new strategy that allows technology to facilitate it. I think success happens with a couple of the points you make, you need strong leadership and buy-in. Thanks for sharing.

The future isn’t prevalent without a digital foundation. Maturing technologies like artificial intelligence, process mining, and robotic process automation are foundational blocks that unlock something bigger. As an entry-level candidate, I haven’t seen how hyper-automation allows for automating activities that span multiple departments, systems, and job functions. As long as you pitched that automation eliminates low-level cognitive tasks and frees employees to focus on higher-level creative work, managers should see the benefit.

Great point, Sunaina. Bad data is the Achilles heel of automation.

Since humans are going to err, is really viable to think AI will deliver on its promise? Or will the “pain” of making you cancel/update your order be enough of an incentive to condition people to improve their “data” (or at least keep it updated)?

Authenticity is a significant factor a brand should follow, although I didn’t see consistency mentioned. You can be as creative as possible, but if the message isn’t consistent with the brand’s guidelines, it defeats the purpose. It’s easier to introduce your brand in the beginning and what it stands for vs. changing up what it’s about later on. One thing about innovation is that some people think it’s the be-all-end-all and needs to think about later stages so they don’t end up being the “cockroach.”

I love the idea of engagement over number of followers! I’m working through that right now with my new work team. They have thousands of contacts in their email CRM, but they have a very high bounce and low open rate (which is an issue in 2021 since the Yahoo merger and Google’s updated algorithms). So I am trying to emphasize how most email platforms like Yahoo, Gmail and Outlook are now emphasizing the organized spam-free inboxes– and they will not hesitate to flag your email for spam for a variety of reasons. Quality over quantity is a marketer’s goal, and sometimes it takes some convincing to get the C-Suites on board. Right now I’m looking for a balance- sending enough to make the higher-ups feel better, but spending my time and effort where I see the engagement (and I am the only marketing person on our team :))

Great post Dan! I love what you’ve written about how smaller businesses/teams actually have an advantage managing social media accounts, because they can focus on specific KPIs and really honing in their audience and social strategy. I think this would apply well to customer service and analytics too, I imagine managing customer interactions would also be a strength of a smaller team since you’re paying more attention and it might be less likely to slip through the cracks.

I have strong feelings about content on social media being creative, authentic, and valuable as well so I agree completely. It’ll do wonders for a social media strategy (no matter the size, but especially as a small organization) to really give social media strategic thought and planning. It would be a great way to capture attention for smaller businesses!

Indeed! Whether you’re a one-person band or member of a large enterprise: Fulfilling a need is a great way to earn your audience’s engagement! That need can be related to information, entertainment, support… think back to those content archetypes and the idea of Audience + Objective.