By Sophie Wyard – Marketing Manager @ Improved Apps
This fairly innocuous BBC article ‘Can Podcasts Turn A Profit?‘ highlights a change in the commercial potential of podcasts:
For most of its short history, podcasting has been a largely amateur business, with few signs that it might become a mass medium that would prove attractive either to advertisers or subscribers. Then Serial changed all that.
The true-life crime series about a murder and a possible miscarriage of justice attracted hundreds of millions of downloads – and transformed the way advertisers saw podcasting.
This year, in the UK, a podcast called Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder has been another unexpected hit, telling the story of the unsolved 1987 killing of a private detective, and allegations of corruption among police officers and newspapers. This 10-part series took six months to put together and only got off the ground due to a crowdfunding effort which raised nearly £10,000.
But as it became clear that it was going to be a hit, its creator Peter Jukes was approached by a firm called Acast, which has a bold mission to revolutionise the economics of podcasting. Founded in Sweden three years ago, Acast has rapidly become a leading global platform for podcasts, used by the likes of Buzzfeed and the Financial Times. [read more]
When it was just a case of creating lots of free content then podcasts were regarded as ephemeral worthless throw-aways. Now that content is being produced that has been the recipient of more time and effort there is a perception of worth.
You urgently need ‘how do I do this?’ help, and you need it now! There’s no-one near you to ask (the swivel-chair interrupt won’t work this time) and you have a ton of stuff to get through to meet your deadline.
You have an idea!!…Send a help request to your local salesforce.com support person.
Although many businesses boast loudly of their strategic approach to driving the enterprise forward, the reality is that this often amounts to just one or two ‘big ideas’ strapped on to the core of the existing plan. I am sure some companies really do have a strategy that goes from top to bottom in the organisation and colours everything that they do and the way they do it….but I have certainly never worked for such a company. The main way that companies go forward is ironically by looking back – seeing what worked and what did not and adjusting accordingly. ‘More of the same’ does not, to my mind represent a strategy.
Sadly, this kind of approach is also frequently applied to implementations of business-critical applications such as CRM. The ‘big idea’ is to implement Salesforce and roll it out globally and to sit back and reap the rewards of more transparent processes, more predictable forecasts, more productive sales cycles and better customer service. All great objectives – what could possibly go wrong?
Studies show… 75% of companies have implemented a CRM system but the majority are unsatisfied with the way their employees are making use of this technology.
CSO Insights 2011 CRM Sales Effectiveness Study-Key Trends Analysis reports how 51.5% of these organisations have had a CRM system in place for over three years. Although communications between sales people and reporting on activities has improved, CRM systems have shown to have little impact on key business objectives. Only 19% of companies actually saw an increase in revenue as result of implementing CRM.
I was recently reading an article by McKinsey about “The Evolution of Social Technologies”; it highlighted the increasing trend for organisations to employ social as a means to create, define and refine strategies. The result being that social is now enabling the “democratisation of strategy”.
This is something that is way beyond the suggestion boxes that used to collect dust and the occasional productive idea, and even further that the improvement groups created to support quality initiatives such as TQM, Kaizen and 6-Sigma. It is not about simply giving everybody a vote but about seeking out the ideas, suggestions, skills, knowledge, intellect and perception of employees; there is no word that sums up all of these things so I will call it ‘applied experience’.
Apprenticeships have always been a very effective way of bringing new people into an organisation. They provide a programme that establishes a way of passing on skills, knowledge and expertise from the experienced to the inexperienced. Possibly with the benefit of rose-tinted glasses, apprenticeships conjure an image of a grey-haired, patient and knowledgeable old-hand benevolently guiding and directing the fresh-faced new starter through to success and productivity.
Many of these apprenticeship programmes perished or contracted over cycles of recession and cost cutting: Why invest in the inexperienced when you can hire experience cheaply?
The reality is, that whilst it is very possible to hire people with a history, it is never going to be exactly what your organisation needs. As a result, all companies have introduced some kind of on-boarding programme to cram as much information as possible into the heads of new starters. Unfortunately, people forget what they have been taught and do so pretty quickly with the resulting need for the organisation to create swathes of content to provide on-going access to required information.
There is considerable focus in both the UK and US to ensure advice provided by agents and advisors relating to retirement investments meets the interests of the client rather than those of whoever is providing the advice. As a result, legislation has been introduced in both countries to impose codes of conduct on the industry along with significant penalties for non-compliance. These new laws relate to the ways in which advice is provided and the disclosure of commission and other pertinent information that should encourage advisors to provide the best impartial suggestions and for clients to make the best informed decisions.
Financial services businesses deal with product just as much as a manufacturer: Furthermore, the process of New Product Introduction is one that is highly regulated and is subject to a high rate of change. New offerings must be understood and incorporated into the portfolio being made available to investors.
We can track the passage of the years by the fashions that are being worn. In my case that starts in the swinging ‘60s with mini’s (not the car) and bell-bottoms, through midis into maxis (still not the car) and hot pants of the early ‘70s, through platforms, 2-tone, tank-tops and Laura Ashley into the punk styles of the late ‘70s. Remember the power-dressing, Levi 501s and big-hair of the ‘80s, giving way to the puffer jackets, designer trainers and baggy trousers of the ‘90s? The noughties and ‘10s have delivered their own waves of new (and re-worked styles) and we will no doubt continue to follow style after style in the future. Change is a constant so perhaps the more interesting question is ‘why do fashions change?’.