Creating a Local Commercial Lovefest

November 11, 2009

illcI usually try to avoid discussing client-related work in this blog. That said, today I have to mention one client and a very successful initiative they have going. But my reason for doing so is that this project substantiates some important opinions I have regarding the triggers that cause a piece of content not just to make a quick viral splash, but rather to send out lasting ripples.

Back in college I remember late nights working in the studio and watching TV. The local commercials were among my favorite. Shot on video with poor audio and even worse schtick, I came to enjoy the characters running these small furniture retailers, music stores, etc. It was basically modern-day Kitsch. Syracuse’s ‘Bee Bop Shop’ is still in my mind after all this time.

Many years later MicroBilt has sponsored Rhett and Link two Internet comedians to go out and make local commercials.

For me, I Love Local Commercials (a.k.a. ILLC) is a textbook viral marketing story, the central theme of which is authenticity and the critical role it plays in viral transmission.

Here are three ways MicroBilt’s initiative embodies authenticity:

1. It’s true to the grit of the genre. A lot of ‘viral’ video today – while funny –  has high production values. It’s fairly obvious when an agency has been involved because, well, it feels like slick agency content. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes that slick agency veneer feels like ‘a commercial we couldn’t air on TV’ and I think more people than just me pick up that scent.

Rhett and Link obviously respect the local commercial in all its underproduced glory. The people on screen are obviously being cued off camera. The editing cuts linger just a little longer than they should in places. The on-screen titles are huge typographic clusters complete with blinking phone numbers. In short, rather than try to elevate the production values of local commercials they respectfully adhered to everything that makes local TV the gem in the rough that it is.

2. It’s true to the purpose of the videos. You’ll notice MicroBilt had the courage and clarity to take a big risk by allowing Rhett and Link to be sparing in their sponsorship mentions. The commercials are truly for the businesses being advertised and not shallow shills for MicroBilt. For a sponsoring company to respect the authenticity of the effort that much says something. I’m not the only one who thinks so. A number of the trade mentions about the program have made note of this, commending the decision to do so.

3. It’s true to the strategy of the sponsor. MicroBilt’s reason for being is to help small businesses. That means this project is in line with the strategy, not borrowed interest. Often shock tactics, edgy humor or grossout stunts drive viral content (because they cause it to go viral). This gets impressions but often creates a disconnect with the enterprise behind it. These quick-hit stunt might make an initial splash, but on the A.D.D. Internet they come and go with no lingering impact. Viral material with resonance and authenticity, like the classic Dove real beauty work, continues to make the rounds time and time again because something in these pieces keeps them relevant.

MicroBilt believes in small business so much, they’re helping them promote themselves and treating the iconic local commercial as a piece of cultural art to be celebrated. There’s no disconnect between the execution and the strategy. Owners of small business appreciate it too. So much so that thousands have signed up, or been nominated by others, to get their own commercial. When was the last time a business-to-business company’s clients signed up in droves to be a part of that company’s marketing?

Not surprisingly the consistent display of authentic intention on numerous levels has driven real success by many measures – awareness, engagement, buzz, viral distribution and equally importantly, by giving the hardworking people at MicroBilt something to be very, very proud of.

The campaign has been celebrated by AdAge and national publications. It has stirred a healthy amount of controversy and conversation without going over the line. The whole time Rhett and Link and MicroBilt have been mutually supportive of one another – obviously each respecting the other’s role in the project. ILLC has been picked up by numerous local radio and television programs. It’s been Tweeted about. In short its done exactly what viral is supposed to do, and its done it for a data solutions and risk management company – exactly NOT the type of company you’d expect such a thing from.

Businesses that don’t think they’re sexy or virally inspirational should take heart, anyone can be worthy of buzz if its done right.

The big lesson here, as so many companies try to engineer something to ‘go viral’, is to keep focused on authenticity – to your strategy, your brand and your customers.


Realtime Brand Monitoring

November 10, 2009

danger1

A while back I was reading up on, and thinking about realtime search. At the time, I was struggling to see how realtime snapshots of the ‘Internet’s consciousness’ from sites like Scoopler, Tweetmeme and OneRiot (among many others) provided much utility. Sure, it was interesting, but short of stock trades, GPS navigation and a few other uses I couldn’t see much real value.

Then I read somewhere (wish I could remember) someone saying the real application might be as an alarm clock. What if companies, celebrities, governments, police, etc. used realtime search like a security camera, not to search, but to monitor? I’m sure the CIA already does, but for those of us without a Jack Bauer-pimped iPhone such a service might be useful.

I envision a service closer to the alert system pimped by Ben Stein for FreeCreditReport.com. Though I’d not try to fool people into thinking its free.

For a nominal fee (like 50¢/month) I’d offer a profiler. The user could enter their primary brand name and then for each additional iteration, perhaps I’d charge another 25¢. Make it cheap. Make it a volume play in terms of revenue. The user could also set a chatter threshold (assuming we’re all mentioned a little online all the time) as well as primary sites to focus on. Perhaps there’s even a sentiment engine that offer’s an overall favorability score. All of these could be add-ons to the monthly nut, offering incremental revenue but keeping the cost less than a latte/month.

When the user’s brand(s) is mentioned, s/he gets an alert in their channel of choice (SMS, IM, Twitter, email, all of the above, etc.). Then said user can log in, see a realtime report of their mentions, as they happen, and choose how to engage in the conversation.

Google and Yahoo have these systems in place, but they are not in realtime. There are other options too, but they all seem to require manual intervention (aka, that I go to the site and type in a search term). An automated monitoring system seems very useful to me. My guess is, someone is working on it. If not, and you read this, and make millions, don’t forget the little people you read on the way up.


Front Porch: Lingering Cough Edition

November 8, 2009
cougheeIt’s been hard to find time to just let thoughts percolate on the old front porch lately. Between work, Aikido and family I’ve run myself down apparently. About the only benefit of this lingering cough I’ve had is that it’s forcing me to take it easy today. Doing so has given me time to revisit some tidbits I’ve come across lately.

###

tollboothWhy don’t we take the EZ road? By my observation, the average New York City area tollbooth still has far more people sitting in the ‘cash’ lines than whizzing through the EZ Pass lanes. In fact, during my time in Brooklyn and even for a couple years after moving out, I too sat in those long, slow lanes.

No sooner had I finally gotten an EZ Pass (a process which was surprisingly simple) than I began to wonder why it had taken me so long to get one and why so many people still didn’t. I think about that every time I pass a clogged tollbooth.

One might draw parallels to more macro issue like healthcare (the lower cost and ease of preventative measures vs. the astronomical costs and burden of treatment), the environment (slow drip investments in cap and trade now, or the big bill and cost of disruption to do a clean up later) and even personal finance (buy now, figure out how to pay for it later i.e. credit vs. buy when you have the money to actually pay for it, i.e. debit). Even with something as mundane as Web Browsers I see people reluctant to upgrade even with the promise of a better experience on the other side.

With numerous products flooding the market to make our lives easier, has anyone been taking into account the seemingly common core human tendency to choose ‘the way I’ve always done it’ over something that promises to be easier?

###

Screen shot 2009-11-07 at 12.23.03 PMThe Healthcare Debate Simplified.
Apparently Dan Roam shares my belief in the power of the napkin as an idea quality litmus test. His presentation on healthcare, it addition to winning accolades as the World’s Best Presentation according to Slideshare,  does a great job of simplifying all the hullabaloo down to something we mortals can wrap our heads around.

###

weezerHomeWeezer Rocks. I’ve long been a fan of dork rock outfit Weezer. Recently it’s come across my radar that these guys are doing some interesting things to promote themselves. As the music industry struggles alongside other segments to understand the implications of today’s media, it’s worth noting Weezer’s efforts. To begin with, they have a Facebook app which allows fans to signup and vote for their own school to win a free Weezer concert. This is underwritten by T-Mobile and is a more bread-and-butter social media campaign. Still several schools had thousands of votes.

More amusing is the Snuggie effort. Weezer has an affinity for Snuggies and apparently has gone so far as to introduce a Weezer Snuggy which is offered at an infomericial price:

If you can’t see the video above it means some corporate lawyer jumped on it again. Not sure why they do this. How does preventing viral dissemination harm record sales?

But wait, there’s more, order now and you get Weezer’s new album free. Here’s a band that makes the gimmick (snuggie) the premium and the premium (their music) the free prize gimmick. That shows a keen understanding of the status of music tracks to the average bitstreamer. The light-irony of the effort alongside the campiness of embracing the Snuggy and doing so after it’s mainstream 15 minutes of fame has come and gone all seems aligned with Weezer’s geek-chic approach. It’s on brand but its also, I’m guessing, aligned with the left-of-center taste of Weezer’s fans.

Anyhow, in terms of pass along value, it’s obviously worked on me.

###

The Wisdom(?) of Crowds. Reviews, ratings and recommendations are a standard benefit marketed in the name of social media. We consumers benefit from the wisdom of others by reading their reviews. No longer do we have to accept the happy hyperbole of advertisers, we can get the straight skinny from other people just like us.

Or not.

Apparently happiness and hyperbole are alive and well online and the source is not advertising but we peer peeps. YouTube is well known to have millions of lame videos. Conventional wisdom says finding the good ones is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Why then are most YouTube videos getting high scores?

Then there’s this graphic which gave me pause. Look at the relative proportion of positive conversations to the whole…

10-brands2-100509

Conventional wisdom says that most marketer’s are concerned about ‘giving their brand over to the social web’ for fear angry customers will flame them out. Yet from the table above, it seems like a marketer’s Camelot out there.

Curious that.

###


‘Experimentation’ is a process, not a policy.

November 2, 2009

franksA week behind on my reading due to work, I recently came across this article in the Economist. Of particular interest is this quote:

…In the early 1900s Frank Gilbreth, one of the pioneers of industrial psychology, tried to raise his 12 children according to Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management. He discovered that you could cut the time it took to shave if you used two razors at once—but then abandoned the idea when he found that it took an additional two minutes to bandage the resulting wounds…

The remainder of this column is about guruism in business. The column talks about jargon and the re-skinning of old ideas with new language. It calls into question the wisdom of naming outstanding companies only to watch them fall on their faces. And most interestingly to me, it calls out the lack of rigor behind many of the assertions of business gurus.

I’ve seen a recent parallel to this latter point in the common social media refrain, “Don’t be afraid to experiment! You must experiment! If you’re not experimenting you’ll miss the wave!”

This is a very convenient rallying cry for all gurus. It removes them from accountability if something doesn’t work (‘failure is part of the experimentation process’), and rewards them when it does.

Not surprisingly, a willingness to experiment is being held up as the must-have policy of any organization seeking to profit from social media. Of course, experimentation is never defined as a scientific process in this instance. Instead, it’s presented as published brainstorming. The logic is that digital media is cheap, if you have an idea, just try it. Try everything. Load that social media shotgun and fire away.

This may be acceptable to companies with unlimited resources, but for most businesses profiting from social media is one of a thousand items they need to focus their resources on at any one time.

My father is a polymer chemist. I grew up around scientific process and even though my career path  took me elsewhere (marketing and business strategy), I have always found myself relying on science in addressing business challenges.

Scientific process begins with an Objective. Companies are familiar with objectives so this one should be easy to understand, I’ll
move on…

Making an Educated Guess
Next comes the hypothesis. This is an ‘educated guess’ as to how to achieve the objective. How does one make an educated guess about social media? Given that it’s inherently social, I might start with how different types of people group and utilize communities for support, action, belonging etc. I might investigate how they perceive and define government, family, institutions like banks, and their own communities. By knowing the context of the lives of a target constituency, I can formulate a hypothesis as to which social media tactics might be useful in achieving an objective.

That said, when was the last time you heard the word ‘hypothesis’ used in a social media discussion? More to the point, when was the last time a conversation about social media began with human behaviors and community constructs instead of technology-of-the-week gadget jabber? Yet without a hypothesis – an educated guess – we wind up shooting in the dark and hoping for the best. It’s that simple.

Experimentation should be focused.
From the hypothesis the scientists then design an Experiment. This experiment is specifically constructed to test the hypothesis. It’s very execution is reliant on the needs of the hypothesis. In creating the experiment the scientists must apply rigor. They must create a control group to benchmark results. They must define the metrics that will prove the hypothesis and the means to test for them experimentally. They must consider all the details of the experiment to make sure it does indeed test the hypothesis. They must take all necessary precautions not to pollute their experiment with contaminants that might skew the data or deliver misleading conclusions.

Once designed, an experiment is conducted under disciplined conditions. Data is carefully logged and critically analyzed. A good scientist is looking objectively at the data, resisting the temptation to cherry pick results to prove the hypothesis. In fact, scientists are careful in drawing conclusions to properly attribute them to the causal reasons for the outcome. Social media experts, in my opinion, don’t always do this.

The goal of any experiment is to come to a conclusion that leads to a theory. To do so, the experiment must be a repeatable process that achieves consistent results. Again, social media pundits are quick to run to the press with a single success story and call it ‘proof’ of ROI or paradigm change. Scientists would be appalled.

This brings us to failure. After ‘you must experiment’ the next most popular  refrain among social media advocates is ‘you must be willing to fail’. This is often presented superficially as simply not being afraid to fail. And its true, innovation requires risk taking and penalizing failure will rarely get you to meaningful innovation.

But…

The scientific benefit of embracing failure is the importance of the data failure delivers. Failed experiments that are simply abandoned offer no benefit. If an experiment doesn’t work, one must endeavor to figure out why it didn’t work. Scientists, working toward a stated objective and testing a hypothesis against that objective, will use the data of failure to tweak the parameters of their experiment before trying it again. Any experiment that’s not worth pursuing after a failure probably isn’t worth doing in the first place. That means the objective and a hypothesis are critical preconditions that necessitate experimentation (vs. just including it as a corporate cultural policy). The necessity of the experiment then makes the data of failure valuable which is what gives meaning to ‘embracing failure’ as a cultural value.

In terms of social media, this means resisting the urge to abandon something that fails initially. someone should be thinking, ‘But if we keep doing failed experiments we’ll run out of money and resources to fund them.’ Precisely. Which is why the objective and hypothesis are so important. They will help sift through the many social media options to find those most worth experimenting with.

Experimentation and embracing failure are indeed necessary elements if business is to benefit from any new technology, idea or insight. But experimentation and embracing failure are not an excuse for stumbling forward recklessly with a shotgun approach to solving problems – in social media or otherwise. Simply glomming onto the technology of the week and firing off an execution against it is not experimenting in the most useful sense of the term. At best it is tinkering.

Without an objective, hypothesis and reasoned experiment to test it, the chances of success are minimal and failure, when it happens reveals no new insight to make future experimentation smarter. Conversely, the cost of failure in wasted time, energy and resources increases when using the shotgun method. Eventually, these costs outweigh the very benefits of embracing the values and policies of experimentation and willingness to fail in the first place.


Perception and Reality in Going Green

October 19, 2009

ronald-green

Newsweek recently released an issue profiling the ‘greenest companies’. The measures of greenness were either operational or based on the perceptions of CEOs and the business community which, as I’ll outline below, makes the article of limited value. From Newsweek’s piece, it is clear corporate America is pumping a lot of money into green initiatives. This is of course good for the environment but it may not be paying off as much as it could for the companies spending all that money.

We recently partnered with the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation to conduct a survey – called the Green Monitor – designed to reveal the green perceptions of common demographics as defined by age, income, ethnicity, etc.

The most striking realization when comparing the Newsweek article to the Green Monitor results is that companies spending a lot of money on greening their operations, like McDonald’s (#22 in Newsweek’s assessment), are not necessarily perceived in such positive light. The Green Monitor revealed McDonald’s as having the worst green perception of all fast food companies surveyed among Milennials (a core target constituency).

Worse, Milennials perceive themselves as the most environmentally aware and active, spending more time and money directly impacting the environment than do Gen Xers or Boomers. That positions them as helpful (or harmful) on two fronts as far as McDonald’s is concerned. Most obviously, Milennials represent significant revenue for McDonald’s.  In addition, though, Milennials serve as environmental opinion leaders because of their higher engagement level around environmental issues.

Compound this with their media savvy, especially their adoption of social media, and McDonald’s is missing an opportunity here. While greening their operations may be reducing costs, it is doing little in terms of driving affinity among a key target group. The Green Monitor showed that Millennials primarily identify good environmental citizenship with preservation of environments and species. No wonder Milennials don’t give the company credit for green activity in a category like ‘corporate operations’ which is far outside the realm of their 20-something lives.

If McDonald’s wants to achieve full brand and revenue benefits among Milennials through green initiatives they’d be better served by including and building awareness around some conservation efforts. Or, they could demonstrate – through media appropriate to the Milennial audience – how the greening of operations is conserving environments (which, as Newsweek points out, it is).

In terms of seeing some green ($) by going green, McDonald’s heavy investment in green operational reality is undermined by a misalignment in green perception. To get perception in synch, McDonald’s should look outside its operations and into the context of its primary consumers’ lives.


Few people buy something ‘like you’ve never seen before’.

October 6, 2009

patselfonbackA moment of self-indulgent back patting here:

This article in the New York Times does a nice job pointing out something I have mentioned in this posting and more recently in this one.  This has everything to do with Now Not New.

While it’s geek chic to talk about paradigm shifts and technological revolutions, the reality is, people like the comfort of a frame of reference.

If something is truly ‘like nothing you’ve ever seen before’ disorientation comes alongside curiosity. Without a sense of how a new technology fits into their lives, people may be momentarily curious but will soon move on.

It’s worth noting, this also holds true for all the jibberish industry jargon that circulates around the Internet space. People will listen, initially, but if it’s too hard to decipher or sounds like SAT-wordwashing they’ll move on.


Our Mission: To Explore new Perceptual Galaxies

October 5, 2009

mediaGalaxy

Back in high school we all learned about the Big Bang Theory. It went like this: All of the matter in the Universe was tightly packed together and then it burst apart. To this day the Universe is still expanding and all of that matter and energy has morphed into distinct entities – solar systems, galaxies, quasars, stars. It’s mind bending to consider and most of us go about our lives with little thought as to what else might be ‘out there’.

Maybe in some ways the mediaverse we all live in today is doing something similar.

Around the time of World War II our collective awareness was tightly packed together. We had a few radio stations, even fewer television channels and a number of newspapers and magazines to choose from. While each of these might have expressed different political leanings or perspectives on the same idea, the near proximity of one person’s media experience to another’s kept us all relatively close. We may not have agreed 100%, but we were all unified to some degree by commonly experiences expressions of world events.

Then, like the big bang, the ‘matter’ of the mediaverse burst. We all know this story: The number of media options began to grow cumulatively. Where once we had three or four networks, suddenly we had a couple hundred cable channels. Advances in publishing allowed for more magazines and newspapers. Niche interests could be attended to with dedicated programming. Instead of the Nightly News we could now tune into Fox on the right or MSNBC on the left. We had the freedom of choice and we’ve been exercising that freedom ever since.

Growing Distance

An outcome of making this choice is that we’ve created some distance between ourselves and people with differing opinions. Early on in the expansion of the mediaverse we still had some common media experiences, but we also were offered an opportunity to fill an increasingly larger portion of our media consumption time with information that was specific to our interests and existing opinions.

Of course this big bang expansion of media continues today. The rise of the commercial Web has given us infinitely more choices. Now if we want we can fill all of our time with niche programming about very specific topics. The mass experiences that brought us all together – those archetypical 1940’s moments where every family in the United States sat and listened to the President discuss the war – have become fewer and further between. When they do happen, even institutions like the Superbowl have begun to draw smaller audiences. Today we still have occasional watercooler sitcoms and concerts with truly mass reach, but they are far more rare.

The mediaverse used to give birth to international stars like U2 and Bruce Springsteen. These were bands everyone knew because we all heard the same singles on the radio and watched the same videos on MTV. Today’s rising stars play to smaller galaxies. There’s still stadium rock, but not as much of it. The music industry doesn’t make many of those broad-appeal, everyone-knows-his-music, Bruce Spirngsteen-sized stars anymore.

Social Media Create Connections & Echo Chambers

With the mediaverse expansion – particularly as exacerbated by Social Media – has come further isolation for each of us. Yes, we’ve got our legion of Facebook friends and Twitter following and in that sense, we’re highly connected. But given the freedom to choose any connection or program in the vast media verse, most of us are are now creating our own Perceptual Galaxies.

These are discreet systems filled with a very focused, hand-selected groups of people, media and ideas. This is playing out particularly clearly in politics and the recent healthcare debates.

On the (more extreme) right Republicans paint their picture of the world…

On the (more extreme) left Democrats paint their picture of the world…


Of course Obama is no more a Nazi than all Republicans are illiterate rednecks… but if you want to believe either side’s story, you can surround yourself with ‘proof’ very easily.

Today, the same pieces of information can be spun to orbit two different galaxies in two very different directions. In this way the unsettling partisan polarity we’re struggling with in government is exacerbated by all of our media choices. Each ’side’ has its own facts, it’s own spin and it’s own spokespeople. With little effort we can choose our own galaxy and live their quite comfortably… most of the time.

When Perceptual Galaxies Collide
The outcome of building perceptual galaxies is not unlike the plot of some 1950’s sci-fi movie. Are we alone in the Universe? Is there intelligent life beyond our own galaxy? When an alien species enters our galaxy are they greeted as friends or as hostile invaders undermining our values and bent on our destruction?

Read the headlines today and our kneejerk reaction becomes apparent – we’re xenophobic and increasingly hostile about it. I attribute this directly to the insular perceptual galaxies that are created, almost through an inertia-like force, when we choose our media consumption and connections.

For all the togetherness we hear about in our highly interconnected age of cell phones and texting and social networking, there’s a lot of tension out there stemming from our differences. As we all spin off into our individually-created galaxies of media and connections are we losing sight of the other worlds of opinion and perspective?

Historically, in human relationships, distance creates problems. From the stereotypically doomed “long-distance love affair” to the villifying of foreign cultures or other races, when we allow enough distance to come between what we think is true and other ideas, it usually leads to dark places.

So is the solution less choice? Should we try to backtrack to collective media? Even if we could, it’s not a good idea. The old saying, “The best defense against free speech is free speech” holds true in media too. More exposure to more ideas is a productive approach to spanning some of the perceptual ravines we’re creating. But we have to fight the easy inertia of choosing only media and connections that confirm what we already believe. We have to choose to seek out difference.

I believe, but can’t confirm, that we’re not alone in the universe. We may be too distant from other stellar galaxies to ever know for sure but statistically I can’t believe Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life.

However, I do know and can confirm that I’m not alone in the mediaverse. I know there are many ideas and perceptions and people in the world. I believe I will be the wiser for getting to know them. But to do so, I will have to make a conscious effort to climb into an intellectual rocketship and be willing to jump to hyperspace through hyperlinks. Our technology makes this kind of warp drive experience possible if we choose to use it that way.

And yes, some of the perceptual galaxies I explore may have environments I won’t like. They may be hostile or I may judge them ignorant, uninformed, or just plain wrong. But at least I will have taken a look around. At least I will have explored. Along the way, I’m sure I will find some ideas that will inform my own moving forward.

I believe that by visiting other perceptual galaxies we prepare for the day when two galaxies bump into each other. For as much distance as we have in the mediaverse, we’re still all on the same planet in our solar system. Our perceptual galaxies can’t help but collide. How we respond will have everything to do with how much distance we allow to come between us ideologically.

That is a choice you and I have to make with our computer mouse, cell phone, television, radio dial, and subscriptions.

Houston, are you standing by?


Viva La Evolution!: Dell’s Twitter revenue is not a Conversation Marketing case study.

September 30, 2009

Picture 1If you work in marketing and the Internet space as I do, you’re inundated daily with perspectives on the unfolding revolution of ‘conversation marketing’. We’re told TV is dead (though viewship numbers seem to contradict this). We’re told advertising is dead (though ad revenue remains the default – and often only – monetizing strategy among most web 2.0 platforms). In short, we’re fed a lot of attention-garnering hyperbole. The hyperbole works too by making everyone frothy and excited. Join the revolution!

A recent headline seemed to deliver to the pundits of conversation marketing the kind of hard, quantifiable ROI their business clients clamor for. Essentially the headline stated that Dell made $3MM in revenue from Twitter (in terms of hyperbole balancing, its worth noting this is over two years and a sliver of Dell’s overall revenue). This headline and ‘case study’ were slapped on many a Social Media Marketing presentation. Cruise around Slideshare or listen in on pundit speeches. You’ll see this headline show up again and again.

The trouble is that the assumptions that come alongside that headline are not supported in the article. Dell’s success had very little to do with what Twitter is known for – namely microblogging and realtime conversation. Here’s why: In mentioning Twitter and $3MM in revenue in the same headline, it could be assumed that the revenue came from a dialogue between Dell and its customers.

However, if you read the article you’ll learn that basically Dell used its Twitter account (DellOutlet) to push coupons and purchase incentives out to the people following it (of which there are over one million). The reality is, DellOutlet’s use of Twitter in this instance is as Sunday Circular 2.0 not Conversation Marketing or even ’social’ media. What’s social about signing up for coupons?

Twitter isn’t being used for dialogue here, its being used as a distribution pipe no different than other media like catalogs, emails or sunday circulars. Sure, you can tweet back your gratitude and the Dell folks will politely acknowledge and thank you, but really, calling that a conversation feels like a stretch to me. What we’re seeing is offline tactics following people as they move online.

Simply being online – even on Twitter or Facebook – doesn’t make it Conversation Marketing.

That’s ok. What’s happening today is an evolution, not a revolution and while the paradigm may be shifting, it moves slower in the real world of human behavior than it does in trade publications and the hype-addicted blogosphere.

I like to point out to people that when the automobile was invented it was called the ‘horseless carriage’. This is important. Without some past frame of reference, new technologies are hard to understand and adopt. So using a new technology to accomplish an old tactic is transitional, it’s a stepping stone toward that great and enlightening revolution we’re being promised every day.

No more should we dismiss new technology as ‘just more of the same’ than should we jump on the bandwagon and mindlessly make connections that aren’t there. Dell’s ‘monetizing’ of Twitter is a traditional model applied to a new distribution pipeline. Let’s call it what it is because it’s still a step forward. Twitter is helping Dell make money and that’s great. But this is not a case study for Social Marketing or Conversation Marketing or whatever you want to call it.

I get concerned about the continual stream of grandiose claims and dramatic revolutionary language thrown around so easily among social media pundits. They are setting very high expectations – sort of like the pundits of the ‘dot-com era’ did back in the day (and we know how that turned out).

People will listen initially. Dramatic talk of revolution stirs us all. They may even experiment which is a necessary step. But if these experiments lead to disappointment because the revolution being promised is oversold and underdelivered upon, then those same people will begin to tune us out. Worse, they may start tuning us out just as we’re reaching a point where its worth listening. That’s happening now. Just as Web 2.0 is beginning to be figured out a little (a.k.a. someone made three million buckaroos with it!), there’s a backlash because too many people are promising too much change and benefit far too soon. And of course it’s all laden with jargon and bullshit language.

We owe it to ourselves as an industry and as business people, to speak frankly. We should acknowledge successes (and $3MM in revenue certainly is) but also be careful not to overstate them. Exaggeration or misattribution of cause and effect creates problems. Hyperbole is undermining the advertising business because over-promising gets outed online quickly. Promising revolutionary change is undermining political agendas as our President promised more than any mortal can deliver, leading to disappointment. Are we doing the same, overselling and over promising, in the name of landing clients? I think sometimes at least, we are, and it’ll come back to bite our industry in the butt. After the dot-com crash it took years (which is lifetimes online) for the business world to take Internet marketing seriously again.

Less spin, more straight talk. That’s the paradigm of Social Media. Industry experts would do well to practice what they preach.


Martial Perspectives on Business: Office as Dojo

September 28, 2009

Image2As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve spent half my life in the martial arts (specifically Aikido) and now run a school of my own with students of my own. To bring relevance to the martial discipline they are learning I often try to draw connections to their lives outside of their martial arts training. After all, most of us don’t get into physical confrontations and the martial arts can have significant relevance on other aspects of life.

Aikido is commonly practiced in a dojo (literally ‘place of the Way’). Dojo have a number of common elements and then nuanced differences from place to place. At our dojo there is a piece of calligraphy immediately opposite the entrance that says ‘True Victory, Self Victory’. This statement is something akin to our school’s mission statement. It is placed at the front door so that every student remembers why they are here.

Office spaces don’t often work this way, but I wonder if they should. Are your employees aware each day of why they are coming to the office? Do they know the company’s goals and their role in the larger operation?

Leading by demonstration.

At the beginning of class students line up in a particular way. The highest ranking student sits at the far right and the others line up, in descending rank order, to that senior person’s left. The instructor sits in front of the whole group. In this way, even a novice knows from day one that they can always look to their right for an example of how to conduct themselves. Questions of etiquette and posture – foundational training in Aikido – can be answered by observation.

This puts increasing responsibility on the students as they take on rank in the school. With seniority comes an obligation to conduct yourself in a manner appropriate to teaching those junior to you.

This too is less common in the work place. Often times senior managers are separated from their junior co-workers. Training in some industries is almost nonexistent and new recruits are often expected to ‘hit the ground running’ with little or no background. This is done in the name of efficiency but often achieves just the opposite. Without proper training and a sense of their place in an organization, companies risk not using employees to their full potential or worse, a revolving door because employees feel no sense of belonging at the company. Managers are meant to manage the processes through which employees use their skills. Often though, managers behave more like doers than the facilitators they’re supposed to be.

Taking ownership.

In the dojo, everyone helps maintain the place. These chores are called Samu, a topic I wrote about in detail earlier. When everyone sweeps the floors and cleans the toilets, everyone takes ownership in the school. Students come to see this as membership in a community rather than tedious work they are forced to do. (Those that can’t often leave the school and in that sense the place self-selects the most appropriate students in this subtle way.)

The corrosive quality of entitlement is well known in corporations. Managers in ivory towers both lose touch with their employees and incur their resentment. Employees who are not given a sense of ownership in the company (and I don’t mean by emptying trashcans at night) do not develop a loyalty to the company. Without loyalty they are easily poached or work below their potential.

It is important, I think, that everyone in a company pitch in toward the well-being of that company. When executives and employees do this side-by-side it builds community which provides resilience and a cooperative spirit during the inevitable hard times every business goes through.

Appreciating Experience.

The instructor in Aikido is called Sensei (literally ‘one who was born before’). This is of course a reference to experiential age, not chronological. Inherent in Aikido is a respect for seniority and tenure. While instructors in their 60’s will not be as strong or fast as students in their 20’s they have witnessed far more and have a different understanding of Aikido.

This reverence for experience seems in decline in corporate America. More and more we hear people being forced into retirement earlier while jobs are handed out to younger, cheaper employees. This helps keep a company’s numbers down, but and adverse impact on the business might come alongside it. Expertise is necessarily linked to experience. Experts become experts by making mistakes. Someone who has had 40 years to watch deals and products come and go, who has had decades to send the wrong email, blurt out the wrong comment in a meeting or make the wrong choice in an employee, brings important expertise to a business. This is something no 20-something MBA, not matter how smart, can deliver. Academic experience is not to be undervalued, but the critical ‘gut’ decisions and intuitive sensibility of someone with decades of industry experience is far more valuable in today’s business environment. There is also the matter of true expertise and what is required to legitimately claim this. But I covered that in a previous post which you can read here.

Service over self.

Another aspect of the dojo Sensei is his/her role in the school. The Sensei’s job is to serve the well-being of the students. His skill is measured by the skill of his students. If his students have poor etiquette or sloppy technique, then it reflects poorly on him. Therefore, the Sensei will put incredible effort into his students. By making them the best they can be, he is demonstrating his own expertise. Conversely, a Sensei more consumed with personal reputation, flashy demonstrations and showing students who the boss is, will be looked down upon by enlightened practitioners and ultimately find it hard to attract students of good character.

CEOs might consider themselves the Sensei’s of their companies. Their job is to serve the employees and shareholders. Their worth should be measured in the output of the company which is in turn a reflection of the process and skills brought to bear by managers and employees. When an employee fails at the company, the CEO should reflect on his/her role in that failure. When the products of a company become uncompetitive, the CEO should look within to see if there is some remedy to be made.

As we watch executive pay skyrocket, with incredible exit packages even for CEO’s that drive a company toward failure, the importance of a executives sense of obligation to the company (and not themselves) becomes obvious. It is no less shameful to bilk a company of millions of dollars after driving it into the ground than it is for a martial arts Sensei to brutalize a student as a means of demonstrating their power and skill.

Obligation and structure.

Obligation and structure are central themes in an Aikido dojo. Structure is provided so that each student is given a clear sense of their place  and a sense of the direction they are moving in. There is a clear idea, even sitting before class, as to what the novice is working for. Employees need this as well. In Aikido, a sense of obligation is important in helping students take ownership of the dojo and instructors take ownership of the students. In this same way employees must take ownership of their company and managers must be obligated to empowering employees to reach their full potential.

Martial arts, on the surface, seems focused on defending against or overcoming enemies in combat. The corporate marketplace, on the surface, also seems focused on defending market share and overcoming competitors in market combat. But the martial arts in reality is about overcoming the enemies within ourselves so that we may reach our greatest potential. In this sense we seek True Victory through Self Victory.

It might be interesting to see what victory (and great potential) a company might achieve if the senior leadership of that company looked at the business through a similar lens.


Dispatches From The Front Porch

September 28, 2009

It’s been weeks since I’ve found the time to ruminate on the ol’ front porch. This afternoon I finally found a little time. I’ve kept a running list of articles, ideas and mentions that amused or intrigued me. Here are a few of them:

internetSnapshotReal-Time Internet Snapshots: A technology without an application?

WIRED recently ran this article highlighting efforts to provide ‘real time’ snapshots of the Internet’s consciousness. The focus was on making the point that search is inherently about indexed information and therefore the past. However sites like Twitter are much more about reflecting the present (sometimes in every mundane detail). This website is a nice case in point. It shows trending topics in Twitter plotted on a geographic map. Admittedly, it is interesting. However, I can’t for the life of me see a meaningful application of this technology.

Real-time data is useful in some places – GPS navigation, day trading on the stock market – but most of the information on Twitter isn’t really useful in real time. Sure, Twitter has helped make a mess of the news industry with its ability to break news faster and from an eye-witness perspective. But all this talk of Twitter-search seems overblown to me.

Information of the type tracked by Twitter is most useful in comparison to previous information. This allows for meaningful trendline plotting and potentially (after some time) predictive modeling. But the real time information itself isn’t especially insightful in the majority of instances.

Interestingly, as I was looking for an image to accompany this bit, I noticed how much an actual snapshot of the Internet looks like a nervous system. Perhaps one use for this technology is to detect ‘pain’ in the Internet’s nervous system. Maybe it has security uses. Philip K Dick would’ve been inspired.


auction-792668.JPGPenny Auctions

This article in the economist struck my fancy. I’d never heard of ‘penny auctions’ before and having read the model, I felt guilty for seeing the genius of it. After all, in addition to be very smart, it could be seen as pretty evil, especially in a culture like ours.

The concept works this way: I put an item at an unresistably low price (let’s say a $100 iPhone with a starting price of $2). I let the bidding begin. Any number of people can bid and they can bid any number they want (“$3, do I see $4?”). But each time they bid it costs them 25¢. Well, if I can get enough people to bid enough times, one lucky winner gets the iPhone very, very cheap while I make money from hundreds or thousands of bidders. At 25¢ per bid I could take it big bucks.

The concept plays on the same ‘hey, it could happen’ mentality that fuels lottery mania and it strikes me a brilliant and predatory at the same time. Interestingly, my favorite t-shirt website Threadless uses a similar (and arguably less evil) model with a crowd-sourcing slant. Any number of artists can submit shirt ideas. The site’s community picks favorites. Those favorites go into limited production. The winning artist makes money for the design, Threadless makes money on the production run, and the chosen design is vetted by the community giving it a better than average chance of being a hot seller. Smart thinking.


fast-good-cheapGood. Fast. Cheap. Pick Two.

When I was a freelance writer I would often be called in on projects with crazy timelines. As a freelancer you’re sometimes the go-to guy when the person before you couldn’t nail it or the project sat in limbo too long and now, holy shit, it’s due tomorrow.

I would often use the ‘Good. Fast. Cheap.’ triangle in helping desperate clients understand why buying my time on short notice with a fast turnaround, usually meant either an elevated rate or some lower-end writing. Usually my clients were willing to pay extra to get good work.

Quality (or ‘good’) has always seemed the most important piece of that triangle to me. Therefore, this article in WIRED struck me as counterintuitive. As it turns out, ‘good’ is becoming less the driver of technology than is fast and cheap.

Digital systems are inherently cheap distribution channels. As it turns out, convenience is a bigger incentive that quality. Musicians lament the tonal sacrifices of MP3 formatting versus the fuller sound of AIFF. The Fling camera, intentionally manufactured with downmarket parts and fewer features, is the fastest growing category in camcorder sales. Even our video viewing standards are dropping. We’re more and more content with YouTube, staying home from movie theaters and watching more programming online (despite poor production values).

This got me to thinking, what does an emphasis on ‘fast’ and ‘cheap’ mean to other industries? It leads to fast food in the food industry. That’s cheap and quick. And maybe even tastes good. But its no good for us.

It also leads to brand-sanctioned or sponsored viral videos in the advertising industry. This is also fast and cheap (at least when compared to hiring an ad agency). Good. Well. The jury is out there.

The legal industry offers off the shelf boilerplate contracts to solve legal issues which is cheap and fast and perhaps ‘good enough’ in some instances.

What then about medicine?  Construction? Insurance? Automotive?

Interesting to think about.