Oct
19
DQM and the Market of One
Filed Under B2B, Big Data, Blog, data protection, eBook, Education, eLearning, Financial services, Industry Analysis, internet, mobile content, online advertising, privacy, Publishing, social media, Uncategorized, Workflow | 1 Comment
I thought it might be a restful day. After the conferences, after Frankfurt, try another conference, in a different field, and attend as a spectator – NO Speaking. Add the fact that this one was to be held in the Royal Institution (Faraday’s lecture theatre is a favourite place) and that I was invited by an old friend and I anticipated a light day catching up with the good folks in data marketing and what we used to call “list cleansing” years ago. The hosts were DQM (Data Quality Management), who I have known for a long time in different manifestations and the meeting was organized by their magazine, DataIQ, who have developed ways of benchmarking and replicating best practice in data management (www.dqmgroup.com). I settled into my seat prepared to be mildly re-educated: by mid-morning I was in a state of shock, and by the end of the day I was sure that another significant convergence was now locking into place.
Just think back a few years. For the information industry, preposterously concerned with their own proprietory content, data management of this type was simple housekeeping. Keeping lists of customers and prospects in good order was a non-strategic mid-level task. But now we live in a Big Data world, and while speakers urged us to see this as developmental as much as revolutionary, and pointed out how old the concepts are, there was still a feeling in the air that we could know so much more about customers and prospects that our chances of selling them something they wanted were increasing all the time. John Belchambers from Telefonica and Colin Grieves from Experian both hammered home the lesson, but as they were talking about global corporations and global marketing, my head was working furiously in the information products and services space. Think through the future of marketing information and the future of “publishing” (or creating information services and solutions) and you come out at the same place: The Market of One.
Noel Penrose, the former COO of Interbrand, made a vital intervention when he reminded us that Brand can be valued, and so can Data. We are not living in a place where data becomes commoditized if we are perpetually developing market-leading techniques for qualifying and comparing it. It was around this time that I saw why the agenda was dovetailed between speeches by two eminent futurologists. Melanie Howard, the chair of the Future Foundation advisory service began the day in fine form, and Dr Ian Pearson, formerly BT’s futures man, ended it. Both gave excellent value in predictive terms, but their effect on me in terms of the information marketplace was to drive me towards the Market of One prediction and what it means for all of us.
They reminded us of some things that we should know already. Demographic change should be the first stop in every strategic enquiry. In a sensor dominated society, each of us will be in receipt of 2 gigabytes a day of unsolicited content, and equally, as we walk and talk and move around the networks, we shall create as much again each day. While we talk about “mass customization” in a hopeful way, the drive to personalization, both in terms of marketing and services, is surely inexorable. Having just come from Frankfurt, where I moderated a panel on what we called “network publishing” I can testify to the willingness of producers to think about “customized textbooks” (CourseSmart) or custom workflow for lawyers (Wolters Kluwer Germany) but can we really see beyond that?
Christine Andrews, DQM’s Managing Director, certainly sees the regulatory issues (another round of European Community privacy law belt-tightening is due in 2015), but sees beyond it as well. One of the criteria for value may well become the quality of data governance in a business, and its ability to audit and report its own performance. But she is very right to point to the barrier that consumer-based legislation creates at the moment – and will increasingly in the US as that market catches up with European concerns. So turn that upside down for a moment. I could well predict, from what I heard this week, that we shall see a market where the power of the customer steadily increases to the point where powerful consumers are able to save and make private all aspects of their performance as network users, enabling them to sell it back to suppliers and marketeers in return for – coupons, discounts, customized products and services. In this permissioned world we shall have different levels or strata of market optimization – I can make this service fit a class of people who behave like you, or to fit your behaviours specifically.
So what classes of data will have most value: objective data, derived from observation of what happens on the networks which is commonly usable by all, or subjective data, derived from individual transactions and owned by the individual themselves? The latter, I imagine, but by gaining permission to use the latter, or enough of it, we could add real value to the former. This is what the Financial Times do, I hope, when they assess the reading habits of 300,000 recordable readers every day using Deep View. The inestimable Chuck Richards at Outsell took us down this track in his note this week (October 15) on 1 to 1 marketing, which also indexed companies like IDG Techsignals and Scout Analytics (www.outsellinc.com).
I came down the road from the Royal Institution grateful to my hosts for a reminder that the future is part of the present, and that marketing data and content data are all data in the context of an individual customer’s requirement.
Oct
1
Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?
Filed Under B2B, Big Data, Blog, eBook, Financial services, Industry Analysis, internet, online advertising, Publishing, Search, semantic web, Uncategorized, Workflow | 1 Comment
As I read the headline my head filled with Frank Sinatra and Celeste Holm.”Who wants to ride behind a libre chevaux / Do I want? No, sir”. But the headline covered a story that every attendee at last week’s PPA (Periodical Publishers Association) Business Media Digital Publishing Conference in London should have been forced to read and repeat before taking a seat. It would have been the antidote to the head-nodding, comfort rag clutching, industry-at-prayer stuff that went on at the beginning. With an agenda stuffed with new business models, change agents, catalytic and galvanizing case studies, we had to approach the subject of digital publishing by bleating, in chorus, that we were safe from “migration” and its perils if we had “really good content” and that nothing bad would happen to us if this really good content was what our clients really, really wanted. And to this I can only say, in my normal and mild-mannered way: “Rubbish”!
So lets take a deep breath and go back a step. The article on earning a million was sent to me by my daughter as a follow-up to both of us quoting the performance of the web service www.teacherspayteachers.com. Here US teachers deposit their learning plans and receive royalties on their re-use. Deanna Jump, a kindergarten teacher from Georgia, has become the first teacher to earn a million dollars in royalties. The site has had 50 million page views in the last 30 days and teachers post over 800 resources a day. The site has a rival (not mentioned in the article) in the shape of the UK periodical Times Educational Supplement, which has adopted this business model and teamed up with the leading US teachers union in a jv, while exploiting a global market from London. As advertising retreats the TES has executed a wonderful transition: not migrating so much as re-inventing itself in close alignment to what its readers needed to be better teachers. Indeed, in some ways this is re-inventing the textbook as much as the magazine, but whatever it is the outcome is the same: understanding how users work and supplying (in this case user-generated) content in the right context and with the right interface is the new publishing.
So what got my goat? That morning I had flown in from a wonderful cultural and artistic exploration of Georgia and Armenia, landed at dawn and rushed straight to the conference centre to chair my session. Slightly light-headed with the joy of thinking about new things for a couple of weeks, and happy at being on time, I settled into my seat to listen to Duncan Painter, CEO at Top Right (aka EMAP), being interviewed. I have always understood him to be a shrewd and intelligent man, and if I was a critic of dividing EMAP horizontally into three so that events and publishing could be sold, that was purely because I thought that GMG and Apax could make more by selling the verticals. Here he skirted the fact that two thirds of the outfit was for sale, praised his publishers (no doubt deservedly), and launched into the old “as long as we have our great content we are safe” nostalgia of the last century.
Duncan gave a view of publishing that would have been a safe compliment to his hosts around 1991. Everything will be OK if you have quality content because people will always want that. For a dreadful moment I thought he would say “content is king” but he checked himself. Now I know that he was once at Experian, a superbly successful company who add value to what is becoming increasingly commoditized content – company information. So much so that a later speaker, Damian Kimmelman, at Duedil (the PPA’s Newcomer company of the year from the previous night’s awards ceremony!) values it so highly that he gives it away. He then adds value with his data connections, his contextualization of third party content – and will no doubt do so more effectively as semantic search intensifies the re-exploitation of this material in new contexts and through new connections.
Duncan’s theme was echoed in the next session by Rupert Turnbull, the Publisher at Wired UK. Again we had the classic Publisher stance – the world will beat a path to your door if the content is good enough. Ironically, here he fingers a critical problem of our times. “Good Enough” content very often supplants “the best”. The story of Google could be written in these terms. In Q&A I protested: I use Wired not because of its articles but because I can flick through and find new leads, using it like a check list of change and noting what trends are now seen as popular enough to get this sort of treatment. Do I value it as content? Not really: like the Economist and the Tatler it is consumer publishing created to support high price display advertising by parading what a certain social grouping all think they should know.
Then Chris Flook of ICIS spoke, quietly but to great effect, and I was at once back in the world of real understanding of how users behave and how solutions can be grafted together for them. In my own session Hilary Lambert of Thomson Reuters spoke convincingly about how you re-framed access for lawyers on mobile, and Sean Howe of IHS Janes pointed to a revolution in visualization – effectively summarizing and linking this content in a way that presented it more effectively within the user requirement. Greg Kilminster of Gambling Compliance demonstrated that the compliance environment wraps around gaming as effectively as financial services, and Jonathan Morris, fresh from the triumphs of DataExplorers, launched into a whole spate of interesting start-ups that I shall come to anon. In short, this was a really interesting conference, with some fine speakers and some really fresh ideas about business models and about understanding customers. It was summed up for me by Jan Reichelt, co-founder of Mendeley, who has built a brilliant business by helping scientists understand the content they have already, and learn what they need by understanding how their peers behave. In other words, his content is content about the performance of users in the science labs of the world – content created by the network which may be more valuable than the underlying content itself.
Once upon a time content in this industry was the reworked press releases that kept the advertising apart on the printed page. It was never valuable and it isn’t now. What is valuable is a deep understanding of what users need in order to better accomplish their work – and a determination to build technology and content into contexts that make improvements that people will pay for and where they will deposit their own content as well. So please, organizers, can we at last stop beginning conferences with the Hymn to Content? And ban the word “migration” Re-invention is what we need!
« go back — keep looking »