piwik is an open source (GPL license) web analytics software. It gives interesting reports on your website visitors, your popular pages, the search engines keywords they used, the language they speak… and so much more.
piwik aims to be an open source alternative to Google Analytics.
Behavioral Targeting and Contextual Advertising
Is online advertising undergoing a “rebirth”? Some might argue it is, first spurred on by paid search advertising then by contextual and adware placements. Now there is another “new” game in town, if the buzz-o-meter is any indication. While not altogether new, behavioral advertising is getting more play than ever, perhaps because it’s now being married with every marketer’s favorite word: targeting.
Is behavioral targeting really all that? Let’s take a closer look.
The Process
One basic premise in marketing is that to more effectively sell your product or service, you should understand how your customers’ minds work. What do they like to see? What do they want to hear? What do they like to do? And can you determine these things with as little time and money as possible? Now there technologies that *can* easily establish these answers quickly and effectively to give you an at-a-glance picture of behavioral targeting to these consumers.
Behavioral targeting technologies work by anonymously monitoring and tracking the content read and sites visted by a designated unique user or IP as that user surfs the Internet. This is done by serving tracking codes, which are implemented as cookies, on a user’s computer as s/he is served ads from various online advertising networks. Sites visited, content viewed, and length of visit are then all databased and analyzed to predict an online behavioral pattern for such a user, thereby classifying that user by his/her online demographic. Behavioral ad networks then serve targeted advertising related to that user’s behavioral classification, regardless of where s/he then visit.
For example, if a computer user frequents sites such as SlashDot, Maxim Online, Wired, and Men’s Health, behavioral targeting would classify such a user as a male, with interest in technology. When behavioral targeting advertising companies such as Tacoda or 24/7 serves ads on such sites, their ads place behavior targeting cookies on the user’s computer. Then, if that same user later visits a site with ads served by these networks, an advertisement might be served for shaving cream or even a tech job site (especially if the user is reading the news online during regular work hours). If that user becomes target to a behavioral advertising, he may be served a series of the same ad campaign across various sites, all without his awareness of the targeting going on around him.
The concept of strategy has been borrowed from the military and adapted for use in business. A review of what noted writers about business strategy have to say suggests that adopting the concept was easy because the adaptation required has been modest. In business, as in the military, strategy bridges the gap between policy and tactics. Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap between ends and means. This paper reviews various definitions of strategy for the purpose of clarifying the concept and placing it in context. The author's aim is to make the concepts of policy, strategy, tactics, ends, and means more useful to those who concern themselves with these matters..
Strategy is a term that comes from the Greek strategia, meaning "generalship." In the military, strategy often refers to maneuvering troops into position before the enemy is actually engaged. In this sense, strategy refers to the deployment of troops. Once the enemy has been engaged, attention shifts to tactics. Here, the employment of troops is central. Substitute "resources" for troops and the transfer of the concept to the business world begins to take form.
Strategy also refers to the means by which policy is effected, accounting for Clauswitz’ famous statement that war is the continuation of political relations via other means. Given the centuries-old military origins of strategy, it seems sensible to begin our examination of strategy with the military view. For that, there is no better source than B. H. Liddell Hart.
In his book, Strategy [1], Liddell Hart examines wars and battles from the time of the ancient Greeks through World War II. He concludes that Clausewitz’ definition of strategy as "the art of the employment of battles as a means to gain the object of war" is seriously flawed in that this view of strategy intrudes upon policy and makes battle the only means of achieving strategic ends. Liddell Hart observes that Clausewitz later acknowledged these flaws and then points to what he views as a wiser definition of strategy set forth by Moltke: "the practical adaptation of the means placed at a general’s disposal to the attainment of the object in view." In Moltke's formulation, military strategy is clearly a means to political ends.
Concluding his review of wars, policy, strategy and tactics, Liddell Hart arrives at this short definition of strategy: "the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfil the ends of policy." Deleting the word "military" from Liddell Hart’s definition makes it easy to export the concept of strategy to the business world. That brings us to one of the people considered by many to be the father of strategic planning in the business world: George Steiner.
George Steiner, a professor of management and one of the founders of The California Management Review, is generally considered a key figure in the origins and development of strategic planning. His book, Strategic Planning [2], is close to being a bible on the subject. Yet, Steiner does not bother to define strategy except in the notes at the end of his book. There, he notes that strategy entered the management literature as a way of referring to what one did to counter a competitor’s actual or predicted moves. Steiner also points out in his notes that there is very little agreement as to the meaning of strategy in the business world. Some of the definitions in use to which Steiner pointed include the following:
Steiner was writing in 1979, at roughly the mid-point of the rise of strategic planning. Perhaps the confusion surrounding strategy contributed to the demise of strategic planning in the late 1980s. The rise and subsequent fall of strategic planning brings us to Henry Mintzberg.
Henry Mintzberg, in his 1994 book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning [3], points out that people use "strategy" in several different ways, the most common being these four:
Mintzberg argues that strategy emerges over time as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality. Thus, one might start with a perspective and conclude that it calls for a certain position, which is to be achieved by way of a carefully crafted plan, with the eventual outcome and strategy reflected in a pattern evident in decisions and actions over time. This pattern in decisions and actions defines what Mintzberg called "realized" or emergent strategy.
Mintzberg’s typology has support in the earlier writings of others concerned with strategy in the business world, most notably, Kenneth Andrews, a Harvard Business School professor and for many years editor of the Harvard Business Review.
Kenneth Andrews presents this lengthy definition of strategy in his book, The Concept of Corporate Strategy [4]:
"Corporate strategy is the pattern [italics added] of decisions in a company that determines and reveals its objectives, purposes, or goals, produces the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals, and defines the range of business the company is to pursue, the kind of economic and human organization it is or intends to be, and the nature of the economic and non-economic contribution it intends to make to its shareholders, employees, customers, and communities. (pp.18-19)."
Andrew’s definition obviously anticipates Mintzberg’s attention to pattern, plan, and perspective. Andrews also draws a distinction between "corporate strategy," which determines the businesses in which a company will compete, and "business strategy," which defines the basis of competition for a given business. Thus, he also anticipated "position" as a form of strategy. Strategy as the basis for competition brings us to another Harvard Business School professor, Michael Porter, the undisputed guru of competitive strategy.
In a 1996 Harvard Business Review article [5] and in an earlier book [6], Porter argues that competitive strategy is "about being different." He adds, "It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value." In short, Porter argues that strategy is about competitive position, about differentiating yourself in the eyes of the customer, about adding value through a mix of activities different from those used by competitors. In his earlier book, Porter defines competitive strategy as "a combination of the ends (goals) for which the firm is striving and the means (policies) by which it is seeking to get there." Thus, Porter seems to embrace strategy as both plan and position. (It should be noted that Porter writes about competitive strategy, not about strategy in general.)
In Top Management Strategy [7], Benjamin Tregoe and John Zimmerman, of Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., define strategy as "the framework which guides those choices that determine the nature and direction of an organization." Ultimately, this boils down to selecting products (or services) to offer and the markets in which to offer them. Tregoe and Zimmerman urge executives to base these decisions on a single "driving force" of the business. Although there are nine possible driving forces, only one can serve as the basis for strategy for a given business. The nine possibilities are listed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems Tregoe and Zimmerman take the position that strategy is essentially a matter of perspective.
Michel Robert takes a similar view of strategy in, Strategy Pure & Simple [8], where he argues that the real issues are "strategic management" and "thinking strategically." For Robert, this boils down to decisions pertaining to four factors:
|
|
|
|
Like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that decisions about which products and services to offer, the customers to be served, the market segments in which to operate, and the geographic areas of operations should be made on the basis of a single "driving force." Again, like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that several possible driving forces exist but only one can be the basis for strategy. The 10 driving forces cited by Robert are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notion of restricting the basis on which strategy might be formulated has been carried one step farther by Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema, authors of The Discipline of Market Leaders [9]. In the Harvard Business Review article that presaged their book [10], Treacy and Wiersema assert that companies achieve leadership positions by narrowing, not broadening their business focus. Treacy and Wiersema identify three "value-disciplines" that can serve as the basis for strategy: operational excellence, customer intimacy, and product leadership. As with driving forces, only one of these value disciplines can serve as the basis for strategy. Treacy and Wiersema’s three value disciplines are briefly defined below:
| Strategy is predicated on the production and delivery of products and services. The objective is to lead the industry in terms of price and convenience. |
| Strategy is predicated on tailoring and shaping products and services to fit an increasingly fine definition of the customer. The objective is long-term customer loyalty and long-term customer profitability. |
| Strategy is predicated on producing a continuous stream of state-of-the-art products and services. The objective is the quick commercialization of new ideas. |
Each of the three value disciplines suggests different requirements. Operational Excellence implies world-class marketing, manufacturing, and distribution processes. Customer Intimacy suggests staying close to the customer and entails long-term relationships. Product Leadership clearly hinges on market-focused R&D as well as organizational nimbleness and agility.
What, then, is strategy? Is it a plan? Does it refer to how we will obtain the ends we seek? Is it a position taken? Just as military forces might take the high ground prior to engaging the enemy, might a business take the position of low-cost provider? Or does strategy refer to perspective, to the view one takes of matters, and to the purposes, directions, decisions and actions stemming from this view? Lastly, does strategy refer to a pattern in our decisions and actions? For example, does repeatedly copying a competitor’s new product offerings signal a "me too" strategy? Just what is strategy?
Strategy is all these—it is perspective, position, plan, and pattern. Strategy is the bridge between policy or high-order goals on the one hand and tactics or concrete actions on the other. Strategy and tactics together straddle the gap between ends and means. In short, strategy is a term that refers to a complex web of thoughts, ideas, insights, experiences, goals, expertise, memories, perceptions, and expectations that provides general guidance for specific actions in pursuit of particular ends. Strategy is at once the course we chart, the journey we imagine and, at the same time, it is the course we steer, the trip we actually make. Even when we are embarking on a voyage of discovery, with no particular destination in mind, the voyage has a purpose, an outcome, an end to be kept in view.
Strategy, then, has no existence apart from the ends sought. It is a general framework that provides guidance for actions to be taken and, at the same time, is shaped by the actions taken. This means that the necessary precondition for formulating strategy is a clear and widespread understanding of the ends to be obtained. Without these ends in view, action is purely tactical and can quickly degenerate into nothing more than a flailing about.
When there are no "ends in view" for the organization writ large, strategies still exist and they are still operational, even highly effective, but for an individual or unit, not for the organization as a whole. The risks of not having a set of company-wide ends clearly in view include missed opportunities, fragmented and wasted effort, working at cross purposes, and internecine warfare. A comment from Lionel Urwick's classic Harvard Business Review article regarding the span of control is applicable here [11]:
"There is nothing which rots morale more quickly and more completely than . . . the feeling that those in authority do not know their own minds."
For the leadership of an organization to remain unclear or to vacillate regarding ends, strategy, tactics and means is to not know their own minds. The accompanying loss of morale is enormous.
One possible outcome of such a state of affairs is the emergence of a new dominant coalition within the existing authority structure of the enterprise, one that will augment established authority in articulating the ends toward which the company will strive. Also possible is the weakening of authority and the eventual collapse of the formal organization. No amount of strategizing or strategic planning will compensate for the absence of a clear and widespread understanding of the ends sought.
How does one determine, articulate and communicate company-wide ends? How does one ensure understanding and obtain commitment to these ends? The quick answers are as follows:
The ends to be obtained are determined through discussions and debates regarding the company's future in light of its current situation. Even a SWOT analysis (an assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) is conducted based on current perceptions.
The ends settled on are articulated in plain language, free from flowery words and political "spin." The risk of misdirection is too great to tolerate unfettered wordsmithing. Moreover, the ends are communicated regularly, repeatedly, through a variety of channels and avenues. There is no end to their communication.
Understanding is ensured via discussion, dialog and even debate, in a word, through conversations. These conversations are liberally sprinkled with examples, for instances, and what ifs. Initially, the CEO bears the burden of these conversations with staff. As more people come to understand and commit to the ends being sought, this communications burden can be shared with others. However, the CEO can never completely relinquish it. The CEO is the keeper of the vision and, periodically, must be seen reaffirming it.
Ultimately, the ends sought can be expressed via a scorecard or some other device for measuring and publicly reporting on company performance. Individual effort can then be assessed in light of these same ends. Suppose, for instance, that a company has these ends in mind: improved customer service and satisfaction, reduced costs, increased productivity, and increasing revenues from new products and services. It is a simple and undeniably relevant matter for managers to periodically ask the following questions of the employees reporting to them:
No matter which definition of strategy one uses, the decisions called for are the same. These decisions pertain to choices between and among products and services, customers and markets, distribution channels, technologies, pricing, and geographic operations, to name a few. What is required is a structured, disciplined, systematic way of making these decisions. Using the "driving forces" approach is one option. Choosing on the basis of "value disciplines" is another. Committing on the basis of "value-chain analysis" is yet a third. Using all three as a system of cross-checks is also a possibility.
Regardless of the definition of strategy, or the many factors affecting the choice of corporate or competitive strategy, there are some fundamental questions to be asked and answered. These include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
This paper has taken a broad, multi-faceted look at the subject of strategy. Some readers might go away disappointed that no final, unambiguous definition of strategy has been provided. The quick response is that there is none, that strategy is a broad, ambiguous topic. We must all come to our own understanding, definition, and meaning. Helping the reader do so is the chief aim of this paper.
In managerial and executive success, it is what comes after the "but" that is important. Executives are generally hard-charging drivers with rough edges. They are often not out to please people but are focused on getting things done. What does the research say about the characteristics that keep an executive in favor, even if he or she possesses some flaws or shortcomings?
"He can be awfully shrewd and is always looking for an angle, but you eventually realize that he has got the company's best interests at heart and is not looking out just for himself." And, "She can be very forward and biting with her ideas and opinions, but she is also willing to take the time to listen carefully to your point of view." Or, "He can be pretty rough on people, but underneath he is compassionate and considerate."
What comes after the "but" are called saving graces -- qualities or redeeming features that make up for other generally negative characteristics.Saving graces serve as balancers so that the driver strengths that got you where you are do not go into overdrive and damage your efforts. They also offer benefits of their own. Because many saving graces contribute to perceptions of you as someone who is trustworthy, considerate, and insightful, they can help you more easily acquire information from key people, gain access to limited resources, and navigate the bureaucracy.
The saving graces are listed in order of importance:
1. Listening: Taking the time to listen can get you out of more jams than the rest of the saving graces combined. It is the ultimate way of demonstrating that it is not all about you and your agenda, and it is an excellent tool for breaking down barriers and getting more out of what you do with others. Few executives are good listeners.
2. Approachability: The best executives need to be early knowers, especially when it comes to negative information. The best executives are easy to talk to, even when conveying or having potentially bad information conveyed to them. To be effective, approachability has to be combined with listening. Executives tend to play 20 Questions: "Where did you get the information? Who else knows? Why didn't I hear about that before?" This is not a best practice for effective executives.
3. Boss Relationships: Those who tend to venture into deep and dangerous waters find that it can be very difficult to swim alone. If you tend to stir up controversy and are quick to engage in conflict, it is helpful to have the advice and counsel of a seasoned boss who can coach you through such situations and provide some support when you falter. Making your boss successful is Job One, whether you like him or her or not.
4. Integrity and Trust: This one speaks for itself. The people you lead will often forgive a lot if they can clearly perceive that you speak the truth and are a person of your word.
5. Humor: The use of humor to make others comfortable is a useful skill. Using self-deprecating humor is one of the better techniques. It puts others at ease and makes your thoughts appear to come from someplace a little more accessible. Humor allows you to become approachable by putting others at ease when in your presence.
6. Interpersonal Savvy: Being able to relate 360 degrees is important. Finding a way to make a connection with individuals up and down the chain and inside and outside the organization gives you something to rely on when things are not going so well. Diplomacy, tact, and knowing what to say and when to say it can take the tension out of situations and make unpopular decisions and unfortunate mistakes easier to deal with.
7. Understanding Others: The focus here is on groups rather than individuals. Understanding others is about knowing what makes one group different from another and why that matters. This is more difficult to master than listening, but learning to identify what is important to a group and why is often the key for gaining buy-in and knowing how to lead through difficult situations.
Saving graces are not the fire extinguisher you pull out in the case of emergency, but are more the trusty life preserver you should wear at all times, in calm waters and rough seas. Saving graces lead to longer tenure and staying power when coupled with the power skills like drive, strategy, results, and power. They can compensate for mistakes that would get those people who don't possess them into trouble. They smooth out the rough edges and can help smooth over rough situations.
