Posts Tagged ‘yammer’


Yammer announced an impressive $85 million financing last week.  You can get the details here http://mwne.ws/wp4GtZ .

You might already know that Yammer provides enterprise social networks, the kind of collaborative spaces that enable employees to “swarm” on issues to achieve resolution or deal with a customer issue for instance.  Yammer claims that more than 85% of the Fortune 500 use their products.  (The swarm idea comes from business writer Stephen Denning in The Leaders’ Guide to Radical Management).

If enterprise social networks sounds familiar it may be because Salesforce.com has put so much into it with its own product, Chatter, which has penetrated enterprises such as Dell, NBC, Comcast and Burberry’s.  Though off hand I don’t know what percent of the F500 use it the company talks about tens of thousands of customers though since Chatter is included the basic monthly service.

Suffice it to say that Salesforce has been carrying the water to educate the market so far — Yammer’s PR said they would launch their first ad campaign March 1, for instance.  But ads or not, these companies and some others are carrying an important new message to enterprises — get on the social express or you’ll be dog meat in a little while — or words like that.

Permit me to change course here.  So far the rollout of social media in the enterprise follows a normal hype cycle curve.  It’s the same idea that Geoffrey Moore documented in the 1990’s in the Crossing the Chasm series — everybody needs to buy the new gizmo to secure competitive advantage.  This is great because the companies that offer the new, new thing sell it like crazy for a few years.  Some of them burn out, sometimes in spectacular fashion, and a few limp across the first finish line (an IPO) and become real companies.

But this hype cycle is a bit different.  In fact many companies are finding the cycle has changed due to the pervasive nature of the freemium idea.  That’s where the vendor offers a subset of the functionality free in the hope of snagging a big sale down the road.  This is also called the puppy dog close because once your kid takes the puppy home it’s yours regardless of what they told you at the pet store — “Just bring it back tomorrow!”

But freemium has a different set of issues.  Some companies are just fine with the free version, some don’t use it and vendors discover that only a small portion of the initial users turn into paying customers.  That’s life.  With a freemium approach you don’t need an expensive sales team and marketing can be minimal because customers show themselves the value of the product, which might explain why most don’t turn into buyers.

Rather than the freemium approach, I offer a different way to appeal to companies to buy social wares.  I just finished the Steve Jobs bio and one of the things that struck me was how much Jobs wanted to leave a legacy, a company that would be great for a long time after him, like HP had been in his youth.

There may be many C-level officers who really only care about making money because cash is how they keep score.  But under the power suits I think you are more likely to also find a person who puts in many hours and for whom the enterprise is the achievement of a lifetime — dare I say a monument to the executive’s cunning and ability to lead?

If money was the only important thing I have to believe executives would not work as hard as they do.  Flying to China or Japan might sound exotic but it gets old.  Once you’re certain that the next generation or two of your kids will have a good life, your attention turns to the legacy, what you’ll leave behind for the next guy and the shareholders.

So here’s my proposition.  The vast majority of the new products coming onto the scene in any decade are things that make money, contain costs or, occasionally improve customer satisfaction.  But social is different.  It is no stretch of the imagination to say that social can do all three and even more important, it is giving companies the ability to change who and what they are.

When you get down to it, social’s core offer and benefit is that it enables you to make a great business by leapfrogging over old ideas, processes and procedures to make customers more satisfied which in turn leads to everything else like money.  By making information ubiquitous social (i.e. employee collaboration) ensures decisions can get made for the right reasons and in the right time frame and helps build a great business.  Building a great business, a great company — the legacy — is where it’s at.

So the big mystery to me is why the vendors in this fantastic market are selling their wares as technologies or services.  Sure, social technologies in all their forms are new and the market requires a certain amount of massaging to get early buyers.  But rather than selling social as an end in itself to mid-level managers, I think I’d be selling the legacy idea to the C-suite.  You don’t get to make a pitch like this every day and it would be a shame not to take advantage of the opportunity.

Data Privacy Explored

Posted: September 29, 2011 in CRM
Tags: , , ,

Data privacy expert and attorney, Cameron Shilling, explains how it all works on our home page http://beagleresearch.com/.


Someone recently asked me why collaboration is important in the enterprise.  To be specific, they were asking about the kind of collaboration that products like Yammer and Chatter enable.  This collaboration consists of enabling people to share thoughts, ideas and micro news bits in a social context without the usual institutional overhead of email or a meeting.  Collaboration more resembles Twitter than email and I suspect, but have not collected the data to prove it, that a typical collaboration emission is shorter than a tweet.

But the question got me thinking about other times and situations when the same kinds of questions were asked about the latest technology.  No matter how the question is posed, the heart of it is frequently something like this: Are we wasting time and money doing this or is it the real deal?

It’s a fair question.  We all live with limitations — so much time in a day, so much money in the budget and so many more demands on both that we can fulfill so what does a sane person do?  Well, history might be a guide though it is not infallible.

Throughout my career the big theme has been converting the economy from one that manages and produces things to one that manages and produces ideas and information.  We all know this and if we take a moment to consider it, this means our recent history is also about finding better, faster and less costly ways to share information.

I compiled the attached table from data served up by the World Bank.

Year US GDP (Trillions)
1975 $1.623
1985 $4.185
1995 $7.359
2005 $12.58
2009 $14.119

It shows the U.S. Gross Domestic Product by selected years, which I picked for specific reasons.  In 1975, we were in the early days of the mini-computer revolution and GDP was a healthy $1.623 trillion, a lot of money to be sure but puny in comparison to things to come.  Ten years later GDP had jumped about two and a half times to $4.185.

That’s because by 1985 we were enjoying the benefits of not only minis but desktops.  During those days I can distinctly recall people asking if it was really necessary to have a computer or terminal on every desk top.  That was about the era when company phone systems became popular and just about every company had bought a fax machine.  The phone system replaced those awful black receivers with multiple lines and made it possible to forward calls, have three way calling and whoa! voice mail.  No more coming back from lunch to pick up those cute little pink messages.  Phone, fax and computer formed a powerful trio for information sharing.

By 1995 GDP had grown again nearly doubling to $7.359 trillion.  I remember economists like Alan Greenspan trying to explain what was going on in the economy.  Testifying before congress they looked like C students who were trying to explain why they were suddenly getting A’s in Physics.  That’s because by 1995 the economy was growing like a proverbial weed but in a different way than anyone had witnessed before.  The economy was growing with little inflation, the amount of work produced by the average worker was climbing without any noticeable additional input of capital.  That’s called productivity and we were better at it than anyone else who had ever lived on the planet.  The productivity was driven by our new technologies.

The bigger the economic number the harder it is to double but by 2005 with the evolution of the Internet well under way the U.S. still managed a very healthy $12.58 trillion GDP.  And even with a recession and an unnecessary financial economy meltdown driven by stupidity, by 2009 U.S. GDP was a lofty $14.119 trillion.

So when people ask me about the goals and measures they should apply to tools that get information to employees so that they can work better and smarter I am tempted to say something flip.  The truth is that the improvements we all crave in business are accretive — they build up over time.  You might not even notice an improvement in the first year but you will.

A better question might be, is social media within the enterprise the real deal?  And I think that answer is yes.  It’s yes because it follows in a long line of tools that have enabled us to work with information in surprising and creative ways and those ways have spurred significant economic growth over more than thirty years.

There are names for this like paradigm shift and names for the people and companies that make the change.  Some are called early adopters others are laggards and where you come down in all of this determines how much benefit you receive from the transition.  Be early to the party and you reap rewards that are disproportionate your meager investment.  Arrive late and you are at best playing catch-up.