The battle over customer versus internal business processes requirements and priorities has been fought — and the internal processes lost. Game over. Customers are now empowered with mobile devices and ubiquitous cloud-based all-but-unlimited access to information about products, services, and prices. Customer stickiness is extremely difficult to achieve as customers demand instant gratification of their ever changing needs, tastes, and requirements, while switching vendors is just a matter of clicking a few keys on a mobile phone. Forrester calls this phenomenon the age of the customer. The age of the customer elevates business and technology priorities to achieve:
Business agility. Forrester consistently finds one common thread running through the profile of successful organizations — the ability to manage change. In the age of the customer, business agility often equals the ability to adopt, react, and succeed in the midst of an unending fountain of customer driven requirements. Forrester sees agile organizations making decisions differently by embracing a new, more grass-roots-based management approach. Employees down in the trenches, in individual business units, are the ones who are in close touch with customer problems, market shifts, and process inefficiencies. These workers are often in the best position to understand challenges and opportunities and to make decisions to improve the business. It is only when responses to change come from within, from these highly aware and empowered employees, that enterprises become agile, competitive, and successful.
There are a couple of announcements today at salesforce.com’s local marketing event in Munich. Definitely the most important one — and the one that customers have been eagerly awaiting — is the joint announcement from Salesforce and T-Systems, the systems integration branch of Deutsche Telekom (DT). Earlier, Salesforce announced that it’s planning to build a data center in Germany, which is definitely the best way to comply with German data privacy laws and the emotional concerns of German customers around privacy. But as a US-headquartered company, just operating a data center is not enough; companies need to create trust and have experience in fulfilling legal and regulatory compliance mandates. This makes T-Systems exactly the right partner for Salesforce: It’s big enough to compete with data center heavyweights like Fujitsu, HP, and IBM but local enough to understand German customers and law.
The picture shows DT CEO Timotheus Höttges and Salesforce’s Marc Benioff just a few minutes ago.
Let’s look into more details of T-Systems’ offering how it relates to salesforce.com. First of all, it will simply feel like any other Salesforce data center. Customers will see absolutely no difference, regardless of whether their “tenant” is running on the East Coast, West Coast, or the US-based data center dedicated to European customers. In the future, they can choose the Salesforce UK data center and, starting in 2015, a Salesforce Germany data center. All are fully managed by Salesforce, operate on the same code base, and will get new releases and upgrades at the “same” time.
Tencent’s news portal is one of the largest online news portals in China, with more than 25 channels covering all types of news. Tencent faces fierce competition, which it intends to combat by building its analytics competency. With the eyes of millions of Chinese soccer fans on the World Cup, Tencent has a chance to better target its news and reports by using social analytics — which the news portal did by launching a mini-site of World Cup 2014 coverage. More than 50 advertisers showed interest in the World Cup site, thinking that it would differentiate Tencent’s news offerings and draw more traffic. And they were right: The site got more than 3 million hits in the first week of the Cup.
Tencent now has the first social analytics website for sports in China. Supported by IBM’s Social Analytics engine and hosted in its SoftLayer data center in Hong Kong, the site aggregates data from most leading Chinese social platforms including Qzone, Renren, Sina Weibo, and Tencent Weibo. Full coverage of these social platforms can help Chinese businesses get a fuller picture of customers to better personalize and target offers. Tencent’s news editors also have a separate social analytics tool to find buzzwords or popular terms on social platforms and highlight these attention-getting phrases in their titles and articles.
This investment is delivering two major benefits to Tencent:
By now, most of you will have read or seen multiple media stories about Facebook's recently published mood manipulation study. There's a lot of debate about the ethical implications of the research, and several European data protection agencies have already announced investigations into whether Facebook violated local privacy laws with the study.
But we think the questions for marketers go deeper: how will this research, and user response to it, affect how brands are able to engage with their customers on Facebook? My colleague Nate Elliott and I have just published a Quick Take on the subject. Our high-level assertions:
While Facebook’s study crosses ethical lines, the data use is likely legitimate. Consumers are understandably outraged by why they perceive as an abuse of their postings. But Facebook’s Data Use Policy explicitly allows the firm to use data for internal research purposes. Still, the potential for users to abandon Facebook is real.
Facebook has novel data to analyze, and long term, that could change marketing practices significantly. The kinds of data that Facebook is starting to exploit are highly unique. It could actually combine evergreen affinities with contextually specific emotional states to change how brands buy media and measure performance.
But the short term implications may cut its opportunities off at the knees. If Facebook, with all of its research and experimentation, causes users to feel like lab rats, it’s possible that they will leave the site in droves. That outcome could severely limit brand reach — and that could signal the end of Facebook’s marketing customers, especially given today’s already reduced reach.
Have you ever had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of Maxwell the Pig? Maxwell is a likeable if slightly assuming animated pig. At times he can be a bit dismissive of those who aren’t as digitally savvy as he is.
Even if you don’t know Maxwell, perhaps you know other such celebrities? I thought not. That’s because there aren’t many companies that are willing to advertise their mobile insurance services as proudly as Geico is doing. For my new report, I surveyed the mobile offerings of more than 30 insurance companies in developed economies. The results clearly show that plenty remains to be done, both in terms of customer adoption and what’s on offer.
The big US insurers such as Geico and Progressive are leading the pack, offering a growing range of mobile functionality that lets customers get quotes, file and track claims, locate a repair shop, pay bills, and save documents simply by taking pictures with their smartphones. Offering functionality that makes it easy for customers to achieve their insurance-related aims seems like the basics, but a lot of companies still haven’t got it right.
Last week I presented an overview of cloud adoption trends in the banking sector in Asia to a panel of financial services regulators in Hong Kong. The presentation showcased a few cloud case studies including CBA, ING Direct, and NAB in Australia. I focused on the business value that these banks have realized through the adoption of cloud concepts, while remaining compliant with the local regulatory environments. These banks have also developed a strong competitive advantage: They know how to do cloud. Ultimately, I believe that cloud is a capability that banks will have to master in order to build an agility advantage. For instance, cloud is a key enabler of Yuebao, Alibaba’s new Internet finance business. 80 million users in less than 10 months? Only cloud architecture can enable that type of agility and scale (an idea that Hong Kong regulators clearly overlooked).
Why? eBusiness pros are pursuing too many one-off initiatives without tight collaboration with their Technology counterparts. And, they are doing too little to build infrastructure to support future mobile services - and mobile moments. Check out our full report "Developers Are The St. Bernard For Mobile Projects."
Mobile has transformed my expectations putting me on the bleeding edge of the mobile mind shift. I've had a smartphone in my hand since August 30th 2005 when a broken wrist forced me to be a one-handed typist - better done on a smartphone than a laptop. My Lark wearable wakes me each morning. My Nike Fuelband tracks my steps. I tweet and check Facebook on my phone. I deposit checks. Honestly, there are a handful of websites that I can no longer navigate because the complexity of the experience overwhelms me. It's simply easier to do stuff on my mobile phone.
Today, I rolled into Starbucks a little after 7am to pick up an iced tea. I had to reload my stored value card within the app. (I don't use auto reload in case my phone is stolen. My bus card was autoload ... the last time it was stolen, the person must have handed off to six other people to travel before I could shut it down.) What was my reaction when I realized I would have to reload the card? "Sigh" ... well, really a "heavy sigh." The thought bubble over my head was: "Ugh, I now have to open this app, type in my password, etc." Usually I just open Passbook and do a quick scan. Please keep in mind that I think the Starbucks app rocks and reloading my card takes about 30 seconds. That said, I was annoyed that I had to go into the app.
I recently visited a trade show dedicated to physical security.
Almost every vendor was advertising IP-enabled ‘smart’ technology, with accompanying apps, that would log and alert on access or motion, prevent tail-gating, recognise smartphones or RFID tags, or track faces or number plates automatically. The sheer number of CCTV vendors alone was stunning, although, truth be told, as a physical-security novice, I struggled to spot any discernable difference between them all!
There were firms who were crossing over into ‘smart home’ technology – selling a series of sensors to control temperature and light; detect issues such as movement, flooding or smoke; and remotely unlock the front door of homes, or secure areas. Although mainly sold on a ‘home security’ premise, these systems were also cleverly brought together into packages which could be used to monitor the activity of an elderly relative, sending alerts if regular patterns of behaviour, or safe limits, were transgressed (i.e. Has the shower been on too long suggesting a fall? Has the box containing essential pills been opened at around the right time? Has the front door been opened at 2am? Etc.)
I spoke to six or seven vendors of similar technology sets and asked how they managed the logical security around their product. Almost every response began with a pause.... then came, “well, you know that nothing can ever be totally secure”, and then they abruptly ended with “we have encryption!”. It became abundantly clear that few, if any, vendors, had thought through the logical security issues and none were including it in their sales training. Other responses, somewhat worryingly, included “our engineers look after that”, “they wouldn’t let us sell it unless it was secure”, and the classic “I’m sure it’s fine….”
Businesses invest considerable sums of money with vendors like Box, Cisco, Google and Microsoft for a collection a technology we call collaboration tools. As an analyst, though, the question that has dogged me in watching this space is "why?" As in "what is the actual value a business gets from investing in collaboration technology?" The vendors' rationale for acquiring collaboration tools has shifted in emphasis over time, going from a conversation on cost savings to one on productivity gains. However, cost savings is an undifferentiated and limited message while "increasing productivity" can feel ephemeral because it is difficult to measure. Yet my inquiry queue remains full of companies trying to figure out how best to deploy these technologies and my briefings calendar is filled with startups and incumbents pitching new offerings in this space. This brings me back to my original question: Why?