Twitter’s growth is leaving some fascinated and devoted to the platform while others are confused and, frankly, wasting too much time with it.  A recent article in Fast Company here discusses Katalyst Media and Ashton Kutcher’s venture into the emerging realm of social media/ advertising/ entertainment/ whatever else you want to call it.  He is dominating twitter with 3.9 million followers and maintains an equally impressive facebook fanbase.  As Sarah Ross states regarding Katalyst’s business:

We provide a content solution for marketers and syndicate it through social environments.

The article states, speaking with Kutcher regarding Katalyst:

What the Katalyst team is planning, he says, is simple: Make entertaining stuff, give it to people where they already are, let them have some fun with it, and mix in brand messaging. And because of the viral nature of the Web, each new consumer is cheaper to win than the last one.

The article continues:

Of course it’s risky, Schmidt adds, because the more commercialized personalities become, the less influence they have. Kutcher acknowledges this: “I am consciously risking my career on the edge of what’s too much information. Eventually, we’ll open up this platform to others, just like Facebook and developers. For this to work, it has to be open.”

I love that Kutcher is grasping the open nature of the web and social media.  This is crucial to understanding and capitalizing on it.  Katalyst has become successful in utilizing the platforms that so many struggle with including raising substantial money for charities and current work with Pepsi.

The obvious benefit illustrated by Katalyst regarding social media is not direct monetization but maintains an emphasis on monetization nonetheless.  In today’s no revenue digital world, this is often a lost focus.  In order for business to survive, it is absolutely necessary; it’s just common sense!  Katalyst is actually profitable with social media!

So what is the take?

What can each business learn from Katalyst’s experiences?  It is about building reputation, enhancing customer experience and loyalty, and creating highly effective channels of information distribution.  Don’t prostitute the channels, however, through product hocking and spam.  That does not enhance experience or reputation.  This is the beauty of proper social media management, if reputation, experience, and loyalty are considered, the channels of distribution will maintain effectiveness and integrity.  They will only grow and become more efficient as well.

read more

Being empathetic seems like one of the most intuitive and obvious necessities in business (that is empathy with your customer).  Obviously this is not the case as books are being written to help businesses see this point.  I recently read “Wired to Care” by

, which centers on the concept of empathy regarding your “end user.”  One of the biggest issues in business today is the focus on profits, particularly short-term profits. This is especially difficult with publicly traded companies as the reputation and stock price often lives and dies by quarterly results, thanks to a fickle, impatient, and often uneducated public response.  This creates corporate actions opting for short-term, short-lived results over long-term growth when it may require short-term “sacrifices” (how much of a sacrifice is it if the long term result is so much better!).  I really enjoyed the book and would recommend it to anyone looking to improve their “connection” with their client, which is about everyone.  I definitely buy into the philosophy that a customer-centered business is and/or will be the most successful (especially for the long-haul).  In fact, the Business Blueprint model is entirely centered in the “value exchange” with your customer and empathy is one of the keys to optimizing it. Empathy has many auxiliary benefits, not just improved products and services but brand loyalty, and customer retention.

One of my favorite examples given in the book was of a company called Zildjian which was founded 400 years ago (that’s right, 4 centuries!). You’ve gotta love an American company that is older than the U.S. of A! (it was founded in Constantinople by Avedis Zildjian, an Armenian Alchemist. Check them out …) The company has been officially recognized as the oldest continually family-owned biz in America.  Some of the companies current success as the worlds best cymbal maker is attributed to the fact that Armand Zildjian played drums himself and had very close friendship with many of the best drummers of the time.  This relationship with the drums allowed him to create a better, more innovative product that continues to lead the “pack” today in cymbal quality.  A company that old requires some open mindedness (obviously it was not founded on “drum” products) and empathy-driven innovations. The ability to adapt to the variations and evolution of customer demand is a large part of this empathy that innovators must embrace in order to create 400 year old successful companies.

How will your company get to age 400? What strategies and core values can you implement now that will drive long term success?

read more

In an economy such as this, I may be beating a dead horse in discussing job security but for those who hang on to certain notions of this myth, my goal is to rewire thinking.  The millenial generation (we’ll call them genYers) is developing far different thought processes than their baby boomer parents and older generations.  During the first half of the 20th century, the key to the good life was putting in 30+ years at a company and retiring with the gold watch and a pension.  As Donna Fenn puts it in her book “Upstarts”, entrepreneurship was compared to hocking watches on a street corner, essentially, looked down upon.  One of the biggest arguments put forth is regarding job security.  Ideas such as “better safe than sorry” permeate the discussions.  A big strong company will take care of you and the whims of the market can’t take down the big boys like they can a small business.  Being self employed is dangerous and risky.  As the market has marched on, the truth has been quite different.  Not that the small businesses are surviving any more than others but simply that the big boys can and do fail, leaving many unemployed.  Even if complete failure isn’t the issue, cutbacks and downsizing lead equally to lost jobs.  What I find very interesting is the fact that job security is basically lost when it is needed most.  You might work for a large company for years with all this great security.  Suddenly, the economy takes a turn for the worst and the word at the water cooler is big downsizing and your position is on the chopping block!  The fact is, when you actually had job security is when everyone is doing well, including the small “risky” business.

Entrepreneurs have True Job Security

Job security ultimately is found

read more

This video is a keynote that Chris Anderson, Author of “Free:…” & editor at WIRED magazine, gave at the Revenue Bootcamp put on by Garage Ventures. He discusses Free and the “animal forces of digital economics” that I find fascinating.

read more

Free is the word of the year with books about it and more.  I recently wrote a piece on the business model known as “freemium” here.  Entire companies thrive on free such as Google, the reference standard.  I happen to be a fan of the free movement and the open-source concept.  I am not religious about it however.  I like it when it works.

I have no ethical or moral obligation to the free movement, only am fascinated by the development of economic forces and innovative business models.  I am, in fact, amused by the zeal of some “camp” members (the two camps being “free” and “anti-free”). So to this end, I write about the not-so-good side of Free.  The intent is to bring a balance to the concept, giving any aspiring entrepreneur or business owner the option to choose what will work best for them in their own circumstance.

This thought was sparked by a great article recently put out by Fast Company, here.  I will pull some concept from the article to further illustrate the point.

read more