The Next Tech Convergence: Education, Cloud, Mobile

cloud

cloud image courtesy dreamstime.com

Simple observation over the last 12 months has shown a bulge in funding for companies engaged in EdTech of many flavors and companies that are in any way cloud-related. Couple this info with the ongoing flow of dollars to mobile and the trend nationwide to non-classroom-based eduction and I think one can begin to feel significant momentum building toward a whopping market opportunity.

I’m more intimately involved in the EdTech market (disclosure: I have been advising 30Hands Learning for the last year) and I’ve seen as many different approaches to recreating the learning environment as there are companies in the market —  and the interest is coming from established LMS players as well as a sea of startups. Most all of them have a mobile component with a slightly different twist in implementation, though all of them have tablet fever. At the same time, a robust, secure and efficient cloud service is all but a necessity to create and scale the infrastructure for many of these efforts, (consider the needs of a truly massive open online courses, for example).

The only thing the technology world likes more than crowing about innovation is declaring a bubble.  Some believe that EdTech is hurtling toward bubble status even as I write this.  While there may be more losers than winners eventually, the time is now to hit the massive well of opportunity that spans academic and commercial markets for those organizations who can innovate, scale and manage growth spurred by this convergence.

MassTLC Innovation UnConference 2012: The Bumblebee of Conferences

Bumblebees in flight

photo: discovery.com

Like the bumblebee, which I am told is technically not able to fly based on its wing geometry but seems to have done just fine for the last few millenia, the MassTLC UnConference should not work. I participated in my first UnCon this year as part of a team of bloggers made up largely of public relations people who know their way around an industry event. I have certainly slogged through my share of stultifying business get-togethers in 25 years of PR work but I’ve never seen anything like the agenda-free, planless, exercise in productive anarchy and populist coordination that is an UnConference.

Flatten the Hierarchy!

An UnConference manifesto.
photo: Chris Nahil

Nor, have I been so bloody energized by an event before. From witnessing the Herculean cat herding of the first hour’s real-time agenda creation which brought forth a full day’s worth of compelling sessions to the utterly democratic sessions themselves, I found this to be the most fun and most useful event I’ve attended in years. With an audience approaching 1000 attendees that was equal parts young entrepreneurs, old pros, start-up stars, established companies, media types, VCs, coders, marketers, CEOs, interns and every title in between, the ability to network widely and learn deeply from a range of perspectives was invaluable. The session topics covered a spectrum of relevant issues like advertising, finance, PR, public policy, edtech, SaaS, mobile, team building and much more. The “rule of two feet” was the order of the day. This means that any attendee who found a particular session less than riveting was encouraged to get up, politely leave, and find another session in which to participate. Open participation is the key to making this type of event work. The attendees own this event entirely from setting the agenda to driving productive conversation in each session. I met a host of new people from across the business landscape of New England, and I saw a number of people who I know well engaged and participating in a completely different context. It all worked beautifully and as much as I was there to record the proceedings for MassTLC’s blog, I became fully involved myself and felt professionally strengthened at the end of the day. I’m looking forward to the 2013 Innovation UnConference already … or at least another gathering of this kind in the near future.

MassTLC Innovation UnConference Session: Public Policy Horror Stories

(I was recently asked by the Mass Technology Leadership Council to join a team of bloggers covering the Innovation UnConference. Our work was posted on the MassTLC blog. This particular session was left off the blog for reasons unknown but I enjoyed it, so I thought I’d post the content here. I promise a fuller post on my overall impressions of my first unConference later this week.)

Public Policy Horror Stories

MassTLC Innovation UnConference Session 3: 1:15 to 2:15, Nov. 16, 2012

Session Leader Nick Grossman, Union Square Ventures

While mercifully short on horror stories, the session provided an eye-opening look at the role local, state and federal government can play in the life of any business.  Attendees ranged from representatives from Google, Verizon and U/Mass to startup entrepreneurs and an international business development exec from a cold yet exotic locale. What follows is a distillation of the comments and discussion from all participants in the session.

Innovation – especially truly disruptive innovation – has a tendency to “ruffle feathers” among public and private entities with a stake in the old order. When those entities are governmental and regulatory, companies can find themselves suddenly faced with business challenges they had never anticipated. Some examples cited included the recent difficulties faced by Uber and AirBnB, two companies in the peer-to-peer economy vanguard who found early successes in circumventing an established economic model yet found themselves faced with an existential crisis when local and state authorities threatened to shut them down for violating existing rules for the taxi and hotel industries. In the education market, Coursera drew the negative attention of Minnesota regulators who briefly attempted to boot the online education company out of the state for violating a very out-of-date statute related to the regulation of educational institutions.

Though Coursera ultimately prevailed, and Uber solved its problem with a consumer-driven social media campaign that made officials sit up and take notice, problems such as these will persist as long as the pace of innovation grows at a faster clip than does the capacity of regulatory bodies to absorb, understand and act appropriately toward each new development.

Companies are not helpless in this matter, however.  Though it is seldom done in the earliest stages of a start-up’s lifecycle, it is important to start looking for a select few potential influencers within government that can provide information and guidance to young companies and, as the company matures, develop into an advocate on their behalf with regulators and legislative bodies. It is important, too, that like-minded companies or companies that share a market sector put aside their competitive issues and band together to present a united front and serve as a large and credible provider of information and relevance to governmental entities.  Verizon is working to create an organization such as this in Mass. and Union Square is building a similar group to advocate to government on behalf of “Peer Economy” companies, like Uber and AirBnB.

Though few companies contemplate at their outset the role government can play in their daily business, it is safe to say that every company has the potential to engage with government at some stage in their lifecycle.  The result of that engagement can be more positive if the company begins to think of government in the same way it thinks of partners, customers, media and analysts… and does so from its earliest stages.

What Execs Can Learn from the Campaign Debates

Biden and Ryan show some energy (photo via http://www.dcstreets.org)

While awaiting the bleating of the punditocracy on both sides of the political spectrum, here are a few quick points that any corporate leader (from start-up founder to multinational CEO) can take away from the recent U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential debates.
1. Passion is priceless: Passion is a necessary pre-condition for any conversation in which one party must convince another of an idea. In the first debate President Obama came across as listless and disengaged. As I’ve said to countless execs over the years as we prepared for media meetings, if you don’t seem all that interested in what you’re saying, why should your audience devote any effort to listening to you? Passion, well-focused, is priceless and you must work hard to draw your audience (reporter, financial analyst, the American electorate) into your story and make them feel your energy and spirit. In the VP debate, both Biden and Ryan seemed to have a better grasp of this notion than Obama or Romney and projected engagement and enthusiasm for the event.
2. There is no substitute for preparation: Again, Biden and Ryan were well-equipped and well-prepared. The flow of the debate was smooth and each managed to assert his position in context (for the most part) which is a usually a sign of good preparation and the sort of mental relaxation and agility that solid preparation produces. In the presidential tilt, Obama was a shambling mess. He may have had his facts at hand but couldn’t call them up in an efficient or convincing manner. The received perception of the President as utterly unprepared for the event was the single great take-away of the evening and is demonstrated in his slipping poll numbers today. Romney started out well — you knew he had worked hard on the whole “five point plan” approach — but he grew shrill over time and began to force-feed his various positions into every question, regardless of context. Frankly, I’d chalk that up to Governor Romney getting a little too excited over his good fortune, as if he were a prize-fighter who, with each passing round, grows to realize that his opponent seems to have been training on a strict Twinkies-and-beer regimen.

3. Read the room early and often:  It’s vital for an exec or candidate to know precisely to whom he or she is speaking. One benefit of being able to “read the room” effectively is to quickly assess how much re-direction one can credibly deploy. In a debate the gating factor is the moderator.  Jim Lehrer lost control early and Gov. Romney, especially, ran roughshod over him.  Martha Raddatz was a far tougher customer and limited Ryan and Biden’s attempts to take-over the debate agenda. This type of stylistic disparity is evident in most media and analyst meetings, too. It’s incumbent upon execs to know the personality and professional demeanor of their “interrogator” in advance and work within that frame to get their point across effectively.

Nonstop Selling is Not a Branding Strategy: The Boston Red Sox

Mount Rushmore, Red Sox style (Boston Herald photo)

Larry Lucchino, president and CEO of the Boston Red Sox, has noted more than once in recent weeks that the Boston Red Sox brand has “taken a few hits” as a result of last season’s precipitous September chicken-and-beer-fueled nosedive and this year’s unmitigated disaster on virtually all fronts on and off the field. What follows here is not an attempt to pick the sporting carcass of the 2012 Sox mess, nor will I bring up the interesting approaches to team motivation and communication taken by manager Bobby Valentine (another post entirely awaits there). The Boston Red Sox today, however, present a compelling example of how some organizations completely swing and miss (groan…) when it comes to understanding what is and what is not branding.

As I’ve said here before, branding is all about the emotional connection an organization makes with its audiences. Sports fandom is entirely about emotion and Lucchino is correct in saying that much of the brand damage has come as result of the fact that the Sox have sucked mightily this year and have not qualified for the playoffs in the last three seasons. In the midst of this on-field chaos, the marketing organization at Fenway Park has been relentlessly pitching an unending series of items and ideas from commemorative bricks and Red Sox Nation club cards, to a phony-baloney stadium sellout streak and the perhaps mock-kidnapping of Wally the Green Monster as a means to sell, sell, sell anything and everything to fans who are increasingly disengaged, if not actively hostile. A simple glance at redsox.com reveals a commerce-dominant site, a fair amount of team-pushed news, little outside content, zero fan engagement, and social links at the very bottom of the page. Online, the Boston Red Sox don’t appear to be very interested in anything other than their own noise and purse. In what amounts to a season of failure, the team comes across as an organization that is utterly tone-deaf.

Today, there are so many ways for customers to interact with an organization that there can be no excuse for the organization not to participate in — if not be the main catalyst for — a richer exchange with its core audience. Engagement and transparency are requirements of a proper branding effort that the Red Sox lack today. In the PR world, we call this type of relationship development “building a reservoir of goodwill.” We advise clients that it is a mandatory investment of time and energy that has nothing at all to do with selling a product. By being seen as an open, engaged and trusted member of a community, any organization will be better served when, invariably, that organization’s prospects take a turn for the worse. However, like too many corporations, team execs only seem to engage when forced out in a crisis (e.g. last week’s flap over a news report that the team might be for sale) or appear with a new product gambit in hand.

By living into these requirements, the Red Sox, and any organization, can do so much more to help condition the environment around which their fans and customers emotionally connect with and reflect the team’s desired brand image. The Red Sox are not cultivating enough of these opportunities for legitimate engagement without a price tag attached. The communication, dialogue and engagement between team and fan, organization and audience, is broken and no amount of heavy shilling (no, not this guy) will rebuild that bridge of trust.

Elevator Pitch Fundamentals and MassChallenge “Minute to Pitch It”

I was fortunate to be a member of the packed house that showed up at Marina Park Drive last week to see 48 MassChallenge finalists work their collective tails off to pitch their businesses to the audience in 60 seconds or less.  The event — called “Minute to Pitch It”  — brought out a wide range of pitching styles, from the comic to the quant, and I found a few of the pitches compelling enough for me to want to know more about the business, which is my standard for a pitch of any sort.  Essentially, “does this person and this company spark enough curiosity in me that I’d happily spend more than 60 seconds with them to satisfy or deepen my curiosity.”  I don’t intend to pick winners or losers for the night but the proceedings did move me to jot down a few ideas on fundamental elements of a great elevator pitch.

  1. Sixty seconds is a long time. Try holding your breath for a minute. You have more than enough time to cast good informational bait to your audience. Take your time and limit the amount of info delivered to only the most compelling, most relevant stuff.
  2. Know your audience.  Find out all you can in advance. If that’s not possible — literally an elevator circumstance — ask two questions before you launch into your pitch: What do you do? Why?  Keep this in mind as you pitch. You’re looking to connect with the subject on an immediate and personal level.
  3. Identify the compelling problem your business solves. Show me a market quickly. Back it up with some killer stats (two is enough for this pitch) and a real-world customer/prospect story. You have to show relevance and build some instant cred that yours is a good business, not just a good idea.
  4. Explain how you solve that problem.  Be brief, be punchy, stay away from jargon and, again, make me want to listen longer.
  5. Convince me that your company is uniquely qualified to best solve this problem.  Differentiate yourself, hard.  Is it the technology, a new approach, your people, a fresh market insight or something else?  Why your company and why today?
  6. Tell me how you’re going to make money.  Again, make me start to believe that yours is a great business, not solely a great idea. Tell me about today, sure, but get me thinking about the immediate and long-term future.  Don’t tell me about your exit strategy unless a) I ask you and even then don’t take the bait or b) you have one that makes a more compelling business case than “we’ll go public and get rich.”
  7. Make it as interactive as you can. You have time to ask your audience if she has any questions or thoughts within this 60 second window.  The goal is to pitch like you’re having a conversation.  You and your listener need a little time to breathe and process. Avoid setting your “pitch cannon” on full-auto and wailing away at the unsuspecting listener.
  8. Close with an ask or call to action.  People love to be asked.  Ask them what they think. Ask them again if they have reactions, questions or thoughts. Ask if you can follow up with them in some informational, non-sales way. Offer a demo. Offer to put your customers, partners, investors on the phone. Since everyone has an email marketing list (right?) ask if they’d like to be put on your list to keep abreast of happenings at your company.  Finally, flip the script and ask if there’s anything you can do to help them.
  9. Say thank you.  Please.  It goes a long way.

Needless to say, you’ll have done all of the homework necessary to put these elements together and will have practiced them well in advance.  A pitch can happen anywhere at any time, and luck favors the prepared. So, work up your messaging and positioning now and try it out on your teammates, mentors, advisors and peers.  Don’t be afraid to adjust your messaging and your pitch as internal and market forces dictate.

I’d love to hear any other tips from my friends in the various pitch-heavy businesses out there.  What else should we add to the “must have” fundamentals to an ideal elevator pitch?

“Experiential Marketing” Chat at SMC Boston

Last night I attended an intriguing event sponsored by Social Media Club Boston, called “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Experiential Marketing” at the Microsoft NERD Center in Kendall Square. Featured speakers Geoff Livingston (blogger, consultant and co-author with Gini Dietrich of Marketing in the Round) and Terry Lozoff, CEO of Antler, an interactive and social marketing agency, engaged in a wide-ranging discussion and Q/A that was essentially a call to action for marketing pros to de-silo the various elements of on- and off-line marketing and brand engagement. Fundamentally, by melting the walls between various marketing and communications activities, an organization can leverage and amplify its message to prospects, customers and influencers.  Cheap and easy-to-use social and mobile technologies are the latest catalysts that lower the barrier to creating a complete “in-the-round” engagement experience — to borrow Geoff and Gini’s title.

One of my key take-aways may be largely semantic but, in a world were customers and prospects have so many opportunities to interact directly and indirectly with an organization, every type of marketing is experiential..or can be experiential.  The point remains — as Terry and Geoff sharply pointed out — that not enough organizations are cognizant of this fact.  Too many still operate with a fiefdom mentality and possess only a limited ability to think in a 360-degree manner, let alone act in that fashion. My personal add here, as I tossed out last night, was that there are still too many corporate decision-makers who have a limited sense of what “brand” is, or what a brand can be beyond logo, tagline and “brand attributes” that are shoved down consumers’ throats. The rapidly diminishing barriers to total customer contact have made it such that everything from customer service to investor relations to corporate social responsibility (PLUS all the usual marketing suspects) are elements that must be considered as part of the brand engagement experience.

That said, I don’t believe any company entirely owns its brand any more than we entirely own our personalities as individuals. Brand is the result of the emotional engagement and response between a customer or prospect and a company.  A brand is born and evolves via these myriad interactions.  Companies can go a long way to fostering the conditions — to building a genuine experience — that result in a positive and particular brand image.  However, organizations can only do this effectively if they truly understand and account for the ever-growing number of opportunities for communication, conversation and influence that consumers can use to help produce that image. They must then work to cultivate and leverage an interactive exchange between those elements.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,201 other followers

%d bloggers like this: