In order to transform data into knowledge, and knowledge into decision we must identify and address the major stumbling blocks to this flow:

The initial delay occurs as data is collected. In most organizations, each department is responsible for it’s own information, and that information is rarely shared or aggregated with other areas. This creates data silos and inhibits positive change, as one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing.

Additionally, businesses often let technology dictate strategy by assuming that because it is technically possible to measure something, they should. This produces an enormous amount of data, only a fraction of which is useful to make real business decisions.

As data flows upstream to the next stage, the Knowledge stage, managers must parse through this enormous amount of siloed data, to form relationships between information, distill meaning, and identify trends. This requires a skill set which is seriously lacking in most companies right now. Managers haven’t yet grasped the effects of the Internet on business, and how much the Internet has changed not only a company’s relationship to the customer, but also how the company itself functions. Until this knowledge gap is solved, until managers can overcome the steep learning curve, the flow from data to knowledge will not improve.

The final transition from knowledge decision is currently producing little action, and therefore little change or growth to meet potentials. This is mostly due to the poor quality of managerial knowledge emerging from data, but it is also the result of a general tendency to ‘do nothing’- to rely on the perceived safety of the status quo, rather than undergo disruptive change.

In the end, it is the Internet that can help force this change and find solutions to these bottlenecks. But it will require significant management learning, to install the processes that can leverage Internet capability. And the ability of some businesses to integrate will compel others, lest they get left behind.

Their methodology is well thought-out. It delivers five “lenses” designed to expand a company’s perspective on growth during Idea Generation. It explains the skills and resources required. But I would pose this question: how can a company expect to implement a new methodology— to foster radical new ideas, without a fundamental shift in their business culture?

When they discuss the Business Model Lens, defined as modifying the very way a company does business, I couldn’t help but wonder how there could be business model innovation, without a shift in values?

How do you create the responsive and innovative business model needed to support such an idea-generation framework?

I suggest this: Internet Integration. When you integrate the Internet effectively with your organization, you create flexibility, dynamic and responsive agility within your company. This allows you to make alterations to your business model, which can then create an environment conducive to new methods of Idea Generation. Without it, you may foster a few new ideas, but the spirit of innovation will not be ingrained, and the process will eventually fall flat.

If you want to learn more about any of the concepts I mention in this post, including Internet Integration and innovation frameworks, please write to us at info@makebuzz.com, and we’ll send you a free white paper.

Listen — the Internet is not eCommerce. Optimizing your online efforts, or any effort, for that matter to achieve eCommerce growth alone is not going to greatly effect your bottom line- unless of course you’re Amazon. Instead, I’d like to see some headlines championing a strong economic framework for all efforts.

Now THAT would really get my attention.

The accelerated rate of growth for ecommerce seems especially challenging, considering it would need to double the rate of growth from the last 10 years in the next 5 to achieve the 10% share prediction. In order to achieve this kind of growth, I think two things need to happen: one, the idea of ecommerce needs to change, from online purchase only, to partial attribution for online-influenced purchase; and two, a shift in the way that brands connect their efforts across online and offline channels, to integrate Internet capability into their business and marketing frameworks.

Fig. 1.1: MakeBuzz Dual Customer Journey

For companies to leverage the Internet as a sales and marketing channel, as well as for geo-targeting, they must have a framework in place that can facilitate this shift in buying behavior. The current user experience for most websites on smartphones is still lacking, and most brands still need to install other basic efforts to close the gaps in the dual online-offline customer journey. As the smartphone device will continues to evolve, CPG brands need to have this framework in place to support and respond to external innovation, while fostering their own internal innovation.

Neilson is predicting big numbers ahead for ecommerce but in order for this to happen, brands will need to update their business frameworks to be as agile as the consumers they propose to reach, and as innovative as the devices they plan to use.

What he neglects to mention, however, is that in the real world, a brand cannot be sustained through this connection alone.
Ideally, the Internet is additive to other efforts. Stores can be a vital customer touch point, giving consumers an array of options and a visceral experience that cannot be matched online. Companies that try to subsist off of a direct relationship usually only do so for a short time, before their value eventually weakens. These companies are able to stay afloat through residual brand value created by their marketing and stores, but ultimately, their brand (and sales) decline.

In fact, the only company I can think of that needs very little advertising and no storefront is Amazon, but they rely on the brand value of their products— not their own brand per se. Think of Apple without the advertising or the stores and what do you have?

And what about those start-up brands? How do we propose they build a customer base without marketing and advertising? How do we introduce people to these new products if not through display and touch? I’d like to suggest that Twitter is not the answer and would be hard-pressed to name a brand that was built online alone.

The truth is still that ecommerce makes only a small percentage of the retail economy and the Internet can help drive offline sales, but it is not the primary outlet. As appealing as it may be to remove the “middle man”, or the advertiser, the Internet has not made this happen. What it has done is given the consumer a voice, and provides a channel for dialog between the consumer and the brand, to which marketing can respond.

Consumer thought and motivation are great subjects, filled with plenty of opportunity for academic theory, with profound output. Ask yourself: In 2009, were you really looking for an iPad-like device? Many of the most-desired products are very difficult to predict in the absence of prior experience and data streams. In my own line of work, I often consider the fundamental needs driving consumer behavior, to determine how brands can best meet those needs.

But after researching this Institute a bit more, I found myself wondering whether an entity that owns ad agencies could really pursue this question, considering the potential conflict of interest that might arise from their findings. I’m most concerned that whatever good does come out of this intellectual pursuit doesn’t get twisted to fit a tired business model. I feel like every few years, I hear about Madison Avenue’s “new solutions” that merely seek to sell traditional media in service of big agencies.

I think the true means of discovering consumer motivation and thought processes is through independent analysis that focuses on the big picture, and not discrete channels of data. The more time spent on discerning the neuroscience behind deciding which brand of beer to buy, can mean less time spent on the common sense and macroeconomic analysis that can inform a truly effective marketing and business strategy.

If the goal is to connect with consumers, there are much more practical ways to proceed, and I would proffer that the very least of the requirements in an independent, media-neutral ‘research’ institute.

What are its defining characteristics and what sets it apart from its predecessors?

How can business today ensure they achieve that success in the future?

To start, a successful business will have the following characteristics:

• A knowledge of total business KPIs, in terms of optimal sales and total costs they need to reach maximum profit volume.

• An understanding of their customer, as far as the path they take to purchase and repurchase.

• A thorough understanding of the competitor and direction of the market, so they can stay a step ahead of the curve.

• A means of resource, budget and media allocation designed to meet growth goals.

• A philosophy of continuous improvement, for efficiencies and innovation.

How will these characteristics differ from businesses before it?

The opportunity to collect vast amounts of data is greater now than ever before, however, most businesses today are paralyzed by lack of means to process and parse data for growth decisions. The successful business of the future will have this knowledge-to-decision process in place.

But businesses must start now in order to achieve this, as the learning curve is steep. Investment in management understanding in particular is crucial to business growth. Managers today are inundated with vast amount of disparate and often non-essential data. If businesses install a process to aggregate, parse and filter this data upwards, this will have a tremendous effect on the bottom line.

I believe we have found a way to do this.

In the last year, Apple has launched the iPad, updated the iPod, and released the iPhone 4. They have mastered the art of incremental innovation– just enough groundbreaking to stay ahead of the curve, while still holding back enough to make money off the subsequent updates.

It seems that in spite of their lack-luster online presence and sub-par network partnership that stifle use and hurt brand, their brand value continues to rise. The stores do the job they’re supposed to do: engage users and increase sales. During a recent trip to New York City, I watched as people flowed in an out of the store at a rate of 10-20 per minute.



They do a great job with the rest of their offline touch – TV and billboards, to name a few. But if Apple really wants to rule the world, they need to create longer lasting engagement that includes a Website, search, and social media. Products get old, they have a limited lifecycle, but a brand can be forever.

One day, a reliable network and a real and engaging web presence will join their innovation ability to catapult them to the next level, and keep them around for a long, long time.

The next time I paid attention to the cookie was when we invented bid management in 2000. But even our initial patents where very careful to sidestep reliance on cookie technology, because there were known issues. But we didn’t think we had an alternative, so it was the only way we tracked sales 10 years ago.

As the industry matured, we integrated our bid management technology with Performics’ cookie-based system. But as sales and client volumes grew, a slow pain developed. I was not about to become that guy who died slinging cookie based sales.

When we observed web-to-call center sales data in 2003, I realized the customer was not responding like we had assumed, following our intended online path all the way from Awareness through to Purchase. The customer was seeking out and obtaining what they needed in complex ways that were beyond the capability of the cookie to track. Besides which, I was growing tired of reporting sales volume that were mere fractions of what I knew them to be– the web was more important than just ecommerce.

Fast forward to today: 2010 marks the unveiling of my new means of sales attribution, tracking, and business management. It is my personal transformation, away from solutions founded on defective means of tracking. TrueBuzz 3.0 incorporates what I know and can observe about consumer behavior throughout the entire sales funnel, with Internet capability, and management decision-making.

And best of all, I don’t need the cookie.

What would this look like? Assuming there is one “right” device, the means of developing it are complex, involving big companies working together across distance and cultures. Who would have branding ownership over such a product?

Right now, the operating system is key. Most people with the Android would say they use a “Google phone,” yet it’s on the Sprint or Verizon network, built by HTC.  Apple is a first mover in the OS and hardware space, but suffers from a difficult relationship with a weak network. I expect the right device to evolve but I would venture to say we don’t know the market leader in 10 years.

The hardware – the actual device is not yet right either. Small phones are powerful and portable. The iPhone 4 is a move in the right direction. The iPad is even better in terms computer functionality. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of profits to be made by not rushing too much to market, so we see incremental advancements instead of great leaps forward.

One indication that we’ve found the right device will be the cost. Expect the cost of the ‘right device’ to approach or exceed a laptop (which run around $1,500 USD.) The right device is a true computer replacement and will sync with any allowed I/O.

This leaves us with the Telecom – the network. Time will tell if they will be relegated to just a “dumb pipe.” Will they become a mere utility, to advertise how to use Facebook on an iPhone? Whether they evolve will be largely up to the management of the major Telecoms.

As voice revenue becomes data revenue, Telecoms will have to manage how the customer absorbs new opportunity. The parallel customer journey, or the presence of an online and offline marketing and sales channels, may prove too much for current business model and structures – their customers are online yet the customer discovers and considers the products in a very offline way. I haven’t seen any evidence of the Telecom’s ability to handle this complexity yet.

I predict that unless we have a radical change at the Telecom level, the OS is driving the ship, followed by the hardware people.