<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for eswayne</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/eswayne/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/eswayne/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:59:39 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The 2015 Pricing Guide To Getting Marketing Done</title><link>http://www.jasonfalls.com/marketing-pricing-guide/#comment-1789675766</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Social analytics studies can vary wildly, depending on the complexity, just as much as traditional market research. I've led efforts that were in the 6-figure range because we were doing correlative analysis between social and survey data - lots of math, lots of work, innovative effort, all these contribute to cost. If you, as a buyer, are not sure about how important these results could be then ask for a pilot program. Give your agency/vendor an opportunity to show how good their solution is, and give you the ammo to sell it in higher.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also on blended rates: make sure you know WHO is a part of that rate, not just WHAT it is. Agencies very often include senior staff time in such quotes, but since senior staff are likely already moving on to the next new business pitch, they don't actually show up in your campaign efforts as much as scoped. Cheaper labor fills in the gaps (hopefully with positive outcomes), and the agency's margin on that blended rate goes up. I've actually worked with clients who demanded the actual timesheets for everyone on the billing job code, and clients who even went so far as to dictate what our blended rate had to be.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:59:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: http://eswayne.com/post/6742072658</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/6742072658#comment-1720867561</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's fantastic! So glad you were able to use it!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 16:18:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Marketers Can Get Back to Modern Marketing</title><link>http://www.convinceandconvert.com/digital-marketing/how-marketers-can-get-back-to-modern-marketing/#comment-1614197192</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the mention, Chris!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:32:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Let&amp;#8217;s Talk About Diversity in Startups</title><link>http://launchdfw.com/dallas-startup-news/lets-talk-about-diversity-in-startups/#comment-1607863294</link><description>&lt;p&gt;1) I can't speak well to that question, but I can say that we added another woman to our staff at MutualMind just recently, and it's a trend I DEFINITELY want to continue. (And hey, when you're a team of 13, one more person is a big change!) If we're not including more women in our company, we're ignoring 50% (or more) of our customers. I'm also extremely proud that the rest of MutualMind represents a wide variety of races, faiths, ages and backgrounds. It gives me more to learn from, and it's part of the reason why I'm there.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;2) Carrie Layne of BestBuzz (&lt;a href="http://bestbuzz.bz/)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://bestbuzz.bz/)"&gt;http://bestbuzz.bz/)&lt;/a&gt; has been killing it for a LONG time in the Dallas scene. She's incredible.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:33:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 
SXSW PanelPicker
</title><link>http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/42029#comment-1577472401</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks so much, Pamela! We didn't get to meet at Big Design, but I hope you're at SXSW and I can thank you in person!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2014 22:48:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 
SXSW PanelPicker
</title><link>http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/42029#comment-1558394603</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks Greg! Great point - we need to talk about the "Who" as much as the "How." The good news is that there's often a vacuum for people who can take these reins and walk the Big Data "elephant" in, so this position is generally vacant!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:38:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 
SXSW PanelPicker
</title><link>http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/42029#comment-1550528716</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks to everyone who's voted so far! Leave me a note below - what's the most difficult org culture problem you've had with Big Data?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:25:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;#8220;Changing History&amp;#8221; With Keyword Exclusions</title><link>http://www.mutualmind.com/blog/2014/03/changing-history-with-keyword-exclusions/#comment-1337235464</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks - we like it here! Probably because we "changed history" to get what we wanted. :-)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:43:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 
SXSW PanelPicker
</title><link>http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/25672#comment-1035795496</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Couldn't agree more! Thanks for your comment, Suzanne!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:43:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : 4 Things the New Publicis Omnicom Group Should Do Right Now</title><link>http://eswayne.tumblr.com/post/56994670620#comment-983385008</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Sean! Always good for an insightful thought, thanks much.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I see precisely 0% of the new OPG implementing all of these ideas. Perhaps they may implement one, and that halfway. I just wanted to put the bar where it should be.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3D printing is about to go bonkers, particularly due to some specific patents expiring: &lt;a href="http://qz.com/106483/3d-printing-will-explode-in-2014-thanks-to-the-expiration-of-key-patents/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://qz.com/106483/3d-printing-will-explode-in-2014-thanks-to-the-expiration-of-key-patents/"&gt;http://qz.com/106483/3d-pri...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Video games are absolutely about to shatter their stereotypes, and we could even say they have already. I'm looking forward to playing Bioshock Infinite, which has been described as the closest thing to a movie the gaming industry has produced yet. Educational games are absolutely fascinating to me, especially since I have kids! I'm watching their little brains develop and I swear they're learning some things faster because of the games they're playing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Big Data at the OPG level is going to be all about making media buys smarter - targeting that 300x250 within an inch of its life to make it smarter, or putting more digital into offline media. All well and good and very profitable at that scale, but it's a race to the bottom.  Check that interview with Cezanne I referenced at the beginning of this piece - he's got some great points of view there.  I really don't expect OPG to do anything direct to customer with their big data any time soon.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:35:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Intuition, Instinct, and Bravery</title><link>http://brandsavant.com/intuition-instinct-and-bravery/#comment-898757655</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Funny story I ran into lately - HBR published an article back in 2011 that they couldn't find any evidence of Henry Ford actually saying the quote about faster horses.  So our classic example of the instinctive company decision may be nothing but a myth!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/henry_ford_never_said_the_fast.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/henry_ford_never_said_the_fast.html"&gt;http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/201...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 22:07:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : It’s Official: An InsiGHts Geek Goes to PR</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/41279143748#comment-795187211</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks much Dr. James - and my apologies for the delay in responding to your comment!  Maybe someday I can come back to my alma mater and tell your students about some of the work we're doing!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:04:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : About (The Long Version)</title><link>http://eswayne.com/about#comment-790141523</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks so much!  Glad you enjoyed it!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:00:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : It’s Official: An InsiGHts Geek Goes to PR</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/41279143748#comment-776060553</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Michelle! Me too!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:42:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : It’s Official: An InsiGHts Geek Goes to PR</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/41279143748#comment-776049774</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Erin!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:29:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : It’s Official: An InsiGHts Geek Goes to PR</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/41279143748#comment-775870540</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks Cos!  Definitely hope to see you as well - I'll be at SXSW, maybe there?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:54:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : It’s Official: An InsiGHts Geek Goes to PR</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/41279143748#comment-775870253</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Chris!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:53:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Facebook Flea Market</title><link>http://brandsavant.com/the-facebook-flea-market/#comment-753422723</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it's classic pursuit of a bad metric - clicks (aka CPA).  Many of these ads aren't choosing the best image for the brand, they're just choosing ANY image that's so outrageous it captures your eye, and potentially lands a higher number of clicks.  In fact, there are whole Facebook ad platforms (like GraphEffect) that spin up thousands of iterations of the same ad and "evolve" the best performers - which often have no benefit to branding whatsoever.  By slavishly chasing the click, they've forgotten about the impact of branding.  SEO, by the way, is finally learning this lesson - studies have shown organic results get a higher # of clicks when the user is exposed to a paid impression. (And I'm still trying to find that study, will post when I do)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:26:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Eric Swayne : Thoughts by the Pound : About (The Long Version)</title><link>http://eswayne.com/about#comment-676387802</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes? :-)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:32:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: http://eswayne.com/post/15171581258</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/15171581258#comment-661299394</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Luis -&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Great point, and we definitely have to agree that not all business actions can be measured in ROI alone.  Charitable contributions, for example, almost never drive an ROI on paper, but the built-up goodwill and brand equity brings the return businesses look for.  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't think we can say ROI is gone, however.  Like Donaldson's problem at DuPont, it's one of the few metrics one can use on any product or offering.  The key is to understand the nuances of ROI in a social media sense, and how those can differ from harder assets such as stock or capital.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for coming by and commenting!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;-E&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:27:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: SXSW PanelPicker</title><link>http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/3941#comment-634532599</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks much, Deidre!&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:19:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: SXSW PanelPicker</title><link>http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/3941#comment-634484408</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Bryan!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:33:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: http://eswayne.com/post/26295786872</title><link>http://eswayne.com/post/26295786872#comment-595294049</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Cos!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I haven't had it in for a full month yet, so not precisely sure of the savings. But, I can tell you this is easily one of the most ENGAGING devices ever - the very fact that you want to constantly adjust your energy usage through this thing makes you a more efficient user, and more aware of how much it takes to cool your home. I think it's worth it, but will have better numbers on that after we've lived with it a while. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:03:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Buyer&amp;#8217;s Guide Discussion For Social Media Management Software</title><link>http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-management-software-discussion/#comment-582322038</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I help a lot of clients work out which tools to use, and we use multiple tools in my practice as well (both bought and built).  I keep coming back to the same two concepts:&lt;br&gt;- It's either multiple tools, or multi-faceted tools.  Think about an enterprise Business Intelligence group - would you only pay for one module of SAS or SPSS? When you bring in something like Crystal Reports, it's a huge system with many connections to various elements of your business.  As social becomes the new normal for the enterprise, your team will either need a lot of different tools to match a lot of different needs, or large enterprise systems will evolve to meet all of your needs with various modules/products. (Salesforce and Oracle are probably closest to making that a reality.)  Budget and plan accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- Choices for teams now are budget driven. Soon, they'll be business driven. Altimeter's last report on prioritizing corporate social budgets said the novice social program has about $66K/yr to play with for tools and campaigns.  That means you're going to be lucky to fund one major platform (a Radian6 or Sysomos sized object), plus some tools to plug specific needs, plus your annual campaigns.  For that budget, right now most vendors are priced far out of the market.  Even though social teams need more capabilities, they just can't afford most of them right now.  However, this will change - we're already seeing more mature social businesses getting more funds to pursue tools and technologies that will advance their objectives.  Smart vendors will bend over backwards to get in and integrated with businesses so that, as they grow, the windfall of additional budget will come to them.  Smart vendors will also consider their product suite an evolution of ever-growing capabilities, rather than a huge initial investment for a roughly static product.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:36:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Critical Thought Is Endangered</title><link>http://www.brasstackthinking.com/2012/06/critical-thought-is-endangered/#comment-569039485</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Personally, I'm a full-on subscriber to the @gapingvoid "Sex &amp;amp; Cash Theory": &lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://gapingvoid.com/2004/03/25/the-sex-cash-theory/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://gapingvoid.com/2004/03/25/the-sex-cash-theory/"&gt;http://gapingvoid.com/2004/...&lt;/a&gt;  Basically, we have to do some things that are easily consumable, quickly bloggable, or social-media-dramatic sometimes because they DO drive interest and traffic and notoriety.  In a personal-branding sense, that imperative to drive your own popularity may be less, and so you can spend more time on the stuff you wanna do, rather than the stuff you have to do.  The KEY, in my mind, is that any time you walk on this "dark side" of Content For Fame, you don't lose your mind or soul in the process.  Tom Webster talks about this all the time - research created for the express purpose of feeding a content machine, which leads to bad research.  The fact that this phenomenon exists doesn't mean you can't do good research that's still insightful, intriguing, maybe arresting - and still worth its salt.  &lt;br&gt;Much love as always, Amber! Love your work!&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric S.</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:28:20 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>