Sensei Blogs

Stop your bitching; you're not paying for it!

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:00:00 GMT

By now you’ve probably heard that Instagram, which was purchased by Facebook three months ago, announced a rather dramatic change to its Terms of Service. As of January 16th, 2013, by using the popular photo sharing app you give Instagram perpetual rights to use and sell your photographs without payment or notification to you. That’s right, unless you cancel your subscription to this free service before that date, you will agree to have them market and sell your vacation photos, the dozens (no, hundreds) of pictures of your meals shared with friends and of course, all those cute pictures of your kids at play in local parks, parties and at home.

Who knows, your kid might be the next Gerber baby! That picture you took of your girlfriend on a Fort Lauderdale beach during spring break might be on the cover of the next Maxim magazine. How great is that, right?! “How much will I get paid?” you ask? Ah, see there’s the catch: you get paid nothing. You give them the right to “market and sell” your photographs AND give up the right to be compensated for such use. Still excited about your possible 15 minutes of pictorial fame?

Guess What? There’s No Santa Claus

Naturally, whenever some free social networking service tries to pay its electricity bill (so it can continue to offer you a free service) by selling advertisements, sharing your information or accessing the content you produce and willingly share across social platforms, everyone gets all riled up and turns to…you guessed it…the free internet to share their outrage. When a fee is placed on the use of – or access to – content, networking or images, most balk at the notion and move on. Place an advertisement in front of your content or before your video plays and everyone complains about how they’ve been inconvenienced.

Well guess what netizens, there is no Santa Claus. Facebook is a business, not a jolly man in red suit giving away candy canes and toys made by mystical elves. Who do you think pays for the servers, programmers, network engineers and bandwidth that allow you to share your silly memes, political rants and pictures of last night’s “most amazing sushi ever!”?

Culture of Entitlement

I want all of it, everything, all the time but I’m not prepared to pay for it and I
demand the best service – with a smile – on my terms.

Social media has created a culture of entitled, whiney crybabies who expect that everything will be given to them without compromise, fees or responsibility. We post pictures of ourselves drunk at bars and complain when they’re used against us at a job interview. We complain about our bosses and work environment on Twitter and seek legal advice when we’re fired for doing so. We blindly accept Terms of Service agreements without reading the fine print and then act all surprised and shocked that someone is collecting and sharing our information.

Culture of Opt-Out

As I’m writing this post, Danny Brown posted a great article called Instagram, Social Media and the Opt-Out Economy. He takes a unique look at the issue by calling out the fact Instagram is changing the rules of the game midstream, forcing you to opt out. Other services like Klout.com, who freely and without the requirement of an opt-in, track and analyse your online activity so they can build their business by selling product managers that information, require you to opt-in in order to opt-out. Nuts, right?

Certainly, the Internet has created an almost lawless Wild West-type world where everyone is trying to stake their claim to the gold in dem der hills.

Do I like the change Instagram is making to their Terms of Service? No.
Will I be opting out? Hell yes.
Do I agree with the new “opt-out mentality” that Internet firms are forcing down our throats? Not a chance.

However, I recognize that Instagram is free and so I say “stop your bitching or just stop using them.” It’s really that simple. Instagram is telling you it has to pay its bills and instead of charging you for access, it’s collecting revenue by selling your pictures. Don’t like the cost? Don’t buy it. Just don’t act so shocked that there’s a fee for services in life.

YOU'VE ALREADY AGREED TO LICENSE YOUR PHOTOS

Unregister yourself from Instagram and start using another network that you’ll not read the ToS for either. Those of you complaining clearly don't read them since you most likely have a Facebook account and so you've already given up the same rights Instagram is now asking for. From Facebook's terms of service: "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us ... a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post."

< /endrant >

Agree? Has social media created a culture of entitlement? Join the debate in the comments below.

Sam Fiorella
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

Social Media is Creating Bad Customers

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(2 Jeff Wilson) — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Do you remember the disaster called #McDStories? The now famous story of how McDonalds was hijacked on Twitter by people tweeting negative stories on their hashtag. Poor planning combined with outright naivety about the their own brand perception quickly attracted a growing, “angry” mob of real customers and trolls who completely derailed the whole McDStories campaign.

Now, I’m not a big believer in social media on the best of days and this type of story adds more weight to my argument – Social Media is Creating Bad Customers. Why? It’s simple… because people deep down are bullies or at the very least indifferent to bullying. Add to this how easily the social media public is influenced by a mob mentality and you get recipes for McDStory after McDStory.

Social Media provides the average person with 4 factors empowering bad behavior, particularly against companies.

No Guilt. There is no remorse about bullying a brand. It’s much easier to do because no one gets “hurt”.
The Mob. Lots of other people are doing it. Whether they are the instigator with a real story or a troll making them up, its easy to find others who will join you.
Relative Anonymity. Anonymity strips many people of fear. “No one will know if I say this” is the common feeling and easily overwhelms any feelings of restraint a person might normally have.
No Accountability. Probably the most significant factor is the sheer lack of accountability in anything said in social media. Without accountability as a “natural check” on actions, you get an environment devoid of any punishment.

Proceed with Caution

My first two questions to companies that ask me about social media are:

What are the risks?
What is the compelling reason for you to use social media? (And please don’t say because my competitors are…)

For me, it always boils back to risk. The more risk you have the less likely you are to succeed. Most organizations are ill prepared for customers they already have let alone a new group of social media empowered customers. Social media creates risk even in a docile customer base because it can change the natural state of behavior in a single person or group of people. A social media environment provides fertile ground for unrest and poor behavior.

More McDStories are waiting to happen. Are you one of them?
How will you manage the bad customer social media is creating?

Jeff Wilson- Sensei

Have Corporate Blogs Become Sacred Cows?

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:00 GMT

“Sacred Cow” is an idiom referencing the eminent place cows have in Hinduism. Figuratively speaking, a sacred cow is something which is immune from question or criticism. After challenging the #bizforum community on Twitter last night with the question: “Are corporate blogs still relevant?”, I’m beginning to think that corporate blogs have become sacred cows.

A corporate blog is defined as one branded by a corporate, non-media entity such as Staples, Proctor and Gamble, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Family Insurance, CitiGroup, Chrysler, etc. and not spearheaded by a single social-celebrity employee.

Blog readership as a whole is increasing but bloggers are on the decline as many are choosing to put their words down on Facebook pages or bite-sized quips on Twitter, as reported in eMarketer’s study on blogging entitled The Blogosphere: Colliding with Social and Mainstream Media. The increase in blog readership seems to be based on the rise in popularity of media or curated blogs such as Huffington Post, Mashable, Forbes, McKinsey Quarterly and the New York Times. Many of these blogs have the same content, but adoption and readership for the latter is growing while, for most, corporate blog readership is stagnant or declining.

My premise is based on the following realities:

    - the public’s appetite for content and information has grown and continues to increase
    - the consumer’s desire to engage with the brands they love continues to grow
    - the channels and devices that share content continue to innovate and expand
    - the competition for readership is growing exponentially
    - the reader’s attention is increasingly challenged by digital “noise”
    - the average person has less free personal and professional time to read

As the consumers’ need for – and access to – information grows, their appetite for content channels is evolving beyond the current mediums.   New channels and engagement options such as micro-blogging (eg. Twitter), social networking (Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+) and visual media (YouTube, Pinterest, SlideShare) are disseminating content with fewer characters and greater speed than blogs could ever hope to achieve. The more content the public wishes to consume and has access to, the greater the appeal of new media that provide easily digestible headlines.   These new channels are syndicating the same content for corporations that their blog predecessors shared, yet drive much more interest, engagement and return.

I’m arguing that the long-form corporate blog post that was once mandatory and the preeminent forum to educate customers, provide value-added information and demonstrate a brand’s personality, has proven to be just a stepping stone to modern delivery channels.

Holistic Content Strategy

Last night, many within the #bizforum community stated that you cannot argue for or against the value of a corporate blog, because the ROI from social engagement comes from an holistic content strategy that integrates content across many channels. I agree with this sentiment but refuse to be bounded by the gravity of past business practices, especially after reading Rebel Brown's book on Defying Gravity.

An holistic content strategy does not require the dissemination of content across EVERY social channel. Most agreed with that concept yet few are willing to acknowledge that the one channel which could possibly be removed from the mix is the corporate blog. Ask marketers to remove Twitter or Pinterest from the mix and they don’t bat so much as an eyelash. Suggest that the corporate blog might no longer be a relevant medium within the social mix and I’m branded a heretic.

When challenged, most presented an argument for what a corporate blog can do for the business, when the real consideration should be what IT IS doing for the business. Few even know.

See: The Corporate Blog Challenge

Should corporate blogs be forgotten completely? Of course not. Faxes are not commonplace in everyday business communications but they still exist. Even with a declining audience, a corporate blog can provide value in SEO link strategies and fodder for Google ranking but even then, social sharing and other tactics are beginning to challenge that value as well.

What started off as me questioning the current value of a corporate blog has evolved into a question about the reverence marketers give the blog. Has it been elevated to sacred cow-status? An untouchable deity in the social media mix beyond reproach and questioning?

What are your thoughts? Has the need for and value of a corporate blog diminished?

Sam Fiorella

Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

Refocusing Loyalty Programs on the Customer

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Customer loyalty programs first launched with great marketing hype surrounding their intention to thank and reward the business’ most loyal customers. Truth be told, they were conceived as part of a customer acquisition strategy and designed to be a differentiator that pulled customers away from competitors or to encourage repeat purchases. These programs have expanded to almost every industry (if you don’t believe it, ask me about the loyalty program I built for chicken farmers); however, the basic purchase-reward mechanism of these programs hasn’t changed much.

When loyalty programs became part of the customer’s base expectations they lost their ability to significantly grow the business’ revenue.

What Loyalty Should Have Been Designed For

Had loyalty programs been created with the true intention of strengthening the customer relationship we would have seen more variety and innovation within the industry. Today, we’re at a fork in the road where a business can choose to:

a) continue down the path of purchase-reward mechanisms, which will continue to “satisfy” customers; or,
b) re-navigate their strategies toward a customer development path that moves customers from “satisfaction” to “advocacy.”

In both B2B and B2C industries, businesses must move beyond simply acquiring and satisfying customers. This is a short-term strategy fraught with reactionary service and increased churn rates.

A strong and healthy customer base that earns advocacy serves two purposes: First, it increases customer data and insights; second, it floods the marketplace with the recommendations, content and conversations that modern buyers increasingly turn to when making purchase decisions.

Balancing the Relationship

Traditional loyalty programs took more than they gave and created an imbalance in the business-customer relationship. “Today's consumers are intensely aware that they are being tracked, and just as aware that they aren't receiving commensurate value from the companies doing this,”, states Bryan Pearson, President and CEO of LoyaltyOne.

In his book The Loyalty Leap, Mr. Pearson claims that loyalty programs must become about customer intimacy rather than rewards. For customers to become advocates they must be engaged on a deeper level as equal partners in a relationship, not in the predatory style in which loyalty programs originated. Conversations, equal exchanges of information and value beyond “points” and price breaks will become the true differentiator of modern businesses deploying loyalty strategies.

Customers understand that their transactional history, preferences and demographics are being collected and analyzed at every pass, regardless of whether or not they’ve authorized businesses to do so. Loyalty programs can leverage this situation to engender trust by individualizing the customer experience.

Personalized Value

As Mr. Pearson outlines, relevance in your customer’s experiences with your business is a longer-term and more profitable strategy than price-breaks. “Relevance is what makes the customer engage you when they shop, and not just because you have a cheaper price,” he writes.

Customers are demanding more. They’re empowered by the resources they have quick, free and easy access to. They are emboldened by the wisdom of crowds they participate in through their myriad of interconnected devices and social channels. The balance is shifting.

Are you rewarding your customers or are you strengthening your relationship with them?

Join the debate! Are loyalty programs simply a cost of doing business? Do they have the potential to evolve and once again drive business value?

Sam Fiorella – Sensei
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

The Business of Socially-Powered Boycotts

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve experienced, seen or at least heard of the many boycotts being waged against corporate brands. Currently, we’re in the throes of a campaign against Chick-fil-A, an Atlanta-based fast food restaurant for comments made by owner Dan T. Cathy that supported the “biblical definition of the family unit”…essentially speaking out against gay-marriage rights.

This came just off the heels of another social boycott campaign that erupted after Kraft Foods posted a Photoshopped advertisement of an Oero (“America’s Favorite Cookie”) stuffed with rainbow colored layers and the caption: “Proudly Support Love”. Both came on like unexpected tsunamis and quickly became the main topic of conversation across social media, television and newspapers as well as at both boardroom and kitchen tables across North America.

Boycotts are quickly becoming the weapon-of-choice for groups seeking to further their political or social agenda by targeting national companies who already have mass public attention. Social Media is simultaneously the fuel and the battleground for these wars and a new reality for businesses.

During the #bizforum Twitter debate on this subject last night, by referencing the granddaddy of all boycotts: the Boston tea party, Ric Dragon suggested that boycotts are not a new reality for business at all.

He’s right of course, boycotts are not new but they are certainly a strategy that has had new life breathed into it. Social Channels have facilitated boycott “Flash Mobs”, where almost overnight lines are drawn in the sand and tens of thousands of people line up on one side or the other. Worse, most jump on the bandwagon without any real fervent support for the cause but for peer-pressure or the entertainment value.

Today, more than ever business must anticipate the reaction to every nuance of every act, statement and belief of their employees as well as their companies. They must possess more intuitive insights into the political and cultural environment they, their government and their customers engage in or risk being on the wrong side of a social mob.

Businesses are just getting used to the idea and impact of a few public tweets about their brands and now they’re faced with the reality of socially-powered boycott threatening to take them down.

An Ounce of Prevention?

The reality is that most boycotts today are rooted in political or social beliefs and not direct opposition to the quality of a specific product or service offered by the company. Opposition to a product or service is easily managed.

Preventing political or socially-based boycotts is next to impossible unless you make it a policy to never speak or engage the public for fear of offending someone, somewhere. However, the congregation of people in communities through online social channels has forced businesses to engage these groups on social, political and emotional levels in exchange for their loyalty.

Aligning a business’ values with that of its customers is a sure fire way to generate diehard fanatics but also creates a volatile environment from which these Flash Mob boycotts can erupt.

Should businesses be taking these socially-charged boycotts seriously? Social media has become known for its short lifespan so is there any real long-term threat? Remember, cable news created the 24-hour news cycle, which social media turned into 24-minutes.

As Fred McClimans argued in last night’s debate, even if the boycott is short-lived the digital footprint of the event – and the impact on the brand’s reputation – Iives on.

Two Sides to Every ~~Debate~~ Boycott

The “same-sex kiss-in” created by activist Carly McGehee , which sparked the recent Chick-fil-A boycott was met with a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”, sponsored by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum joined the fray by rallying his 200,000 Twitter followers to support the chain.

When Kraft Foods posted its Oreo Cookie Gay Pride support advertisement on Facebook it garnered 157,000 likes with 40,000 shares. Yet of the20,000 comments many were negative and called for a boycott of the cookie.

Convention dictates a business avoids such controversies yet many national brands seem to court them. In honor of Pride month, Target launched a line of gay pride t-shirts and Ben & Jerry’s renamed it’s apple pie flavor “Apple-y Ever After” in the UK. Given the precedents set on Facebook and other social channels, why are these businesses not afraid of the Flash Mob boycotts? What do they know?

Is it possible that boycotts are not a punitive tactic used by the activists but a modern tactic used by savvy businesses to leverage political discord in hopes of solidifying fervent loyalty from “the other side”?

Are boycotts really a business strategy, not a political weapon?

I’m turning the debate over to you now. Should businesses ignore, avoid or embrace flash mob boycotts? Share your thoughts below. Also, check out a sampling of the arguements from last night's #bizforum debate on this issue.

Sam Fiorella - Sensei
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

The Games Corporate Buyers Play

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Reed Holden wrote an interesting piece for Harvard Business Review Blogs in which he reports that corporate buyers are playing a “high-stakes poker game” with their suppliers – and are winning. He suggests that corporations are changing their patterns from being “relationship buyers” to “economic buyers”.

Relationship Buyers focus on procuring products, services and savvy business advice from their suppliers in order to drive business value through improved customer relationships. Trust between buyer and supplier is implicit.

Economic Buyers focus on price and value of a product or service only. They’re cutthroat in their negotiating tactics and don’t see value beyond the fast product turnover. There’s no inherent trust between the players.

In our experiences, this game is played in both B2B and B2C industries and the battle to reverse the trend is akin to pushing a boulder-filled cart uphill. Suppliers are trying in vain to demonstrate that end-customer value is not generated by the lowest price but the greatest experience, which sometimes requires a more costly product. Or a buyer-supplier relationship that is strong enough – and profitable enough – to allow adequate margins to support customer-focused strategies.

Customer Experience, Courage and the Real Victim

As I’ve often argued within this blog…this requires courage. In recessionary times especially, customer experience design requires courage. Courage on the part of the supplier to stick to their guns and not play the game and courage on the part of the buyer to operate based on the long-term needs of the customer, not the short-term needs of shareholders.

Holden calls suppliers the victims and categorizes them as either Rabbits or Advantaged Players. Rabbits are the competing suppliers that corporate buyers have no intention of purchasing from, but use competitive bids as a means of reducing the price of their preferred vendor’s quotes. Advantaged Players are the incumbent suppliers who are made to sweat for every order and constantly threatened to have their contracts canceled based on competing bids.

I disagree. The real victims are the shareholders whose businesses are continuing to fail as a result of operating practices that fail to build strong customer experiences in favor of short-term, gross revenue-driving tactics. Have we learned nothing from what put us in this economic mess in the first place?

What is your experience with the games corporate buyers play? Is this a modern reality or a cyclical trend in response to the poor economy? Join the debate by sharing your opinions and thoughts below.

Sam Fiorella – Sensei
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

Image Credit

Community and Platform Influence on User Engagement

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The continuing explosion of social media channels is creating a progressively difficult landscape for marketers seeking to enage customers, gather insights and identify true influencers and the nature of their influence over others. As the audience becomes increasingly savvy and adept at multi-channel communications, I’m beginning to see a different tone and format used to share a single message in different channels by the same individual.

When the same message from the same individual is presented differently in unique communities or on different platforms, which best represents the true intention of the customer? Is the context implied by the message format or tone in one channel impacted by the community they’re engaged with or the platform they choose to share it in? From customer acquisition to customer loyalty to influencer marketing campaigns, consideration of the communities and the platforms they engage in has become an important filter in marketing strategy.

A few weeks ago I read Ric Dragon’s book: Social Marketology, which presents best practices for creating the ideal social media strategy for your business’ unique needs. In the book, Ric suggests that social media engagement occurs in behavioral patterns and if we can identify and understand these, we’ll be better marketers. This resonated with me because of the patterns we’ve been encountering among our client’s customers. How much of those patterns are based, at least in part, on the community culture or the social platform? And if so, what impact does this have on our marketing strategies?

I thought this was a great debate to task the #bizforum community with and so I asked Ric to join our weekly Twitter event to explore this issue. Below is a slide show featuring the debate questions posted and a sampling of the pro and con arguments by members.

A usual the group’s opinions and experiences were divided but the collective discussion was enlightening. Throughout the debate my goal was to push everyone to consider how much of the customer’s engagement is influenced by their community and if so, how does that impact marketing strategies and processes?

I'll challenge your views on the impact of communities with these arguments:

The customer’s online engagement is no longer the natural conversation that would have occurred between them and a brand representative or with a peer, but is skewed based on the social community and social platform.
1. The context of customer’s online engagement is in large part affected by the ‘group-think’ nature of communities.
2. The nature of the customer’s online content is directly impacted the format and rules that the chosen social network creates
The hyper changes that the internet and social technologies are championing means that there are too many disruptions in the brand-customer-brand communication path for current social patterns to be used for anything but historical analysis.
Training staff to adapt to customer engagement and react/respond accordingly is a better marketing investment than attempting to predict customer engagement based on community engagement.

Now I'm turning the debate over to you now:

Is influence marketing thus best achieved by managing communities vs. individuals?

Has the customer’s social engagement become more influenced by their community and the platform than their individual experiences?

Join the debate by commenting below.

Sam Fiorella - Sensei
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

My quick review on Social Marketology, by Ric Dragon
I appreciated the fact that Ric doesn’t provide a litany of social media tactics, but describes a framework from which any business can customize unique and personalized social media marketing strategies. Less about technology and more about understanding human behavior, his lessons and approach are thought-provoking for those who wish to take customer engagement in the realm of social media seriously. I recommend this book for process-oriented marketing pros.

Is Big Data Killing Big Thinking?

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Data scientists argue that successfully and creatively understanding Big Data produces operational efficiencies and greater margins for business. Big Data is relative however and can take different shapes in different organizations, ranging from a few dozen terabytes to many petabytes of data in a single data set. Some simply seek to use it as an aid in consumer and product forecasting while others will use Big Data collection and analysis to conduct controlled experiments to make better management decisions.

In either case, budgets are opening up for Storage Area Networks (SANs) where CIOs can stockpile data. But to what end? Storing data is one thing, leveraging the lessons locked within it is another. And the bigger and more varied the data sets are, the greater the difficulty a business will have in extrapolating nuggets of wisdom.

Is the money spent on storing Big Data today really driving business value? Even if we could successfully analyze and comprehend Big Data (the jury is still out on that one), we would have to invest in advance software to create unlimited analytical models that find the connections within the data. The hope is that these would lead to insights about customers and business processes. However, these are just more data points. An analyst(s) would still be required to determine which of those models is best suited for the marketing objectives, the business culture, current management styles, employee skill set, etc.

Is Big Data a Red Herring?

In our age of relationships and consensus building is big data not just a Red Herring? Does it not shift the focus of a business’ decision making and strategic planning to patterned historical transactions instead of monitoring future trend currents? What products will capture the imagination of your audience or how your brand strategy will be perceived in the future cannot be predicted by calculations or algorithms spewing out past transactional matrices.

During the #bizforum video debate experiment at New York’s Internet Media Labs last month, I asked Alan Berkson, Founder of Intelligist Group and Ric Dragon, Author of Social Marketology this very question.

If we’re to believe the current consensus on social business, enterprises are evolving through the power of crowdsourcing, public opinion and relationship building. Product innovation is being propelled by predicting the intangible not analyzing data sheets. There’s a real threat in making Big Data analysis a business strategy.

So my question to you is: is the current fixation on Big Data collection an operational reaction to the volume of data being created or truly a strategic paradigm for business? Will it simply get in the way of better judgment? Make executives lazy in their innovation?

What are your thoughts? Will Big Data Kill Big Business? Join the debate!

Sam Fiorella - Sensei
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

Buzzwords and The Business of Conversation

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Buzzwords are a growing export thanks to the lightning-fast content generation and consumption we’re experiencing in the social-era. Buzzwords have become increasingly vilified by the social media elite with claims that they are crutches used by marketers to mask their inability to think, write effectively or say exactly what they mean. Others go so far as to say they are used by pseudo experts to mask their lack of understanding and knowledge on a particular subject.

Why so much distain for buzzwords? Are they not just words? Haven’t buzzwords been effectively used in business-lingo for years to demonstrate consensus or to represent larger concepts in a few words? By invention or through evolution, in business buzzwords are formed with meaning. Terms like "cutting-edge," "total quality management" and "quantum leap" were first coined to represent new thinking, new concepts or new paradigms (wait, that’s a buzzword right? I can’t keep up).

With the volume on online conversations – and the number of people engaging in them – skyrocketing at a fever pitch, can we really be surprised that certain words or phrases become overused or borrowed by other groups? In fact, hasn’t the limited space allocated to conversations in Twitter or via mobile messaging created the NEED for a set of common words that represent bigger concepts?

And who becomes the arbiter of what is and isn’t a buzzword? Isn’t one person’s buzzword another's insight? Again, with the sheer volume of conversations and opinions being shared online today, isn’t every word technically a buzzword – or at risk of becoming one?

When in doubt, debate.

As opinionated as I am, I prefer to challenge such constructs in an effort to further my own understanding of an issue, so last night I asked our online #bizforum community to debate this very topic. Below is a highlight slideshow that contains just some of the insights shared on Twitter:

View the story "#bizforum debate - Week 60" on Storify#bizforum debate - Week 60Are buzzwords creating a new business dictionary? Storified by @samfiorella · Thu, Jul 12 2012 05:44:47Tonight’s Debate Topic: Buzzwords are the new business dictionary. #bizforumsamfiorellaS2: Buzzwords are effective at conveying/simplifying complex biz concepts. Agree/Disagree/Why? #bizforumsamfiorella#bizforum a2 - agree - but very soon they become malappropisms which dilute the intended meaningBrian RensingI love that word ...malappropisms ! It's just such a great word. It has buzz! #bizforumTara Markus@samfiorella Agree, but that doesn't make them any less annoying. #bizforumCollin KromkeA2 Disagree, #buzzwords are good at opening a convo with a common factor everyone understands. Allowing deeper dive into concepts #bizforumBrandie McCallum@lesleywprice Using buzzwords in different context/industry. Good recycling program. #bizforumsamfiorellaBuzzwords are, in essence, an overly simple yet universally understood way of conveying a concept. In that regard they are useful. #bizforumJonathan BarrickAt what point does a buzzword make it into the lexicon of a marketing textbook? Did "market share" start out this way? #bizforumGerald Moczynski@berkson0 Buzzword serve a purpose in business - to help distill large volumes of data/content?? curious #bizforumsamfiorellaWords can start with "Buzz" but then they can gain traction & have long-term staying power. #bizforumTara Markus@TaraMarkus Wonder if we're putting too much emphasis on over used words? They're just words? #bizforumsamfiorellaYes, unless we tire of them. RT @TaraMarkus: Words can start with "Buzz" but they can gain traction & have long-term staying power #bizforumGerald Moczynski@GeraldMoczynski Who tires of buzzwords? Those that spend too much time on Social Media?? #bizforumsamfiorellaS3: Industries don’t get excited about new concepts until buzzwords are created for them. Agree/Disagree/Why? #bizforumsamfiorellaS3 - Buzzwords are a fantastic indicator that the topic within the buzzword has become mainstream. Means it's now a trend. #bizforumJonathan BarrickA3 - disagree - bleeding edge creates the buzz & corresponding buzzword (oops I did it again #spears) #bizforumBrian Rensing@_bpr_ we don’t get excited about new/useful technologies till a buzzword is in place, eg AJAX. #bizforumsamfiorellaS3. Agree. Buzzwords do create curiosity about what leaders don't know. #bizforumGerald MoczynskiBuzzwords are useless and often dilute or improperly inform the general public on a topic. Obfuscation is also used. #bizforumThaddeus Howze@senseimarketing A3 Disagree. Industries view buzzwords with suspicion. They're fluffy and not like a puppy. #bizforumMarjorie ClaymanS4: Buzzwords reflect a shared "culture" among the business audience; supports community. Agree/Disagree/Why? #bizforumsamfiorella@samfiorella It does support a community that is complete understand of the true meaning of the buzzwords. Also isolates it. #bizforumThaddeus Howze@samfiorella Such isolation ensures silos are also created so there are people who KNOW and the OTHERS who don't. #bizforum.Thaddeus Howze@samfiorella The violent reaction to many buzzwords makes me think they break up culture. They're not the stuff of Culture Club. #bizforumMarjorie ClaymanA4 totally agree - almost exclusive domain of the bloody buzzword! #bizforumBrian Rensing@samfiorella A4: How does something that pisses everyone off promote community? #bizforumCollin KromkeTrouble with Buzzwords is that they usually only apply to one area and are misunderstood by others in business #alljargon #bizforumLesley PriceLanguage is the tool that binds us, directs us, enables us and controls how we do what we do. Poor language choices limit you. #bizforumThaddeus HowzeThe language of buzzwords directs the behavior those who use them: Consider: War on Drugs; denotes conflict not understanding #bizforumThaddeus Howze@ebonstorm buzzwords prevent community building vs. solidify the community? #bizforumsamfiorella@samfiorella No, they provide community for the people who understand them. They obstruct people who are not in the know. #bizforumThaddeus HowzeS5: Business Buzzwords are only overused/hated by early adopters, not a big deal to rest. Agree/Disagree/Why? #bizforumsamfiorellaS5. Disagree. Overused by late adopters (ineffective copycat leaders), hated by THEIR followers. #bizforumGerald MoczynskiA5 - creator overuse? No way! S/he has the closest intended meaning. It's that guy that works in boiler room that gets it wrong! #bizforumBrian RensingA5 Disagree. Buzzwords are created by and for early adopters. Words are used to communicate the essence of a "thing" Like Bloke ) #BizforumKenny Rose@samfiorella a5 Disagree. Buzzwords are hated by intelligent people who don't need to use buzzwords to try to fit in. #bizforumCollin Kromke@senseimarketing disagree. I think the preponderance of buzzwords makes new adopters feel left out & confused. #bizforumMarjorie ClaymanS6: Decisions makers are usually semi-techno-literate, thus buzzwords are useful. Agree/Disagree/Why? #bizforumsamfiorellaS6. @Samfiorella. Umm...can rewrite that as Decision makers are semi techno illiterate? #bizforumGerald MoczynskiA6 yes - function well for decision makers but beware - too quick to "understand" still need to manage expectations. #bizforumBrian RensingA6. Disagree. Not all decision makers are literate. They often build silo's with the words to protect interests/intellectualize. #BizforumKenny Rose@samfiorella Maybe it's just that marketers need buzzwords to push their ideas INTERNALLY. #bizforumGerald MoczynskiI'd argue that buzzwords are most useful if you already know the story behind them. Don't know the history? Often miss the point. #bizforumJonathan BarrickS7: Buzzwords signal the end of a trend. Agree/Disagree/Why? #bizforumsamfiorella@samfiorella Nah. They don't signal anything. Some buzzwords live on & on, recycling themselves endless. Others vanish overnight. #bizforumThaddeus Howze@samfiorella Sometimes all they signify is a problem that can't be killed and returns like the undead, to plague a new generation. #bizforumThaddeus HowzeThe death of a buzzword simply creates a black hole that sucks up other buzzwords. Welcome to Twitter. cc @ebonstorm #bizforumsamfiorella@samfiorella Buzzwords don't die. They just end up in crossword puzzles @ebonstorm #bizforumAlan BerksonS7. Interesting question. Disagree. The trend is on, but the meaning and understanding may be diluted or nonexistent. #bizforumGerald Moczynski.@samfiorella a buzzword will come up when the trend itself gets recurrent enough to "need" naming. We name what we diferentiate. #bizforumLucio AmorimA7 - no - always beginning. But people confuse irritation with the beginning. #bizforumBrian RensingS7 - They signal mainstream acceptance. Once the term becomes as annoying as it is valued, it falls in to buzzword status. #bizforumJonathan BarrickA thought came to mind when debating this topic that I has to pose to the group:
Has Twitter perpetuated - or even forced need for - buzzwords? @berkson0 @_bpr_ #bizforumsamfiorellaNot just twitter - life! RT @samfiorella: Has Twitter perpetuated - or even forced need for - buzzwords? @berkson0 @_bpr_ #bizforumDeborah Thomas@samfiorella yeah - but - the evolving meaning (based on over application) creates confusion. How to resolve? #bizforumBrian RensingBuzzwords are on every highway of life! #bizforumTara MarkusTwitter does not force you to use buzzwords. Your typing speed and your facility with language does. I always use real words. #bizforumThaddeus Howze@ebonstorm You, sir, need to run for office! #bizforumGerald MoczynskiLogler

What do you think? At what point does a useful term become a buzzword? Every buzzword was once considered useful so should we not just get over ourselves and focus on the author's intent and not the semantics of buzzwords?

I will give Timm VcVaigh the last word (excerpt from last night's debate):

Sam Fiorella - Sensei
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego

Does Social Influence Scoring Drive Value to Brands | #bizforum video debate

sam_fiorella@hotmail.com(1 Sam Fiorella) — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 GMT

There’s been so much talk about the accuracy, value or benefit of social influence scoring tools this past year; most of it about you. What does it do for you? How does it impact you? How do you game it? What’s your score? And that’s how social influence businesses like Klout like it. Keep the focus on you.

Their game is to play on the vanities of individuals, which is fuel for their “service” and bank roll. The longer and harder you play their game the more money they can generate by selling access to you. Good ole American ingenuity. In fact, they also love those who claim to “not care” because by not caring (especially when you secretly do), you don’t opt out. And by not opting out, they will continue to use your online activity and persona to make money by selling them to advertisers.

But this post is not about you (I know, don’t be too upset). The debate I’m surprised no one is having is the value (or lack thereof) of the information collected, parsed and presented as real market data by Klout for Brands? Businesses are paying top dollar to access the real influencers, which Klout claims to be able to identify but are their clients getting their money’s worth?

The #bizforum video debate experiment continues at New York City’s Internet Media Labs by exploring this topic with Ric Dragon, the author of Social Marketology and Fred McClimans, Managing Director of the McClimans Group.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe Brands are getting their money’s worth by paying for access to the Klout-annointed? Businesses have been successful at influencer-outreach programs pre-Klout but the criteria, manpower and human intuition that went into these efforts seem to have given way to the short-cut of online measurement tools.

Is this just a short-term gimmick sucking ad dollars from brands or is it a legitimate customer acquisition strategy for marketers?

Agree/Disagree? Get in on the debate via the comments below.

Sam Fiorella – Sensei
Feed Your Community, Not Your Ego