Why Aren't Marketers Accomplishing Customer Centricity?

Nick Robinson

“If you pretend to be good, the world takes you very seriously. If you pretend to be bad, it doesn’t. Such is the astounding stupidity of optimism.”—Oscar Wilde

Optimism, or at least the outward expression of it, was the hallmark of our recent view into the state of customer experience in North America. Is It A Good Time To Be CMO?During the second and third quarters of 2014, the CMO Council and SAP took a hard look at where and how marketers were advancing the goals and mandates of customer centricity. From all outward appearances, marketers were confident that their organizations were demonstrating a focus on their customers.

From the ability to address issues quickly and effectively to the ability to deliver the services and products that are most important to their customers, marketers feel they are—quite simply—doing just fine, and they believe their customers would agree. So what is missing in this picture? Sadly, beyond the self-congratulatory ratings, marketers admit that they lack a single view of customer truth.

How did we come to this conclusion? It would stand to reason that we should take marketing executives at their word. If they say they are doing a good job, who are we to say they aren’t?

It is simple: When asked key questions around the ability to listen and respond to customer needs, the ability for technology systems to back up and deliver on marketing promises, and the ability leverage data to create more personalized and engaging experiences, marketers fell woefully short.

  • Only 10 percent of senior marketers are highly satisfied with their organizations’ ability to listen and respond to customer needs.
  • Only 18 percent of respondents believe that their back-office technology platforms have the ability to deliver on marketing promises.
  • Only 10 percent of brands are highly confident in their ability to leverage data.
  • Only 20 percent of respondents have a comprehensive view of all touchpoints that make up the customer experience.
  • Only 28 percent are personalizing experiences across both online and offline engagements.

When you consider how few marketers expressed faith in their back-office systems, it would be easy to blame technology for the gaps between the goals of the customer experience strategy and the delivery of customer experience engagements. Because this is a blog post, I can pause the seriousness for a moment to admit something to you: We were pretty sure that marketers would blame the technology because it is easy to blame technology. But we were wrong…so very, very wrong!

When asked what posed the greatest challenge to delivering an optimal customer experience, 52 percent of marketers said it was a combination of gaps with people, processes and platforms. In fact, upon closer inspection, technology actually followed key issues around people and processes.

The top issues were actually:

  • Establishing a customer-centric culture
  • Aligning cross-functional teams to work together
  • Establishing processes to track success
  • Prioritizing customer experience as a strategy
  • Hiring the right talent to execute

So where do marketers want to go with all of this? In reality, the market and customers are driving that. Marketers who are looking to lead in customer experience are looking to adopt a strategy to deliver adaptive customer engagements. Customers are looking for experiences that meet their needs in the channel they want to use at the moment that is most convenient and most relevant to them. Gone are the days of campaign-initiated relationships. Instead, brands must adapt to the changing needs of the customer. So say goodbye campaign-centric experiences, and say hello to the customer. Better yet, let’s stop saying hello and start engaging with our customers in the way they are defining.

Interested in learning more about the research? Download the complimentary white paper, Mastering Adaptive Customer Engagements (registration required).

Comments

About Nick Robinson

Nick Robinson is a Social Media Manager at SAP. He has a strong background in web development, marketing, and entrepreneurship.

2018 Is The Year To Deploy B2B E-Commerce Before It's Too Late

Brian Beck

Only half of manufacturers and brands currently have e-commerce websites.

In today’s digital-centric world, what could possibly be the cause of this? E-commerce best practices have been well understood for over fifteen years, capital costs of e-commerce systems have come down dramatically, and over 90% of business buyers – and just about every single consumer – are using the web for research, and many for purchasing.

Business buyers – your buyers – are planning to make 55% of their work purchases online within the next two years. Those companies with e-commerce websites are realizing incremental revenue from current and new customers, driving meaningful improvements in gross margins, and reducing customer support costs. Yet only half of manufacturers and brands have e-commerce sites.

Why is this? What is the problem?

Leadership.

Or the lack of it.

Take heed, B2B executives: 2018 is the year to deploy e-commerce, before it is too late.

B2B leaders take note: Legacy doesn’t mean don’t change

In the B2B world, many manufacturers and brands are struck with organizational inertia. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is a common mindset – even if not expressed – of divisional and executive leadership. Whether they realize it or not, companies are tied down and limited by their processes and traditional ways of doing business, and in some ways are victims of their own historical success.

Traditional selling channels – the direct sales force (outside and inside), distribution and resale partners, telesales, catalog, and other methods – have driven many companies to tremendous revenue and profit levels in their categories. These legacy sales channels will forever be an important part of the buyer-seller relationship in B2B industries.

However, the world has changed. While these companies are living in collective inertia, customers’ expectations have organically shifted. Today’s B2B buyers expect to have a buyer-focused purchasing experience, often based on their experiences making retail purchases in their own personal lives as consumers. And that fact of the matter is that this purchasing experience has shifted either directly to, or is heavily influenced by, digital means. And as younger professionals come into the workforce, “digital native” is no longer a name for a category of buyers – it is every single buyer B2B organizations sell to.

The roots of organizational inertia

Many executives continue to ignore these trends at their own peril. Why? Change is not easy, and particularly difficult when business performance continues to sustain at somewhat acceptable levels through traditional sales channels, and the change agent (in this case, the e-commerce expectations of business buyers) is completely unfamiliar to the executive-in-charge.

Inaction is the result – somewhat driven by fear, somewhat by not knowing where to start. But the reality is that ignoring digital transformation is not sustainable, and customers are forcing change. Here’s the good news in this – companies that are listening are being rewarded – massively. Why shouldn’t you be one of these companies?

Digital transformation isn’t just about opening up an e-commerce store. It is not about hiring an intern to manage your website. True transformation comes about by looking at the organization, its processes, and its people, and figuring out how to change the entire organization. Successful change is incremental, more evolutionary than revolutionary. However, these changes are uncomfortable for the organization, across multiple functions. Intestinal fortitude is required! Leaders will be confronted with real tests of leadership.

The leadership imperative

There are four key foundational elements of organizational evolution necessary to prepare for and execute a successful digital transformation.

1. Redefining leadership – from the very top

Digital transformation simply won’t occur with this one single ingredient: senior leadership driving change. And this needs to come from the very pinnacle of the organization. Including the CEO, but even above him or her, the board of directors (or owners of the firm) need to not only buy into the goal of becoming a digital-first organization, but they also need to embrace this change and find ways to incentivize and empower the entire organization to evolve.

2. Get the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off it!)

Leaders cannot be successful without the right team around them. This is not a new concept, but one that is difficult for B2B companies to accept and adopt. The right team must go beyond loyalty to the organization (which does have value), and include a healthy dose of new digital expertise and a willingness to embrace (not just accept) change.

3. Establish cross-functional alignment and accountability frameworks

B2B organizations of all sizes contain departments that are impacted by digital transformation. Sales teams can view e-commerce selling as a threat to their customer relationships and compensation structures. Marketing budgets and traditional approaches are challenged with new digital marketing methods.  Finance must account for revenues through new selling channels.

Information technology (IT) has brand-new systems to integrate and maintain. Customer service is handling orders through new channels, and concerned that customer self-service via the web will make their roles irrelevant. Fulfillment must ship individual orders in smaller quantities using unfamiliar shipping methods. There is virtually no aspect of the organization that is untouched by digital transformation. As a result, cross-functional involvement and communication related to digital efforts are critical.

4. Hire real e-commerce experience, and give your leader real authority 

To enable digital transformation, B2B organizations need to hire people with relevant e-commerce experience who can lead and drive this change, with the full support of the CEO and Board. Without knowing what to look for in this leader, too often B2B organizations look within the company to promote (typically to the IT department) for this expertise.

It isn’t that internal leaders can’t succeed, but they frequently lack the skills and experience to understand what is necessary to drive digital engagement and e-commerce sales. Moving outside of the traditional “promote from within” approach of many B2B organizations, companies should strongly consider bringing in someone from a B2C e-commerce leadership role to fill a similar role in the B2B enterprise. And companies should look to provide real authority to these roles.

Too often, I see the leader that B2B companies appoint to run their e-commerce operation with less than five years of total experience and holding a title such as “e-commerce manager” or “web coordinator.” This role must be empowered to be a change agent. Anything less diminishes the organization’s ability to execute and drive true transformation.

Organizational evolution enables transformation

Ultimately, the organization itself must learn how to be comfortable with e-commerce, even if this is accomplished piece by piece. One of my B2B clients, for example, built an e-commerce store for its employees to buy its own products as a first step. This storefront was internal only, but by doing this, they were able to show the entire organization that it was not only possible to sell their products online, while also demonstrated the value e-commerce brings to their customers.

The road to digital transformation isn’t an easy one. It is not flat, and in some cases, it can be very long. There are bumps along the way, and there will be roadblocks. But having empowered and accountable leadership in place, with the right experience, skills, and knowledge, is the first step.

I’m here to help. Reach out to me at bbeck@guidance.com, and I can help you break through the inertia, establish collaborative structures, and create a path forward towards digital transformation.

Want to learn more about digital transformation? Don’t miss our series here!

This article originally appeared on The Future of Customer Engagement and Commerce.

Comments

What Does AI Bring To Marketing?

Timo Elliott

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) is poised to revolutionize most aspects of operational marketing. It can help automate many of the choices and tradeoffs that currently must be made by overworked marketing employees, and enable things that were previously impossible.

AI and predictive analytics can be used to optimize the end-to-end customer journey and determine what causes customer churn (including unwanted marketing!).

The result is higher customer satisfaction with lower costs—and above all, more time and resources for more human aspects of marketing, such as brand strategy, storytelling and community building.

Here are just some of the opportunities:

  • AI-enabled recommendation engines: Increase cross-selling and upselling potential with recommendations to optimize shopping cart, conversion rates, and average sales order size
  • Audience segmentation: Discover audience segments through behavioral analysis and relationship analysis leveraging consumer and customer profiles
  • Best channel and contact time prediction: Optimize interactions and response behaviors by using the most appropriate contact time by contact by channel
  • Brand perception: Automatically analyze brand exposure in videos and images by leveraging advanced computer vision techniques to provide insights advertising ROI
  • Buying propensity: Score a contact based on their purchase history and others like them
  • Channel affinity: Provide an overview on response behavior per channel for a given target group
  • Content marketing/dynamic content: Automatically determine best content for customers by channel, time, and location based on their behavior, preferences, interests, and needs
  • Image recognition: Intelligently track customer interactions in a store, track attention for windows displays or outdoor ads, gauge sentiment and demographics, etc.
  • Interest affinity: Optimize customer engagements based on a deeper understanding of a customer’s context and intent
  • Lead scoring: Predictive lead scores for engagement, conversion, and qualification
  • Opportunity scoring: Predictive opportunity scores for engagement, conversion, and qualification

To find out more, read the “Worldwide AI in Enterprise Marketing Clouds 2017 Vendor Assessment” by IDC, see this page on innovation and machine learning, or watch the video below:

This article originally appeared on Digital Business & Business Analytics.

Comments

Timo Elliott

About Timo Elliott

Timo Elliott is an Innovation Evangelist for SAP and a passionate advocate of innovation, digital business, analytics, and artificial intelligence. He was the eighth employee of BusinessObjects and for the last 25 years he has worked closely with SAP customers around the world on new technology directions and their impact on real-world organizations. His articles have appeared in publications such as Harvard Business Review, Forbes, ZDNet, The Guardian, and Digitalist Magazine. He has worked in the UK, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Silicon Valley, and currently lives in Paris, France. He has a degree in Econometrics and a patent in mobile analytics. 

More Than Noise: Digital Trends That Are Bigger Than You Think

By Maurizio Cattaneo, David Delaney, Volker Hildebrand, and Neal Ungerleider

In the tech world in 2017, several trends emerged as signals amid the noise, signifying much larger changes to come.

As we noted in last year’s More Than Noise list, things are changing—and the changes are occurring in ways that don’t necessarily fit into the prevailing narrative.

While many of 2017’s signals have a dark tint to them, perhaps reflecting the times we live in, we have sought out some rays of light to illuminate the way forward. The following signals differ considerably, but understanding them can help guide businesses in the right direction for 2018 and beyond.

When a team of psychologists, linguists, and software engineers created Woebot, an AI chatbot that helps people learn cognitive behavioral therapy techniques for managing mental health issues like anxiety and depression, they did something unusual, at least when it comes to chatbots: they submitted it for peer review.

Stanford University researchers recruited a sample group of 70 college-age participants on social media to take part in a randomized control study of Woebot. The researchers found that their creation was useful for improving anxiety and depression symptoms. A study of the user interaction with the bot was submitted for peer review and published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research Mental Health in June 2017.

While Woebot may not revolutionize the field of psychology, it could change the way we view AI development. Well-known figures such as Elon Musk and Bill Gates have expressed concerns that artificial intelligence is essentially ungovernable. Peer review, such as with the Stanford study, is one way to approach this challenge and figure out how to properly evaluate and find a place for these software programs.

The healthcare community could be onto something. We’ve already seen instances where AI chatbots have spun out of control, such as when internet trolls trained Microsoft’s Tay to become a hate-spewing misanthrope. Bots are only as good as their design; making sure they stay on message and don’t act in unexpected ways is crucial.

This is especially true in healthcare. When chatbots are offering therapeutic services, they must be properly designed, vetted, and tested to maintain patient safety.

It may be prudent to apply the same level of caution to a business setting. By treating chatbots as if they’re akin to medicine or drugs, we have a model for thorough vetting that, while not perfect, is generally effective and time tested.

It may seem like overkill to think of chatbots that manage pizza orders or help resolve parking tickets as potential health threats. But it’s already clear that AI can have unintended side effects that could extend far beyond Tay’s loathsome behavior.

For example, in July, Facebook shut down an experiment where it challenged two AIs to negotiate with each other over a trade. When the experiment began, the two chatbots quickly went rogue, developing linguistic shortcuts to reduce negotiating time and leaving their creators unable to understand what they were saying.

Do we want AIs interacting in a secret language because designers didn’t fully understand what they were designing?

The implications are chilling. Do we want AIs interacting in a secret language because designers didn’t fully understand what they were designing?

In this context, the healthcare community’s conservative approach doesn’t seem so farfetched. Woebot could ultimately become an example of the kind of oversight that’s needed for all AIs.

Meanwhile, it’s clear that chatbots have great potential in healthcare—not just for treating mental health issues but for helping patients understand symptoms, build treatment regimens, and more. They could also help unclog barriers to healthcare, which is plagued worldwide by high prices, long wait times, and other challenges. While they are not a substitute for actual humans, chatbots can be used by anyone with a computer or smartphone, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of financial status.

Finding the right governance for AI development won’t happen overnight. But peer review, extensive internal quality analysis, and other processes will go a long way to ensuring bots function as expected. Otherwise, companies and their customers could pay a big price.

Elon Musk is an expert at dominating the news cycle with his sci-fi premonitions about space travel and high-speed hyperloops. However, he captured media attention in Australia in April 2017 for something much more down to earth: how to deal with blackouts and power outages.

In 2016, a massive blackout hit the state of South Australia following a storm. Although power was restored quickly in Adelaide, the capital, people in the wide stretches of arid desert that surround it spent days waiting for the power to return. That hit South Australia’s wine and livestock industries especially hard.

South Australia’s electrical grid currently gets more than half of its energy from wind and solar, with coal and gas plants acting as backups for when the sun hides or the wind doesn’t blow, according to ABC News Australia. But this network is vulnerable to sudden loss of generation—which is exactly what happened in the storm that caused the 2016 blackout, when tornadoes ripped through some key transmission lines. Getting the system back on stable footing has been an issue ever since.

Displaying his usual talent for showmanship, Musk stepped in and promised to build the world’s largest battery to store backup energy for the network—and he pledged to complete it within 100 days of signing the contract or the battery would be free. Pen met paper with South Australia and French utility Neoen in September. As of press time in November, construction was underway.

For South Australia, the Tesla deal offers an easy and secure way to store renewable energy. Tesla’s 129 MWh battery will be the most powerful battery system in the world by 60% once completed, according to Gizmodo. The battery, which is stationed at a wind farm, will cover temporary drops in wind power and kick in to help conventional gas and coal plants balance generation with demand across the network. South Australian citizens and politicians largely support the project, which Tesla claims will be able to power 30,000 homes.

Until Musk made his bold promise, batteries did not figure much in renewable energy networks, mostly because they just aren’t that good. They have limited charges, are difficult to build, and are difficult to manage. Utilities also worry about relying on the same lithium-ion battery technology as cellphone makers like Samsung, whose Galaxy Note 7 had to be recalled in 2016 after some defective batteries burst into flames, according to CNET.

However, when made right, the batteries are safe. It’s just that they’ve traditionally been too expensive for large-scale uses such as renewable power storage. But battery innovations such as Tesla’s could radically change how we power the economy. According to a study that appeared this year in Nature, the continued drop in the cost of battery storage has made renewable energy price-competitive with traditional fossil fuels.

This is a massive shift. Or, as David Roberts of news site Vox puts it, “Batteries are soon going to disrupt power markets at all scales.” Furthermore, if the cost of batteries continues to drop, supply chains could experience radical energy cost savings. This could disrupt energy utilities, manufacturing, transportation, and construction, to name just a few, and create many opportunities while changing established business models. (For more on how renewable energy will affect business, read the feature “Tick Tock” in this issue.)

Battery research and development has become big business. Thanks to electric cars and powerful smartphones, there has been incredible pressure to make more powerful batteries that last longer between charges.

The proof of this is in the R&D funding pudding. A Brookings Institution report notes that both the Chinese and U.S. governments offer generous subsidies for lithium-ion battery advancement. Automakers such as Daimler and BMW have established divisions marketing residential and commercial energy storage products. Boeing, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, and General Electric are all experimenting with various electric propulsion systems for aircraft—which means that hybrid airplanes are also a possibility.

Meanwhile, governments around the world are accelerating battery research investment by banning internal combustion vehicles. Britain, France, India, and Norway are seeking to go all electric as early as 2025 and by 2040 at the latest.

In the meantime, expect huge investment and new battery innovation from interested parties across industries that all share a stake in the outcome. This past September, for example, Volkswagen announced a €50 billion research investment in batteries to help bring 300 electric vehicle models to market by 2030.

At first, it sounds like a narrative device from a science fiction novel or a particularly bad urban legend.

Powerful cameras in several Chinese cities capture photographs of jaywalkers as they cross the street and, several minutes later, display their photograph, name, and home address on a large screen posted at the intersection. Several days later, a summons appears in the offender’s mailbox demanding payment of a fine or fulfillment of community service.

As Orwellian as it seems, this technology is very real for residents of Jinan and several other Chinese cities. According to a Xinhua interview with Li Yong of the Jinan traffic police, “Since the new technology has been adopted, the cases of jaywalking have been reduced from 200 to 20 each day at the major intersection of Jingshi and Shungeng roads.”

The sophisticated cameras and facial recognition systems already used in China—and their near–real-time public shaming—are an example of how machine learning, mobile phone surveillance, and internet activity tracking are being used to censor and control populations. Most worryingly, the prospect of real-time surveillance makes running surveillance states such as the former East Germany and current North Korea much more financially efficient.

According to a 2015 discussion paper by the Institute for the Study of Labor, a German research center, by the 1980s almost 0.5% of the East German population was directly employed by the Stasi, the country’s state security service and secret police—1 for every 166 citizens. An additional 1.1% of the population (1 for every 66 citizens) were working as unofficial informers, which represented a massive economic drain. Automated, real-time, algorithm-driven monitoring could potentially drive the cost of controlling the population down substantially in police states—and elsewhere.

We could see a radical new era of censorship that is much more manipulative than anything that has come before. Previously, dissidents were identified when investigators manually combed through photos, read writings, or listened in on phone calls. Real-time algorithmic monitoring means that acts of perceived defiance can be identified and deleted in the moment and their perpetrators marked for swift judgment before they can make an impression on others.

Businesses need to be aware of the wider trend toward real-time, automated censorship and how it might be used in both commercial and governmental settings. These tools can easily be used in countries with unstable political dynamics and could become a real concern for businesses that operate across borders. Businesses must learn to educate and protect employees when technology can censor and punish in real time.

Indeed, the technologies used for this kind of repression could be easily adapted from those that have already been developed for businesses. For instance, both Facebook and Google use near–real-time facial identification algorithms that automatically identify people in images uploaded by users—which helps the companies build out their social graphs and target users with profitable advertisements. Automated algorithms also flag Facebook posts that potentially violate the company’s terms of service.

China is already using these technologies to control its own people in ways that are largely hidden to outsiders.

According to a report by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, the popular Chinese social network WeChat operates under a policy its authors call “One App, Two Systems.” Users with Chinese phone numbers are subjected to dynamic keyword censorship that changes depending on current events and whether a user is in a private chat or in a group. Depending on the political winds, users are blocked from accessing a range of websites that report critically on China through WeChat’s internal browser. Non-Chinese users, however, are not subject to any of these restrictions.

The censorship is also designed to be invisible. Messages are blocked without any user notification, and China has intermittently blocked WhatsApp and other foreign social networks. As a result, Chinese users are steered toward national social networks, which are more compliant with government pressure.

China’s policies play into a larger global trend: the nationalization of the internet. China, Russia, the European Union, and the United States have all adopted different approaches to censorship, user privacy, and surveillance. Although there are social networks such as WeChat or Russia’s VKontakte that are popular in primarily one country, nationalizing the internet challenges users of multinational services such as Facebook and YouTube. These different approaches, which impact everything from data safe harbor laws to legal consequences for posting inflammatory material, have implications for businesses working in multiple countries, as well.

For instance, Twitter is legally obligated to hide Nazi and neo-fascist imagery and some tweets in Germany and France—but not elsewhere. YouTube was officially banned in Turkey for two years because of videos a Turkish court deemed “insulting to the memory of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,” father of modern Turkey. In Russia, Google must keep Russian users’ personal data on servers located inside Russia to comply with government policy.

While China is a pioneer in the field of instant censorship, tech companies in the United States are matching China’s progress, which could potentially have a chilling effect on democracy. In 2016, Apple applied for a patent on technology that censors audio streams in real time—automating the previously manual process of censoring curse words in streaming audio.

In March, after U.S. President Donald Trump told Fox News, “I think maybe I wouldn’t be [president] if it wasn’t for Twitter,” Twitter founder Evan “Ev” Williams did something highly unusual for the creator of a massive social network.

He apologized.

Speaking with David Streitfeld of The New York Times, Williams said, “It’s a very bad thing, Twitter’s role in that. If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry.”

Entrepreneurs tend to be very proud of their innovations. Williams, however, offers a far more ambivalent response to his creation’s success. Much of the 2016 presidential election’s rancor was fueled by Twitter, and the instant gratification of Twitter attracts trolls, bullies, and bigots just as easily as it attracts politicians, celebrities, comedians, and sports fans.

Services such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram are designed through a mix of look and feel, algorithmic wizardry, and psychological techniques to hang on to users for as long as possible—which helps the services sell more advertisements and make more money. Toxic political discourse and online harassment are unintended side effects of the economic-driven urge to keep users engaged no matter what.

Keeping users’ eyeballs on their screens requires endless hours of multivariate testing, user research, and algorithm refinement. For instance, Casey Newton of tech publication The Verge notes that Google Brain, Google’s AI division, plays a key part in generating YouTube’s video recommendations.

According to Jim McFadden, the technical lead for YouTube recommendations, “Before, if I watch this video from a comedian, our recommendations were pretty good at saying, here’s another one just like it,” he told Newton. “But the Google Brain model figures out other comedians who are similar but not exactly the same—even more adjacent relationships. It’s able to see patterns that are less obvious.”

A never-ending flow of content that is interesting without being repetitive is harder to resist. With users glued to online services, addiction and other behavioral problems occur to an unhealthy degree. According to a 2016 poll by nonprofit research company Common Sense Media, 50% of American teenagers believe they are addicted to their smartphones.

This pattern is extending into the workplace. Seventy-five percent of companies told research company Harris Poll in 2016 that two or more hours a day are lost in productivity because employees are distracted. The number one reason? Cellphones and texting, according to 55% of those companies surveyed. Another 41% pointed to the internet.

Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google, argues that many product designers for online services try to exploit psychological vulnerabilities in a bid to keep users engaged for longer periods. Harris refers to an iPhone as “a slot machine in my pocket” and argues that user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) designers need to adopt something akin to a Hippocratic Oath to stop exploiting users’ psychological vulnerabilities.

In fact, there is an entire school of study devoted to “dark UX”—small design tweaks to increase profits. These can be as innocuous as a “Buy Now” button in a visually pleasing color or as controversial as when Facebook tweaked its algorithm in 2012 to show a randomly selected group of almost 700,000 users (who had not given their permission) newsfeeds that skewed more positive to some users and more negative to others to gauge the impact on their respective emotional states, according to an article in Wired.

As computers, smartphones, and televisions come ever closer to convergence, these issues matter increasingly to businesses. Some of the universal side effects of addiction are lost productivity at work and poor health. Businesses should offer training and help for employees who can’t stop checking their smartphones.

Mindfulness-centered mobile apps such as Headspace, Calm, and Forest offer one way to break the habit. Users can also choose to break internet addiction by going for a walk, turning their computers off, or using tools like StayFocusd or Freedom to block addictive websites or apps.

Most importantly, companies in the business of creating tech products need to design software and hardware that discourages addictive behavior. This means avoiding bad designs that emphasize engagement metrics over human health. A world of advertising preroll showing up on smart refrigerator touchscreens at 2 a.m. benefits no one.

According to a 2014 study in Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, approximately 6% of the world’s population suffers from internet addiction to one degree or another. As more users in emerging economies gain access to cheap data, smartphones, and laptops, that percentage will only increase. For businesses, getting a head start on stopping internet addiction will make employees happier and more productive. D!


About the Authors

Maurizio Cattaneo is Director, Delivery Execution, Energy, and Natural Resources, at SAP.

David Delaney is Global Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, SAP Health.

Volker Hildebrand is Global Vice President for SAP Hybris solutions.

Neal Ungerleider is a Los Angeles-based technology journalist and consultant.


Read more thought provoking articles in the latest issue of the Digitalist Magazine, Executive Quarterly.

Comments

Tags:

The “Purpose” Of Data

Timo Elliott

I’ve always been passionate about the ability of data and analytics to transform the world.

It has always seemed to me to be the closest thing we have to modern-day magic, with its ability to conjure up benefits from thin air. Over the last quarter century, I’ve had the honor of working with thousands of “wizards” in organizations around the world, turning information into value in every aspect of our daily lives.

The projects have been as simple as Disney using real-time analytics to move staff from one store to another to keep lines to a minimum: shorter lines led to bigger profits (you’re more likely to buy that Winnie-the-Pooh bear if there’s only one person ahead of you), but also higher customer satisfaction and happier children.

Or they’ve been as complex as the Port of Hamburg: constrained by its urban location, it couldn’t expand to meet the growing volume of traffic. But better use of information meant it was able to dramatically increase throughput – while improving the life of city residents with reduced pollution (less truck idling) and fewer traffic jams (smart lighting that automatically adapts to bridge closures).

I’ve seen analytics used to figure out why cheese was curdling in Wisconsin; count the number of bubbles in Champagne; keep track of excessive fouls in Swiss soccer, track bear sightings in Canada; avoid flooding in Argentina; detect chewing-gum-blocked metro machines in Brussels; uncover networks of tax fraud in Australia; stop trains from being stranded in the middle of the Tuscan countryside; find air travelers exposed to radioactive substances; help abused pets find new homes; find the best people to respond to hurricanes and other disasters; and much, much more.

The reality is that there’s a lot of inefficiency in the world. Most of the time it’s invisible, or we take it for granted. But analytics can help us shine a light on what’s going on, expose the problems, and show us what we can do better – in almost every area of human endeavor.

Data is a powerful weapon. Analytics isn’t just an opportunity to reduce costs and increase profits – it’s an opportunity to make the world a better place.

So to paraphrase a famous world leader, next time you embark on a new project:

“Ask not what you can do with your data, ask what your data can do for the world.”

What are your favorite “magical” examples, where analytics helped create win/win/win situations?

Download our free eBook for more insight on How the Port of Hamburg Doubled Capacity with Digitization.

This article originally appeared on Digital Business & Business Analytics.

Comments

Timo Elliott

About Timo Elliott

Timo Elliott is an Innovation Evangelist for SAP and a passionate advocate of innovation, digital business, analytics, and artificial intelligence. He was the eighth employee of BusinessObjects and for the last 25 years he has worked closely with SAP customers around the world on new technology directions and their impact on real-world organizations. His articles have appeared in publications such as Harvard Business Review, Forbes, ZDNet, The Guardian, and Digitalist Magazine. He has worked in the UK, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Silicon Valley, and currently lives in Paris, France. He has a degree in Econometrics and a patent in mobile analytics.