Social media

November roundup: What does it take to get technology to market?

November 2011 Calendar 4 300x225 November roundup: What does it take to get technology to market?Thank you for being with us for the 10th month of our blog. In case you missed them, here is a recap of our posts from November.

Moving forward with our two new series, Technology Marketing 101, and A Startup’s Story, we introduced a new startup, Teamly, and explored how it is managing to drive steady organic growth on a shoestring, and shared Screenreach’s recent adventures in radio and television.

Beyond our series, we offered best practices on how small business can work with government and universities to bring technology to market, explained what makes a good PR person and also what makes a great entrepreneur. We discussed the prior art wall and its impact on patent coverage, the importance of creating a well-researched, well-funded and coherent marketing strategy and sticking to it, as well as the benefits and determents of Google Plus brand pages. Of course, this list of posts merely scratches the surface of all that was covered over the course of the month. You’ll have to read them for yourselves by clicking the links below. And, as always, we welcome your feedback.

November 7: Breaching academia’s ivory towers by Jason Flick

November 10: Driving steady organic growth on a shoestring by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

November 14: What an IP coordinator should know: The prior art wall by David French

November 18: Making waves in radio and television by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

November 21: Taking the higher ground: from product to leadership positioning by Ronald Weissman

November 23: The layman’s guide for bringing technology to market by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

November 28: Beware the million-dollar cheque! by Peter Hanschke

And on a related note…

In addition to our series, our associates and guest bloggers were also busy writing on a great range of topics. Here are our other posts from November as ranked by the enthusiasm of our readers:

November 29: Social Media Breakfast Ottawa with Sean MacPhedran: Post presentation interview by Alexandra Reid

November 30: Why redefining PR is not unlike herding cats by Linda Forrest

November 16: What makes a good PR person? by Linda Forrest

November 8: Five tips on how to use blogs for social media community development by Alexandra Reid

November 1: How stale is your contact list by Leo Valiquette

November 3: Marketing: Steady as she goes by Francis Moran

November 9: The value of shooting the breeze by Danny Sullivan

November 22: There are benefits to publicness and they are worth fighting for by Alexandra Reid

November 17: Masterclasses in entrepreneurship by Francis Moran

November 15: Whetting your appetites for social media breakfast Ottawa with Sean MacPhedran by Alexandra Reid

November 24: Cheerleaders don’t move the ball down the field by Francis Moran

November 2: A small business guide to working with the government by John Craig

November 11: The benefits and determents of Google Plus brand pages by Alexandra Reid

November 25: Return on investment served two ways by Linda Forrest

November 4: Technology reporters on the record: how PR flacks annoy them by Linda Forrest

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Klout should not be regarded as the standard for influence online

39C7BzcP  PA36rYW  KEDl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVaiQDB Rd1H6kmuBWtceBJ 300x300 Klout should not be regarded as the standard for influence onlineBy Alexandra Reid

I have a hard time believing that Klout is and should be the standard for influence online.

My reasoning is grounded in the fact that Klout, which purports to measure social media influence, is losing clout because of its failure to follow social media best practices. It seems illogical to me that so many of us are measuring our social media success based on standards developed by an unsocial organization.

Allow me to elaborate.

Klout is creepy and walled

As reported by Yahoo news, Klout has come under fire for some recent missteps. Users have expressed outrage that Klout’s “user-scraping” tactics were used to make profiles for users who didn’t sign up for the service, including children, and opting out was extremely difficult before the firm finally, under pressure, implemented an opt-out feature.

Klout’s use of “super cookies” was also attacked, as the firm admitted that its servers automatically record the IP address, browser type, or the domain from which you are visiting, the web pages you visit, the search terms you use, and any advertisements on which you click.  It also uses session cookies and persistent cookies to better understand how you interact with the site and service, to monitor aggregate usage by users and web traffic routing on the site. Klout’s unsocial self-interest in invoking subscribership was revealed by the public in this story, as was its alarming level of comfort in breaching user privacy, which is comparable to those “philosophies on privacy” employed by Google and Facebook (Although Google made a small step in the right direction recently with the launch of “Good to know.”)

I was briefly relieved to learn that Klout updated its scoring metrics algorithm to favour quality over quantity and measure the value of the interactions we are having and inspiring instead of the number of conversations we engage in online. Furthermore, it stated that it is working to help users understand changes in their scores. Both are seemingly good moves on the surface.

But, please, first take a minute to consider that Klout was still regarded as the standard for influence long before it made these updates. Of course, our understanding of what being social online really means has evolved in this time, and Klout has made a move in the right direction to reflect this new understanding. However, it seems to me that Klout was awarded authority prematurely, and much of this authority came as result of automatic profile generation. As Yahoo’s digital trends reporter Molly McHugh wonders in the previous article, “How many of its 100 million scores belong to self-registered users?”

With these updates, it seems the company is moving in a more social direction and adopting measures of greater transparency. However, while it stated that many user scores would stay the same or go up after the algorithm change, many did go down and it neglected to reveal any concrete details as to why this was the case, stating simply, “We believe our users will be pleased with the improvements we’ve made” before sharing a basic and ambiguous chart explaining a “distribution of the Score changes,” where “large decreases in Score are rare.”

6283094309 6c8c41d5f82 300x166 Klout should not be regarded as the standard for influence online

While I agree that companies need to keep details of their algorithms safe from idea-thieving copycats, this situation cemented people’s opinion that the company is secretive, which is inherently unsocial. This is a tough line to walk, no doubt, and I’m interested in hearing your view on how Klout should establish and maintain a balance.

The last nail in the Klout coffin for me is that it encourages us to regularly commit a great social sin in judging one another, not by the merits of our personal interactions, but by a number spat out by an algorithm which we don’t understand that claims to measure the quality of a users’ interactions with everyone else. Does that make sense to you? I wouldn’t trust the opinion of a perfect stranger who hasn’t interacted with my connections or myself if he said one person was more influential than another for reasons he can’t explain. Would you?

Klout is too simplistic to be credible on its own

The benefit of Klout is that it gives us a very basic understanding of how good a person is at posting sharable messages. But this isn’t influence. As Dr. Morad Menyoucef, associate professor at the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of Management, stated in this USA Today article:

There is influence when the actions of an individual can induce his friends/followers to behave like him, e.g., in adopting a new technology, in choosing a brand over another, or in voting for a political candidate. Hence if I share a post or comment on it, it does not necessarily mean I have been influenced by the person who posted it. My comment could be contrary to what the initiator of the post intended. Or I can decide to share it with someone because I believe he might be interested, even though I have no interest in it whatsoever.

He goes on to state that Klout is a simplistic take on influence because users in a network are not influenced in the same way — they are not identical with regards to the probability that they adopt a certain behaviour, and a user’s amount of influence on another user may depend on the relationship between them.

Bridging off that point, perhaps Klout also gives us some indication as to who has “real life” clout — a person’s followers are eager to listen and share what they deem to be credible and interesting information based on social interactions that have happened outside of social media. But in those instances, why would we need Klout to tell us what we already know?

But after all of this is said, social media professionals still feel the pressure to use Klout as a metric to measure influence online. I think it holds value in informing us when our social media “influence” (if you can really call it that) has increased or decreased as well as where we stand among all others measured by the same algorithm. But it doesn’t provide us with the full picture and shouldn’t be used as the sole means for measuring influence. The only apparent solution I have found to understand general trends over time is to track Klout and compare those results with PeerIndex and Grader scores – two other companies claiming to measure online influence. If all three are moving up, I can reasonably assume that what I’m doing is working. If one goes down while the other two go up, which happens on a regular basis, I know there is something happening that is discrediting my results.

What do you think?

Image: BrandFlair

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

There are benefits to publicness and they are worth fighting for

jeff jarvis author of upcoming public parts how sharing in the digital age improves the way we work and live 300x225 There are benefits to publicness and they are worth fighting forBy Alexandra Reid

Jeff Jarvis, a widely respected influencer in the media space, spoke at Third Tuesday Ottawa last week about his new book, Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live, the benefits of what he calls “publicness” and why it deserves just as much attention as privacy.

As a self-proclaimed “publicness advocate,” Jarvis says that “in our current privacy mania we are not talking enough about the value of publicness. If we default to private, we risk losing the value of the connections the Internet brings: meeting people, collaborating with them, gathering the wisdom of our crowd, and holding the powerful to public account.” Jarvis believes we have a “right and need to protect our privacy” – to control our information and identities – but also that the conversation and our decisions should include consideration of the value of sharing and linking. Jarvis’s intention is to work towards the protection of what’s public as a public good, and that includes the Internet.

In his presentation, Jarvis explained that privacy and publicness are like hot and cold and light and dark in that they depend on one another. There are some things that need to stay private so that we can be public safely, such as banking information, your work schedule and home address. However, Jarvis says that we can’t let the fear driven by privacy stop us from exploring the benefits of publicness. While safety is important, we shouldn’t manage our entire lives around the worst that can happen, says Jarvis.

PublicPartsBookcover There are benefits to publicness and they are worth fighting for‘Zuck’s Law’

In Public Parts, Jarvis explains that, in his opinion, Mark Zuckerberg follows his own social version of Moore’s law that decrees, “This year, people will share twice as much information as they did last year, and next year, they will share twice as much again.” Furthermore, according to Jarvis, Zuckerberg believes that “with the right tools and power in the right hands, the world will keep getting better,” and that’s why Facebook’s mission is “to make the world more open and connected.” Jarvis says that Zuckerberg is an “optimist who must believe in his fellow man, in empowering him more than protecting against him” and that he believes “in helping us share, which will make the world more public and lead to greater transparency and trust, accountability and integrity.” The master plan, stated by Zuckerberg, facilitated through social media and support by Jarvis is that, “In the future, things should be tied to your identity, and they’ll be more valuable that way.”

Privacy in history

In his quest for discovering how we should harmonize private and public activities to reap the benefits of both, Jarvis had to start at the very beginning and explore the historical circumstances under which privacy itself was invented and the reasons why we continue to perpetuate this idea. In his book, Jarvis writes that the “first serious discussion of privacy as a legal right in the United States did not begin until 1890” and that advances in technology were the catalysts.

In 1888, Kodak introduced its first boxy, portable “snapshot” camera, which could be carried anywhere and take pictures of anyone, which could then be sent into circulation by the mass media. These “kodak fiends,” caught taking photographs of the “good ladies of Newport,” President Roosevelt and others, sparked the discussion of privacy that would continue until this very day. However, Jarvis explains that “the key moment in the birth of American privacy law came in 1890, when Louis Brandeis, later a Supreme Court Judge, and Samuel Warren wrote a Harvard Law Review essay, “The Right to Privacy,” in which they proposed a new principle protecting “the right to be let alone.”’ However, as Jarvis points out, “publicness is protected in the Bill of Rights – that is the essence of the First Amendment – but there is no article assuring the right to privacy.”

Technology, such as the Kodak camera, Gutenberg’s printing press, microphones, telephones, recorders and now the Internet, perpetuate both the issue of, and our fears about, privacy. In his book, Jarvis writes,

Bad things could happen. It is prudent and wise to consider those possibilities and guard against the dangers, as our army of privacy advocates does. But those new technologies also present new opportunities, which we could miss if we are too busy building our bunkers. Presses print gossip but also art; Kodak cameras can embarrass yet enlighten; digital cameras power spying as well as grandparents’ Skype video calls; orbiting cameras equip spy satellites and Google Earth. In our messy tangle of wires and the frightening sparks shooting among them lays progress.

In his presentation, Jarvis explained the benefits that he believes come with publicness.

Publicness is beneficial in that it:

  1. Builds relationships
  2. Disarms strangers
  3. Enables collaboration
  4. Unleashes the wisdom (and generosity of the crowd)
  5. Defuses the myth of perfection
  6. Neutralizes stigmas
  7. Grants immortality…or at least credit
  8. Organizes us
  9. Protects us

Companies and government need to be public, too

And it isn’t just individuals who will benefit from publicness, says Jarvis. Companies, too, need to become more public to maintain the (ever more public) public’s trust. The case of Wikileaks, for example, shows us that the ability to hold a secret from the public is becoming harder. Furthermore, opening up a company to receive collaborative input from the masses, as in a public beta, can lead to massive improvement of a company’s products and services. Regarding government transparency, Jarvis says, “government must be transparent by default and secret by necessity.” To clarify, if the information can help others then it should be shared.

While there will be radical disruption along with endless ethical implications, Jarvis says it’s the wrong time to regulate the Internet and make it do what the world “used to do.” The Internet is an incredibly powerful tool and we are just beginning to understand the power it will have in our lives, says Jarvis. Our publicness on the Internet needs protection and only we the people of the Internet will be able to achieve this. Jarvis is calling for a discussion of the principles of an open society and an open net.

Let us start the discussion. What do you think should be the principles of publicness?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Whetting your appetite for Social Media Breakfast Ottawa with Sean MacPhedran

smb ottawa logo Whetting your appetite for Social Media Breakfast Ottawa with Sean MacPhedranBy Alexandra Reid

If you’re interested in how the changing media landscape and consumer behaviour are impacting the future of advertising, the upcoming Social Media Breakfast Ottawa presentation featuring Sean MacPhedran is for you.

MacPhedran’s passion lies at the intersection of advertising and entertainment, but he also admits he’s a bit of a sci-fi geek, too. As both director of creative strategy at Fuel Industries and general manager for the Tomorrow Awards, MacPhedran is an expert on how advertising influences and is influenced by the consumer, and how understanding this symbiotic relationship can help advertisers reach consumers as their consumption behaviours change along with evolving technologies.

His resume of experience is far from modest. MacPhedran has been responsible for carrying out multiple advertising campaigns for high-level clients including HBO, Fox, McDonalds and Microsoft. He has also been involved with the X Prize Foundation’s $10-million competition that challenged space professionals and engineers from across the globe to build and launch the first private spacecraft.

At Fuel Industries, MacPhedran’s job is to help youth brands navigate changes in interaction, consumer behaviour and the media landscape. But his presentation will focus mostly on the Tomorrow Awards and the role this competition plays in helping the advertising industry embrace change and explore new routes of creativity. The Tomorrow Awards is the first international award show dedicated to discovering, showcasing and awarding advertising creativity that pushes new technological boundaries. But beyond the trophies and accolades bestowed upon the winners, the Tomorrow Awards seeks to educate the industry about new technologies and the creative possibilities that come with them.

According to MacPhedran, the advertising industry is undergoing extraordinary change and there is a huge gap in how we are educating advertising professionals to navigate this shifting consumer landscape. For example, the rise of social media and the consumerization of technology are impacting how we consume media and interact with brands. Yet even though advertising is at the core of nearly all free entertainment we consume, the average Starbucks barista has more education than the average advertising professional, says MacPhedran.

To explore the future of advertising, MacPhedran will walk us through the five winners of the Tomorrow Awards and explain the creativity and technology that made them successful.

MacPhedran will present at the Great Canadian Theatre Company on Nov. 23 at 8 a.m. You can show up at 7:30 a.m. to chat with other attendees and enjoy delicious home-made muffins and coffee (our last breakfast included a highly praised bacon muffin, which, it is rumoured, will make an encore at next week’s event). To further whet your Social Media Breakfast appetites, here is a video of one of the winners of the Tomorrow Awards, responsible for the brilliant social media payment idea, ‘Pay with a Tweet.’

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

The benefits and detriments of Google Plus brand pages

google plus The benefits and detriments of Google Plus brand pagesBy Alexandra Reid

As many of you probably already know, Google Plus finally rolled out brand pages this week. Upon first review, brand pages look very similar to Facebook pages, but a closer look reveals added benefits that will help businesses make closer connections with their supporters.

I’ve read lots of articles this week about whether or not businesses should create a brand page right away. Google Plus has been growing at an astounding rate, hitting 20 million users by its first weekend, and millions have joined since. Google Plus is now the fastest growing social network, already boasting 40 million users and attracting large enterprises including Pepsi, Toyota, H&M, CNN and the Dallas Cowboys. As Business 2 Community puts it, “Facebook may be at the center of the social world, but Google is positioned firmly at the center of the business world.” For these reasons, and because of its unique features, I think businesses should begin establishing their presence on the channel as soon as possible.

Google Plus brand pages are similar to Facebook in both appearance and layout, but some publications, such as Wired, have argued that Google Plus trumps Facebook, and even Twitter, in functionality.

The unique features of Google Plus brand pages

Direct Connect

Google Plus brand pages let users take advantage of Google’s powerful search engine. Searchers can simply add a “+” before a search query and be directly forwarded to a business’s Google Plus page. Direct Connect trumps Facebook’s terrible channel search feature.

SEO

According to product management director Dennis Troper, Google will add up all +1 button clicks, from brand pages for Google Plus, websites, and search results, and the single total will be used to determine relevancy in Google Search results.

Inbound links

Christopher Penn offered a great suggestion in a recent post that businesses should stuff inbound links into their About section to encourage clickthroughs. This is an added benefit which Facebook does not provide.

Business categorization

According to Search Engine Land, Pages for Google Plus can be created in five categories: local business or place; product or brand; company, institution, or organization; arts, entertainment, or sports; and other. This allows businesses to distinguish themselves and helps users search businesses by category.

Local pages

Local pages are different from other pages categories, allowing customers to easily connect with a business’s physical location. For example, local pages include a map of the business’s location and feature its address, phone number, and hours of operation. From the Search Engine Land article, “Local pages help customers find local businesses on Google Maps and local search, while a Google Plus page provides business owners with additional ways to engage, build relationships and interact directly with customers.” Local pages and Google plus pages must be managed separately.

Circles

Circles allow users to group followers in specific categories. This is a great way for brands to target messaging to specific audiences. However, at this point, businesses cannot circle users who have not circled the brand page. This is a good feature for consumers, but a challenging one for businesses.

Hangouts

According to Google, this feature allows brands to hang out with followers or customers through video chat. This is a great feature for customer service and could potentially also be used to host live events.

Messages have a longer shelf life

This isn’t a real feature of Google Plus brand pages, but it is certainly an added benefit. This idea was offered from INC.’s Abram Brown, who suggested that because of Google Plus’s relatively sparse audience, company content won’t have to cut through as much clutter in a Google Plus stream.

Some setbacks

Mashable posted a great article yesterday listing the top 10 features users want from Google Plus’s brand pages, which highlights the major setbacks of the platform. Among the multiple user complains is that brand pages are only bound to one personal account and cannot be transferred, deleted or shared. Furthermore, there is no verification process for smaller companies, so others can create a page under your brand’s name and Google won’t do anything about it. I suggest you read the full article to understand all of the challenges brand pages present to businesses.

What have been your first impressions and experiences with Google Plus brand pages?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Five tips on how to use blogs for social media community development

I love your blog Five tips on how to use blogs for social media community developmentBy Alexandra Reid

Developing relationships with influential bloggers, and those who comment on their blogs, is an excellent way to develop your online clout and community. While you spend time tweeting and posting status updates to Facebook and LinkedIn, don’t overlook the conversations taking place through the comments section on blog posts about topics that matter to you. Blogs are often where great ideas are born, and commenting on thought provoking posts helps others see you as a thought leader in your space.

However, poorly crafted comments that add no value to the conversation can have the opposite effect, signaling to others that you are a grammatically and/or spelling impaired sheep with nothing new to contribute to your space. Even worse, poorly written comments can be flagged as spam, damaging your reputation and potentially hindering your ability to comment on future posts.

As you develop your social media strategy and build out your online communities, I encourage you to acknowledge and use blogs as effective channels for community engagement. To ensure you leave a lasting and positive impression in the blogosphere, ensure you adhere to these five best practices for using blogs for social media community development:

1) Research and subscribe to relevant blogs before commenting

Finding and developing relationships with influencers in your space first can help you uncover the net of surrounding relationships. Often (but not always), the most influential bloggers will have a thriving community of commenters who contribute regularly to post conversations. It’s important to research the blogs on which you would like to be a regular contributor to discover other regular contributors and their opinions on specific topics. In this way, you can offer a fresh perspective on issues discussed and distinguish yourself as a thought leader.

For example, many blogs discuss different issues around the same topic over a number of posts. Try and pull information from previous posts and apply it to your comments on subsequent posts in a way that furthers the conversation. Better yet, pull information from timely posts from other relevant blogs and use that fresh insight, with attribution, to further the conversation. By subscribing to relevant blogs, you will be kept in the loop on what is being discussed, helping you develop more helpful comments the more you learn. Furthermore, by subscribing to comments on posts themselves, you will be notified when additional comments are made on the post, and those made on your own comments, giving you the opportunity to discuss issues in more depth.

There are a number of ways you can locate influential and relevant blogs:

  • Google blogs search
  • Blogrolls of other influential bloggers, usually located on the side of the blog’s homepage
  • Technorati search
  • Blog Catalog search
  • Review AllTop
  • Review Power150 (for marketing blogs)
  • Join HARO (Help a Reporter Out)
  • Review blog aggregators such as the Huffington Post and publications that use blogs for content such as Forbes and Business Insider
  • Review LinkedIn blog listings on personal profiles (influential bloggers often list their blogs on their personal profiles)
  • Review Twitter biographies (influential bloggers often link to their blogs in their Twitter biographies)
  • Review Facebook profiles, Pages and Groups (again, blogs are often listed here)
  • Blog commenters (blog commenters often link to their blogs when they comment on posts)

2) Offer helpful comments that progress the conversation

It may seem obvious, but you must actually read the conversation before commenting to ensure you don’t say something that has already been said. The goal of comments is to further the conversation beyond the post itself. Please don’t rephrase ideas already explained in the post itself or in other comments; you’re not doing yourself or anyone else any favours by doing this. Offering a fresh perspective on the topic being discussed can help establish you as a thought leader and can even situate you as the centre and driver of the conversation. If you can’t offer anything new, see if you can reply to comments already made on the post to demonstrate your engagement in the conversation.

Spelling and grammar count, folks, even in conversational forums that may seem relaxed. Never use slang variations of words and please use proper sentence style. I suggest you read this post on words you should never include in your blog posts and ensure you never make these mistakes in your comments either.

3) Weave channels together through comments

Lots of blogs let you sign in for comments using other social channels. Signing in as Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, for example, can help other commenters find you on your other channels. Not only does this help you build out your communities beyond the post itself, it also adds credibility to your comments, especially if you are a leader or expert on the topic on which you are commenting and that credential is listed in your profile biography.

Furthermore, once you have commented, why not tweet about it from the comments section to inform your community of the great conversation happening and encourage them to participate, too? This lets others know you are social and an active contributor to your space and it can be appreciated by the author and fellow commenters of the post, further developing those relationships.

4) Further the conversation and maintain relationships on other channels

Building on the previous point, you should make an effort to seek out influential bloggers and commenters on other channels, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, and develop relationships with them beyond the blog post. Furthermore, you could even further the post conversation on your social channels. For instance, you could post a tweet asking for your community’s opinion on the post topic and cc its author to try and drive a discussion on Twitter around the topic. You could also poll your community on the topic via Facebook and bring that result back to the blog post discussion, for example.

5) Consider blogging yourself

Blogging is the best way to establish yourself as a thought leader in your space, as it allows you to expand on topics beyond the character limits set by most social media sites. Furthermore, commenting on other blogs can help you develop content for your own blog. The benefits of blogging are numerous, and more than I care to discuss in this post, as the topic really does merit a post of its own. Here’s a great post published recently by Business 2 Community on the subject, Is blogging right for my business? The benefits of a business blog. These benefits are true for personal blogs as well.

What benefits have you seen come from tapping blogs for social media community development?

Image: InspirU

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October roundup: What does it take to get technology to market?

3 Blank Calendar 2011 October Planner 300x225 October roundup: What does it take to get technology to market?Thank you for being with us for the ninth month of our new blog. In case you missed them, here is a recap of our posts from October.

Moving forward with our two new series, Technology Marketing 101, and A Startup’s Story, we uncovered how startup BlueArc managed to move past the “wow” factor of its technology to achieve market penetration, explored the fine art of the business hustle and how it helped CommentAir Technologies bootstrap its way to market, explained how telling the right story helped Screenreach drive customer acquisition, and introduced a new startup, Genevolve Vision Diagnostics.

Beyond our series, we further investigated the roles of the IP Co-ordinator and social media champion, shared more best practices on PR and marketing and examined how the brain reacts to technology, among other subjects. And of course, we also paid our respects to the Pitch Innovator Steve Jobs. We welcome your feedback.

October 3: Part 1: BlueArc’s challenge to get past the low-hanging fruit by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

October 5: What an IP Co-ordinator should know: Closing patent loopholes by David French

October 11: Part II: Dissecting the brain of the market pays off for BlueArc by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

October 17: Telling the right story to drive customer acquisition by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

October 24: The fine art of the business hustle by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

October 31: Meet Genevolve Vision Technologies by Francis Moran & Leo Valiquette

And on a related note…

In addition to our series, our associates and guest bloggers were also busy writing on a great range of topics. Here are our other posts from October as ranked by the enthusiasm of our readers:

October 27: This is your brain…this is your brain on technology: Part II by Bob Bailly

October 18: Canadian CleanTech Summit seeks to further Canada’s global competitive stance in clean technology by Alexandra Reid

October 25: Ideas worth spreading from Tedx Ottawa by Alexandra Reid

October 13: When a product fails miserably, why is the customer blamed? by Francis Moran

October 12: The integral role of social media champions by Alexandra Reid

October 19: Steve Jobs – Pitch Innovator by Martin Soorjoo

October 28: PR frights and hauntings by Linda Forrest

October 26: This is your brain…this is your brain on technology: Part 1 by Bob Bailly

October 20: Social Media Breakfast Ottawa with IBM’s Delaney Turner by Alexandra Reid

October 6: Achieving marketing escape velocity by Francis Moran

October 21: Thanks to social media, the interview is never really over by Linda Forrest

October 14: PR’s David and Goliath: doing media relations for SMB’s vs large corporations by Linda Forrest

October 7: In PR, timing is everything by Linda Forrest

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Meet Genevolve Vision Diagnostics

This is the first article in a continuing monthly series that will chronicle the growth path of Genevolve Vision Diagnostics, a life sciences startup based in Albuquerque, NM that is commercializing cutting edge genetic research to develop new diagnostic tests and gene therapies for colour blindness.

FM startup banner head Genevolve 300x145 Meet Genevolve Vision DiagnosticsBy Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

When a startup’s underlying intellectual property has already been hailed by Time Magazine as one of the year’s top 10 scientific discoveries, it may foster the perception that the road to commercial success is already assured. But president and CEO Matt Lemelin and the team at Genevolve Vision Diagnostics have learned that a great discovery is only the beginning of a long and challenging journey.

“We are creating a new market with an advanced technology that many said was not possible,” Lemelin said. “We’ve been labeled as pioneers, a term that concerns me ever since I heard a seasoned veteran state ‘pioneers get slaughtered, settlers prosper.’”

Genevolve Vision was founded in 2009 to commercialize non-invasive molecular diagnostic assays and treatments for clinical applications in the colour vision industry. It operates in two segments: licensing its IP to third parties and establishing partnerships to develop new products; internal R&D to create and commercialize novel diagnostic tools and treatments.

After two years of commercialization activity, Genevolve is a few months away from its product launch. In this first post, we will explore how the startup has reached this point and what has been learned along the way.

The tale of two colour-blind monkeys

In 2009, husband and wife research team Jay and Maureen Neitz and their colleagues at the Eye Institute of the University of Washington in Seattle used gene therapy to treat colour blindness in two adult monkeys. They had injected the genes responsible for producing colour-detecting proteins into the monkey’s eyes, allowing them to see red and green for the first time.

The breakthrough earned the team a writeup in Nature and other leading scientific publications, as well as that recognition as a discovery of the year from Time Magazine.

Not only had this successful experiment illustrated that gene therapy could be used to treat colour blindness, it laid the ground work for a genetic test that could diagnose colour blindness in a far more accurate and thorough manner than existing tests. The most common colour blindness test, the Ishihara test, is almost 100 years old. It presents patients with a picture filled with a field of dots in which is hidden a number or letter that is formed by a pattern of dots of a different colour. The problem with this test is that it can be fooled and it can’t be used to determine the severity of the patient’s condition.

Matt copy 295x300 Meet Genevolve Vision DiagnosticsLemelin learned of the Neitzes’ work from his contacts in the industry. At the time, he was already a serial entrepreneur and was working as marketing director for a company that supplied conventional colour vision testing products to doctors and clinicians.

“My time as a marketing director allowed me extensive interactions with practicing clinicians,” he said. “These interactions gave me some first-hand insight into what the problems are facing the industry … the market pain was clear to me. We are competing against, albeit cheaper, but extremely outdated products which can misdiagnose or simply not diagnose patients.”

A few discreet inquiries led to some “long and shrewd negotiations” with the patent holders that resulted in an exclusive world-wide license to commercialize the Neitzes’ inventions through a startup venture – Genevolve. Today, the Nietzes continue their research work at the University of Washington, while Genevolve also operates a clinical laboratory in New Mexico.

“Our genetic test is highly accurate, provides substantially more information (compared to conventional tests), cannot be cheated and is reimbursable by insurance companies,” Lemelin said. “Most importantly, our product saves doctors time, and time is everything to these guys.”

When an angel investor tells you to bootstrap …

But these competitive differentiators have not easily translated into investment capital.

“The capital needed to commercialize our technology was badly underestimated,” Lemelin said.

He made the decision at the outset to not involve venture capitalists and bootstrap the startup with personal assets and friends and family money. When he did approach angel investors, the response was “you need to bootstrap it and form more strategic partnerships.”

Lemelin took that advice to heart and secured partnerships with a few major players in the industry, took a sales job to keep a roof over his family’s head rather than drain capital out of the business and tapped into seasoned mentors and coaches who provided him with invaluable advice, including a lawyer who has provided legal services for a nominal fee.

“I find that there is an abundance of assistance out there if you are willing to find it and most importantly ask for help,” he said. “I hope to one day repay, in a big way, the people who have sacrificed, looked beyond bottom lines and have guided me along. This mindset will never be forgotten and it will be implemented in my company’s culture.”

The technology has continued to move closer to market thanks to the support of a few private investors, including one who is a practicing optometrist, which has added credibility to the venture.

Levering existing relationships with eye-care practitioners has also been a key piece of the puzzle.

“I have a core of eye doctors that I have built relationships with over the years,” Lemelin said. “This handful of doctors returns critical information to me about the product and if we are hitting the mark or not. We can then go back and tweak things and try again.”

The team has also taken advantage of the wealth of free market data available online, industry blogs and social media polls to get the pulse of the market.

“We are a marketing-based company,” Lemelin said. “We have to be. Without a strong marketing push, failure is likely. The advent of social networking has changed everything, especially in the biotech arena. It’s a new kind of openness that traditional industry insiders are not accustomed to.

“To take a technology to market, you can’t just throw up a website and hope for the best; the arsenal must be filled with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogging and other tools for customer engagement. When I first started I was holding on to every tidbit of data and not going public with anything, now I am an open book. I am working towards becoming the authority in my space.”

Where is Genevolve today?

After two years of effort, Genevolve is aiming to make its first product, the Eyedox Genetic Test for Color Vision, available for clinical use by the end of 2011. Considering that insurance reimbursement can take two to four months to process, the startup is aiming for profitability within eight months of its product launch.

“Our revenue targets are quantified best by enrolling vision clinicians into our system,” Lemelin said. “Our goal is to enroll 50 eye doctors per month through our various marketing efforts. We have other targets as well – distribution, opening international markets, regulatory goals, striking strategic partnerships.”

The startup is in fact running behind its original launch target. This is due to a decision mid-course to change from a widely used gene-sequencing platform to one that was more robust to reduce costs, and improve efficiency and accuracy.

“On one hand we improved the results of the test, thus improving the appeal to doctors but substantially delaying revenue generation,” Lemelin said. “On the other, we afforded our marketing team more time to clarify strategies and better define our path.”

But regardless of the science involved, the heart of Genevolve, as it is with any startup, is the collective vision and fortitude of the team.

“We know we have the sure thing,” Lemelin said. “Just ask any entrepreneur. Living the dream isn’t just dreaming, it’s tossing and turning.”

In the coming months, we will explore in more detail aspects of Genevolve’s path to market and track how the stars are aligning for its product launch.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is your brain … this is your brain on technology: Part I

This is the next contribution to this blog by Associate Bob Bailly, a Calgary-based neuro-marketing practitioner.

1193745308oiTEkH 257x300 This is your brain … this is your brain on technology: Part IBy Bob Bailly

Do you ever wonder, as I often do, if there is a dark side to modern video and digital technology? If we are indeed creatures of our animal evolution, then is our technology becoming harmful to our bodies, or, more particularly, our brains? If you work for a technology-driven company, are there unintended psychological consequences arising from what you do?

UCLA-based neuroscientist Gary Small and his author wife Gigi Vorgan think so. They say exposure to technology is actually changing the human brain, and these changes are especially pronounced in young people who have grown up with computers – what they refer to as “Digital Natives.” And their research has some far reaching implications for parents, educators and young people themselves as new media technologies become more and more pervasive.

Using functional MRI scanning to monitor brain activity of subjects, two groups of subjects – those with lots of experience using the Internet, and those who had little to no experience with computers – were asked to perform a simple Google search.

Those experienced with using computers demonstrated activity in the front-left part of the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Those with no experience showed no activity in that region at all.

Subsequently, Small asked both groups to practice Google searching for one hour a day for five days, and when they came back, he scanned them again. This time, both groups showed activity in the front left part of their brains. According to Small, this shows that after only “five hours on the Internet, the naïve subjects had already rewired their brains.”

What is distressing, however, is that Small and Vorgan believe that for people who use computers all day, every day, the brain changes may be even more extensive. While some neural connections are being added and others are growing stronger, “the neural circuits that control the more traditional learning methods are neglected and gradually diminished.” They go on to speculate that “the pathways for human interaction and communication weaken as customary one-on-one skills atrophy.”

But Jeffery Helm, a Vancouver-based neuroscientist, says it’s just a matter of adaptation. Our brain wiring is adapting to our technology. Every change in how we interact is a hard-wired change in the brain.”

Are our brains plastic?

Other thinkers on the subject also don’t see this a very big deal. For instance, Marc Prensky, a New York-based designer of learning games and author of Digital Game-Based Learning, in a 2001 article entitled “Do They Really Think Differently,” describes how the phenomena of neuroplasticity produces a brain that is constantly reorganizing itself throughout our lives, regardless of whether we work with computers or not.

“Stimulation of various kinds actually changes brain structure and affects the way people think, and these transformations go on throughout life. The brain constantly reorganizes itself all of our child and adult lives, a phenomenon technically known as neurolasticity,” he wrote.

Judy Illes, a neuroethicist at UBC in Vancouver agrees.

“Why would significant exposure to technology be different than anything else in our environment?” she said. “Cells in the brain connect in different ways in response to the way the brain reacts to the environment … What’s new, however, is in kids who play computer games repetitively. There we see changes in cortical and subcortical structures – structures like relay systems, motor outputs, etc.”

Oh those video games

Citing studies from Tokyo’s Nihon University, Small and Vogan say their studies have shown video game play actually shuts down activity in the brain’s frontal lobe both during game play and afterward – in fact, impairing development in the areas of the brain involved in abstract thinking and planning. This is of particular significance because it is occurring in young people whose brains haven’t yet finished maturing.

Another one of the great paradoxes of our modern life is that, while people have more information available to them than ever before, we’ve never known less. In The Dumbest Generation, English professor Mark Bauerlein at Emory University says that compared to previous generations, today’s students compare poorly.

“They don’t know any more history or civics, economics or science, literature or current events,” he said. “They read less on their own, both books and newspapers, and you would have to canvas a lot of college English instructors and employers before you found one who said that they compose better paragraphs.”

In 2004, as a director with the National Endowment of the Arts, Bauerlein was involved in a report that found that leisure reading in the U.S. had dropped significantly over a 20-year period, with the biggest drop noted among young people ages 18 to 24. In 2002, only 43 percent voluntarily read anything outside of school, down from 60 percent in 1982.

He believes that “acquiring information means you store it in your mind. You think it through and you remember it. That’s a slow reading pattern, a slow analysis process.”

It’s also very different than the shallow and diffuse process involved in mental multi-tasking we perform daily on our computers, portable phones, TVs and the like. Small calls this “continuous partial attention.” Since we are always on the alert for the next bit of exciting news or information, we no longer take the time to reflect and or make thoughtful decisions.

The death of empathy

Here’s another perspective: Even Facebook may be changing how we behave.

An ongoing study is being carried out by researchers from the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, and the findings are startling.

To date, the study has examined personality tests from 13,737 American college students taken over 30 years and compared their test scores on the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index. This test looks at empathic concern, an emotional response to the distress of others, and “perspective-taking,” or the ability to imagine another person’s perspective.

The researchers found a 48-percent decrease in empathic concerns and a 34-percent decrease in perspective-taking between tests taken in 1979 and 2009. They have concluded that college kids today show little to no empathy to others, they do not show emotions as much and they do not care for others as much. The study also noted that the most sizeable drop in empathy came after 2000 as social networks such as Facebook and Myspace began to flourish – two technologically driven developments that focus on “me” rather than the world at large.

As we engage customers more and more through online offerings, as communication moves more towards digital encounters, or as teachers and students come to grips with teaching and learning in the digital age, this is certainly food for thought. Much more research must be done to understand how technology is impacting our cognitive abilities and our emotional and social behaviour. In my next posting, we’ll further examine how our brains adapt and the role technology can play, for good or ill, in brain development.

Image: dreamstime

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thanks to social media, the interview is never really over

By Linda ForrestSeanParker 300x117 Thanks to social media, the interview is never really over

Earlier this week, TechCrunch readers were given a rare treat – the chance to engage in a public forum with a technology icon: Sean Parker. One of the founders of Napster, founder at Plaxo, a former advisor to and the first president of Facebook (who bears little physical resemblance to Justin Timberlake who played an, according to Parker, historically-inaccurate, party animal version of him in last year’s Oscar-nominated film, The Social Network), and now director at Spotify. In short, Sean Parker has been an architect of many of the “large-scale societal shifts” of the last 15 years.

So, it was with great interest that I clicked on (and subsequently retweeted) the following Tweet:

SeanParkerTweet Thanks to social media, the interview is never really over

Our Francis Moran, a seasoned reporter, wrote a post on our blog back in 2008 entitled “The interview’s never over” in which he cautioned readers about the perils of gotcha journalism, how interviewees can stray from approved messaging when the interaction between reporter and subject turns casual.

At the time of his post, Twitter had about 200,000 active users per week, while Facebook had 100 million users. Compare those figures with today, where Twitter now boasts 100 million active users and Facebook touts 800 million users. In other words, the echo chamber of the social web is exponentially more powerful than it was just three years ago. That social media platforms are so very pervasive in our daily lives gives us the ability to interact with one another on a previously unheard of scale. How media is generated, distributed, consumed, passed on… all of these activities have been radically altered by the public’s adoption of social media and its willingness to communicate on these channels.

And so, when TechCrunch posted an article with the (in keeping with good Huffington Post-style tradition) salacious title, Sean Parker On Facebook Privacy: “There Is Good Creepy, And There is Bad Creepy,” the interview subject himself responded in the comments.

In the age of social media the interview is never really over, as evidenced by Parker’s calling out of the editors for naming the article based on a flippant comment.

“This is why business leaders don’t typically joke around about their own products in public. I guess I’ll go back to being serious,” said Parker in a Facebook comment on the article.

As I said at the beginning, Parker engaged with regular folk who commented on the article, providing rare public access to a technology entrepreneur of his renown. His comments ranged from petty name-calling to intelligent discourse on the nature of privacy.

This scenario brings several points to mind:

1. The media doesn’t always get it right

Take it from someone who sends media materials with the right information out to the media, only to have incorrect information reported. This week I had correspondence with an editor who had interviewed my client send me copy for approval that had not only the executive’s name incorrect, but misspelled the company name throughout. Parker himself commented on the inaccuracies – accidental and otherwise – that exist about him in the public realm:

I have a largely fabricated, exaggerated, and distorted version of my life story broadcast to the public. And not by sites like Facebook or Twitter, but by good old-fashioned mass media. If anything social media is my only salvation from the tyranny of media that I don’t control; it’s the only chance I have to tell my own story, lest it be told inaccurately (or worse, maliciously) by others. This is why I’m suddenly engaging so deeply with social media–I want to reclaim control over my life. I would much prefer a “candid version of my life story” to a Hollywood screenwriter’s dramatized version thereof.

2. Social media has democratized editorial coverage

It used to be that if inaccuracies were printed about someone, it was an onerous, elongated, laborious undertaking to correct them. And in most cases, the toothpaste was out of the tube. But, most if not all traditional media do have a mechanism for retracting or correcting wrong or misleading information. In our digital age, edits can be made to text instantaneously. Interview subjects can post comments the moment the publish button is pushed. Most profoundly, no longer is the editor the only one with editorial control over content: whether you’re Joe Blow or a billionaire iconoclast, you have the power to affect editorial content, through social media, self-publishing, or other digital means.

3. You never know who is reading your stuff online

I am willing to bet that the first few John Q. Citizen commenters on the article had no expectation that the article’s subject would be reading – and in some cases responding to – Facebook comments on an online article. This is a good lesson that you never know who is reading material you post online. It could be your childhood friend you haven’t talked to in 20 years, your prospective employer, your mother, your idol, potential customer, business partner… Don’t say anything in a public forum that you wouldn’t want anyone in these categories to read, because they can. And while today’s newspaper is tomorrow’ bird-cage lining, things written online live forever.

Image: TechCrunch

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,