Disqus - Latest Comments for richardstacy

Re: Belief is the Engine that Drives Crypto Adoption (or doesn’t)

Richard Stacy — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:53:27 -0000

True. I still need to think more about this, but I have a model in my head that sees blockchain as three layers: a tech (protocol) layer, a purpose layer and cementing the two together an incentive layer. The belief you are talking about is part of the purpose layer - belief in an end destination. The belief I am worried about is that which sits within the incentive layer and the fact that this is often quite detached from the purpose - belief this is going to make me money in-and-of itself, rather than belief this is going to make me money by solving a problem. My model (indeed my head on this one) is still work in progress!

Re: Belief is the Engine that Drives Crypto Adoption (or doesn’t)

Richard Stacy — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:32:59 -0000

Speculation is not necessarily bad, it becomes problematic when it is based on a belief that is not underwritten by some sort of tangible or quantifiable form of value creation (note to self: must read the article Jeremy referred to here https://www.neverstopmarket... that may contain an answer)

Re: Belief is the Engine that Drives Crypto Adoption (or doesn’t)

Richard Stacy — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:21:49 -0000

I must confess this is the part of crypto that I struggle with. A model that requires speculation and belief can very easily look like the model for a bubble - unless that belief is anchored to a tangible method of value creation (beyond simply the number of users) and preferably cuts out speculation altogether. As you say - belief is the one bit that is not quantifiable - but perhaps that is the problem.

As per your recent post on Civil. I can see how Civil can use the blockchain to preserve values, but I can't see how it uses it to create value (or sufficiently replace the value previously created by advertising).

Still scratching my head on this one.

Re: Building a Storyteller Competency

Richard Stacy — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 05:51:14 -0000

Spot on. Stories can be very powerful, especially when explaining the unfamiliar or simplifying complexity. I find analogies are often useful here (an approach I saw you used to good effect in the Sprinklr video). Finding analogies for what crypto is or does is therefore helpful. Here are some that I have used to explain social media - some may translate. http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: When you fail at your own strategy

Richard Stacy — Wed, 08 Aug 2018 06:36:17 -0000

All too often businesses develop a scratch, before they have identified the itch. One good way to test a business or marketing strategy is to ask the question "what's the itch that we are a scratch for"? It is a process of identifying the question for which your brand is the answer and it is surprising how few businesses have defined this.

Re: Stablecoins: Essential, Remarkable or Ridiculous?

Richard Stacy — Thu, 07 Jun 2018 06:57:25 -0000

Or even rethinking the concept of holes and pegs. See a square bit of wood as a brick, not a peg.

Re: Stablecoins: Essential, Remarkable or Ridiculous?

Richard Stacy — Thu, 07 Jun 2018 05:19:19 -0000

Is the problem here that we are trying to make crypto behave like an old fashoned currency rather than see it as a form of value that doesn't need to find expression in money. In the old world value=money and we became accustomed to seeing them as the same thing. In the cypto world value=something else (albeit we haven't really worked out what that something else is yet). Just a thought.

Re: Vitalik Previews Future Crypto-Marketing Tools

Richard Stacy — Wed, 23 May 2018 04:33:33 -0000

Blockchain/crypto could become the way we regulate or control the Age of the Algorithm (AI) - the only way a form of human consensus can excert control over automated processes. (I probably need to update this post to make that point http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: The Future of Democracy, Healthcare, and DAOs

Richard Stacy — Thu, 10 May 2018 10:30:26 -0000

Ths is a very important post because it drags attention upwards towards the ways in which blockchain technologies could fundamentally change societies. You could write a whole science fiction novel based around the issue of a society that is genuinely based on the exercise of the real-time will of the majority. I am not sure whether this story would be a nightmare vision or a glorious Utopia. It go either way (which is why talking about it is so important).

Re: Picking the Crypto Winners, AI, and the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon

Richard Stacy — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:41:58 -0000

Good piece - and thanks for drawing attention to the Wired interview. Finally, a politician who understands the world of the algorithm http://richardstacy.com/201...
The blockchain as a source of data is an interesting concept, especially in relation to understanding the behaviour of token holders. Incentivising behaviours (of blockchain users and/or token holder communities) is, I think, going to be one of the core issues for determinig the success of crypto projects going forwards.

Re: I am done with Facebook. Would a paid-for, non-commercial platform be a better solution?

Richard Stacy — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 07:07:37 -0000

It is probably not just a better solution, ultimately it could be the only solution as we start to better understand what happens when you combine money and algorithms with large behavioural data sets. https://maladjustedmarketin...

Re: Ritson on content: clutter means you’re now a proper, grown-up marketing tool

Richard Stacy — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 03:56:06 -0000

However, at some point with content marketing we will reach 'peak clutter'. This will occur when we realise that the fundamental business model associated with content marketing doesn't work. We may have 'arrived' but not at a place of success, instead we have arrived at a place of delusion. http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: brandshare – consumers’ new expectation of brands

Richard Stacy — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:40:58 -0000

I actually think this report is more significant than you are giving it credit for. It is not so much the issue of balancing emotional, rational and societal - it is actually more about identifying what a brand needs to do if it wants to remain relevant. And - crucially - it demonstrates that none of what it was that built brands in the past will be relevant to what it is that builds brands in the future.

http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: Turning Your Content Funnel Into a Content Centrifuge

Richard Stacy — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:27:41 -0000

Stan,

You are right - websites are basically content prisons. They conform to the old Gutenberg rules where information was married to distribution. The social media revolution has separated information from distribution and means that information (content) can have a life of its own 'out there' in the web.

The issue though is what does 'out there' look like? 'Out there' can easily be a very lonely place (or space - social media is really best understood as a space, rather than a place), which is one reason why web sites can feel more comfortable. In most instances 'out there' means 'in Google' since this is the main tool people use to find stuff. And here is the rub. Content doesn't live very easily in Google space. Google prefers answers to questions, and content (certainly most of the stuff produced by brands) is very rarely the answer to a question (unless the question is "so tell me what fantastically interesting things your (basically boring) brand is doing"). Most content is simply brandfill - an excuse to fill up a channel simply because the channel is there. So the issue is not so much about boosting viewership to content, it is about putting in place a process that ensures your answers are matched with consumers' or customers' questions - a process which starts, of course, with understanding and recognising what those questions are. This is why I hate the term 'content strategy' and the implication that this is a volume / publication game, and prefer the idea of an information management process. It is not just about the content you produce, it is about the process you put in place both before and after publication, to ensure that it becomes socialised (and thus visible). Far better to invest resource in socialising a much more restrictive range of information, than it is to fling-out buckets of content.

Web sites, as you say, are actually very inefficient tools for launching information into digital (Google) space - but that doesn't mean that they no longer have importance or relevance. Brands still need to manage their digital places as well as their digital spaces. In fact, there is a growing recognition that people will want come to brand-managed places, not just for transaction, or even to get corporate information, but to have conversations about or with the brand - usually linked to customer service, or service improvement issues. They don't want to have these conversations 'out there' although they may want to put their comments about a brand 'out there', especially of these comments are negative. This, of course, is bad news again for content - because if a customer has gone to the trouble of coming to a brand's web place to raise an issue (or even if they have raised it on Twitter) - they will want a specific response not a generic piece of content. It is why I think that the creation of managed customer service communities, linked to corporate web presences, is very much the way of the future.

At the end of the day it is all about understanding the consumer or customer and what they actually want, both in terms of information and also relationship. I have yet to find a consumer who says "what I would really like in my life right now is a piece of content from one of my favourite brands." On the other hand there are plenty of consumers out there saying "I really want the brand to fix this issue, or solve this problem, or listen to my suggestion."

Re: Content Marketing and the challenge of radical filters

Richard Stacy — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:58:06 -0000

I thought I would continue the conversation here, rather than on the Content Shock thread.

One thing is for sure, algorithms (filters) are about to become very big. And the fuel of algorithms is data, which is different from content. In reality - Big Data is sort of the wrong word, Big Algorithms is better. It is also true that conventional news or content providers need to see news and information as a raw material rather than a finished product - which is why it is interesting to see that CNN owns Zite.

The filter effect (Filter Bubble) is also an interesting / worrying issue (check out Eli Pariser's book - the Filter Bubble) partly because of the issues that you raise in that someone or something can start to control how the world is presented to you.

The bit I am not so sure about is what the response from brands (as content / information producers) should be. I think our definition of 'quality content' has to change. Quality is not defined by the size of the audience a piece of content can attract, which is how we have been accustomed to understanding things in the reach and frequency world. Successful content may actually have very low levels of reach, but much higher levels of utility (engagement). Conventional high quality content (say Hollywood movies) actually has very low levels of real engagement - but it works because it lots of people are prepared to spend a bit of money to use this content to fill a gap in their life. But brands can never hope to compete with Hollywood - but they can compete in the utility space - which they generally do by providing answers to questions (answers to algorithms perhaps - since an algorithm itself is a form of question).

Anyway - the one thing I do know is that many brands are wasting huge amounts of money churning out content that almost no-one will ever read - I guess we can both agree with that!

Re: Content Shock: Why content marketing is not a sustainable strategy

Richard Stacy — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:39:34 -0000

Maybe. I am not sure that way through the filters, in so far as they exist, is by bazooka-ing a way through. I think there are two ways to find something you want - either to filter all the stuff out there, or to find a way of identifying exactly what you want. I think the latter way is way of the future. Anyway - more on this here http://richardstacy.com/201....

Hopefully not an inappropriate presentation. Uncomfortable - deliberately so.

Re: Content Shock: Why content marketing is not a sustainable strategy

Richard Stacy — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:00:47 -0000

I guess I may as well pitch my pebble upon the cairn. Content marketing is a fantasy - but not because we are approaching limits to consumption. The concept of content itself is redundant in the social space. It is being replaced by real-time information (which is a process, not a thing). http://www.slideshare.net/R...

Re: Big Data vs. Integrated Data

Richard Stacy — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:17:21 -0000

I think you are right - in that the approach you call integrated data allows you to create the best results. But it is not necessarily a better way of approaching big data - it is simply the best way to approach small data.

Challenges such as data compatibility and multiple sources are small data problems. The essence of big data analysis is that it can deal with messy data - check out chapter 3 of Big Data by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger and Kenneth Cukier http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big...

Also - http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: The Next Phase of Sharing

Richard Stacy — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:08:20 -0000

For sure 'the crowd' becomes more important, but the thing that confers this importance are forms of process - which is why I tend to talk about the shift of trust from institutions to processes (you could call them crowd-based processes if you wish) - rather than a process of shifting power from institutions to crowds.

Enabling the trend is difficult for many corporations, because it may entail the demise of their business models. We can see, for example, that news is changing from being a finished product to being a raw material. News is becoming a process - which requires management rather than an editor. We need algorithms that can process the whole dataset of news, rather than people sitting at desks consigning the news they think not relevant to the trash. Should the New York Times become an algorithm? How could it manage that transition? Might it not be easier for someone else to create that algorithm, who doesn't have the baggage of presses and reporters and an editorial mindset?

Likewise a bank - how can a bank participate in peer-to-peer lending without abandoning all the basic principles we currently associate with the process known as banking (and the institutions known as banks)?

Tricky questions!

Re: The Next Phase of Sharing

Richard Stacy — Sun, 20 Oct 2013 16:00:38 -0000

I am not sure about the idea of the sharing of things, as distinct from ideas = collaboration economy. However, the question about the role of companies when people get what they want from each other, is a key one.

My take on this is that it is all about the shift of trust - from institutions into processes (which is a function of liberation from a restrictive means of distribution - which is what the social media revolution is all about). Encyclopaedia Britannica - institution. Wikipedia - process. Newspaper - institution. Citizen journalism - process. Bank - institution. Peer-to-peer lending or crowd-funding - process. Perhaps it should be called the process economy?

http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: Social Business is Dead! Long Live What’s Next! – Chris Heuer

Richard Stacy — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:34:28 -0000

The names we put on things are important. We are starting to see that social media is actually the wrong name - it is not a form of media and this has encouraged many organisations to understand it the wrong way.

Your piece has prompted me to post this, about the stages of social media adoption, which has been sitting in my head for ages! So thanks.

http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: Social Business is Dead! Long Live What’s Next! – Chris Heuer

Richard Stacy — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:29:06 -0000

I am with Keith McMean - connected business is what we should be calling it. The purpose of business is not to be social - it is to create customers and profits. The power that comes from this thing we call the social media revolution is really the power of connection - connection between the parts within a business or between a business and its stakeholders and also the power that consumers or customers can create by connecting with each other - something we shouldn't forget. It is quite possible that the real stimulus here will be created as business are forced to adapt in order to terms with increased connection between their customers. The connected customer is a scary thing!

Re: Why Information Not Content Is King In Social Media

Richard Stacy — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 06:21:54 -0000

Rob - not quite sure I buy the definition of content as 'information made meaningful'. I would, however, certainly agree that whatever it is that gives gives meaning to information deserves a crown - but I think that this lies more in forms of process that it does in things like message (content) or channel. As an aside, probably the most important change that social media is ushering in is a shift in trust from institutions to processes - but that is a whole new blog post (it is also a chapter in the ebook I have just published although I have made this chapter available here if you want to check it out http://richardstacy.com/201....

I would still maintain that if you ask someone what they want from a brand when they are in the social media space (what I call the world of the individual), they will almost never say "more content please" - they will be more inclined to say "I just want you to shut up, listen to me, and answer the question". This isn't to say that content doesn't work - just not in the social digital space. Content really requires an audience - it is basically a concept that comes out of audience-based marketing or audience-based publication (media). Brands now have to operate in two spaces - the world of the audience (where content is still king) and the world of the individual (where information is king). Consumers can easily move between both spaces - and brands have respond accordingly.

By the way - check out this great cartoon by Tom Fishburne http://tomfishburne.com/201...

Re: 4 Ways This Big Brand Blew It on Twitter

Richard Stacy — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:11:56 -0000

Jay - do you have any more information / posts etc. on listening at point of need (other than is in the book)? I think this a very important concept - which illustrates the key social shift, which is from a channel and message environment to a behavior identification and response environment. Very few organisations get this at the moment.

http://richardstacy.com/201...

Re: The 2013-2014 Social Media Landscape [Infographic]

Richard Stacy — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:49:38 -0000

I guess I remain uncomfortable with the idea that you define conversations more by the network or channel they sit within rather than by the subject. I also think you can overstate the 'networks have their own cultures' claim. The basic rules of conversation apply no matter what. This feels to me like old fashioned channel and message thinking.