Over the years, I heard my fair share of unorthodox methods used to deliver an important lesson. But I am wondering if deliberately lying to the students is a step too far. Let me know what you think.

It’s that time of the year when I get lots of essays to mark, and I meet the students whose dissertations I will be supervising. A problem that I come across over and over again is insufficient ‘source probing’. I mean, when the student uses poor quality sources, or uses good sources but does not balance the argument.

The result is that the essay or dissertation will have numbers, statements or claims that are either plain wrong or simply can not be verified. Alternatively, the essays will present plausible claims, but fail to take into account other perspectives on the same problem.

As I was pondering this, I came across an interesting blog post that, unfortunately, I failed to bookmark (I know: fail!). In the post, the author was explaining how he (I think it was a he – I’m not sure) deliberately used lies in his classes to encourage students to think critically about what they were hearing. In the beginning of the module, he would start with lies that were fairly easy to detect – for instance, requiring only that students check whether a certain number or fact was corroborated by other sources. During the semester, the lies became more and more subtle – it was no longer about the facts, but how they were taken out of context to support a flawed conclusion. The author hoped that the students would then apply the same skill to what they read for their assignments and, ultimately, in their professional lives.

Reading that article reminded me of a conversation I had with a colleague from another institution, years ago. He said that, on the first class of the semester, he would make a series of wrong, implausible or daft claims related to the subject that he was teaching. At first, the students would diligently take notes about what he was saying. Some time later, a small number of students would stop taking notes and start looking enquiringly at each other. And then more and more, until, finally, one student would raise his hand and question what he was saying. At this point, he would congratulate the student who spoke up and explain that he expected students to think actively about what was being discussed in class, rather than (or even instead of) taking notes.

I can clearly see the point of these two approaches, but I never tried them. On the one hand, it is because I feel uncomfortable about deliberately lying to the students. On the other hand, it is because I suspect that this approach might not work with certain cultures and groups of students.

Have you used something similar? How did it work?

How would you feel about an instructor, teacher, etc lying deliberately to make a point?

One of Oxford Brookes University’s bright doctoral students is collecting data for her study on what drives consumers to talk online about their travel and tourism consumption experiences. Can you help by completing her survey? Link below.

The emergence of Web 2.0 has had tremendous impact on the volume and reach of electronic word of mouth (eWoM). Channels like social networks, blogs and discussion forums allow web 2.0 users to broadcast their preferences and experiences to other users. Indeed, their content often reaches users that they have never met, further amplifying the impact of what is shared.

eWoM is, undoubtedly, a market force not to be ignored. As discussed in this post, it has a complex effect on consumer behaviour, varying with the type of market and the stage of the product’s life cycle.

There are many advantages for organisations from embracing – and even encouraging – eWoM, as I discuss here. However, when handled poorly, it can quickly degenerate into public relations nightmares and produce costly damage.

That’s why, over the past year, I have been researching how organisations should respond to eWoM. In one of the research projects, I asked Social Media users to provide examples of companies that handled online customer feedback well and to justify their choice. The findings show – among other things – that SM users have clear preferences regarding which platforms to use, how and when. I am presenting the results at the next meeting of the Academy of Marketing – and, of course, I shall share the insights here, as well

There is still much work to be done, however. One of the areas that I have not explored is what motivates people to share their experiences online. Sure, I understand how some behavioural principles apply to the online channel, but that is not enough to fully understand eWoM.

Silvia Liang, a talented PhD student at Oxford Brookes University, is doing some really exciting work in this area. She is examining how a broad range of individual and contextual factors influence the likelihood that someone will comment on their consumption experiences online. Silvia’s study focuses on travel and tourism experiences.

She is now conducting fieldwork and it would be extremely useful if you could help. Can you answer this questionnaire for Silvia’s PhD research?

The survey is relevant for anyone who is above 16 years old and has ever commented online about their travel or tourism consumption experiences. This can be through social networks like Facebook or Twitter, on Skype, by e-mail, … And refers to any format – for example, text review, photos or videos.

Silvia clarifies:
The whole procedure will take you 15-20 minutes to complete. Since it is an online questionnaire, the answers you fill in will go to the database directly. You will not be required to share your personal details for this questionnaire. All of the data collected will be used for academic purposes only. The research has been approved by the Oxford Brookes University Research Ethics Committee.

More information and the web-based questionnaire can be found by following the link below:

The Electronic Word-of-Mouth Communication Survey

Can you help? Tell us in the comments what drives you to talk about your travel and holiday experiences… and, please, fill in the survey.

In this post I share a presentation on principles of business analytics.

My colleague Diana Limburg asked me, not along ago, to run a session on business analytics, as part of her module on eBusiness. This is a very popular course, attended by 2nd and 3rd year students. The session on analytics lasts about 45 minutes, and takes place towards the end of the module.

Whenever I teach an introductory session on the topic of metrics or analytics, I follow the approach presented in the book ‘How to Measure Anything’ by Douglas Hubbard. Indeed, if your work involves producing or reading metrics, I warmly recommend that you read this book. It is a really straightforward introduction to measurement methods for various scenarios, using very simple examples.

Hubbard warns that, to decide how to measure something, analysts first need to consider what it is, exactly, that they want to measure. Moreover, they can’t really tackle the ‘what’ unless they have considered the ‘why’. So, to measure anything, analysts need to start with the WHY and the WHAT, before attempting to tackle the HOW.

For instance, if I were asked to identify ‘online influencers’, I would first need to understand what exactly the client means by influence and why s/he needs to identify such influencers. As discussed in this post, influence is not only a function of the number of social connections in the network, but also of the type of network. Some networks make messages travel far, whereas others are very effective to change behaviours.

In this presentation, too, I followed the WHY > WHAT > HOW approach.

I started by discussing the rationale of using analytics (the WHY). Then, I highlighted the areas that eBusinesses should monitor (the WHAT) – namely, investment performance, the processes, and their customers. I also mentioned key analytics for each of these areas (the HOW).

In the end, I addressed a few caveats about the analytical process, noting:
- the limitations of quantitative insight (for more on this, see here)
- the dangers of relying too much on historical data
- the need to understand human behaviour (for more on this, see here).

As usual, I am looking forward to reading your thoughts on the presentation and the approach.

Take last week’s earthquake off the coast of Indonesia. Like many others, I learned about it on Twitter. Soon, however, there were conflicting messages around about whether or not there was a tsunami alert. As I was debating this with my better half, I said: “No, there is no tsunami alert… because @BBCBreaking says so’.

@BBCBreaking is the channel used by the BBC to release news alerts and update emerging stories. It is not perfect regarding coverage, but it is pretty good regarding accuracy. We desperately need that!

In the morning, I check Twitter before I check the BBC News’ website. What’s more, I am not alone: more and more people are turning to social media for breaking news, because it is a great source of content from all over the world. Everybody can become a source of news, which then spread widely and quickly, as outlined in this infographic (source):

There are even cases of journalists turning to twitter users to develop stories (for instance, Guardian’s look at why Tesco’s profits fell, here).

The problem with citizen journalism is that there is no editorial process. Problems will occur, at the source or in the process of disseminating the message, as I discussed in this post. Institutional sources like the BBC, on the other hand, may be slower than individual users in getting the news out. But they (usually) have procedures in place, and codes of conduct, that improve the quality of the information released.

While there is no number big enough to reflect the value I get from the many individuals I follow on Twitter, I also believe that my timeline is richer because I follow quality information sources like @BBCBreaking. So, this Friday, I recommend that you follow @BBCBreaking, a reliable source of breaking news.

Previous follow friday recommendations (in alphabetical order):
- @arjantupan – for a bit of poetry in your life (Mar., 9th 2012)
- @ejtennant – Witty and entertaining posts from the creator of #virtualsecretsanta (Dec., 23rd 2011)
- @inesvarelasilva – Nutrition and health researcher, supporter of theatrical arts and Zumba fanatic (Jan., 27th 2012)
- @liveBarefoot – Redefining bookstores (Oct., 14th 2011)
- @markwschaefer – The latest insight into Social Media and what it means for businesses (Jan., 20th 2012)
- @mrsoaroundworld – For the hedonist in you (Oct., 21st 2011)
- @myographer – Management, pirates and personal branding (Oct., 7th 2011)
- @OxfordCityGuide – Helps you make the most of living in Oxford (Sep., 30th 2011)
- @PaulFennemore – For a strategic view on the potential and pitfalls of social commerce (Oct., 28th 2011)
- @PhD2Published – Academic writing advice and encouragement (Nov., 18th 2011)
- @ProfBangNguyen – Links to, and thoughts on, the latest technical developments and its consequences for marketing (Jan., 13th 2012)
- @pushingsocial – To help you make the most of your blog (Mar., 2nd 2012)
- @qualityhunters – A great example of how to engage with a community on Social Media (Feb., 3rd 2012)
- @Sidneyeve – Data and insight on digital popular culture (Apr., 6th 2012)
- @TMNinja – for useful tips to improve your productivity (Mar., 30th 2012)
- @tomfishburne – for a regular laugh about serious (marketing) matters (Feb., 17th 2012)

It is something more important. It is a thank you note. And a note of encouragement.

It is a thank you to @arjantupan for sending me a handwritten thank you note. Not the thank you – it really was unnecessary. But for handwriting it.

In this age of technology mediated communication, where sending out messages is as easy as pushing a button, it was so nice to know that someone had taken the trouble of choosing a card, writing a message by hand and heading out to the post office to send it.

It’s like having a home made meal, instead of picking up fast food [note to self: I need to go easy on the food comparisons - yesterday, I managed to compare @markschaefer to a sausage!]

That leads me to the encouragement. I would like others to feel the same.

I went out today and bought a card to send to someone in the US.

Sure, it will take longer for the recipient to know how much I appreciated something that he did. But that’s OK.

Can you do the same? Please.

I made my first crowd funding investment. It’s a very small investment, but I’m quite excited. This post reports on research examining ‘How and why consumers turn into crowd-funding participants’.

Perhaps you are a seasoned investor. Perhaps you had a go (or several) at crowd funding, already. Not me.

I have been looking at this ‘phenomenon’ for sometime, from a distance – more as something that I was aware of, rather than something I was interested in. My interest grew, however, when my former classmate, Paulo Silva Pereira, decided to quit his job in a top management consultancy to launch a crowd funding services firm. Paulo is not a grey, conventional consultant. So, I am not surprised to see him embracing a new challenge. But, he is a sharp guy, too. So, I thought that if this phenomenon was worth his attention, it was worth mine and I set out to learn more about it.

While reading about this phenomenon, I came across this paper in the Journal of Service Management. The paper analyses the crowd funding phenomenon from the perspective of funders, as well as the perspective of services firms. Though, in this post, I am considering the funders’ perspective part of the paper, only.

Andrea Ordanini and colleagues adopt the definition of crowd funding as the ‘collective effort by consumers who network and pool their money together, usually via the internet, in order to invest in and support efforts initiated by other people or organisations’ (page 443). That is, the authors consider crowd funders as consumers that became part of the creation process. The implication of this definition is that the funders / consumers will have very different motivations from traditional investors. That’s exactly what the authors set out to investigate.

They concluded that:
- Consumers who participate in crowd funding like engaging in innovative behaviour. They like to be first and to use highly interactive tools;
- In some cases (it depends on the type of initiative), funders identify strongly with the proponents of the project, and/or the projects proposed. The higher the level of identification, the earlier the funder will invest in the project.
- In some cases (where there is strong identification, as described above), funding the project becomes a mechanism to support a cause, to make it possible. These funders tend to make small, though potentially significant, investments.
- In the other cases (i.e., no identification), the main driver is the potential financial return on the investment. In these cases, we tend to see large investments.

Regardless of the motivation or the size of the investment, consumers’ / funders’ behaviour follows a consistent path, consisting of three distinct phases. The path looks like this:
- In an initial phase, there is a quick and significant flow of capital by those consumers with high levels of involvement with the proponents of the project, and/or the projects proposed.
- Then, investment slows down. Progress is achieved mainly by gaining visibility through word of mouth and information cascades. Failure to push through this stage is the main reason why crowd funding projects fail.
- Finally, the projects that survived the previous stage witness a moment of rapid investment growth. Investors in this stage are motivated by a desire to ‘be in’ and not to miss the investment deadline.

Implications for managers
The insights obtained by this study are extremely relevant for those seeking investment from the crowd – or, to turn customers into co-producers.

The first key implication is that, if consumers present different drivers, then we can segment them. And if we can segment customers, then we can develop relevant value propositions to maximise the likelihood of success. For segments with high identification, the propositions should be based on intrinsic motivators; for the others, on extrinsic ones.

The second key implication is that a project funding opportunity is just like any other product – it has a life cycle. Different stages of the product life cycle are known to attract different types of customers. The communications channels used, the message, etc needs to be adjusted to reflect that reality.

It must be noted that the research that I am describing here was based on a small-scale study. Plus, my post discusses only a part of the findings. You are strongly encouraged to read the paper carefully. The full reference is:
Andrea Ordanini, Lucia Miceli, Marta Pizzetti, A. Parasuraman, (2011),”Crowd-funding: transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 Iss: 4 pp. 443 – 470.

My own investment
The project that I am supporting is the publication of a book of poetry by Arjan Tupan – here. I met Arjan on Twitter and wrote this #FollowFriday recommendation. Arjan posts a new poem everyday here and, so, I was familiar with his work, already.

Even though there is a broad range of perks on offer for funders, clearly I am not in because of the financial reward of this investment. So, I must fall into the ‘identification’ segment – which makes sense: not only do I like the poems and would like others to read them, but I, too, like writing and dream of publishing two very specific books.

Even though I stand to make no financial gain, strangely it feels very different from a donation to charity. When I donate to charity, I feel happy with myself and move on. For instance, I don’t go back and check how successful the bid is. The opposite is happening with this ‘investment’. I have been keeping an eye on the (slow) progress and wondering how quickly Arjan can make the transition into stage 3 of his funding bid.

Have you joined a crowd funding initiative? What motivated / would motivate you to invest in a project – identification or financial gain?

PS – Can you push the poetry book project into stages and 3?

I am working in a sunny porch, enjoying the benefits of technology, but thinking about the value of face to face communication.

I hope you are having a great weekend (celebrating Easter, if you are so inclined). I am visiting family, which is always both challenging and reassuring.

In the past week, I received the news that I had 2 papers accepted for the Academy of Marketing conference, taking place in Southampton later in the year. The theme for this year’s conference is ‘Marketing: catching the technology wave’, which dove tails very nicely with some of my current research activities.

One of the papers I shall be presenting reports on the early findings from a study looking at Social Media users’ perceptions of, and attitudes towards, organisations interacting with them online. This paper focuses on the use of Social Media platforms for customer service and is entitled ‘Customer service 140 characters at a time – the users’ perspective’. The other paper is of a conceptual nature. It outlines a framework that I am working on with a colleague to help researchers decide when and how to use Social Media data for customer profiling. The title (a bit of mouthful) is: ‘A Conceptual Investigation of the Value of Social Media Data as a Source of Customer Insight’.

I was chuffed to get the news that both papers had been accepted. First, because both projects are at an early stage and, thus, it felt great to get encouraging feedback from my peers. Second, and most significantly, because I always come back from this conference feeling reenergised. Listening to the presentations, meeting or catching up with colleagues in the coffee breaks, and spending 2-3 days focused on research, means that I come back home with my head buzzing with ideas.

This was very timely as, just a few days ago, I read a post about the importance of face to face contact in market research, despite the advent of phone surveys and other technology-enabled data collection tools. You can read the post here.

When we talk with each other, a very big part of what we ‘say’ is communicated by the tone, the smile, the fidgeting… Non-verbal communication says as much as the words we speak, if not more.

Technology saves a lot of time and money. It allows me to pick on the brains of fascinating people spread all over the world. It enables us to work from anywhere, anytime – for instance, this is the view from my ‘office’, today

But, every now and then, I really need to engage with my peers, face to face. And, so, I’m looking forward to this conference.

Do you find yourself engineering opportunities to meet someone, face to face, even if using technology might be more effective in the short term?

Sidneyeve Matrix is an academic based in Canada. On Twitter, she is known as @sidneyeve and has over 17,000 followers – perhaps you are one of them, in which case, great! If you aren’t, read on.

There is a reason why @sidneyeve has more than 17,000 followers. She shares great excellent content on the impact of digital technology, and social media in particular, on popular culture.

Her stream includes news on technological developments, how organisations are using social media, and how users interact with the technology – in a variety of scenarios (including higher education). So, if you are interested in digital and social, then, surely, @Sidneyeve will share something of interest for you.

I would also recommend that you sign up to Sidneyeve’s blog ‘Datasnacks’. The blog does exactly what the title suggests: delivers little snippets of data from the latest market research on topics related to social media and digital culture.

This friday, follow @Sidneyeve for data and insight on digital popular culture.

Previous follow friday recommendations (in alphabetical order):
- @arjantupan – for a bit of poetry in your life (Mar., 9th 2012)
- @ejtennant – Witty and entertaining posts from the creator of #virtualsecretsanta (Dec., 23rd 2011)
- @inesvarelasilva – Nutrition and health researcher, supporter of theatrical arts and Zumba fanatic (Jan., 27th 2012)
- @liveBarefoot – Redefining bookstores (Oct., 14th 2011)
- @markwschaefer – The latest insight into Social Media and what it means for businesses (Jan., 20th 2012)
- @mrsoaroundworld – For the hedonist in you (Oct., 21st 2011)
- @myographer – Management, pirates and personal branding (Oct., 7th 2011)
- @OxfordCityGuide – Helps you make the most of living in Oxford (Sep., 30th 2011)
- @PaulFennemore – For a strategic view on the potential and pitfalls of social commerce (Oct., 28th 2011)
- @PhD2Published – Academic writing advice and encouragement (Nov., 18th 2011)
- @ProfBangNguyen – Links to, and thoughts on, the latest technical developments and its consequences for marketing (Jan., 13th 2012)
- @pushingsocial – To help you make the most of your blog (Mar., 2nd 2012)
- @qualityhunters – A great example of how to engage with a community on Social Media (Feb., 3rd 2012)
- @TMNinja – for useful tips to improve your productivity (Mar., 30th 2012)
- @tomfishburne – for a regular laugh about serious (marketing) matters (Feb., 17th 2012)

The UK government has announced the intention to monitor the calls and online activity of everybody in the UK. In this post, I look at how profiling – like the one proposed by the government – is done.

I confess: When I saw the news headlines, on April 1st, I thought that it was an April’s Fool prank. But I was wrong. The UK government really plans to pass laws to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of every UK resident, as part of their effort to fight crime and terrorism.

Soon enough, analysts from all camps highlighted the technical difficulties of capturing and analysing such data, the prohibitive costs of such a project, the implications for those being monitored and the implications of false positives. This previous post looks at such points.

In this post, I want to move away from the debate of whether this effort is possible or even worth it. Instead, I look at the principles behind profiling.

What is profiling?
This dictionary defines profile as: ‘an outline of an object’. Thus, in essence, profiles are partial representations, be it an object, a structure or a person.

To develop these representations, profilers capture records of events, actions and interactions overtime. Then, they use these stored records to determine typical behaviour and to spot deviations from that behaviour. That’s no different from learning, over time, when your mother is likely to call… and growing worried when she doesn’t follow the pattern (even if the deviation ends up bringing joy).

What is the source of the records used in profiling?
Anything that can be recorded can be used in profiling. Though, of course, it is neither practical nor useful to collect and analyse every single data field. It really depends on the purpose of the profiling exercise – for instance, whether it is for the purpose of preventing crime or to prove criminal association after the event.

Much of our behaviour leaves traces – some times, inadvertently. If you are interested in this topic, check the documentary ‘Erasing David’. It provides a compelling look at how much information private companies and governments have about us. Do watch it, but be warned that you may feel a bit paranoid, afterwards.

We leave physical fingerprints, footprints and DNA residues.

Our movements are captured on CCTV cameras and traceable via our mobile phones.

Our purchases are recorded by loyalty programmes and credit card providers.

And, of course, records of our digital activity reveal what information we look for and what entertainment we consume, as well as who we write to, how often and about what.

The traces left by our behaviours are like signals that indicate who we are, what we do and what drives us.

How are the signals interpreted?
It is all about associations and context.

One comment in a discussion forum means nothing. But the comment, in association with visits to certain websites and a change in travel patterns may mean a lot… or not. That’s where the context comes in.

A red rose, for instance, means different things in different contexts. In the context of UK politics, the red rose stands for the object ‘labour party’; in Greek mythology, it stands for ‘love’; and in Christian iconography it stands for ‘martyrdom’. To complicate things further, the contextual references may change with time. For instance, the red rose only became the logo of UK’s labour party in the mid 1990s.

In other words, insight comes from looking at a given data point in the context of all the other data points we have. Only then, can analysts start identifying themes, or patterns.

Before you decide to stop using electronic money, to give up store or airline cards, to ditch your mobile phone and start communicating with your friends by smoke signals only, consider how difficult your life would be.

And how suspicious (and risky) would it be if you tried to buy a flat with cash and no exchange of property deeds?

The absence of signals can be as revealing as their presence. In one money laundering case I looked at, a firm was found to run a car smuggling operation because of the absence of certain expenses that analysts would expect in the type of business that the firm claimed to operate. It’s just like when you go on holidays: you don’t need to post on Facebook that you are away. Your lack of status updates or a change in the pattern of check-ins and comments will say so on your behalf.

Before you rebel against the government’s infringement in your private space, remember that commercial organisations do this, too – airlines, banks, supermarkets, telecommunications operators and, of course, providers of online services such as social networks or search engines… you name it. In fact, some firms are much better at customer profiling than this government will ever be. If you want to know what data organisations hold about you, the implications and what (if anything) you can do about it, do check Steffen Glomb’s website here (Steffen is a former student of mine who has a really neat product idea for the protection of personal data – watch this space!)

Being aware of the profiling skills of some organisations, I have made some minor changes in my behaviour. For instance, I do not have loyalty cards from organisations I perceive to be particularly good at profiling (see here), and I use a variety of e-mail addresses for different purposes. But, in the great scheme of things, these are insignificant measures. I considered declining to provide my passport data when booking a flight… but haven’t done it, yet.

Do you take active steps to avoid – or, at least, hinder – being profiled, either by commercial organisations or the government?

I wonder if people need to capture and share evidence of a moment, in order to feel that they have lived it.

I am on my way back from a concert.

Around me, people were snapping pictures with their smartphones, which they quickly shared with others in their social networks. Look at the man on the left hand side of this picture:

They would take the picture, switch to a social network application and post it. Then, the ritual would be repeated. Over and over again. I spotted Facebook and Twitter, but there may have been others, too.

Maybe these persons were sharing the event with someone who couldn’t be there and it was an act of altruism.

Maybe they were showing off, in a moment of narcissism.

Altruism and narcissism are two of the drivers of use of social media as I wrote here.

I wonder, though, if there was another driver.

This is a time when we check virtually into places we are physically in; when television shows have their own Twitter hash tags and Facebook timelines; and when tagging and sharing pictures of what we are eating is so popular that there is an app for that.

Maybe adding a virtual, social layer to everything we do, is becoming a part of the experience. Maybe one day, in the not so distant future, we will have to share the moment in order to feel that we have lived it.

Do you think that just like the tree in the forest, if you didn’t share the moment, you haven’t really lived it?