Prediction Markets at Google

This was a very intriguing article. I was unaware of prediction markets, let alone their apparent practical application in corporations. I have mixed feelings, though. While I'm impressed with their accuracy and think there is definitely truth in the "collective intelligence" idea, running effective markets seems like it requires a lot of extra time from employees. And to echo Olympia Press, the VP of the online sales group, there are people whose job it is to answer these kinds of questions and make these determinations using sophisticated forecasting tools. So why use prediction systems as well?
I was incredibly surprised to hear how little the Google employees were motivated my monetary prizes, and were more interested in the social/reputational rewards. At my company, it's hard to get employees to participate in any kind of contest without offering some type of monetary reward or "points" that can be accumulated and traded in for prizes or money. But it's also no secret that Google has a unique culture and that these motivators clearly work well in this culture. I'm just not sure that you could get the same response from other "typical" corporations without different incentives.
I also wondered if Cowgill's proposed strategy of making "confidentiality optional and disclosure by default" would actual deter any people from participating in the markets. If they're not confident that they have adequate information about any of the markets, would they be discouraged from even attempting to participate for fear of having their poor trading history exposed to all of the company? They may choose not to play at all.

LinkedIn and Facebook

Until I read this case, I didn't know that LinkedIn actually provided any services. I thought it was merely a website to network and view or create professional connections. I was surprised to read about how robust it is in terms of finding someone with particular qualifications within either your immediate network, or the network of someone with whom you're connected. However, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to pay for expanded search capabilities as an end-user. I thought it was interesting that when LinkedIn gave its members the option of being contacted without a referral, 92% of members chose not to participate.


Facebook is a phenomenon that continues to amaze me from the sheer volume of people who have joined it and have continued to join it. It's interesting to note that Zuckerberg seems to employ a "beg for forgiveness rather than ask for permission" strategy when it comes to implementing new services or characteristics on Facebook, having now issued 2 apologies for invading users' privacy. As an occassional Facebook user myself, I enjoy it for the opportunity to reconnect with friends with whom I've lost touch. What I dislike about it is seeing updates from people who seem to think that everyone they're "friends" with wants to know every detail about their day, from what they had for each meal to what their kids got stuck in their hair/nose/shoe that day. Facebook Connect brings this sense of narcissism to an entire new level. I have no interest in knowing who bought what from which website or who just booked a trip on Expedia, and I certainly don't want all of my "friends" knowing that information about me.

Wikis & Wikipedia

I've never really respected Wikipedia as a viable source for information. Sure, it can be useful for finding the years that Justin Timberlake was on "The Mickey Mouse Club" or the name of the actress who played Sloane in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (Mia Sara), but I would never specifically go to it for serious information. (On the other hand, I have a friend who is an orthopedic surgeon who says he occasionally refers to Wikipedia while on the job for relevant info. Do not use him as your orthopedic surgeon.) However, having read the article and learning that Wikipedia's structure and governance is pretty robust, I have a little more respect for it. I was previously unaware that there was even a way for articles to be deleted, so this fact also adds to its legitimacy.
Conversely, I think there is real value to having wikis in the workplace. My former company set up wikis for the international supply chain department, where I worked. Because of time zone differences and language barriers, the wikis proved to be a very useful central repository for processes, standard operating procedures, and frequently-used forms. It was a great way for business partners across the world to share information and get questions answered quickly and efficiently. As mentioned in the "Wikis at DrKW" article, when giving unrestricted editing access to employees across the company, you have to trust that the wikis will be used and respected for their intended purpose. If that is a significant concern for your company, I think the strategy that needs to be revisited lies within recruiting, hiring and managing; not within information-sharing.

BzzAgent and the Social Web

Prior to reading the BzzAgent case, I had no idea that there were companies devoted entirely to WOM marketing. I think it's fascinating, and based on the statistics cited in the case, very effective. Personally, I rely on reviews quite a bit- whether it's finding a restaurant for a special occasion, a new hair salon, or a hotel in Europe for an upcoming trip. And I always place more value on the reviews from people I know, or people with whom I have common interests. I'm very intrigued by BzzAgent's ability to harness this power. I also thought it was great that the company created quantifiable metrics to track the effectiveness of WOM marketing.
In terms of the blog itself, I also respected the goal of transparency that Balter was trying to achieve. In the last year my own company instituted its own blog updated by our CEO. While I don't routinely take the time to read it, I respect the fact that the company is attempting to remove corporate layers and make our CEO relateable and somewhat "hip".
On a related note, as referenced with the Dell and Wal-Mart examples in, "Harnessing the Power of the Oh-So-Social Web", there can be a downside to having such close contact with your customers. I recently read an article in Entrepreneur magazine about how a bookstore in San Francisco had garnered quite a few negative customer-generated reviews on Yelp.com due to its uncleanliness and disorganization. The owner of the bookstore became furious, and started harassing one of the negative reviewers via email. She didn't stop there, and found the reviewer's home address, went to his home and confronted him in person, the ultimate result of which was a "scuffle" and a lawsuit. So occasionally there are consequences from being so close to your customers!

Brightcove

It's too bad that Brightcove "missed the boat" with CGM, but I can understand not being able to forsee the incredible success of YouTube. However, I think it's imperative that they continue to develop their publishing-technology platform. Having already been successful with their current platform, continuing to invest in the core of their business seems a sound path on which to move forward. They also have a substantial opportunity to tap into the international markets that are not currently served by any similar company.

Google, Inc.

Google has always had a reputation for unique products, and after ready about their quirky corporate culture, it makes sense. Not many corporations who are as successful as Google list corporate values as vague and informal as "don't be evil." However, with this uniqueness comes an approach that has shown to be profitable, if not somewhat puzzling. I thought it interesting that Google ensures that their search results are uninfluenced, but that they take such an active "ethical" stance on what they will advertise. Being considered a young, trendy company, Google also has the advantage of having somewhat of a "cult" following of users who anxiously jump on the bandwagon to use and promote whatever about Google's latest idea is.
I could see Google successfully entering into facilitation of financial transactions. Trust is a critical element, if not the only critical element when it comes to providing secure financial services. Google has built a reputation of being trustworthy when it comes to the objectivity of their search results, and has built a loyal following, so I wouldn't be surprised if they translated this trust and loyalty into a new avenue.

DoCoMo

I can understand DoCoMo's need to embark on a new channel for generating revenue. However, as someone who had the contents of her wallet stolen a week ago, the lack of security with the FeliCa payment services is concerning to me. What I learned from my experience is that when it comes to stolen credit & debit cards, time is of the essence to minimize the impact of fraudulent purchases by having all of your accounts canceled quickly. But what is critical to canceling these accounts? A phone. And if yours is lost or stolen, along with all of your information, you're even farther behind in cutting off the thieves' spending.
Personal experiences aside, I think DoCoMo is smart to pursue a first-mover advantage with FeliCa while taking advantage of network effects and licensing revenue that come with not holding exclusive rights to the technology.