Facebook is set to fight fake news by using artificial intelligence. A good way to practice may be by playing a bit more around with their geolocation intelligence.
Today I, as far as I know, are on the Canary Islands. This is a part of Spain, though a little bit away from the motherland down the Atlantic Ocean off the North African coast. A main town on the islands is called Las Palmas.
However, according to Facebook I seem to be in a place called Las Palmas Subdivision on Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean on the other side of the globe with Hawaii being a bit away from where it were last time I looked on a map.
Master Data Management (MDM) is increasingly being about supporting systems of engagement in addition to the traditional role of supporting systems of record. This topic was first examined on this blog back in 2012 in the post called Social MDM and Systems of Engagement.
The best known systems of engagement are social networks where the leaders are Facebook for engagement with persons in the private sphere and LinkedIn for engagement with people working in or for one or several companies.
But what about engagement between companies? Though you can argue that all (soft) engagement is neither business-to-consumer (B2C) nor business-to-business (B2B) but human-to-human (H2H), there are some hard engagement going on between companies.
One of the most important ones is exchange of product information between manufacturers, distributors, resellers and large end users of product information. And that is not going very well today. Either it is based on fluffy emailing of spreadsheets or using rigid data pools and portals. So there are definitely room for improvement here.
A big talk in the media in Denmark this weekend is the story about that a little harbor restaurant specializing in serving fish has been denied continuing using the name Jensens Fiskerestaurant (Jensen’s Fish Restaurant in English). A lower court has earlier disallowed the name Jensens Fiskehus (Jensen’s Fish House in English).
The opponent is a large restaurant chain called Jensen’s Bøfhus (Jensen’s Beef House in English).
This has brought a so called shitstorm over the restaurant chain in social media, not at least on Facebook. Jensen is the most common surname in Denmark. A bit more than a quarter of a million people, which is 5 percent of the population, are called Jensen. So how can a big chain be the only one allowed to use the name Jensen for a restaurant?
PS: I remember this nasty restaurant chain name from when I coded name parsing routines in the old days. “Jensen’s Bøfhus” initially came out as “S. Bøfhus Jensen”. Some of the remedy was to apply external reference data to name parsing as checking if a business entity with a similar name exists on the address.
When I changed my laptop a few months ago, it was the easiest migration to a new computer ever.
Basically I just had to connect to all the services in the cloud I had been using before and for many services the path was to get connected to Google+, Twitter and FaceBook and then connect to many other services via these connections.
This was a personal win.
Most of the teams I am working with are sharing their data with me in the cloud. As in the bad old days I do not have to call and ask for progress on this and that. I can check the status myself and even get notifications on my phablet when a colleague completes a task.
This is a shared win.
Within my profession being data quality improvement and Master Data Management (MDM) sharing data is going to be a winning path too as told in the post Sharing is the Future of MDM.
There are several ways of sharing master data like using commercial third party data, digging into open government data, having your own data locker and relying on social collaboration. These options are examined in the post Ways of Sharing Master Data.
Identity resolution is a hot potato when we look into how we can exploit big data and within that frame not at least social data.
Some of the most frequent mentioned use cases for big data analytics revolves around listening to social data streams and combine that with traditional sources within customer intelligence. In order to do that we need to know about who is talking out there and that must be done by using identity resolution features encompassing social networks.
The second challenge is what we are allowed to do. Social networks have a natural interest in protecting member’s privacy besides they also have a commercial interest in doing so. The degree of privacy protection varies between social networks. Twitter is quite open but on the other hand holds very little usable stuff for identity resolution as well as sense making from the streams is an issue. Networks as Facebook and LinkedIn are, for good reasons, not so easy to exploit due to the (chancing) game rules applied.
The article is about the implications for marketing caused by the rise of social media which now finally seems to eliminate what we have known as business-to-business (B2B) and more or less merges B2B and business-to-consumer (B2C).
As discussed here on the blog several times starting way back in 2009 in the post Echoes in the Database a problem with B2B indeed is that while business transactions takes place between legal entities a lot of business processes are done between employees related to the selling and buying entities. You may call that employee-to-employee (E2E), people-to-people (P2P) or indeed human-to-human (H2H).
Related to databases, data quality and Master Data Management (MDM) this means we need real world alignment with two kinds of parties:
While B2B and B2C may melt together in the way we do messaging the distinction between B2B and B2C will be there in many other aspects. Even in social media we see it as for example two of the most used social networks being FaceBook and LinkedIn clearly belongs mainly to B2C and B2B respectively for marketing and social selling purposes.