Estimates vary, but approximately 45 million Americans work from home at least one day a week. The trend is increasing for a several reasons including:
- Technological advancement (PCs, broadband)
- Mobile and information intensive workforce
- Energy prices and commuting concerns (congestion)
- Environmental issues (greenhouse gasses)
- Productivity and availability (more hours working, easy to reach employees)
- Family and personal issues (work/life balance)
- Business continuity and disaster recovery (H1N1 virus, Katrina, 9/11 etc)
- Wider geographic footprint (business expansion, talent availability)
Exploring the opportunity for tele-work requires a disciplined approach along multiple dimensions, including the requirements/needs of the position, skills/abilities of the worker, and the work environment. So, obviously, an assembly line worker building cars cannot work from a remote location, however, a design engineer drafting plans for the next car can probably work from anywhere. Similarly, terminal access at a nuclear power plant or for the CIA at Langley VA are perhaps best suited for onsite work, given significant risks and security precautions involved. However, for the vast majority of workers, from home based agents and project managers to lawyers and tax professionals, there is a significant opportunity to work remotely when direct client work is not required.
This trend presents a business market opportunity for communication providers to leverage their networks, to provide remote access and home based connectivity for tele-workers for large businesses - specifically Fortune 500 companies - that have thousands of workers well suited for tele-work. Growth in the telecommuting business for providers can come from a push or pull type marketing approach. For employers (push), emphasizing the value for them in terms of productivity and efficiency by letting their employees work remotely. For employees (pull) - often ahead of their employers in technology adoption - convincing their employers of their need to work remotely and their ability to do so efficiently because of their established connectivity (Internet, Phone etc). Creating the market demand is the first step toward seizing this opportunity; just as important is to execute on plans (deliver the solutions to enable remote work environment), and to continuously innovate to address the growing and changing needs of consumers (faster Internet, dedicated Ethernet, Private Line service, billing, etc).
The basic needs of almost all telecommuters are remote access (typically Internet) and communications (via Phone); however, the underlying applications and specific services vary widely by users and by firms. For instance, a user sometimes uses company-provided laptops to access company services via a secure tunnel using the public internet (VPN), alternatively, they could use their own PC and either recreate the office application environment on their home PC, or use a virtualization type software (gotomypc.com, etc.) to access their company equipment.
As telecom and MSO providers seek to expand their communication services to address the remote worker, they need to build plans that address the need of the business as well as the needs of the consumer. In terms of product marketing, that requires satisfying more than one customer for the same product. Satisfying the need of a business includes location, content, speed (bandwidth), security, and availability. However, for a homeowner this could include existing services (TV), aesthetics (cables and lawns), costs (purchase decisions will change based on who is footing the bill), and privacy (will they want their employer to potentially have access to their home via the net). To address these sometimes conflicting objectives, providers cannot build a one size fits all model - for instance, how do you provide service out of franchise (partnerships, alliances, wholesale purchasing) and in doing so do you dilute the message? Software and hardware requirements, along with QoS and security concerns for companies vary widely; while network based approaches could address some of this, more important is a tiered pricing structure and supporting SLA to enable the purchase.
As technology changes so do the needs of businesses, access today is largely relegated to e-mail, data access and voice communication; however, the trend in remote access is also creating a technology based solution to offset the lack of physical and social interaction. Increasingly, providers need to examine their product pipeline and network capabilities to deliver on the next generation of remote requirements, including convergence, tele-presence, and unified communication. Telecommuting is now evolving to mobile commuting – specifically multi modal devices (wireless laptops, smart phones) and multi location access (client sites, airports). For providers this means examining their core competencies and developing solutions beyond last mile solutions – such as a wireless component, VPN connectivity, IP network, security and premium support. The changing dynamics of the computing industry has moved from a client/server model to a cloud computing environment, requiring intelligence in the network – and providers focusing on extracting the value in their network to address the needs of the remote worker will be able to capture the lion’s share of the market.
Of course, what the tele-workers do at home may be (slightly)different from the office, see the video below. Ok so this video is Gary Brolsma (aka numa numa guy) who created an Internet phenomenon by posting this webcam recorded video of himself online. But you get the picture.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Social Media: Enterprise adoption and the impending marketing tsunami
Last week I attended an alumni event hosted by University of Pennsylvania’s EMTM (Executive Masters in Technology Management) program that included a panel discussion on Social Media, and a memorable talk on innovation by technology evangelist Guy Kawasaki. The usual stuff was discussed, social networking, user generated content, Wikipedia, Facebook, and of course Twitter, Twitter, and Twitter. The Wharton School’s Interactive Media Initiative (WIMI) is tackling social media from an academic (and consultative) approach, and they have some terrific data on their website. Despite hearing from the experts, I remain somewhat skeptical on the sustainability of the social media business model. Can companies monetize social media? Will businesses successfully adopt forms of social networking for productivity and knowledge processing? Or will the onslaught of marketing (via social networks) and the tyranny of constant connectivity prevent social media to live up to its hyped potential as the next great web revolution?
For starters let’s define social media. It’s commonly referred to as the “democratization of information”, where sharing of news, videos and other media has moved from a traditional “publishing” (one-to-many) to a “sharing” (many-to-many) format. Because of ubiquitous access to the net, users are empowered to create, modify, distribute, connect and share content with whom they want. The 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai were one example where a community of users were able to organize (in an ad hoc manner), share and inform about the horrific events that were unfolding in near real time - by blogging (Twitter) or uploading pictures (Flickr) – far more efficiently than traditional print or broadcast journalism could do. Essentially, the internet allows users to generate content and then share that information within communities – quickly and freely. Social media for consumers has reached a tipping point; for instance, Facebook has over 200 million registered users and YouTube has over 10 hours of videos uploaded every minute.
What’s unclear is: First, will usage translate into revenue for companies that are in this space? Second, is there more to social networking than popularity contests (by several accounts you are measured by the number of "friends" you have on Facebook or how many “followers” you have on Twitter).
Social media serves as a conduit for marketing communication, company branding, and product evangelism. The success of marketing via social media is hard to measure, there are specific examples that have been successful, but in general, companies have to incorporate social media as just another media they need to address in their marketing plan, this includes a budget, strategy, and metrics. For instance, during the Q&A session at the conference it was discussed how Twitter users could be targeted for marketing based on their location, profile and most importantly the contents of tweets (see http://www.twitterhawk.com/). As a user and privacy advocate I am very concerned that marketers would consider any communication online via social media as “fair game” - it would lead down the slippery marketing slope of SPAM. Yes, the content of the marketing message is more targeted, but users will be overwhelmed with the quantity of messages, and will either ignore all marketing efforts or move to another platform. Enterprise adoption of social media, for in house use, also includes three prominent issues specific to company and culture – first, Cost (companies will either have to build or license other sites); second, Privacy and Accuracy (the adoption of social media has been, in part, because users can control their level of privacy and with whom they connect – if your boss can read all your messages, does that impact your behavior?); and finally, Control – there is no easier way for the CIO to lose control of content, quality and standards, than have companywide social media platforms that are beyond the control of IT. For these reasons I think enterprise adoption will be slow for in house use, and probably not as successful (for large companies) to use social media as an exclusive marketing tool. Tom Davenport of Babson College, in his blog (HBS /the Next big thing) makes the case that Twitter’s use as a marketing tool is limited and will eventually go the way of SecondLife; while I’m not as negative on social media, (as a “fad”), I do believe elements of it will disappear over time - the novelty will wear off, and at some point most of us will realize that we do not need to update each other every time we have a cappuccino.
Where social media is of tremendous value is with harnessing the power of the long tail – that small and scattered user base (customers) that can be served via the internet (for instance collectibles via eBay). Regardless, companies need to weigh the pros and cons of building a social media marketing strategy, and certainly be wary of consultants claiming to be social media experts that could revolutionize marketing, because, quite honestly no one really knows.
The technologies that make up social media are here to stay – for the same reasons that several sites themselves will morph into web standards and must haves. Today LinkedIn is widely used by professionals, but it is less of a networking tool and more of a job search, reference, and public address book. Similarly, other sites have created a mass appeal for users but the moment there is change (for instance advertising, or restrictions in service, or charges for service) users will jump ship to the next service that comes along. MySpace was king of social networking five years ago, today its Facebook, and tomorrow perhaps it’s going to be Twitter. It would be wise for corporations to prepare themselves to adapt and harness the power of new media, but would be highly unwise to invest heavily into only marketing and using social media; it’s not a new paradigm, just another avenue. Let’s meet Matt Harding who in the early part of 2003 quit his job and traveled parts of Asia taking videos of himself dancing and posted the compilation online which went viral. Later Stride Gum decided to sponsor Matt and he again traveled the world doing his dance set to music composed by Garry Schyman and lyrics adapted from Rabindranath Tagore’s poem “Praan”. Watching the video itself is inspiring, uplifting and haunting, in my opinion, because of its simplicity and global nature. His video, “where the hell is Matt (2008)”? has over 20 million YouTube hits. Social media marketing at its best? Perhaps. Certainly shows how a simple idea can spread and bring corporations into social media.
For starters let’s define social media. It’s commonly referred to as the “democratization of information”, where sharing of news, videos and other media has moved from a traditional “publishing” (one-to-many) to a “sharing” (many-to-many) format. Because of ubiquitous access to the net, users are empowered to create, modify, distribute, connect and share content with whom they want. The 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai were one example where a community of users were able to organize (in an ad hoc manner), share and inform about the horrific events that were unfolding in near real time - by blogging (Twitter) or uploading pictures (Flickr) – far more efficiently than traditional print or broadcast journalism could do. Essentially, the internet allows users to generate content and then share that information within communities – quickly and freely. Social media for consumers has reached a tipping point; for instance, Facebook has over 200 million registered users and YouTube has over 10 hours of videos uploaded every minute.
What’s unclear is: First, will usage translate into revenue for companies that are in this space? Second, is there more to social networking than popularity contests (by several accounts you are measured by the number of "friends" you have on Facebook or how many “followers” you have on Twitter).
Social media serves as a conduit for marketing communication, company branding, and product evangelism. The success of marketing via social media is hard to measure, there are specific examples that have been successful, but in general, companies have to incorporate social media as just another media they need to address in their marketing plan, this includes a budget, strategy, and metrics. For instance, during the Q&A session at the conference it was discussed how Twitter users could be targeted for marketing based on their location, profile and most importantly the contents of tweets (see http://www.twitterhawk.com/). As a user and privacy advocate I am very concerned that marketers would consider any communication online via social media as “fair game” - it would lead down the slippery marketing slope of SPAM. Yes, the content of the marketing message is more targeted, but users will be overwhelmed with the quantity of messages, and will either ignore all marketing efforts or move to another platform. Enterprise adoption of social media, for in house use, also includes three prominent issues specific to company and culture – first, Cost (companies will either have to build or license other sites); second, Privacy and Accuracy (the adoption of social media has been, in part, because users can control their level of privacy and with whom they connect – if your boss can read all your messages, does that impact your behavior?); and finally, Control – there is no easier way for the CIO to lose control of content, quality and standards, than have companywide social media platforms that are beyond the control of IT. For these reasons I think enterprise adoption will be slow for in house use, and probably not as successful (for large companies) to use social media as an exclusive marketing tool. Tom Davenport of Babson College, in his blog (HBS /the Next big thing) makes the case that Twitter’s use as a marketing tool is limited and will eventually go the way of SecondLife; while I’m not as negative on social media, (as a “fad”), I do believe elements of it will disappear over time - the novelty will wear off, and at some point most of us will realize that we do not need to update each other every time we have a cappuccino.
Where social media is of tremendous value is with harnessing the power of the long tail – that small and scattered user base (customers) that can be served via the internet (for instance collectibles via eBay). Regardless, companies need to weigh the pros and cons of building a social media marketing strategy, and certainly be wary of consultants claiming to be social media experts that could revolutionize marketing, because, quite honestly no one really knows.
The technologies that make up social media are here to stay – for the same reasons that several sites themselves will morph into web standards and must haves. Today LinkedIn is widely used by professionals, but it is less of a networking tool and more of a job search, reference, and public address book. Similarly, other sites have created a mass appeal for users but the moment there is change (for instance advertising, or restrictions in service, or charges for service) users will jump ship to the next service that comes along. MySpace was king of social networking five years ago, today its Facebook, and tomorrow perhaps it’s going to be Twitter. It would be wise for corporations to prepare themselves to adapt and harness the power of new media, but would be highly unwise to invest heavily into only marketing and using social media; it’s not a new paradigm, just another avenue. Let’s meet Matt Harding who in the early part of 2003 quit his job and traveled parts of Asia taking videos of himself dancing and posted the compilation online which went viral. Later Stride Gum decided to sponsor Matt and he again traveled the world doing his dance set to music composed by Garry Schyman and lyrics adapted from Rabindranath Tagore’s poem “Praan”. Watching the video itself is inspiring, uplifting and haunting, in my opinion, because of its simplicity and global nature. His video, “where the hell is Matt (2008)”? has over 20 million YouTube hits. Social media marketing at its best? Perhaps. Certainly shows how a simple idea can spread and bring corporations into social media.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Selling the Internet
It’s kind of like the Bridge in
There are both competing and complimentary forms of access – physical (such as copper, fiber, Coax, BPL) as well as wireless (Wi-Fi, 2G/3G, WiMAX, LTE, Free Space Optics, etc.). Open source computing and software services including operating systems, browsers, email, voice, video, security/anti-virus and a host of other applications have created a viable alternative to those services that were typically bundled in or sold as a value added option with internet access. The market for internet access is very competitive and highly price elastic; carriers need to weigh the needs of the market with the options available to customers when developing and deploying products.
The commoditization of the Internet for the residential market, as a product, started the day AOL announced unlimited dial-up internet for $19.99 a month. Since then, even with significant changes in product as an always on, hi-speed broadband connection via DSL or Cable, the mindset associated with Internet usage has mostly been along the lines of a standard monthly recurring charge with no usage component. The next generation of consumers (“the millennials”) are taking this mindset to the next level and assuming Internet access should be free; they have grown up in a Wi-Fi enabled household, and go with the Internet everywhere – with their phones and in wireless college and university campuses. Branding and appropriate product tie-ins are some methods that can be used to influence purchase objections.
Market segmentation for ISP’s is key, particularly when differentiating between the residential and business market. Carriers need to distinguish their service and emphasize the tangible benefits of their internet service over a rival’s, this can be done in the form of speed, add-on service such as anti virus, exclusive content such as a dedicated start page, and so on.
Net neutrality is the moniker used to conjure up apple pie and motherhood imagery about the Internet, largely pushed by some of the pure play Internet companies like Google. In an effort to regulate the Internet to essentially eliminate discriminatory treatment (all content, sites etc are the same); this has become a significant restriction in terms of providing tiered service for consumers. DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) efforts by some MSOs and restrictions by some rural Telcos on VoIP services on DSL has generated significant scrutiny by regulators, particularly the FCC. These issues are largely in the realm of the retail environment, but increasingly the sophistication of the home user (and their usage patterns) has become both an opportunity and a threat for providers. Companies are starting to limit internet use via bandwidth usage caps and traffic shaping policies; juggling consumer needs and regulatory demands while increasing margins from internet service needs to be carefully planned.
Selling internet services is no longer a sole provider option. It entails partnerships with other companies (both hardware and software), and in some cases, competitors, to address needs of the customer base. For instance, Verizon and AT&T have relationships with Satellite TV providers to service the needs of their customers. Increasingly, collaborations across product, industry and geography are an important component of the Internet solution; Comcast, for example, has an established relationship with Microsoft to provide communication software services for e-mail, networking, remote access etc. Similarly, Verizon partners with Yahoo and MSN for content and email.
There is, however, one thing that overarches strategic action, and that is vision. As surely as communication providers must define plans to achieve results, they must first start by defining (well) the business they are in – which is the business of connectivity. Connectivity of people and connectivity of machines, the method of connectivity and communication is a product that has a life cycle and at some point ends. Communication carriers need to first define a vision of connectivity for their business, and then, on top of that, build a compelling product set (entertainment, information and communication in the case of Comcast) to address the market opportunity that awaits. The Internet is one of those opportunities, at the center of the bundle – it is the basic enabler of connectivity and delivers entertainment, information, and communication.
Like the bridge in Brooklyn, internet access is about connectivity, and if providers are to be able to sell access to it, it must be a compelling experience for customers; carriers need to carefully craft marketing plans that address both the needs of their customers as well as the potential to grow product revenues by increasing the value of their service. Strategies to do this differ significantly across residential and business customer, more on that next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
