Of Relevance

Yes, more Groupon stuff. But bear with me.This is interesting.

Last year, I spent a bit of time researching the Groupon model, and I liked it. It wasn’t for everyone, neither was it definitely sustainable. But it did offer the small business some very attractive advantages. Specifically, the way I understood the Groupon model was like this: You (the small business) would offer a product at a significant price cut. Groupon would keep about half of that, BUT it would give you all the money upfront (or at least within weeks). So you, as the business, had the advantage of acquiring new feet through the door (possibly), and you would also get a cash injection at a a time when you presumably needed it most.

For example, if you needed to make R50,000 fast to meet your obligations, or to invest in new stock etc, you could offload some existing stock now, and make it worth your while. Or, if you offered services rather than products, you could collect your R50,000 but only service it over the next couple of months, thus spreading your exposure.

There were still great risks, the biggest of which were that you would sell so many vouchers that you would not be unable to service them all, and that the customers buying the vouchers would be existing customers, not new ones.

Boy, was I WRONG.

A merchant who used Groupon recently, gave me the following mind-blowing insights:
- She only got about 43% of the voucher value (50%, less VAT)
- She only gets the money once the voucher is REDEEMED!!! (so much for spreading your risk)
- For those vouchers that are not redeemed, Groupon keeps the FULL 100% of the voucher
- She had NO idea when the offer would be featured by Groupon, only that it would be “within 6 months” !!!!!
- The full deal was done via email

So: You don’t get your money upfront, you don’t actually know how much total money you will get since you get paid once vouchers are redeemed, you can’t run the deal in your “quiet” time, and you only 43% of the voucher that is redeemed.

In the US, it works very differently: you still get very little per voucher sold (in fact, I believe that if the value of the voucher is less than $10 you get NOTHING), but at least you get the money irrespective of whether vouchers are redeemed or not (the payment is spread over 6 weeks or so, I think).

So, ironically, I think Groupon SA must be doing very well, if they can insist on such conditions and STILL have a viable business. Bizarre.

It goes without saying that we live in a world of information overload. So anything that gets news to us quickly and efficiently, is a bonus. I guess that is why Twitter is popular (although the efficiency of Twitter is highly deceptive).

Our inbox (or at least mine) is my efficiency downfall. Right now I have 300 emails in my inbox, with 100 of them unread.

I thought it would be interesting to point out how I deal with emails.

Since I use Gmail, I have mostly these options:
1. Leave email in inbox unread for now
2. Read and delete
3. Read and leave in inbox
4. Read and archive.
5. Archive unread.
6. Delete unread.

I can also label and star the email, which I tend to do through filters (the labels get applied automatically as the emails come into the inbox).

Options 5 and 6 are my preferred ones, since they require minimum effort on my part. But here’s the thing: My Gmail shows me the first line of the email in my inbox. So very often, that is all I read before performing action 5 or 6. So, for instance, if I see an email in my box that says in the first line

“Thanks for the info! Cheers, Bianca”

I know I can delete it without actually opening it. I’ve already gathered all the info I could from that email.

Or have I?

What if Bianca had added a PS after her signature, along the lines of

“Oh, btw, the meeting tomorrow has been moved from 11 am to 10 am. Let me know if that’s a problem”

Well ..yeah… it’s a problem. I wouldn’t see the postscript, since I would have assumed this was a simple “Thank you” email, and would have deleted it. That could lead to big problems. Far better for Bianca to send two separate emails, with short texts in each. Of course, Bianca really has no way of knowing that.

That’s why I am a fan of Twitter. I will never, ever ignore a DM twitter message. For starters, I know it’s only at most 140 characters, so it’s a quick read. My email inbox, on the other hand, is growing and growing in size. I have already declared email bankruptcy more than once (and the world continued to turn!)

Anything that simplifies life is a clear winner in my box. And keeping news short is a good start. But in the meantime, please prioritize your email content: the most important info should come first, to grab my attention. Otherwise, we might just have a big problem, for which we will blame each other.

The era of user generated content is, of course, well upon us. And the one thing that users generate more than almost anything else is criticism.  So it make sense that we learn how to deal with it effectively. And yet, the way criticism is given, and the way it is received is still a cause of much discomfort on the web.

Giving criticism is easier than receiving it, and yet even here I have noticed the South African blogosphere struggle. I know from my own experience that I have no problem criticising – sometimes rather aggressively, I admit – corporations, or people I do not personally know. And yet, I am very loathe to hand out criticism, of any kind, to my online friends and acquaintances, whether in public or in private.

I suspect that the reason we struggle to criticise those we know is because few of us can be trusted to handle criticism well.  Most of us get very defensive, with the minimum of provocation. Witness these two comments (which really made me laugh) as an example, taken from an iMod blog post:

Reader in a comment : “Hi. I have also blogged about this at http://xyz”

Author: “Oi Walter, you trying to hijack my thread? ;)”

Reader: “Dont be silly – why would I try do that? just adding my 2 cents worth.If you think I am hi jacking your thread – and its not of benefit to the cause please delete my comment.”

Ironically, it is essential to receive constructive criticism at all stages of a business’ lifecycle, even if your business is simply your personal brand. So by withholding it from those of our friends who need it the most, we are in fact causing them more harm than good.

The situation actually gets worse before it gets better. because not only do we not criticise each other effectively, but we also tend to do the opposite, which I’ll formally refer to as “ass-kissing”. A friend or colleague launches a new feature on his website that he is sooo proud of, and we all trip over each other to congratulate him, and to tell him “It rocks” or that he’s “a genius” or “wow, awesome, dude!”. Whereas, in fact, maybe the new feature is not really all that hot at all. Maybe, in fact, it is quite awful.

I guess it is a two sided game: we have to be able to receive criticism before it is given to us. And certainly not everybody does. Witness some of these examples of how differently criticism was handled:

• QVC
  Donn Edwards wrote a blog post that was critical of the way in which QVC (Quality Vacation Club)lured him to a timeshare presentation with the promise of a prize. Instead of ignoring the blog post, with the hope that it would go away, the QVC CEO decided to sue with a vengeance (for anything between R450,000 to R1,500,000 depending on the mood of the lawyer).  The result has been so much negative online discussion regarding QVC, that they got themselves into a mess they will never come out of. Or at least not for a very long time.

• Blog Survey
  I (and some others) wrote a very critical post about the original botched result of the SA Blog survey. Although the parties in question did not appreciate my view point, or my tone, they both reacted with utter professionalism and acted on some of my criticism. Specifically, I had private communication with Amanda Reekie (whose company did the survey analysis), where she made it very clear that she was committed to righting all wrongs, and would welcome as much criticism as it took to get there. How mature. I certainly learnt a lot from the way she handled her crisis, and I commend her for it.

• Google story
  When Entelligence issued a press release saying that basically they were screwed over by Google with respect to their Yellow Pages account, I wrote a story on the matter for Thought Leader titled “Google does evil”, and outlined the story from Enteligence’s point of view. I was ripped apart by journalist friends who, in an email thread, made it very clear that such allegations cannot be made based on a one sided press release. I stuck my ground, defended myself throughout the day, alleging that as a blogger I had the right to draw my own conclusions, and was not bound by the same limitations as a newspaper journalist. Yet as the day wore on, I actually took the time to think about their points, and ended up amending the post. And I do think that was the right thing to do, although it took a lot of people a lot of emails to get me to see that. I hope I listen more often!

• Web assessments
  A big part of my services as a web strategist is a site assessment review, which is a thorough analysis of a client’s website. Before I take on the project though, I have a long conversation with my clients to make sure that they understand that I am going to be truthful, and therefore invariably harsh. I always say that if they think their website is close to perfection, and will not stand to hear anything but, then I am not the person to deliver this particular task.  The funny thing is, that every one of my clients thus far has absolutely, and completely declared themselves open to criticism. And they paid good money to receive it. And almost every single one was taken aback and become defensive about the points I made. (Although, in the long run, I think it is safe to say that most of them will admit I was right, or at least “righter” than them. That’s because an outsider who does not have emotional involvement with a project can be more objective about it.)

So, my hope for us online colleagues for 2009?

• That we become more open to, and welcoming of, criticism.
• That when we do criticise, we tone down our displeasure (this is what I need to work on!)
• That we do not blindly support our colleagues, but that our praise is sincere and heartfelt. That we voice loudly our objections when they are justified.
• That we think for ourselves and shed our sheep-mentality of following the opinion of the crowd.
• But that, if after listening to others’ criticism we still maintain our original point of view, we have the power of our convictions to defend it.

And that we have  a rocking 2009, of course!

…among other problems.

QVC has sued a blogger, Donn Edwards for posting what it considers to be defamatory posts around the ethics of their business practice. In short, QVC lures people to presentations with the promise of a prize (car, holiday, whatever). When you go to pick up your prize, you have to sit through a presentation, and are then sold some sort of timeshare.

It’s scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to ethics, and it sucks.

QVC is suing for over R450,000 because they claim that as a result of reading Edwards’ blog, the following happened:

• 59 people refused to attend the presentation. Since QVC has a conversion rate of 15% at R6,000 (each) profit, this works out to a loss of R 54,000.00

• 15 members refused to pay their management fees, amounting to a further R52,500 loss.

So, let’s see…..

One lonesome blog, that is mostly focused on writing about computer security, and whose audience is probably least likely to be talked into a QVC sale anyway, has cost QVC R106,000 pure profit.

So what do they do? They go and sue the blogger. And what do the rest of us do? We write and comment about it. More blogs write. Newspapers pick up the story. It gets bigger…and bigger…and BIGGER.

Oops.

Also, keep in mind that the QVC loss came despite the fact that Edwards removed his posts. How will these losses escalate for posts that are not removed? And are indexed by Google? For ever. And, umm, ….ever.

It’s actually kind of funny.

Uploaded with plasq‘s Skitch!

I was directed to a Nerve.com site showing the 50 most popular advert parodies of all time. I love stuff like this, so was eager to see what made number 1. Well, I don’t know.

For some reason, NBC.com has decided that because of my geographical location, I am not entitled to watch the video. Which would be free to watch if I lived in the US.

This makes no sense, and has thoroughly pissed me off. You cannot play in the social media playground, if you are going to be a bully. We’ll kick you out.