Welcome to Imagination’s company blog. Here’s where our people will share their great ideas about custom publishing and content marketing, and display their talents, professional and otherwise.
Building Loyalty For Your Small Business
11 Aug 2009
by Jessica Wangsness
Loyalty—especially in today’s economy—doesn’t always go to the organization with the biggest name or reputation. Instead, it’s all about who you trust.
As Peter Bregman, CEO of Bregman Partners Inc., says, “Trust is the new competitive advantage.”
And this is where small businesses may have an advantage over their bigger counterparts: a face, a name and a real relationship.
These relationships don’t come easily, though. They have to be cultivated and cared for. Here are some tips:
1. Be available—at all levels.
If a client knows he or she can give anyone from the receptionist to the CEO a call to discuss anything from an account to the weather, then they feel valued (like they’re client No. 1)—and that translates into loyalty.
2. Play host to learning opportunities.
Organize lunchtime seminars that bring similar clients together with an expert who provides insights on how to deal with the latest hot-button industry issue. Not only will such initiatives make your client feel you are going the extra mile for them, but it will also provide them with a sense of community and a solid networking opportunity. And you can sit back and take all the credit. (Plus, there’s food involved.)
3. Admit when there’s an issue.
Problems creep up. Deadlines are missed. Mistakes are made. No organization is immune to it, so stop pretending that you are— especially when you talk to the client. While you should always work to mitigate these situations, sometimes it just isn’t possible. And reaching out to the client to work out a solution before things get worse is a lot better than letting things spin out of control. You might be able to easily work through the problem together. That’s when you’ll know you have a real partnership on your hands.
4. Be open with employees. It always trickles down.
Smaller organizations are often more transparent than larger ones. Employees usually have a better idea of why decisions are made and where they fit in. It’s a good advantage to have because it typically ensures your employees are happier and more secure in their positions, curbing that “me first” mentality that can prompt them to prioritize their needs over those of the organization—or even the client.
5. Love what you do.
You love what you do, so you’re excited about your professional endeavors. You make others excited about what you do, and they want to work with you. Sometimes it’s just that simple.
De-branding
31 Jul 2009
by Liz Ecker
This may be old news by now, but I couldn’t help but share this story on the recent effort of Starbucks to “de-brand” some of its stores. A global brand leader, Starbucks, in a smart and defensive play, plans to open several “stealth” stores in the U.S. to appeal to neighborhoods and populations that see themselves as too cool for (or otherwise against) Starbucks. For all the companies out there working to gain just a little brand recognition, Starbucks has actually identified a need to scale back.
Stealth Starbucks: Coffee Chain’s New Stores Disguise Brand Name
Be More Creative
29 Jul 2009
by Joel Witmer
Scientific America reports on research into creativity:
This research has important practical implications. It suggests that there are several simple steps we can all take to increase creativity, such as traveling to faraway places (or even just thinking about such places), thinking about the distant future, communicating with people who are dissimilar to us, and considering unlikely alternatives to reality. Perhaps the modern environment, with its increased access to people, sights, music, and food from faraway places, helps us become more creative not only by exposing us to a variety of styles and ideas, but also by allowing us to think more abstractly.
Survival of the Smartest
7 Jul 2009
by admin
Let’s not bury the lede: the publishing industry is in trouble.
Magazines are struggling to survive as advertising revenue evaporates, and the rules of engagement–literally–change. In the first half of 2009, 279 magazines folded according to a MediaFinder.com survey cited by FOLIO:
Given all of that it would seem logical–nay, imperative–that publishers, CEOs, COOs editors and the rest of content generating masses reach deep into their creative souls to fix the problems that plague the industry.
Alas, a quick read (or even a slow, thorough one) of FOLIO: magazine’s So What Business Are You In feature seems to indicate that the C-suite at most major publishing houses still does not get it. And by “it,” I mean the severity of the situation.
In this series of articles penned by noted magazine professionals (including Hearst’s vice president and general manager, John Loughlin, and New York’s Larry Burstein), we get the same rote recantation of standard operating procedure,i.e the “same ol’, same ol’,” namely:
- We’re platform agnostic
- We’re diversifying our revenue streams
- We’re investing in technology
It’s almost as if each of the interviewees is more concerned with presenting a brave face, instead of taking the conversation in a new direction. In fact, not a single one of these leaders within the industry mentions the one “buzz word” that they actually should: Innovation.
To be fair, there are some good ideas here.
The Atlantic’s president, Justin Long, gets points for talking about a holistic business strategy for creating profitable brands to lessen the dependence on advertising dollars, and Technology Review’s Kathleen Kennedy hits it out of the park with her emphasis on diversifying the content distribution model using new delivery methods, specifically mobile apps and Kindle apps.
But by and large, the majority of these folks put innovation and R&D below the fold. Not a single mention of trying to harness the power of social networks (though everyone talks about community), and working to create new ways to engage the audience with new forms of content. In addition, there’s very little mention of organizational changes to get away from the highly-inefficient publishing process that soaks up time and resources.
Now, I’m not saying I have all the answers, but it just seems a tad disturbing that the level of this conversation hasn’t moved much in the past year. Perhaps that’s just being in shock. Or maybe it’s simply nature’s way of showing us who will and won’t survive, because at the end of the day it’s not about who gets it right, it’s about who gets it right first. Call it an imposition of Darwinian logic, call it a reckoning, but in the end the magazines left standing will the ones who took a risk and tried to do something new.
Guru Smackdown
1 Jul 2009
by Joel Witmer
Chris Anderson authors the new book Free.
Malcolm Gladwell offers some critical commentary in his review. A sample:
There are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market created by the technological Free and the psychological Free can make you a lot of money). The only problem is that in the middle of laying out what he sees as the new business model of the digital age Anderson is forced to admit that one of his main case studies, YouTube, “has so far failed to make any money for Google.”
Chris Anderson responds to Gladwell.
My verdict: Gladwell 1 – Anderson 0
UPDATE: Tim Lee weighs in with a good response to Anderson’s critics.
Not-Bad Housing News!
30 Jun 2009
by Joel Witmer
Over the last year Imagination has done a video series on home buying for one of our clients. Not coincidentally, this series spurred me into buying a home and even using the client for my mortgage (ROI, ROI!). Now that I’m a home owner I pay much more attention to things like year-over-year property values, which is why these new housing numbers are of interest. Check it out:
The bad news is that home prices are still falling 18% year-over-year.
The good news is that the rate of decline appears to be reversing.
Here’s a summary from The Economist:
The headline number is a pretty good one; Year-over-year prices are off 18.1%, down from 18.7% in March and a better figure than forecast. Perhaps more importantly, 8 of the 20 markets followed by Case-Shiller saw a rise in their index value in April. The increases were widespread—markets from San Francisco, to Denver, to Cleveland, to Boston, to Washington, to Dallas saw a tick upward. The hardest hit markets still posted declines in prices, some large, but the rate of decline slowed across the board.
It’s good news, though times will continue to be difficult in home markets for some time to come. A large number of new purchases, particularly in the major bubble markets, are foreclosure or otherwise distressed sales. And while a bottom in home prices will likely bring a flood of buyers into the market hoping to buy at the lowest price available, it will also bring “shadow inventory” online—homes for sale by owners who had been waiting for markets to level off. In markets with large existing inventory, the dynamic will probably favour renewed downward pressure on prices.
The obvious conclusion from all this is that you should buy a home and use Wells Fargo for your mortgage, even if some still think home prices will fall another 10-15%.
Video: Inside Imagination Publishing
30 Jun 2009
by Michelle O'Hagan
Recently, Erin Dorr gave a tour of our offices to Tim Jahn, editor of the blog, Beyond the Pedway. Watch and learn more about Imagination Publishing and our custom publishing professionals. .
The Barbell Model Of Media
29 Jun 2009
by Joel Witmer
Felix Salmon weighs in on the media jobs:
My feeling is that there’s media jobs are looking pretty much like a barbell these days: you either work for a last-man-standing monolith or else you’re part of a small and nimble team. It’s the media properties in the middle — regional newspapers, small cable-TV properties, anything with high fixed costs and less than a million paying customers — which are suffering the most.
This is a pretty interesting theory, not the least of which because it can be summarized with a tidy infographic some social media expert really ought to make so that we can all better grasp the concept.
But I’d quibble with the notion that the middle of the barbell (the bar) can be treated as a single entity. In my mind there is still monetizable value in regional newspapers, even those with fewer than a million paying customers. While they may be suffering more than giant media congomorates they are distinctly more viable, in my opinion, than secondary intern/national newspapers like the Washington Post, a point Matthew Yglesias echoes. The Boston Globe and Baltimore Sun, two papers with a rich tradition of broad coverage, should probably be a warning to the Post.
It’s easy to see how a regional paper could adjust towards a streamlined, hyper local model that offers content relevant to its immediate audience while leaving broader coverage to the NYT, AP, Reuters, etc. It’s not as easy to see how a monolith like the Washington Post could so easily change course. But it probably will have to, right?
Social Networking And Iran
29 Jun 2009
by Joel Witmer
An interesting thought from Jim Kelly, speaking to David Corn at the Personal Democracy Forum:
[Kelly] has studied Internet usage in Iran. Kelly was telling me that he’s worried that social netowrking could interfere with successful organizing in Iran. How so? After all, such a remark sounded like blasphemy at this gathering, where speakers and attendees routinely speak of the transformative political power of the Internet.
Kelly explained that his concern was not related to a prospect that had been discussed at a panel discussionon social networks and Iran: that a repressive government can easily penetrate and/or block social networks to undermine or disrupt an opposition. Instead, Kelly said, he wondered if social networking–blogging, Twittering, forwarding email–gives people the feeling they are participating in an opposition and leads them to believe they don’t have to hit the streets.
Of course, Twitter and the rest can facilliate opposition by spreading the word about protest actions. But does social networking also undercut old-fashioned in-the-street networking? (It seems clear that autocratic governments tend not to yield power without being confronted physically and, often, violently.) I don’t know if Kelly is right or not. But it was interesting to hear him note that the sword of Twitter might have two edges.
