We had a few unanswered questions left from our webinar on Tuesday, so I’ve included the ones that were not related to Pega’s products below, with answers from both Emily Burns and myself:

There’s a lot of discussion about the readiness of an org before social features are introduced to its employees. What would be a way to assess maturity/readiness of an org for such features with regards to BPM?

Emily: Boy, I guess I am on the more liberal side of that discussion and would err on the side of providing access to these features and seeing how they evolve—collective intelligence is pretty impressive, and can take things in many positive directions that a designer just wouldn’t think of. It’s hard for me to see the downside to fostering better communication and collaboration between people who are already working on the same cases, but may not currently be aware of who the other people are.

Sandy: There is a lot of work being done on social business readiness by organizations such as the Social Business Council (http://council.dachisgroup.com/) that can serve as a reference for how that will work with social features in BPM. In assessing readiness, you can look at the use of other social tools within the organization, such as wikis for documentation, or instant messaging for chat, to get an idea of whether the users have been provided with tools such as this in the past. However, just because they haven’t used these in the workplace before is no reason to avoid social BPM functions since users may be using similar capabilities in consumer applications, and as Emily points out, the best thing is to provide them with the tools and see what emerges.

Emily: For features that impact the application more, such as design-by-doing, that I think is an area that does need careful consideration. In the case of design-by-doing, more often than not, that is something that is limited only to certain roles, and even then, while the default is to allow the new type of case to be instantly in production, in reality, most of our clients use it more as a way of gathering suggestions for application improvements. As it becomes more widely used, and best practices developed around governance, I expect this type of thing to be used more aggressively to foster the kind of real-time adaptation for which it was conceived.

Sandy: Although many organizations are worried about users “going wild” with collaborative and social tools, the opposite is often true: it is more difficult to get users to participate unless they can see a clear personal benefit, such as being able to get their job done better or more efficiently. This may require creating some rewards specifically geared at users who are taking advantage of the social tools, in order to help motivate the process.

While the knowledge that we can glean from social networking sites is indeed powerful, and allows us to serve up tailored offers, it can also irritate some customers, or seem “creepy” like it’s a bit of an invasion of privacy.

Emily: I totally agree, and am just such a customer. In fact, I won’t go to a company’s Facebook page unless I am logged out of Facebook, because I don’t want them to know anything about me, nor do I want my friends to know about my interactions with different companies. In order to get around this sort of stone-walling, there are a few things that organizations can do.

1. Make the content and actions that can be performed from your Facebook page sufficiently compelling that you overcome this resistance.
2. DON’T BE SNEAKY! Do not default settings to “post to my wall” so that all of a client’s friends see that she just applied for a new credit card. Be frank and up front about any information that might be broadcast, and about how you are using the information that they have so graciously allowed you to access by virtue of logging in via Facebook. If you want to give people the option of posting something, make sure they are forced to make the choice. And make it transparent and easy to change settings in the future. This will help you gain trust and increase the uptake of these low-cost, highly viral channels.

Sandy: I completely agree – transparency is the key here for organizations starting on a social media path. Anything less than complete transparency about what you’re doing with the consumer’s information – including their actions on your site – will be exposed in the full glare of public scrutiny on the web when people discover it. Accept, however, that there is a wide range of social behavior for customers: some want to be seen to be associated with your product or brand, and will “Like” your Facebook page or check-in on Foursquare at your location, whereas others will not want that information to be publicized in any way.

Do you think there is a trust built up yet for customers to interact with companies via social as yet?

Emily: See my response above. I think that in many cases, organizations have started out on the wrong foot, taking advantage of how easily available the information is to really milk it for all its worth. The fact that many of the social networking sites had low-granularity privacy settings initially made it so that this wasn’t entirely the fault of the different organizations, either. Because of this, and in light of continually improving granularity and control over privacy settings, I think now is a time to try to re-establish trust, and establish what it means to be a good “social” corporate citizen.

Sandy: Social media is becoming a powerful channel for customer interaction, particularly in situations where the company is monitoring Twitter and Facebook updates to track any problems that customers are experiencing. From my own personal experience (and in part because I have a large Twitter following and use my real name on Twitter), I have had near-immediate responses to problems that I Tweeted about hotels, car rentals and train travel. In some cases, the social media wasn’t necessarily well-integrated with the rest of their customer service channel, but when it is well-integrated, it’s a very satisfying customer experience for someone like me with a strong social media focus. There are initiatives to create the type of trusted online behavior that we would all like to see, such as the Respect Trust Framework; early days for these, but we’ll see more organizations adopt this as customers insist on their online rights.

I’ve also included my slides below, although not Emily’s deck. I’ll update this post with the link to the webinar replay when it is available.

When I owned a boutique consulting firm in the 1990’s, our catchphrase was “Making Technology Mean Business”, and when we were coming up with a title for the webinar that I’m doing with Pegasystems next week, an updated version of that phrase just seemed to fit. We’ll be discussing the social aspects of business processes, particularly in the context of case management. I’ll be expanding on a discussion point from my Changing Nature of Work keynote at BPM 2011 to discuss the social dimension and how that correlates with structure (i.e., a priori modeling), triggered in part by some of the discussion that arose from that presentation. As with the spectrum of structure, I believe that there’s a spectrum of socialness in business processes: some processes are just inherently more social than others (or can benefit from social features).

Interested? The webinar is on Tuesday at 11am Eastern, and you can register here.

I just found a short article that I wrote for Savvion (now part of Progress Software) dated November 21, 2006, and decided to post it with some updated commentary on the 5th anniversary of the original paper. Enjoy!

Emerging trends in BPM
What happened in 2006, and what’s ahead in 2007

The BPM market continues to evolve, and although 2006 has seen some major events, there will be even more in 2007. This column takes a high-level view of four areas of ongoing significant change in BPM: the interrelationship between SOA and BPM; BPM standards; the spread of process modeling tools; and the impact of Web 2.0 on BPM.

SOA and BPM, together at last. A year ago, many CIOs couldn’t even spell SOA, much less understand what it could do for them. Now, Service-Oriented Architecture and BPM are seen as two ends of the spectrum of integration technologies that many organizations are using as an essential backbone for business agility.

SOA is the architectural philosophy of exposing functionality from a variety of systems as reusable services with standardized interfaces; these, in turn, can be orchestrated into higher-level services, or consumed by other services and applications. BPM systems consume the services from the SOA environment and add in any required human interaction to create a complete business process.

As with every year for the last several years, 2006 has seen ongoing industry consolidation, particularly with vendors seeking to bring SOA and BPM together in their product portfolios. This trend will continue as SOA and BPM become fully recognized as being two essential parts of any organization’s process improvement strategy.

There has certainly been consolidation in the BPM vendor portfolios, especially the integration vendors adding better human-centric capabilities through acquisitions: Oracle acquired BEA in 2008, IBM acquired Lombardi in 2009, Progress acquired Savvion in 2010, and TIBCO acquired Nimbus in 2011. Although BPM is being used in some cases to orchestrate and integrate systems using services, this is still quite a green field for many organizations who have implemented BPM but are still catching up on exposing services from their legacy applications, and orchestrating those with BPM.

BPM standards. 2006 was the year that the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN), a notational standard for the graphical representation of process models, went mainstream. Version 2 of the standard was released, and every major BPM vendor is providing some way for their users to make use of the BPMN standard, whether it’s through a third-party modeling tool or directly in their own process modelers.

But BPMN isn’t the only standard that gained importance this year. 2006 also saw the widespread adoption of XPDL (XML Process Definition Language) by BPM vendors as an interchange format: once a process is modeled in BPMN, it’s saved in the XPDL file format to move from one system to another. A possible competitor to XPDL, the Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM) had its first draft release this year, but we won’t know the impact of this until later in 2007. On the SOA side, the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL), a service orchestration language, is now widely accepted as an interchange format, if not a full execution standard.

The adoption of BPM standards is critical as we consider how to integrate multiple tools and multiple processes to run our businesses. There’s no doubt that BPMN will remain the predominant standard for the graphical representation of process models, but 2007 could hold an interesting battle between XPDL, BPDM and BPEL as serialization formats.

The “Version 2” that I referred to was actually the second released version of the BPMN standard, but the actual version number was 1.1. That battle for serialization formats still goes on: most vendors support XPDL (and will continue to do so) but are also starting to support the (finally released) BPMN file format as well. BPDM disappeared somewhere in the early days of BPMN 2.0. BPEL is used as a serialization and interchange format primarily between systems that use BPEL as their core execution language, which are a minority in the broader BPMS space.

Modeling for the masses. In March of 2006, Savvion released the latest version of their free, downloadable process modeler: an application that anyone, not just Savvion customers, could download, install and run on their desktop without requiring access to a server. This concept, pioneered by Savvion in 2004, lowers the barrier significantly for process modeling and allows anyone to get started creating process models and finding improvements to their processes.

Unlike generic modeling tools like Microsoft Visio, a purpose-built process modeler can enforce process standards, such as BPMN, and can partially validate the process models before they are even imported into a process server for implementation. It can also provide functionality such as process simulation, which is essential to determining improvements to the process.

2006 saw other BPM vendors start to copy this initiative, and we can expect more in the months to come.

Free or low-cost process modelers have proliferated: there are web-based tools, downloadable applications and Visio BPMN add-ons that have made process modeling accessible – at least financially – to the masses. The problem continues to be that many people using the process modeling tools lack the analysis skills to do significant process optimization (or even, in some cases, representation of an event-driven process): the hype about having all of your business users modeling your business processes has certainly exceeded the reality.

Web 2.0 hits BPM. Web 2.0, a set of technologies and concepts embodied within the next generation of internet software, is beginning to impact enterprise software, too.

Web 2.0 is causing changes in BPM by pushing the requirement for zero-footprint, platform-independent, rich user interfaces, typically built using AJAX (Asynchronous Java and XML). Although browser-based interfaces for executing processes have been around for many years in BPM, the past year has seen many of these converted to AJAX for a lightweight interface with both functionality and speed.

There are two more Web 2.0 characteristics that I think we’re going to start seeing in BPM in 2007: tagging and process syndication. Tagging would allow anyone to add freeform keywords to a process instance (for example, one that required special handling) to make it easier to find that instance in the future by searching on the keywords. Process event syndication would allow internal and external process participants to “subscribe” to a process, and feed that process’ events into a standard feed reader in order to monitor the process, thereby improving visibility into the process through the use of existing feed technologies such as RSS (Really Simple Syndication).

Bringing Web 2.0 to BPM will require a few changes to corporate culture, especially those parts that require different – and more creative – types of end-user participation. As more people at all levels in the organization participate in all facets of process improvement, however, the value of this democratization of business processes will become clear.

I’ve been writing and presenting about the impact of social software on BPM for over five years now; adoption has been slower than I predicted, although process syndication (subscribing to a process’ events) has finally become mainstream. Tagging of processes is just starting to emerge; I’ve seen it in BonitaSoft but few other places.

I rarely do year-end prediction posts, but it was fun to look back at one that I did five years ago to see how well I did.

I’m pretty active on social media: primarily, I blog and tweet, but I also participate in Foursquare, Facebook and, recently, the social conference site Lanyrd. When I was preparing for this week’s Building Business Capabilities conference in Fort Lauderdale, I added the sessions that I’ll be giving and a few others to the Lanyrd site that I created for the conference, and encouraged others to do the same. Just to explain, this isn’t the official BBC site, but a shadow crowd-sourced site that allows people to socialize their participation in the conference: think of it as a wiki for the conference, including some structured data that makes it more than just plain text. Logging in via your Twitter account, you can create a session (or a whole conference), add speakers to it, indicate that you’re attending or speaking at the conference, and add links to any coverage (blog posts, slides, video, etc.).

For someone tracking the conference remotely, or attending but unable to attend all of the sessions, this is a great way to find information about the sessions that is just too fast-moving to expect the conference organizers to add to the official site. If you’re at BBC, or tracking it from your desk at home, I recommend that you check out the Lanyrd site for BBC, add any sessions that you’re attending or presenting that are missing (I only added a dozen or so, so feel free to go wild there), and link in any coverage of the conference or sessions that you read about on blogs or other sites.

I’ve been using Lanyrd for about a year, sometimes just to add conferences that I know are happening, but also to add myself to ones created by others, as a speaker, participant or just a tracker. There’s also a Lanyrd iPhone app that downloads all of this to your phone. Although BBC has a mobile site, it’s slow to load and doesn’t have a lot of the social features that you’ll find in the Lanyrd app, or the ability to save details offline.

I also had an interesting social interaction about my hotel room here at the Westin Diplomat, where the conference is being held. I checked in just after noon yesterday and arrived at the room to find it was nestled right beside a very noisy mechanical room, and looked out directly at several large air conditioning units about 10 feet away on the roof of the adjacent structure. It sounded like I was in the engine room of a ship. Unable to raise the front desk by phone, I went back down, and spent 20 minutes waiting for service. Fuming slightly, I tweeted, and ended up in a conversation with the Starwood hotels Twitter presence, StarwoodBuzz, which responded almost immediately to my mention of a Westin property. The second room was beside the elevator shaft so still a bit noisy, but tolerable; however, when I returned from dinner around 10pm, the carpet was flooded from a leaking windowpane due to the torrential rain that we had all evening, and another room change was required.

The hotel responded appropriately, for the most part (the service for the first room change could have been a bit better, and I expected a really quiet room after complaining about noise in the first room), but the real surprise was the near-immediate feedback and constant care provided by the nameless person/people at StarwoodBuzz, which you can see in the Bettween widget below:

This is an excellent example of how some companies monitor the social conversation about their brands, and respond in a timely and helpful manner. Kudos to Starwood for putting this service in place. This is also a good example of why you should tweet using your real name (assuming that you’re not in a situation where that would be harmful to your person): StarwoodBuzz was able to notify the hotel management of my predicament. It’s possibly that by showing that I’m a real person, rather than a whiner complaining about their hotel while hiding behind a pseudonym, they were able to better address the problem.

The really funny thing is that everyone who I’ve run into at the conference so far said that they saw my original tweet, and wanted to know what happened with my room. Now they can watch it live on Twitter.

Unbelievably, the 30th edition of DemoCamp happened in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and I was there to hear the keynote from Elmer Sotto of Facebook Canada, as well as see the short, live demos from four local startups. I’ll post my notes on the demo in a subsequent post, but I’ve been thinking about Sotto’s exploration of the question of what is social: although he was focused on the consumer market, I saw a lot of parallels with social business. He saw three basic drivers for a social environment:

• You are proud of what you do and want to share it
• Others want to see what you have to share
• You specifically share with your social network

He spoke about having a social platform that is optimized for telling stories, where those stories are for the purpose of building identity, sparking conversation or deepening relationships. Or, as we might say in the social enterprise world: stories for reputation, collaboration or building our social graph.

To be truly social, a platform must be social by design, not just have share/like buttons tacked on after completion. Software that has social in its very DNA must be shared to be fully functional; can you imagine Facebook if you were the only one on it? It must also mimic real social norms in order to be successful: amplifying existing social or cultural activities, not trying to create new ones, and extending an existing social graph rather than creating a new one.

It’s interesting that Facebook is taking on the challenge of replacing the mostly unstructured data of notes with more structured semantic data to allow the surfacing of that data to parts of your social graph: instead of just “liking” something, they are allowing applications to create the structure of user/action/object for users to interact with that application.

The latter part of his presentation turned into a bit of a Facebook ad, including video from the F8 conference about the new Timeline feature, but I found some of his points were surprisingly useful in an enterprise context.

Well, okay, I only wrote a chapter in it, but I didn’t realize until today that my name was on the front cover, too. I’m looking forward to getting my hands on a copy of it to read all the other contributions, it looks like a good lineup of social BPM papers. My chapter is on leveraging social BPM for enterprise transformation; I originally wrote it as a white paper for IBM, and they encouraged me to submit it here as well, so extra thanks to them, especially Mihnea Galeteanu for going through three rounds of revisions with me. From my introduction:

Social BPM is gaining recognition as a driver of knowledge worker productivity. But what is social BPM, and how does it compare with the more general classes of social business applications? How can social BPM be used as part of an overall enterprise transformation initiative?

This white paper explores the drivers behind social BPM, and provides insights into its four main manifestations: collaborative process discovery, runtime collaboration, process event streams, and BPM communities. It also discusses the network effects that fuel the expansion of social BPM, acting as a catalyst for transformation of an enterprise’s processes, performance and work culture, and finishes with a number of best practices for adopting social BPM within your organization.

The book will be launched at the Social Business Forum in Milan on June 8th which, unfortunately, I can’t attend because I’m giving a workshop at the BPM conference in London the same day. You can pre-order the book here and get a 20% discount, or it will be on Amazon at some point. No, I don’t get a cut.

I often have people tell me that I should write a book, but I tell them that writing 700,000 words on a blog over six years isn’t really the same as writing the equivalent number of words in a book (or 10). I count myself lucky that I manage to get a chapter in a book completed once in a while.

The term “knowledge management” has been used – and misused – in many different ways over the years, but I agree with Jonathan Reichental’s definition of it as the identification, retention, effective use and retirement of institutional insight. I really, really agree with his further insights about knowledge management in the age of social media:

The days of the single, authoritative voice are coming to an end. The community has prevailed.

I’m writing a white paper right now on social BPM for enterprise transformation (not the same white paper that I referred to in yesterday’s post on a spectrum of process functionality), and I’ve been reviewing some of my research and presentations on social BPM from the past five years as well as those of others. One thing that jumps out at me, and was reinforced by a comment made by my client, is that there is a paradigm shift happening in the way that organizations understand control. Control no longer means that management dictates every action that every employee takes, but rather that appropriate levels of control are given to everyone so that they can control their environment and make it most effective for their tasks at hand.

The other thing that comes to mind, prompted by the quote above, is that harnessing collective intelligence is fast becoming the most important feature from O’Reilly’s original Web 2.0 definition as it applies to organizational knowledge management, as well as community efforts like the PKBoK. In social BPM, features such as collaborative process discovery and modeling are allowing the community within an organization to define the business processes, rather than relying on a much smaller group of “expert” process designers. That’s not to say that you don’t want some of those expert process designers involved – after all, they are likely trained and experienced and spotting inconsistencies and inefficiencies that others might miss – but you’ll ultimately see better quality of processes by allowing the community to participate in their definition.

As an interesting follow on to the previous session on blog monetization, I attended a panel on maintaining integrity on blogs when you do advertising or promotions on your site, featuring Danny Brown, Gini Dietrich and Eden Spodek. A lot of this is about transparency and disclosure; one audience member said that she writes paid reviews on her blog but that although you can buy her review, you can’t buy her opinion: there’s a fine line here. This is particularly an issue for lifestyle bloggers, since they often receive offers of free product in exchange for a review; this might be seen as being less of a “payment” than cash, although it still constitutes payment.

When I write a product review here, I am never compensated for that, although arguably it can impact my relationship with the vendor and can lead to other things, including paid engagements and conference trips. That’s quite different from being paid to blog about something, which I don’t do; I’ve had offers of payment from vendors to blog about them, and they don’t really understand when I tell them that I just don’t do that. Of course, you might say that when I’m at a vendor’s conference where they paid my travel expenses and I’m blogging about it, that’s paid blogging, but if you’ve ever spent much time at these conferences, you know that’s not much of a perq after a while. In fact, I’m giving up potential paid time in order to spend my time unpaid at the conference, so it ends up costing me in order to stay up to date on the products and customer experiences.

By the way, my “no compensation for blogging” doesn’t go for book reviews: it is almost 100% guaranteed that if I write a book review, the author or publisher sent me a free copy (either paper or electronic) since I just don’t buy a lot of books. I currently have a backlog of books to be read and reviewed since that’s not my main focus, so this isn’t such a great deal for either party.

The key advice of the panel is that if you do accept free product or some other payment in exchange for a product review, make sure that you remain authentic with your review, and disclose your relationship with the product vendor. In some countries, such as the US and the UK, this is now required; in places where it isn’t, it’s just good practice.

I was going to stay on for a session on webinars but the speaker seems to be a no-show, so this may be it for me and PodCamp Toronto 2011. Glad that I stopped by for the afternoon, definitely some worthwhile material and some food for thought on monetization and integrity.

The next session that I attended was Andrea Tomkins talking about how to make money through advertising on your blog. She started with ways that blogs can pay off without direct monetization, such as driving other sorts of business (just as this blog often drives first contacts for my consulting business) and leveraging free trips to conferences, but her main focus was on how she sells ads on her blog.

She believes that selling your own ad space results in higher quality advertising by allowing you to select the advertisers who you want on your site and control many of the design aspects. Plus, you get to keep all the cash. She believes in charging a flat monthly rate rather than by impressions or clicks, and to set the rates, she looked at the rates for local newspapers; however, newspapers are very broad-based whereas blog audiences are much more narrowly focused, meaning that the people reading your blog come from a specific demographic that certain advertisers would really like to have access to. Andrea’s blog is a “parenting lifestyle” blog – a.k.a. “mommyblogger” – and she has 1,300-1,400 daily views, many of whom are local to her Ottawa area.

She started out charging $50/month/ad, and bumped it for new clients as well as an annual increase until she reached a sweet spot in the pricing (which she didn’t disclose). She doesn’t sell anything less than a 3-month term, and some advertisers have signed up for a 12-month spot. Her first advertiser, who is still with her, is a local candy store that she and her family frequented weekly – she felt that if she loved it so much, then her readers would probably enjoy it as well. She approached the store directly to solicit the ad, although now many of her new advertisers come to her when they see her blog and how it might reach their potential audience.

She controls the overall ad design: the ad space is a 140×140 image with a link to their website, with the images being updated as often as the advertisers wish. New ads are added to the bottom of the list, so advertisers are incented to maintain their relationship with her in order to maintain their placement on the site.

She also writes a welcome post for each advertiser; she writes this as her authentic opinion, and doesn’t just publish some PR from the advertiser since she doesn’t want to alienate her readers. Each advertiser has the opportunity to host a giveaway or contest for each 3-month term, although she doesn’t want to turn her blog into a giveaway blog because that doesn’t match her blogging style. She also uses her social network to promote her advertisers in various ways, whether through personal recommendations, on her Facebook page or Twitter; because she only takes advertisers that she believes in, she can really give a personal recommendation for any of them.

Before you call a potential advertiser, she recommends understanding your traffic, figuring out an ad design and placement, and coming up with a rate sheet. Don’t inflate your traffic numbers: you’ll be found out and look like an idiot, and most advertisers are more interested in quality engagement than raw numbers anyway. Everyone pays the same rate on Andrea’s blog; she doesn’t charge more for “above the fold” ads or use a placement randomizer, so sometimes has some new advertisers (who are added to the bottom) complain about placement.

A rate sheet should be presented as a professionally-prepared piece of collateral coordinated with your business cards, blog style and other marketing pieces. It needs to include something about you, the deal you’re offering, your blog, your audience and traffic, and optionally some testimonials from other advertisers.

Handling your own ads does create work. You need to handle contacts regarding ads (she doesn’t publish her rates), invoice and accept payments, track which ads need to run when, set up contracts, and provide some reporting to the advertisers. Obviously, there has to be a better way to manage this without resorting to giving away some big percentage to an ad network. She also writes personal notes to advertisers about when their ad might have been noticed in something that Andrea did (like a TV appearance) or when she is speaking and hence might have their ads be more noticed. She does not publish ads in her feed, but publishes partial feeds so readers are driven to her site to read the full posts, and therefore see the ads. She has started sending out a newsletter and may be selling advertising separately for that.

This started a lot of ideas in my head about advertising. I used to have Google ads in my sidebar, which pretty much just paid my hosting fees, but I took them out when it started to feel a bit…petty. As long as I get a good part of my revenue from end-customer organizations to help them with their BPM implementations, it would be difficult to accept ads here and maintain the appearance of independence. Although I do work for vendors as an analyst and keep those parts of my business completely separate, with appropriate disclosure to clients, it is just as important to have the public appearance of impartiality as well as actually be impartial. An ongoing dilemma.

I arrived at PodCamp Toronto after the lunch break today; “PodCamp” is a bit of a misnomer since this unconference now covers all sorts of social media.

My first session of the day with Brian Cugelman on the psychology of websites was a bit of a disappointment: too much of a lecture and not enough of a discussion, although there was a huge crowd in the room so a real discussion would have been difficult. He did have one good slide that compared persuasive websites with persuasive people:

• They’re reputable
• They’re likable with personality
• They demonstrate expertise
• They appear trustworthy
• You understand them easily
• What they say is engaging and relevant
• They respect your time

He went through some motivational psychology research findings and discussed how this translates to websites, specifically looking at the parts of websites that correspond to the motivational triggers and analyzing some sites for how they display those triggers. Unfortunately, most of this research doesn’t seem to extend to social media sites, so although it works fairly well for standard websites, it breaks down when applied to things such as Facebook pages that are not specifically about making a sale or triggering an action. It will be interesting to see how this research extends in the future to understand the value of “mindshare” as separate from a direct link to sales or actions.