CASE STUDY 1:
The CEO of Blue Octopus Wines, Mr. Bruce Ockawanaby, wishes to export his product to Asia.He has not yet made a decision to which part of Asia. Bruce has looked to the legal restrictions (https://www.wineaustralia.com/selling/further-information/exporting-wine), and read the many story of expansion and success (eg: https://www.wineaustralia.com/apac-export-report).But he is very concerned about pirating and copy-cat phenomena.
Last week, Bruce was at a conference where “smart packaging” was a topic of discussion. He is thinking that it might be one way, or the total answer, to his worries about product tampering and replacement.
Bruce has now approached our consultancy company to request a Briefing Note to appraise him of the ‘smart packaging’ potential for protect when importing into Asia.
As Bruce was talking about his contract with us, I was reminded of a Deliotte report that might be a great starting point for your working group – it is attached here.
In short, Mr. Ockawanaby wants your opinion on how best to secure his exports to Asia. Will smart-packing actually help? Or is it just another business expense that is not necessary. If ‘smart packaging’ is recommended, are there any elements of smart packaging that would assist him to grow his business? He is thinking about exporting to China or Malaysia. Which would you recommend and why?
Bruce is a very busy man and does not want a report that exceed 3 pages in length.
CASE STUDY 2:
YOU HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY A CLIENT TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON THE POTENTIAL OF SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING IN ASIA FOR THEIR PRODUCTS.
THEIR PORTFOLIO INCLUDES: CLOTHES RETAILERS, COSMETICS, SHOES, PERFUMES, BEAUTY PRODUCTS, LAUNDRY PRODUCTS, TIMBER, BUILDERS SCAFFOLDING, RACING TEAMS, CARS, REAL ESTATE, FURS.
They appreciate that it is not possible to give in-depth report on all the areas covered in their portfolio, but they are keen to understand which product categories might work, IF, we are able to reasonable guidance on social media marketing moving forward. The client has provided the following articles to highlight their confusion. They do not know or understand how there could be such volatility (KLOUT) in the platforms. They also do not know whether to believe that there is a future in social media marketing or not: their reading tells them that some believe in this form of business promotion, and others do not. The articles do present wildly different interpretations of the market.
The client also appreciates that it might be difficult to know what the Asia market susceptibility might be.But they WANT ADVICE FROM THE NEXT GENERATION OF MANAGERS: THOSE WHO ARE COMFORTABLE WITH DISRUPTION AND ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE MIDST OF THAT DISRUPTION.
Klout was a website and mobile app that used social media analytics to rate its users according to online social influence via the “Klout Score”, which is a numerical value between 1 and 100. In determining the user score, Klout measured the size of a user’s social media network and correlated the content created to measure how other users interact with that content.Klout launched in 2008.
- September 2011: Klout integrates with Google+.
- October 2011: Klout changes its scoring algorithm lowering many scores and creating complaints.
- November 2011: Klout partners with Wahooly for their beta launch.
- January 2012: Klout was able to raise an estimated $30 million from a host of venture capital firms.
- February 2012: Klout acquires local and mobile neighborhood app Blockboard.
- May 2012: Klout announces growth of 2000 new partners over a one-year period.
- August 14, 2012: Klout went through another algorithm change.
- September 2012: Microsoft announces a strategic investment in Klout for an undisclosed sum.
- March 28, 2013: Klout announces inclusion of Instagram analytics in factoring Klout scores.
- May 13, 2013: Klout users had claimed more than 1 million Perks across over 400 campaigns.
- February 2014: Klout is expected to be acquired by social media company, Lithium Technologies, for $100 million or more. The contract has been signed, but not closed.
- March 27, 2014: Lithium Technologies acquired Klout.
- September 14, 2015: Engagement on YouTube content will be factored into the Klout Score
- October 29, 2015: Klout exposed inner workings of the Klout Score.
- May 10, 2018: Lithium announced that they would be ending the service on May 25, 2018.
Lithium Technologies, who acquired the site in March 2014, closed the service on May 25, 2018.
Klout used Bing, Facebook, Foursquare, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia data to create Klout user profiles that were assigned a unique “Klout Score”.Klout scores ranged from 1 to 100, with higher scores corresponding to a higher ranking of the breadth and strength of one’s online social influence. While all Twitter users were assigned a score, users who registered at Klout could link multiple social networks, of which network data was then aggregated to influence the user’s Klout Score.
Klout measured influence by using data points from Twitter, such as the following count, follower count, retweets, list memberships, how many spam/dead accounts were following you, how influential the people who retweet you were and unique mentions. This information was combined with data from a number of other social network followings and interactions to come up with the Klout Score. The social networks that influenced a user’s Klout Score were Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn (individuals pages not corporate/business), as YouTube, Instagram and Klout itself, as well as Wikipedia. Other accounts such Flickr, Blogger, Tumblr, Last.fm, WordPress, and Bing can also be linked by users, however, they did not weigh into the Klout Score as of March 2013. Microsoft announced a strategic investment in Klout in September 2012 whereby Bing would have access to Klout influence technology, and Klout would have access to Bing search data for its scoring algorithm.
Klout scores were supplemented with three nominally more specific measures, which Klout calls “true reach,” “amplification” and “network impact.” True reach is based on the size of a user’s engaged audience who actively engage in the user’s messages. Amplification score relates to the likelihood that one’s messages will generate actions, such as retweets, mentions, likes and comments. Network impact reflects the computed influence value of a person’s engaged audience.
The primary business model for Klout involved companies paying Klout for Perks campaigns, in which a company offers free services or products to Klout users who match a pre-defined set of criteria including their scores, topics, and geographic locations. While Klout users who receive Perks were under no obligation to write about them, the hope was that they will effectively advertise the products on social media. Klout has offered the Perks program since 2010. According to Klout CEO Joe Fernandez, about 50 partnerships had been established as of November 2011. In May 2013, Klout announced that its users had claimed more than 1 million Perks across over 400 campaigns.
Klout for business
In March 2013, Klout announced its intention to begin displaying business analytics aimed at helping business and brand users learn about their online audiences.
Several objections to Klout’s methodology were raised regarding both the process by which scores were generated, and the overall societal effect. Critics pointed out that Klout scores were not representative of the influence a person really has, highlighted by Barack Obama, having a lower influence score than a number of bloggers. Other social critics argued that the Klout score devalued authentic online communication and promoted social ranking and stratification by trying to quantify human interaction. Klout attempted to address some of these criticisms, and updated their algorithms so that Barack Obama‘s importance was better reflected.
The site was criticized for violating the privacy of minors, and for exploiting users for its own profit.
John Scalzi described the principle behind Klout’s operation as “socially evil” in its exploitation of its users’ status anxiety. Charles Stross described the service as “the Internet equivalent of herpes,” blogging that his analysis of Klout’s terms and conditions revealed that the company’s business model was illegal in the United Kingdom, where it conflicted with the Data Protection Act 1998; Stross advised readers to delete their Klout accounts and opt out of Klout services.
Ben Rothke concluded that “Klout has its work cut out and it seems like they need to be in beta a while longer. Klout can and should be applauded for trying to measure this monstrosity called social influence; but their results of influence should in truth, carry very little influence.”
Klout was criticised for the opacity of their methodology. While it was claimed that advanced machine learning techniques were used, leveraging network theory, Sean Golliher analysed Klout scores of Twitter users and found that the simple logarithm of the number of followers was sufficient to explain 95% of the variance. In November 2015 Klout released an academic paper discussing their methodology at the IEEE BigData 2015 Conference.
In spite of the controversy, some employers made hiring decisions based on Klout scores. As reported in an article for Wired, a man recruited for a VP position with fifteen years of experience consulting for companies including America Online, Ford and Kraft was eliminated as a candidate specifically because of his Klout score, which at the time was 34, in favour of a candidate with a score of 67.