March 15, 2009
1.the act or process of physically harming team members during a web project.
2. found in nature – response between sales and marketing teams during an annual planning process.
2.a painful product resulting from collaboration: A dictionary is a collaboration of many minds, a web project is a clobberation of many web developers.
December 20, 2008
–noun, plural -dos, -does.
- An indirect, covert or artful suggestion or hinting, as of something implied involving the slanderous art or power of stealing into the affections and pleasing; ingratiation:intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.
- Archaic. a slow winding, worming, or pleasing in.
- Obsolete. an ingratiating act or speech given to one of the opposite sex.
- (in an action for slander or libel) the explanation and elucidation of the words alleged to be defamatory, in particular if the stealing of affections was perceived as less than pleasing by the party of the first.
- A poor parenthetic explanation or specification in a pleading.
March 18, 2008
(be-hav-ior-al de-cay) A new term that describes the rate at which a behaviorally targeted experience becomes irrelevant to the recipient. This rate is affected by the perceived value of the targeted experience, the perceived value of the desired outcome, and the degree of consideration involved with the activity.
When developing a targeting campaign, consider the lifespan you should attach to any given experience. Delivering a targeted experience beyond the user determined expectation for that message is not a positive to the recipient, and very well may be a negative.
March 10, 2008
I’ve read articles and blog replies where others try to distinguish between the terms personalization and targeting, referring to personalization as one-to-one and targeting as one-to-many. As a person who has actually created terms and pioneered strategy in this marketplace, I see the two as more or less synonymous with far fewer distinguishing dimensions than others see.
While trying to create a communications strategy for Kefta’s multi-channel personalization solutions, we determined early on that we wanted to distance ourselves from the failed software based personalization solutions of the late ’90s. They were an expensive, IT driven failure. The key failure was that they were too “heavy” a solution to ever get off of the ground. From a marketing strategy perspective, they were a failure because they relied upon users to self express differences before they could start targeting content, and they simply served a different message, as if that was supposed to be better than the original message.
Targeting became a term that was descriptive yet avoided a reference to the prior perceived failures of what was called personalization in the late ’90s. Using this learning as a guidepost, we landed on “dynamic targeting”. Prior to our use of this term, little was used with reference to targeting and no one in the online marketing space had ever used the combined term “dynamic targeting”.
Today, few people use the term personalization as a description of a type of technology. It’s more frequently used as describing a type of experience, leveraging the term personal. Beyond that, personalization has been a dead term and trying to describe it beyond it’s prior history is futile.
Love to hear your thoughts –