Brian McManus - Under Armour

I definitely enjoyed each of the presentations this semester, but my favorite presenter was Brian McManus from Under Armour. Part of the reason that I chose Brian as my favorite presenter is the fact that he works for Under Armour, which made the discussions more interesting on a personal level since I am a UA customer. Also, I found it more engaging to hear from a professional who works for an organization that I am familiar and can identify with. I realize that all of the presenters work for highly reputable companies, but the only company that I can actually remember while writing this blog is Under Armour. I think that familiarity made it easier to identify and understand the subjects that Brian presented in class.

One of the main points that Brian discussed was regarding brand recognition. I found it interesting to learn how much time and resources the company dedicates to researching consumer buying patterns online. Under Armour has certainly embraced Web 2.0 technologies as evidenced by their interactive website. However, I think that one of the most beneficial aspects of their business, besides offering great products, is how they have successfully established a presence on multiple sales platforms. By offering their products in stores, online, and through catalogs, Under Armour has covered three of the major channels to attract consumers to purchase their products.

Something that Brian McManus said during his presentation peaked my interest enough that I had to check out Under Armour’s website when I got home. Brian spoke about a new interactive technology available on their website that allowed users to create a personalized workout routine, and watch videos that gave detailed instruction on how to perform the various exercises. I think this feature is a great way to utilize Web 2.0 technology to attract people to the UA website. Many other websites offer workout routines that are created by trainers or enthusiasts, but UA has created a unique advantage in allowing their users to customize a workout routine to fit their own personal goals.

Another point of Brian’s presentation that I found very interesting was the detail to which Under Armour tracks customers as they click their way through the UA website. It is obvious that UA dedicates a significant budget to researching online trends and optimizing their website accordingly. For example, I recall that the most popular UA advertisements, or those that were most likely to be clicked on, were positioned in a place on the screen that was most efficient given the tendency of how our eyes scan the screen.

Web 2.0 Apps for Loyola

One concept that I’ve heard repeated multiple times in this class is the importance of incorporating Web 2.0 technologies in the business environment. In his presentation, Mike Abbaei reiterated this fact and described in greater detail the development cycle associated with implementing a Web 2.0 application. One of the major points that Mike emphasized was that all new products must go through the same development cycle. This is especially important considering that many Web 2.0 applications are created by software technology companies then sold to individual businesses for implementation. The potential danger in this process is that companies run the risk of implementing Web 2.0 apps without first completing the necessary ‘requirements’ and ‘analysis’ phase of the development life cycle. Web 2.0 apps can certainly help a company to cut costs or increase revenue, but they should not be used as a shortcut or implemented without performing due diligence.

I thought it was beneficial to hear Mike’s presentation at the end of the semester because he wrapped up many of the ideas and concepts that were introduced in previous presentations. However, I think that Mike spoke more about the importance of the ability to share information throughout an organization than the other presenters. I think that the ability of an organization to share information in real time has been one of the primary struggles for many companies in today’s marketplace, and Loyola College is a prime example. I found the exercise of listing all the desirable Loyola College web apps to be very interesting, and it provided a sense of just how large of a scope Web 2.0 apps can provide.

Web 2.0 applications can be a very advantageous aspect of today’s companies which operate in an economy that thrives on technology. As important as I believe technology is to an organization, I think it’s always more important to first understand the business model and the needs of the business. Having a solid understanding of the business from both an operational and technology perspective will help the organization to create value when developing new products.

Social Networking from the Workplace

I recently read an article which discussed the security issues around accessing Web 2.0 technologies from the workplace. The article focused on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, and explained how these sites can allow viruses to infect a company’s corporate network. The author also raised the question that if companies are blocking access to social networking sites, will that affect the type of people who want to work for that firm? I found this to be a very intriguing question as the article identified young professionals in particular, who have already established an online social network prior to beginning their professional career. So, would the fact that a company blocks access to certain social networking sites influence a candidate’s decision to accept a job offer? And if the answer is yes, is restricting access to these sites the right thing for a company to do?

The younger generation can be identified by their acceptable and borderline obsession with social networking sites. Many young adults habitually view sites like Facebook and MySpace multiple times throughout the day, including while at work. Although the primary purpose of social networking sites is to stay connected with family and friends, they also offer a network of people who are willing to provide their assistance when called upon. I think that most companies could actually benefit by allowing their employees to access social networking sites from the workplace.

The advantage of social networking sites is that they provide a broad range of personal resources. These are the type of resources that can be beneficial, even when relied upon in a corporate setting. I realize that social networking sites can make a company vulnerable to viruses and malware, but they can also provide their employees with a pool of additional resources. In addition, by the time current students are ready to enter the corporate world, online social networking will be so ingrained into their culture that a work environment which prohibits these sites will seem completely unattractive. Therefore, companies have several ways to view this dilemma. First, from the perspective of maintaining security around their corporate network. And second, from the perspective of their employees, current and potential, and how they view a company that is committed to block access to social networking sites. Hopefully, a company can find a compromise somewhere in between.

http://securitywatch.eweek.com/virus_and_spyware/is_anybody_watching.html

Offering Web 2.0 Technolgies

In response to Dwight Gibbs’ presentation last week, I thought it was interesting how much emphasis he routinely placed on the customer. Dwight made it a point to discuss the various channels that companies can utilize to reach their customers. However, he also stressed the importance of allowing the customer to choose how they want to access the information. Different channels of information can include a website, blog, e-mail, social network, mobile updates, etc. Considering all of the available Web 2.0 technologies, it is not realistic to expect customers to rely on just one. Therefore, in order for companies to be successful in today’s market, they need to have a presence in all of the Web 2.0 technologies.

I think it’s important for any start-up company to develop a business model that incorporates multiple channels of Web 2.0 technology. Refusing to adapt to new technology is the reason that many established companies are going out of business. The economy is experiencing a shift in thinking that is now focusing more on the needs of the consumer. For many consumers, the advancement of technology means more convenience for them. And convenience is something that companies must cater to or pay the price later. Convenience can be in the form of simple features such as online help manuals or online representatives who answer questions in real time.

If companies do not offer their customers the conveniences that they desire, then they risk receiving negative feedback that could be detrimental to the company. In the past, unsatisfied consumers did not have an accessible outlet to voice their disappointment. However, now that consumers can utilize blogs and social networking sites, it has become very easy to post experiences about a company or product for the entire Internet population to read. For this reason, companies are focusing on customer service now more than ever. Because what’s better than a company promoting their own exceptional customer service…having satisfied customers blog about their positive experiences.

Of course people are more likely to post about their negative experiences than positive ones. To combat this fact many companies dedicate resources to scour the Internet searching for potentially harmful posts about the company. Once a negative post is discovered, the company has the opportunity to contact the dissatisfied person and offer them personalized customer service to amend the situation.

Blogs

So many people have personal blogs these days, but who really has the time to follow all these blogs? I can certainly understand following blogs of interesting people like athletes, musicians, actors, politicians, CEO’s, etc., but what about following ordinary people? I mean, how much do we really need to follow the lives of other people? Even if my family and friends write blogs, I’m probably not going to read them on a regular basis. If something spectacular happens (i.e. engagement, baby, promotion, etc.) in your life and you want all of your friends to hear about, then send a text message or e-mail. Personally, I’m a thousand times more likely to read your text message then your blog. Now that I’ve addressed the point of who’s reading blogs, who has the time to continuously update their blog? I know that I don’t live the most interesting or demanding life, but even I find it difficult to find the time to post two Web 2.0 blogs a week. With the growing popularity of Facebook and Twitter, blogs should become obsolete in the not-so-distant future.

So, that’s why I dislike the idea of blogging, but here’s why I can still understand why people continue to blog - to get paid. Specifically, Google AdSense is a program which allows bloggers to handpick advertisements to display on their website. AdSense was one of the very intriguing ideas that Eric Bosco presented in last week’s class. Realizing the potential for blogs to make money helps me to understand why regular people sustain blogs - for the advertising revenue. Who wouldn’t want to get paid for summarizing their daily life on a website? That’s what I like to call easy money.

The advantage of Google AdSense is that it allows users to choose ads relevant to their website’s content. Money is earned any time someone clicks on an ad from your website. Therefore, for any blogger with a loyal following it seems like a no-brainer to take advantage of AdSense. AdSense is a free program and it grants users access to all of the advertisements available through Google’s network. I still don’t advocate blogging unless you qualify as one interesting people as defined above, but if you’re determined to blog then at least try to make a quick buck by posting advertisements through AdSense.

Banner Ads

In response to Eric Bosco’s presentation last week, I’ve been considering just how effective online advertisements really are. The easiest way for me to evaluate the benefit of online ads is to monitor how often I’m inclined to click on them. Granted this is not a significant sample size, but it should prove a point for my personal analysis. I have one general rule which is very simple to follow. Don’t click on any suspicious or unfamiliar banner ad, period. Of course there are exceptions to this rule. But for the most part, I associate clicking on banner ads to making impulse purchases while standing at the checkout line of the grocery store. Some people will fall victim to an impulse buy every time they go shopping, while other people can control their urges to buy impulse items. In this sense, I like to be in complete control my urges and temptations to click on banner advertisements.

There are several reasons that I rarely choose to click on banner ads. The primary reason is that if I don’t know the source, then I don’t trust the source. The majority of online ads seem too good to be true. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve seen a banner ad that congratulated me for being the one millionth viewer or somehow an instant winner and all I have to do is click on the ad to claim my prize. These ads certainly seem too good to be true, and as a result don’t ever merit a click to claim my reward. Now, this makes me wonder just how many people are actually clicking on these banner ads to make them profitable enough to exist. In addition, does anyone ever collect on the prize?

Given the reasons that I don’t click on banner ads, there are some cases when I just can’t help myself. Let me preface this by stating that I’m only inclined to click on an advertisement of a company that I’m familiar with, such as Under Armour or Nike. These banner ads quickly attract my attention because I assume they are more legitimate than the ‘click here to win a free flat screen TV’ advertisement. If clicking on an Under Armour ad does not direct me to the UA website, I’ll abandon my search immediately. I think that most people have become cautious of online advertisements because of the countless horror stories about people having their identity stolen, credit card information compromised, or computer infected with a virus.

E-filing Tax Returns

E-filing your taxes isn’t exactly a Web 2.0 technology, but it’s so much more convenient than manually filing paper returns that it deserves some recognition. Before I get into everything that’s great about e-filing I found an article that focused on a problem related to e-filing, which is the issue of IRS compliance. Currently, only a low level of compliance is required for tax preparation software, like TurboTax, TaxCut, and TaxAct. Yet it wasn’t surprising to hear that nearly 60 percent of all tax returns in 2007 were filed electronically. So, the potential and demand for improvement certainly exists for tax preparation software.

There are some obvious advantages to filing your tax returns electronically as opposed to manual paper returns. In doing some quick research I discovered that electronic returns have a higher accuracy rate than manually prepared returns, take half the time to process, and are cheaper to process. So, it seems that they benefit the individual as well as the government.

Currently, the IRS is pushing to increase compliance regulations for tax preparation software. Under the existing regulations, the IRS only requires tax software to pass the Participant Acceptance Testing System, which is a fancy way of saying that everything must add up correctly. The hopes are that by next year’s tax filing deadline a formal system will be implemented to monitor compliance and the accuracy of software guidance for users.

This year tax preparation software ranged from $25 to $150, so we may experience a price increase if the IRS requires stricter compliance within the industry. I could potentially view this as being a good or bad change. It’s good in the sense that increased compliance should mean more accurate tax returns. However, it’s bad in the sense that consumers really don’t have a comparable alternative to purchasing the software packages. In other words, I’m likely to pay whatever price TurboTax decides to charge for their product/service, because the alternative is completing my tax returns manually, which I’ve never done before and never intend on doing.