Welcome To Now

#YouTube #Counterculture and #Transmedia #Art

2010-01-06T06:29:00.001-08:00

Swiss artists Comenius Roethlisberger and Admir Jahic have created these renditions of YouTube videos “in an attempt to disrupt the haphazard collection of archived videos that YouTube has become.” The artist duo has “transformed the visual (virtual) language of ‘broadcasting’ back into physicality by producing illustrations on a heavy handmade paper from virtual references with elemental art materials to do what they do best, that is, add to the confusion.”

Comenius and Admir touch upon the Warholian nature of Pop...

... To more Degas-like Impressionism (or more aptly known as disambiguation).

Right on, fellas.

You might even consider this a collective form of transmedia narrative, but I’d rather not confuse things any more ;)

Then again, this makes you think about what other elements we can extract from digital culture at large, recontextualize, and then shape as our own.

This also makes you wonder about what experiences can really mean in a world that is this hyper-connected and hyper-socially challenged... And how individuals like you and I can profit from the delivery of alternative, or augmented, perspectives by connecting the dots in more meaningful ways.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Blogs, Vlogs and Pay Walls... Now What?

2010-01-05T08:25:00.001-08:00

There are now over 200M blogs in the world. Video consumption is spiking. Display ads are resurging. Search advertising is on the rise. Most newspapers are dying a quick death, while the best are doing better. Many are implementing pay walls. And like cable TV, people are willing to pay for premium content (okay, premium can mean a lot of things, but work with me here...).

What does this tell us? Ultimately, that advertising and publishing are becoming one and the same.

The simple truth is that there is a glut of content on offer, just not a lot of good or great content. The Long Tail has created a mighty middle, dedicated to the mediocre and often mindless contraptions of sensationalism.

Remember, we are now at a state in our existence where people are actually searching for meaning. Really, they are. Just look around you.

Ok, so that said, Burns would tell us to stop bitching and to pony up for that great content we seek (or the content that seeks us). We sure as heck know Rupert would too. And we now have a pretty good idea of what Chris Andersen thinks about all of this. Oh, but wait a second... Rupert makes money off of Burns, and Burns sells ads. Free means compromise, and it’s not entirely clear, at least to us little people, if this is a good or a bad thing.

[image credits: omg-ponies.com & writethirty.com]

So now what?

As the saying goes, Compromise, if not the spice of life, is its solidity. It is what makes nations great and marriages happy.

If you don’t want to look at ads, then it’s time to pay the piper. And believe it or not, that piper... Could be you.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Welcome to the Age of Personalized Publishing

2010-01-03T10:06:00.001-08:00

Welcome to The Age of Personalized Publishing. All in one, one for all.

I can create my own dynamic platform. I’m hyper-connected. I don’t have to follow anyone or join groups because my preferences constantly change. I can be wherever and whomever I want to be. I don’t have to search for great content, it finds me. And I can act with purpose.

My content is a direct reflection of my social identity, and vice versa. I don’t just live in the Cloud, I am the Cloud.

I can avoid ads, or, I can create them. I can create, buy, sell or place media. If I’m good enough, people will pay for my content. If I’m smart enough, I can do this as a partner to major brands. Or, I can build my own brand, and create products supported with tools provided to me by corporations. Or individuals. Or both.

The term ROI is no longer thrown around egregiously. It can mean something like ‘Reciprocity of Intent’. Or it can mean absolutely nothing at all.

Blogs morph into content hubs.
Banners are now publishing units.
Microsites are now micromedia.
Search is a sole function of community.
Social utilities are a part of the mainstream.
Doing good is the same as making money.
‘Online’ and ‘offline’ are married.
People are media.
‘Experts’, ‘gurus’ and ‘evangelists’ no longer exist.
Great storytellers do, however.

Production is truly democratized.
Collaboration is editorialized.
History is recontextualized.
Artifacts are cherished.

Agencies are facilitators.
Brands are micropublishers.
Publishers are anthropologists.
Technologies build culture.
Networks provide meaning.
Studios support infrastructure.

Governments listen.
Politicians act.
Teachers transcend.

Please, tell me, is this just a dream?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Digital Landscape: No Longer Truly Predictive, No Longer Purely Online

2009-12-30T16:51:00.001-08:00

There has been a lot of exciting talk about 2010 and where digital marketing is headed. No doubt there are some very good insights being shared from a lot of very bright people.

But as marketers, I think we all tend to get caught up in predicting things like channel adoption, how to somehow reengineer ad content, and in figuring out ways to deliver the “soft-sell”.

The reality is that all of the variables around engagement as well as conversion — actually, building relationships — are all attributable to culture, first and foremost. And while we can make predictions about human behavior, we’re still figuring out the nuances of how communities share information and content. We know that people now sell products and services to other people, but what what we don’t have a firm grasp on just yet is why.

But that’s where things are getting quite interesting.

Take a social utility such as Facebook, for example. We’re seeing tremendous growth in adoption, yet profound shifts in retention, and a noticeable decline in attention. This means that people are yearning for experiences they can’t get anywhere else (or those they can get anywhere), and are not interested in being herded into a corner to find them. They also crave ubiquity — this means less time spent in a particular location, engaging with content we think they care about. Blogs for one, are taking a huge hit in this regard simply because people are starting to figure out that they don’t need to visit a destination site to get the information or content they need.

Consumptive behaviors and user archetypes are constantly changing, and these aren't purely functions of 'digital' or 'analog', 'online' or 'offline', but rather experience extraction, creation and recreation. And these aren’t things we can predict, but rather things we must adapt to.

As Griffin Farley puts it so brilliantly on his blog: “Plan not for the people you reach, but the people they reach.”

As for being smarter about developing and selecting ads, what all of this data tells us in sum is that no one really cares about ad-like objects... and if that means disguising ads as entertainment, then so be it, but the reverse is not likely, at least not anymore.

Or, you can simply create a conversation and then determine what your messaging can be as the result of a collaborative experience. Here’s an example of a happy medium we’re developing through a platform we call AdTalker (and no, we’re not afraid to share this because the idea isn’t entirely new, but the backend data framework – the secret sauce – certainly is ;):

The larger point is that all of the real-world intelligence we have available at our fingertips is actually reopening the doors of self-actualization, because we are now seeking action, not just alignment with our personal value systems. The social web of the last few years has validated much of our beliefs, and now it is formalizing more viscerally in the way we build our social graphs and in how communities band together. We are witnessing a profound shift in consciousness, and this is not something that I think any of us could’ve predicted or even imagined, at least not to this extent.

Perhaps now we should be really focusing on things like:

adaptive analytics — how we move with markets, not just channels or inventory
publishing versus messaging — creating, enabling and propagating conversations & experiences
thinking of mobile (or mobility) as more than just a platform — geotilities as the regular instigators of physical connectivity
socializing the more 'traditional' forms of media through these stronger content offerings and extensions (OOH, print, radio & TV)
living a more enriched life -- (you fill in these blanks ;)

Going forward, do not fear technology, because even though it has leapt ahead of our thinking for a good many years, it now depends on our evolution as people. Technology, after all, cannot create experiences, it can only enhance them and help make them more accessible.

People are pixels. People are media. Fathom that, and then entertain the possibilities, because now, we can all play a significant role in this evolution.

<div style="width:425px;text-align:left" id="__ss_2668124"><a style="font:14px Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif;display:block;margin:12px 0 3px 0;text-decoration:underline;" href="http://www.slideshare.net/goonth/technology-integration-adaptive-vesus-disruptive-engagement" title="Technology Integration: Adaptive Versus Disruptive Engagement">Technology Integration: Adaptive Versus Disruptive Engagement</a></object><div style="font-size:11px;font-family:tahoma,arial;height:26px;padding-top:2px;">View more <a style="text-decoration:underline;" href="http://www.slideshare.net/">documents</a> from <a style="text-decoration:underline;" href="http://www.slideshare.net/goonth">Gunther Sonnenfeld</a>.</div></div>

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Jon Samsel » Blog Archive » 30 Ad Agencies Ranked By Heardable Score

2009-12-29T20:06:00.001-08:00

via jonsamsel.com

My friend and colleague Jon Samsel, SVP of Interactive Marketing at BofA, played around with Heardable tool in private BETA and wrote a nice piece on his findings earlier this month, including a bit on how some of the top global agencies rank based on their Heardable score.

It's interesting that this list should come out now, considering all the recent talk about how agencies should practice what they preach, particularly in their social communications efforts.

To reiterate, Heardable scans more than 20 on-site and 20 off-site variables (meaning outside of the main site but across the digital landscape) to provide a holistic purview of a brand's online visibility. We look at the primary areas of portability, shareability, measurability, sociability, actionability and searchability to assess a brand's score, as well as how it might compare to others in a particular category.

One other important thing to note is that while we start the process by scanning in a URL, we look at a brand's website as a conduit for its overall presence, meaning that in today's consumer environment, content must be syndicated and hyper-targeted to individuals and groups as they share and consume, when they share and consume. In this way, brands have effectively become publishers, and people follow good content (as well as engage with it), so those who serve up the best stuff in the best of ways will capture loyalty... plain and simple ;)

Posted via web from goonth's posterous

Talent imitates, genius steals: Myth of the Near Future

2009-12-28T12:26:00.001-08:00

via farisyakob.typepad.com

This film from Faris Yakob, in my humble opinion, really sums up the hypersocial relationship between brands, technology and entertainment in a simple, thought-provoking and powerfully contextual way. And of course, uses a nice narrative to do so ;)

And speaking of narrative, also note how Faris describes the use of transmedia elements as an integral part of one's social identity (that transcends one's presence online or offline, and certainly blurs the line between the two...), what I believe is a key distinction between transmedia development and integrated or branded content development.

Posted via web from goonth's posterous

A Glance at Online Brand Visibility Within the Automotive Category

2009-12-28T09:21:00.001-08:00

As a lead strategist on the Toyota national account (I'm a hired gun for the Omnicom agency, RAPP), I can tell you that the Heardable platform (wide BETA release to come in late January) has been invaluable in helping to prove out the importance of online visibility. In fact, not only does the Heardable score reflect the constant need for the Toyota brand (and its various portfolio brands) to uphold and manage its online reputation, but in using our comparative analysis tool, we can see exactly how the competition might be gaining ground, when, why, and how often.

The good news is that the brand is taking very active steps (and following our advice) to improve its content base. The great irony that we must all realize as digital marketers is that beyond technologies themselves, lies a vibrant, yearning and demanding culture, one dictating that brand relevance comes in the form of compelling and engaging content. In other words, we have plenty of delivery systems to choose from, but if our words aren't strong, then it doesn't matter what we proclaim to be or do as brands.

I've been running a comparative analysis on Toyota versus the 4 primary U.S. market competitors since the beginning of November, and the brand overall seems to be holding on fairly strong, despite the fact that its content offerings are disjointed... to put it mildly. The following are some cursory screenshots of the results.

You’ll notice in this next section that Honda and Nissan are not very far behind, and both have a much stronger social presence online than Toyota does. The takeaway there is that Toyota, as the biggest car manufacturer in the world, has more cars on the street than the other guys, which means that there is more content by default being indexed into searches.

Now of course, this poses a curious debate over the value of online conversation. If you look at the Toyota diagnostics, you’ll see that the brand still has no text, audio or video feeds on its main page (Toyota.com); we also don’t detect any analytics packages, but upon second glance at examining the code, we found Google Analytics embeds. One of the things we like to point out with our tool is that if critical feature sets such as shareability, measurability or portability are not detected through a scan, then it’s likely that the brand is not doing a great job of making this information known or accessible. The bottom line is that it’s only a matter of time before one of these other brands gets ahead in the race... That is, if we can’t get this new, market-relevant content developed and syndicated asap.

Theoretically speaking, all of this suggests that if a dominate brand can generate equity in the marketplace by virtue of its ongoing advertising efforts, and of course, by putting out solid product, it can sustain its place in the market only for a limited time.

But we all know that Being Heardable, and more importantly, optimizing brand visibility, is about going the extra mile (pun intended). And that’s what we all live for.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

How Transmedia Could've Helped Us Avoid the Financial Crisis

2009-12-26T09:45:00.001-08:00

Gretchen Morgensen and Louise Story wrote a terrific piece in the New York Times this past week (Thursday, Dec. 24th) on how the global banks, namely Goldman Sachs, forecasted the implosion of mortgage-related securities, created a marketplace for C.D.O.’s (Collateralized Debt Obligations), and then made bets against them from which they profited handsomely.

Sylvain R. Raynes, a structured finance expert, described it well: “When you buy protection against an event you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Well, in this case, you can replace the word “arson” with collusion or fraud and you’ve pretty much distilled the situation down to a tee. Sound familiar? We’ve seen it before, in scenarios ranging from the Michael Milken/Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond fiasco, to Enron’s energy grid collusion scandal. But this, of course, quite possibly, and single-handedly, catalyzed the collapse of all the world’s financial markets.

And here’s the really scary part. Goldman Sachs knew about this as early as 2006, and started packaging and trading its toxic product as early as October of 2007. The bank had a solid two-year window with which to create a wildly profitable business for itself, while people lost their homes because they had to ultimately make good on crappy debt, and trading institutions made a run on other reputable banks (such as Bear Stearns), who eventually couldn’t hold themselves up under the weight of bad securities and rapidly depleting liquidity... Which also meant that the people who lost their homes had no backup options (and of course, the U.S. Government issued bailout money to Goldman, of which it also profited handsomely from... But that’s another topic for discussion altogether).

As we know, in today’s world, two years is a lifetime of opportunity. But history doesn’t have to keep repeating itself.

So imagine this. Imagine that as things started to unspool and the signs were revealing themselves, we could create a platform whereby anyone affected had a voice, a real voice, and they could inspire others could tell their stories as well. Even further, what if Tetsuya Ishikawa, one of the key players on the inside of this whole mess, felt compelled enough and supported enough to speak out and effectively stop the bank’s terrible run on the global market?

It turns out Ishikawa did write about this, but well after the fact. Another guy, a Deutsche bank employee, actually issued T-shirts to memorialize the experience.

Ishikawa’s book could’ve just as easily become a graphic novel or a multimedia piece in which bankers, homeowners and lending institutions (at least those who were forced to defer to their integrity) would contribute to an ongoing narrative about financial responsibility, and, one that would actually provide peer-to-peer lending options for those in crisis. Major banks and financial services companies, such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America or Charles Schwab, could’ve ‘sponsored’ the narrative, even running campaigns inside or alongside of it, promoting relevant, solutions-oriented programs.

Beyond that, the ‘mortgage-lending phenomenon’ could’ve just as easily translated into a documentary-style narrative, in which local communities would tell their unique stories and even sell these as properties to TV Networks or IPTV content hubs or publishing houses... Or all of the above. Where could those profits have gone? Back into the communities and local banks, as well as new opportunities to build infrastructure. You see where I’m going with this.

For those of you who might think this is far-fetched, or that hindsight is merely 20/20, in the book, Groundswell, Forrester pointed to a great case study of how a French bank, Credit Mutuel, enlisted the help of the community to deal with the country’s own recessionary period by giving people a direct purview into what it’s like to be a lender/credit institution. Granted, the context was considerably smaller that the one we are talking about here, but if my memory serves me correctly, this wonderful ‘little’ example of content, context & community happened right around 2006 or 2007.

The larger point is that US & Global banking brands should take careful note: we may not be able to reverse the damage done (at least not in the shorter term), but we can take a strong position and align ourselves much more closely with consumers who need the mental, spiritual and financial support. It’s about time that all of us marketers took a real and resounding stance.

As for men like Lewis Sachs (who oversaw C.D.O.’s before becoming a US Treasury advisor) and John Paulson (whose company made millions from the market collapse), Karma will likely give them a swift kick in the ass, if it hasn’t already.

An interesting aside regarding Karma, Goldman may lose millions as a result of an ex-programmer who stole and redistributed its proprietary trading software.

That said, nothing can make up for what has happened. And destroying Goldman is not the answer. But transforming perspective is.

This is the power of transmedia. This is our immediate future.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Transmedia Equation, Part 1: Top-Down Development with Jeff Gomez

2009-12-24T05:55:00.001-08:00

via jawbone.tv

In this great JawboneTV article, Jeff talks about the distinct differences between cross-platform integration and developing transmedia narratives from the 'ground up' so that they can affect mass media and weave themselves into (or extract themselves from) culture at large as true phenomena. We really hope that we see (and will be encouraging) more agencies, studios and gaming companies pursue the types of synergies that will create and help facilitate this development cycle.

On another note, Jeff will be helping Brendan Howley and me on our Canada IFTF (Institute For The Future) initiative that seeks to create an educational transmedia platform that can build infrastructure at the local level and potentially scale out to regional and/or national executions. Backed by the University of Waterloo and RIM, the platform is also intended to become an active (and dynamic) part of the school's new media curriculum.

Stay tuned...

Posted via web from goonth's posterous

Transmedia Task Forces (Part 2)

2009-12-22T02:31:00.001-08:00

Back in June, I wrote a post on transmedia task forces <http://welcometonow.blogspot.com/2009/06/transmedia-task-forces.html> that reinforced the idea of merging agency functions so that qualitatively informed ideas would drive the creative process and provide the most optimal results for clients.

Again, this concept is nothing new, but in looking at the dynamics of transmedia initiatives and the amazing potential they have for generating ideas that actively extract meaning from culture at large, proximity is one thing that is top of mind. This means that ideation is not just a function of streamlining communication, but also a function of physical activation within a working environment. In other words, when you look at behavioral studies on how people develop and exchange intellectual capital, you notice that a lot of ideas fall by the wayside by the mere fact that they have to travel a considerable distance... which, in relative terms, could be across a long hallway or on the other side of a floor or building. As we all know, accessibility is everything.

Shops like Mother <http://www.motherlondon.com/> , Anomaly <http://www.anomaly.com/> and Big Spaceship <http://www.bigspaceship.com/> have created and used community workspaces for some time now. For less 'progressive' agencies, this is a more daunting prospect given that people are not only naturally averse to change, but they also feel naked without a fixed workspace. This is completely understandable, and so perhaps in the effort to get people thinking beyond their comfort zone, we need to consider bringing some of these physical dynamics directly to them.

The agency I currently work with (RAPP, Los Angeles) is doing a terrific job of taking this challenge head on. Not only is the agency blending disciplines and erasing the lines between 'traditional' and 'non-traditional', but it is redefining itself as an innovator by actually reinventing its own physical workspace dynamics.

Below is a floorplan of the entire office:

All the offices within the floorplan have been rearranged so that people from 'opposite disciplines' can share space and actually collaborate, even if they're not working on the same accounts and/or at the same time. For example, the head of the strategy & enablement group shares a space with the ECD.

Agencies have always extracted meaning from culture (or redefined culture) to create new ideas. The difference here, however, is in building an environment where anyone and everyone is stimulated, and, one in which fictional or non-fictional elements of a narrative can actually be disseminated and adopted across entire groups of people.

I've added elements to the floorplan to illustrate areas where transmedia development can be harnessed and nurtured. The red-bordered orange areas are the cultural hubs, where an entertainment context drives conversation around social, political, environmental or educational themes. For example, “Cinema & Gaming” is one hub, “TV & IPTV”, “Graphic Novels”, “Mobile/Digital” and “Any” are other hubs. At first glance, these may appear as more silos, but we must remember that these elements are reflexive, and so the idea is to give the environment as a whole some structure based on content or contextual interest.

The blue areas are either conference rooms or shared office clusters where ideation can be discussed further and formalized at any given time. If a conference room is booked or an office cluster is occupied, the birthing areas – what you see in the turquoise stretches – can be utilized to declare ideas into existence and share them immediately with a co-worker, regardless of their title or role in the agency... Essentially, an ‘open office’ policy for creative ideation.

This also sends another interesting message to co-workers: that no one is above or below the creative process.

In fact, account people, analytics people and media planners are held to the same standard that experience architects, developers, strategists and art directors are. For one, it gives account leads an opportunity to embrace the work in a way that they can represent it altruistically, yet on their own terms. For another, it gives the 'thinkers' of the agency a better way of understanding the pains that account people and clients go through and make these considerations as they develop new ideas. This also cuts down on executive hubris and brings management more directly into the fold on some of the more intricate development being done inside the agency.

Hopefully, this type of thinking will be adopted across the entire agency network, and can be also be applied to studios, schools and other creative businesses.

I would love to hear your thoughts on ways we can expand this model, and adapt it to different working environments.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Calling All Marketers: Time to Pay It Forward (For Real)

2009-12-17T05:39:00.001-08:00

“Objects of design and desire are never going to scratch the itch, in short. Only the moral imperative of self-actualization (because we no longer have to struggle to survive — the sheer nastiness of this global recession aside) will stand as the single most important driver in people’s lives. That’s our talisman as marketers.”

- Brendan Howley, Novelist | Screenwriter | Activist | Partner, Fresh Baked Entertainment

We, as marketers, are sitting on a goldmine, a wealth of opportunity. Not the kind that will make us rich in a material sense (although I suppose it could as well), but in a way that can help us formalize our roles as individuals in this world.

You see, there are all these theories and declarations about ‘social media’ (which is an oxymoronic term, by the way), and how we can convert engagement into sales (which we can, but I digress, and so?).

We talk about digital as the new, new, new thing, even though many times its core functions are really no different than the way we’ve been behaving as slightly evolved apes for centuries... Pointing and clicking (grunting and f------).

We talk about ‘integrated’ solutions as though we’ve come up with a wiz-bang framework for manipulating the shit out of people without them knowing it (why, when we don’t have to?).

Inevitably, we can’t help but call into question what got us here, and where this is all going.

Why was ‘CRM’ ever considered a discipline at all, when relationships are all we really have in the first place? (It should have been called Customer Relationship Manipulation.)

Further, why is ‘cause marketing’ still considered a separate marketing discipline, when people are killing each other over natural resources? When children miss school because they have to walk miles just to fetch a bucket of water? Are we afraid to fully commit our brands to improving the world, even though we violate labor laws, pollute the environment, evade corporate taxes and STILL allow executives and board members to take home grossly inflated bonuses... Er, excuse me, ‘earn outs’?

Is this all some sort of joke... On us?

At the beginning and end of each day, there are billions of people out there ready and willing to join the conversation, and to fulfill on the promise of being better members of society. Of empowering culture at large. Yet when we invite them in, we most often exploit them and then leave them without a proper goodbye, or, with nothing to grab onto or ruminate over... Or very little, if anything, with which they can ACT.

We (as in most of us marketers) act like we’ve never been in a relationship before. As though a relationship will run itself and work itself out, find merit of its own accord, and magically acquire some sort of following in the process.

Marketing (and advertising) in a social sense — in a LIFE context — is about mobilizing thought in the form of meaningful action. It is about embracing the realities of life and recontextualizing them, through rigor, consequence, goodwill and, dare I say, enlightenment.

If you don’t believe me, then hark back to the golden era of our industry, when the likes of Bill Bernbach, David Ogilvy, Hal Riney and Lee Clow told stories about the human condition... All expressed through a lens supported by a mattress, a wine cooler, a financial institution or a big, white box with keys that sat atop our desks. And yes, these were experiences that produced sales, but more importantly, they produced relationships that resulted in repeat sales.

Cutting back to present day, here are a couple of recent examples of how we can create experiences and pay them forward:

http://www.kindness.yahoo.com/

http://www.summitonthesummit.com/

Clearly, we are only scratching the surface of our potential.

I created ‘CultureCasting’ as a bullshit term (in a sea of buzzwords, including my own) to prove a larger point that socializing media is about inspiring people to act. Further, it is meant to illustrate that people sell products and services to other people, by way of experiences that are meaningful. Period.

http://www.slideshare.net/goonth/culturecasting-a-new-movement-in-socializing-media-2668040

It’s time to pay it forward, folks. For real.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Transmedia Planning, Development & ROI (The New World Model)

2009-12-11T07:09:00.001-08:00

Transmedia looks at narrative as a hypersocial activity in which a story can evolve across multiple platforms, manifesting in an array of products and various revenue streams.

Where ‘integrated marketing’ often seems to trip on itself by simply coloring content with the same brand palette rather than contextualizing and enriching it, transmedia picks up momentum and cultural relevance by creating and/or adopting advertising assets or ad-like objects as parts of a greater whole. In fact, ad campaigns can evolve as mutually exclusive parts of a transmedia story, since transmedia has the innate ability to promote itself and its constituent elements.

So, if we can look at advertising & marketing as a publishing practice, the possibilities seem unlimited because we can sell more media and sell more products and/or services, and we can do so in a compelling, engaging and even transformational way. This has already begun to happen, as evidenced by brands like Ikea, Army, Dodge, the NHL, Guinness, Red Bull and Levis, that are publishing richer, more dynamic, highly shareable and entertaining content.

Faris Yakob of McCann Erickson hatched the first transmedia planning model; to honor his work, I have created my own version of what the planning process might look like for agency folks, and is, as you might notice, a multi-disciplinary, fusion process:

I happen to believe very strongly that transmedia is a primary gateway for global change through creative, economic alternatives. Transmedia already presents an economic incentive for media creators to lower their production costs by sharing assets. But if we go a step further, we can make this causal by creating peer-to-peer environments in which transmedia projects are funded by communities and proliferated by means of multi-community participation. This also means that in a marketplace where inventory and demand are greatly in flux, we can also make media (and respective products) more affordable to the creator and the consumer.

By the way, by causes, I don’t necessarily mean philanthropic (although that is ideal), but rather initiatives that inspire people to act, such as what we continue to see as a result of Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ initiative (and a great example of transmedia adoption within culture at large).

So if we apply this construct to content development, here’s what that process might look like:

Coming full circle, we now can get a picture of how media and campaigning can be leveraged through non-linear storytelling (or storymaking), and as you can see, this certainly does not have to disrupt our current media models, but instead lends many opportunities to enhance them (by providing adaptive means), as well as creates a greater ‘spread’ effect:

You might also notice that the media, content and product elements represented in the model are reflexive, meaning that they can ‘reproduce’ themselves, or, they can spawn new media or product vehicles by virtue of feedback and collaboration.

For more on transmedia, be sure to check out the work and groundbreaking perspectives shared by the pioneers of the movement such as Henry Jenkins (author of Convergence Culture), Stephen Dinehart and Jeff Gomez, as well as MIT Comparative Studies grads and maverick agency strategists, Ivan Askwith and Ilya Vedrashko.

You can also check out a presentation I recently gave at my Miami Ad School communications planning bootcamp on transmedia development: http://www.slideshare.net/goonth/transmedia-development-the-new-world-model

OR...

...A cover story article I wrote a few months ago in iMedia Connection: http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/24339.asp

Here’s to now and the immediate future — let’s collaborate and see what we can create in the effort to transform our world.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Conversation Tree & Social Forestation

2009-12-04T05:48:00.001-08:00

A friend of mine, Robert Murray, had a really beautiful way of describing the conversation dynamic and the importance of seeing conversations to their full potential, as told to him by a Ugandan friend of his named Derrick. It got me thinking about this in a context that might be quite powerful for any brand, agency, media company or content producer out there looking to better understand how to socialize media.

Derrick describes conversations as trees.

Derrick says that he is often late to meetings and social events because his prior engagement runs beyond the allotted time. The reason for this is that he always wants to give each and every conversation its due course, so that the next conversation can build from the previous one and real progress is made. In other words, so that the relationship is advanced and cultivated, and nothing is forgotten or lost between the current engagement and the next.

[**Side cultural note: While one might argue that being late is never a good thing, Derrick contends that a sincere apology along with a quick, “enlightened” summary of the previous conversation tends to realign the current dynamic.**]

The “root” of the analogy (pun intended) is that if you cut the trees branches off before they've had a chance to fully bloom, then the tree can grow outwardly, but not up. But if we nurture the branches to their full extent, then the tree can grow up to its full potential, and help grow more trees.

Naturally, leaves fall from branches, just as conversations may die off or fade away. But what we glean from those exchanges allows us to develop new perspectives and keep those branches (and trees) growing.

So here are the elements of growth (which are reflexive and cyclical), the “soil” being the social nutrition we provide to “the grove” which represents an ongoing narrative:

SEEDING — putting ideas into action
CULTIVATION — enabling ideas to develop
PROLIFERATION — ideas spreading organically
REGENERATION — when (leaves fall) insights are created, sparking new ideas

From a marketing perspective, when we thoughtfully create, enable, shape, adopt, adapt, and most importantly, cultivate content, we grow more branches.

When we thoughtfully buy, sell and barter media, or truly earn it, we grow more trees.

When we grow more trees, we create or tap into more communities of people.

The more communities we empower, the more opportunities there are for people to sell goods and services to other people (as opposed to brands having to sell goods and services to people).

So, Social Forestation would be described as

The process of fostering conversation by providing relevant nutrition, enabling communities to develop, grow and flourish.

Thank you, Robert and Derrick, for sharing your wisdom, and I hope that all of you can take something away from this that is unique to your own experiences.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Marketing... It's all Cause-Related (Or Causal)

2009-12-01T20:09:00.000-08:00

Today a client had asked a group of us what we thought the social consumption habits of Gen Y would look like in the next year or so, and more specifically, around their brand. Our collective response was "What exactly do mean by 'social consumption', and, do you consider this media, platform or 'line' agnostic?"

The even better response would've been, "Ask us in a year from now to the day, because every day tells a different story". In other words, trends are starting to mean very little in the grand scheme of things (and this a topic for another conversation).

Naturally, we face some serious challenges with clients over this whole notion of what social media is (I find the term to be oxymoronic), how it is used and why, but the real question we should be asking is "What really drives us to connect, engage, and ultimately, purchase?"

With over 75 million captive users and growing, platforms like Facebook Causes have already shown us that brands are becoming more relevant in the world simply because they've embraced the fact that they need to help improve it. Stalwarts like Kelloggs, Nike and Aflac are setting a great new example for the rest of the marketing world in this regard.

Further, online environments like Wired to Care and Project Label are making brands way more accountable for their actions as well as their words.

But the reality we also face is that causes can potentially be played out and manipulated... just like trends. So perhaps we need to reestablish that causes or cause-related dynamics of an initiative or specific forms of outreach don't have to be philanthropic (at least by clinical definition), but rather what they are inherently... which is causal.

So what defines causal marketing?

Initially it is the birth of an idea, culled from market needs tied to (but not necessarily bound by) environmental, social, political and/or economic variables. This idea then engenders a sense of true purpose for the individual or group, and empowers them to adopt or create messages as currency, as well as spread it.

How do we go about doing it?

Identify a need state, establish a cause to act, and within that intersection is borne an idea that can manifest itself in any number of ways, all of which is a solution to a larger problem. And since market needs and world needs are almost inextricably linked, the larger problem resides within the larger context of the world, which means that our marketing solutions might actually mean something beyond a campaign or a crude media buy, or even better, outside of what all of our polished up historical data wants to tell us.

Perhaps this is what "social marketing" has intended to do all along, and our mistruths about the media associated with it have led the marketing majority to believe that this is still a push mechanism that rams direct sales vehicles down their throats through the veil of conversation.

Look, at the end of the day, people are media, so it's time we figured out ways to better motivate them, whether they're looking to buy a product or a service... or not.

What do you think?

Thank God for German Engineering... (#BMW #UltimateDrivingMachine)

2009-11-29T17:03:00.001-08:00

There’s nothing like a freeway wreck to put life and product into more colorful perspective.

On my way down to work last Wednesday morning, I was decelerating at about 45 MPH behind a line of cars when a red truck suddenly came careening into me, first taking out my entire right side and busting out the passenger window, and then slamming into me once more, taking out the rear bumper and collapsing in the trunk. The truck was apparently hit by another SUV, and was sent spinning across three lanes before it got to me — what’s amazing is that it didn’t flip or take out any other cars along the way. The frightening part about the whole thing was the fact that the truck had actually pushed me sideways toward the line of cars in front of mine (while it continued to spin), and so the ability for me to course-correct the car ultimately saved my life, as I’m certain that I would have become a sardine had I not been able to do so. Another crucial factor was that the front air bags did not deploy despite some considerable jarring caused by a front panel that had come loose from the truck, allowing me to see and react accordingly — I was able to steer the car to safety on the outside emergency lane (next to the carpool lane), and away from traffic moving quickly all around us. And, despite being hit by a truck that was probably traveling 20-25 MPH faster than I was, my car’s computer system did not fail on me in this critical moment. Once the CHP arrived on the scene (mere minutes from the time of the crash), I was able to drive the car over to the right shoulder... There was no discernable damage to the suspension or the engine even thought the impact and subsequent stress on the alignment was substantial.

As for me, I have a sore neck and an apprehension about getting on the freeway again anytime soon, but other than that, I am just happy to be alive.

I am very grateful to BMW for creating what I can attest to as truly being the Ultimate Driving Machine. As for those of you who plan on commuting anywhere during the holidays, PLEASE BE CAREFUL out there... It’s scary on the road, and even the most conscientious and defensive drivers are at risk.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Pop Culture Engineering

2009-11-18T03:12:00.001-08:00

I just got back from South Beach where I taught a communications bootcamp at the prestigious Miami Ad School, in which we covered topics ranging from social media, to transmedia planning |development and technology integration. Each class (3 hour sessions over 3 days) had anywhere from 10-15 people in attendance, and the really nice part about the small group size was that we had representation from Austria, Colombia, Peru and various places around the States, as well as friends such as ex-Razorfish master developer, Robert Murray, making for a breadth of perspective. I always maintain that we are all students in the advertising, technology and media game, and so this experience was conversational more than anything, and there is no doubt that I took away as much from the students as they did from me. I look forward to participating in future courses on “Pop Culture Engineering” as well as visiting the other great locations the school has on offer.

http://www.miamiadschool.com/

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

From Macro Media To Micro Media

2009-11-16T16:41:00.000-08:00

What’s the association between these three macro trends – the decline in newspaper revenue, the increase in journalism school enrollment, and the decline in ratings for mass market advertising channels like broadcast television?

We’re seeing a huge downturn in newspaper revenue and readership - and at the same time a big increase in journalism school enrollment. Even given the expected increase in post-graduate school enrollment that comes with a recession, why choose journalism when the historic career path out of journalism programs is being decimated?

The answer is in the flow of advertising dollars, and, related, in shifting behavior by viewers and consumers. It is getting more and more difficult for large advertisers to make big media buys and reach a mass audience with a single message – and segmenting buys and tailoring messages by demo, behavior, intent will be a competitive advantage going forward.

So twenty years ago, I could spend 5 million dollars for 100 thirty second spots on prime-time, and be confident that I was reaching ten to twenty million people. Or I could buy a full page ad in the local metro paper and be confident that I was reaching a significant percentage of the local population.

Now, I still need to spend that marketing and advertising budget, and I still need to reach those people. But even if people are watching prime-time network shows, they’re on their laptops, or they’re fast-forwarding through commercials. Even if people are still getting the local paper, they’re spending less time with it.

The reality is that people are self-segmenting into smaller addressable groups. They’re finding the news they want, the entertainment they want, and the information they want – and because of the explosion of content and sources, they’re finding the voices and presentation that they’re most comfortable with.

So how do I spend that 5 million dollars in this new media landscape? Who will tailor my message and present it effectively to hundreds or thousands of addressable groups, all self-segmented by interest or voice? Yes, automation has a place, but ultimately marketing and advertising are communication, and communication happens between people.

The market for people able to bridge that gap will be a growth industry for years to come. It is certainly not traditional journalism, but it’s not traditional marketing either.

Advertisers will spend money here because they must. And as in everything in life, quality matters – good content, consistent voice, engaged viewers/readers/consumers – these will be the markers that advertisers will look for. So getting trained to provide this certainly makes sense.

Bottom line – brand advertisers still need to make large media buys to compete effectively, and as audiences fragment and self-segment, we will need many more media properties that serve both audiences and advertisers. Going through a graduate journalism program is not a bad way to acquire some skills and contacts that will be required to manage and create content for these media properties.

Interesting times!

related links:

* Exactly How Much of My Advertising Dollar is Wasted? (socialmediatoday.com)
* How Twitter can help news providers (guardian.co.uk)

Adapt or Die! Pt. 2: Agency Hubris

2009-11-04T15:07:00.000-08:00

[image taken from Amalgamated's website...]

A new colleague of mine, Ana Andjelic, a freelance strategist and Ph.D. Laureate in Digital Branding, wrote a really controversial (and what I considered to be thoughtful) piece this week in AdAge on Why Digital Agencies Aren't Ready to Lead. The article raised some serious questions about how agencies deal with client needs, and the ensuing thread pointed to the fact that the holes in the agency model are more glaringly apparent than ever before. Particularly interesting was that many of the respondents chose to attack Ana personally, mostly under the pretense that they knew more than her given their agency backgrounds.

Here was my initial response:

I can't say that I share the same negative sentiment of others in this thread regarding your post - I think you raise some great points, but I would add that perhaps these issues are systemic across all agencies within the landscape.

Particular to 'digital', I think Sapient has done an excellent job of adopting and implementing a model that focuses on business solutions for clients, and much of this is predicated on a strong fundamental understanding of brand marketing functions, as well as operational dynamics that can affect a company's ability to reach audiences and drive sales. Basically, Sapient acts as a management consulting outfit that has the ability to translate business needs into multi-disciplinary marketing functions, all of which are data-driven and mostly built on ideas that are agnostic as well as scalable.

In general, it seems that 'digital' agencies need to consider (among many other things) three primary drivers:

- The development and deployment of 'adaptive' versus 'disruptive' technologies; as Nick Law puts it, the difference between 'fitting in' and trying to 'break through'.

- How these technologies become a part of business offerings for the longer term, and in a bigger context, how they provide cultural value.

- How experiences are no longer restricted to 'offline' or 'online' functions, but rather ideas that can live anywhere and indefinitely (think of utility in this sense).

By the time I had posted my comment (it was the tenth), I went back later to discover that 40 more comments were made in the thread, most of which were aimed at how 'wrong' Ana was, and how unqualified she was to author the post. AdAge editor Jonah Bloom even got into the mix, supporting the publication's decision to feature her insights.

Here was my second response:

Seriously, folks, Jonah takes a solid stance -- the point of these posts is to create a discourse, as well as enable all of us to weed out fact from fiction.

Ana may not be right; in fact, many of her points may prove to be wrong once put out to pasture, but isn't this a good thing? Put it this way, would you rather have an article talk at you, or, would you rather have one light a fire under your ass and get you to speak out? (like you have here...)

On the topic of 'agency hubris', some of you, honestly, need to step down from your ivory tower. I work with plenty of people who came out of big agency environments and they'll tell you that after spending years within the ranks and in the trenches, they have relatively little to show for it. I personally stayed on the independent side, and eventually went out on my own, so that I could actually create and build stuff and not be encumbered by some of the bullsh-- being slung around in this thread.

What makes you an 'expert' on something like digital (which is a term for debate in its own right) isn't so much where you come from, where you sit, or how many 'campaigns' you've done, but what you are doing RIGHT NOW.

The harsh reality of this digital landscape is that you either adapt or you die, it's that simple... and ultimately the point of Ana's post.

In fairness to the pundits of the article and within Ana's thread, a gentleman with the alias of "copyboy1" brought these questions to harsh light:

Let's try this Ms. Andjelic. Please explain:

- How R/GA fits into your theory of digital agencies not being ready to lead.
- How a "traditional" Goodby agency "ends up doing the same thing over and over again."
- How agencies like Droga5 can produce great online and offline work consistently.
- How a traditional agency like Crispin is left "with little time to experiment" in the online space.
- How smaller digital shops like Attik can't handle branding and offline work.
- Why Marc Lucas, the ECD at Razorfish, is disputing your claims about the "Laundry Fairy" campaign directly on your Twitter account.

Bottom line: opinions are just the things we need to create a discourse around why and how the current agency model doesn't work, and the steps we can take to improve the industry.

What do you think?

Augmenting Reality & Satisfying Need States

2009-11-02T21:22:00.001-08:00

Yes, it seems that media — what we have come to know as a singular discipline — is everywhere. Or at least, it has the possibility to be everywhere.

We have already reached the inflection point where consumption is a function of desire, rather than circumstance. “Offline” and “online” are mere terms to designate a monetary channel, in the most hopeful of terms.

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Are these experiences our own? Are we adapting to market need, human need, or are we disrupting consciousness?

Perhaps ads, or ad-like objects, have taken on a life of their own.

With the ability to create new worlds, micro-tag them, crowdsource them and geo-target them, who is really creating a discourse? If ideas live on as currency, are they still human, or are they simply manufactured states of being?

Are they simply images meant for manipulation, or true reflections of our soul?

Perhaps these are the questions we must leave to those who consume, when they consume.

As Einstein clairvoyantly stated, “If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

It’s also not absurd to think that its countenance is perpetually uncertain.

We can only hope that the element of circumstance brings us to a place that is purposeful and unwieldy — after all, we must earn the privilege of discovery, no matter how trite it may seem in the moment.

Perhaps this is the power of media. And more importantly, the power we actualize in earning it.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Adapt or Die! Pt. 1: TV Everywhere (TV 2.0)

2009-10-30T07:17:00.000-07:00

[image produced by Adam Goldberg, Principal & Creative Director of TRÜF]

This is part 1 of a series of posts that will attempt to support the notion of 'adaptive' versus 'disruptive' methodologies and media theories... I sincerely hope you find them engaging and helpful, as well as an opportunity to lend your perspective.

Recently, Optimedia's CEO, Antony Young, wrote a piece in AdAge challenging the TV everywhere model, and more specifically called out Hulu's content and distribution strategy. Mr. Young's piece -- in my opinion and that of many who spoke out in a rash of commentary -- was very myopic and self-serving; clearly as a media buyer he is threatened by the prospects, when in fact he should actually embrace them.

Here was my response to Mr. Young:

Interesting post, Antony. Your perspective is well articulated. My question to you is (and with all due respect), should the networks revisit their strategy, or should you?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that this is an all-or-nothing proposition that should either embrace the traditional media model, or, the more 'chaotic' digital model. Yet there is plenty of research that shows a healthy, symbiotic relationship between viewership online, viewership offline and social participation. In other words, viewers are getting exclusive shorter form content they can watch online, that they are compelled to watch in longer form in their living room... and then talk about it before, during or after programming times. What this ultimately means is that viewers will tolerate advertising if it means they have access to new forms of entertaining content. This is not the death of TV, but rather, its rebirth.

If I understand the networks correctly, this is a way of holding audience retention across platforms, not a means for cannibalizing one channel against another.

There is no question that consumer demand must be managed, and in some cases, mitigated. However, people are still very willing to pay for premium content, and further, different kinds of premium content. If you think about it, what the networks are doing with Hulu isn't so different than the subscription model cable nets have used... so one might ask, if I know I can watch a movie a few months down the road for "free" (or a part of my sub), will this preclude me from going to a theater? Probably not.

On another note, it's interesting that you use newspaper publications as an example of digital eroding the traditional medium. While many publications have undergone a slow death, the fact remains that those who have been earlier adopters in the digital realm have been able to salvage their print businesses -- just look at pubs like the NY Times. And while less people are advertising in print and circulation is way down, this was an inevitability in marketplace shifts and economic variables, not a result of pubs going online.

At the end of the day, we do have to respond to consumer demand, and we can manage it, provided that we give people ample choices in their viewing experience.

Following this was another piece from Andrew Hampp on the everywhere model itself, and detailed in 8 distinct ways what the ad and subscription model might look like.

A gentleman by the name of "J Rosen" wrote what I thought was a thoughtful response, that articulated the delicate relationship between consumer choice and paid content:

I have mentioned in previous posts that the key to survival for content creators is to focus attention on giving the audience options and knowing who your audience is.

Hulu has done a fabulous job of maximizing the audience experience. They have brand safe content, a sleek functional design and have some of the most coveted content in the media world.

The Internet provides opportunities for companies like Hulu to set a precedent. Content IS NOT FREE. But that said, we as consumers deserve choices.

A balance can be struck to provide options for subscriptions, PPV or ad-supported consumption of digital media without having a minority of viewers subsidize the majority.

The Fair Market Value of a performance to an individual needs to be determined. This can only be done through advanced audience measurement. Until a process is in place to determine this value, distribution and pricing of content is simply a guess.

I have worked very hard to produce a process that strikes a balance of fairness for each of the constituents involved; the creators, the audience and marketers.

Perhaps with a little luck and persistence, I will soon have the opportunity to present my process to the powers that be.

The funny part about this is that Mr. Young did not respond to the thread generated by his own post, but did have the presence of mind to comment in this one, in which he acknowledged the viability of the TV Everywhere model... and then referred back to his own article.

This TV Everywhere model seems to offer a sound proposition for consumers, content developers, advertisers and the Networks alike.

The key is building a sound revenue model across all platforms.

I'm not sure Hulu is giving that to NBCU, FOX and Disney. bit.ly/3oksZ6

Antony Young
CEO, Optimedia

There are some insights to take away from these exchanges:

* Saddled by abject fear, hubris and management inertia, media companies have a tough time seeing the light in a multi-channel offering.

* Further, the complexity of content offerings and their distribution channels seems daunting to these companies in developing a transitional model.

* As J Rosen intimates, creators, audiences and marketers can and will exist in a symbiotic and harmonious way, it's just that media companies and agencies will have to 'monitor' and 'contribute' rather than try to 'control' this discourse.

* Ultimately, with better content, more channels and more dynamic forms of measurement, the revenue opportunities for brands and agencies alike will be tremendous, that is, if the agencies can adapt their models to consumer markets, as opposed to disrupting them.

What are your thoughts???

'Fitting In' Versus 'Breaking Through' -- The Differences in Brand Relationships

2009-10-22T16:18:00.000-07:00

Brands and agencies often talk about connecting with consumers as a means of disruption, or a way of cutting through all the media clutter.

However, R/GA’s Nick Law said it best: “Instead of asking ‘How do we break through?’, marketers should be asking ‘How do we fit in?’”

Here are what the differences might look like:

BREAKING THROUGH

rising up against the tide of consumer adoption, as opposed to riding along with it
pushing underlying messages more so than creating conversations, or better yet, building brand stories
looking at products as a consumer affinity, instead of value adds as a lifestyle choice
exhibiting hubris – thinking that your brand destinations will guarantee engagement
thinking of utility as a technology solution, not a cultural benefit
deferring to shock value, instead of social value
planning merely in terms of a campaign, instead of creating currency that can last indefinitely
capturing consumer attention, not building loyalty

FITTING IN

thinking about all marketing functions as somehow cause-related
bringing a higher purpose to all brand interactions and purchase decisions
socializing all media efforts by creating experiences that can be shared, regardless of platform or channel
enabling people to adopt brand stories as their own, or, collaborating with them to create new ones
recognizing that people are loyal to information & content, not destinations
moving with market demand, not ad inventory demand
crowdsourcing product development & marketing outreach when necessary
not being afraid to fail in the process of developing new consumer insights

Please, by all means, add to the list!

Microfinance: Our Media (and Immediate) Future?

2009-10-13T21:58:00.000-07:00

In examining the three “Es” of social change – economics, environment and empowerment - economics are of course the foundation for spawning new growth in local communities. And while we are at odds with how to get there, and have been for quite some time, it seems that we've gone the way of 'micro-thinking' in just about every digital discourse... from tags, to content, media packages and payment systems.

And now, microfinance.

Microfinance is not a movement that was born yesterday. In fact, for some two+ decades, it has been implemented in carefully small successes in usury and heifer pools within areas spanning from Bolivia to Bangladesh. The idea was hatched as developing areas around the globe would desperately seek relief funding from banks that simply wouldn't lend to the poor or communities in crisis. As with any commercial lender, the primary issue centered around not having a way to collateralize loans with an asset base, or subsidies that could be guaranteed to those represented in outside investment. So, the very simple solution has been to enlist individuals in lending smaller increments of hard cash to these communities, and mitigate, as well as allocate, the risk across these groups.

Pundits have often spoken about the inevitability of corruption - extortion and collusion among them - as well as the larger threat of socialist schemes percolating these communities as the surefire argument against the microfinance movement. But the reality is that this method of fund raising is actually bringing the prospect of an acutely balanced, healthy return to the privatization of our banking and lending systems, and when you consider the parity we are experiencing across our global markets, perhaps we are staring a revolutionary new form of capitalism right in the face.

Case in point: Platforms such as CommunityLend, Lending Club and Zopa have managed to sidestep banks and build rich enough capital pools to strengthen local economies, and in some cases, save individuals and families from financial distress. The peer-to-peer model has even been extended to mid-size investment banks, private equity groups and special interest lenders that have been developing scalable solutions for international relief funds, educational centers and social reform initiatives involving select U.S. companies and more active players abroad.

And here's where things get even more interesting.

Cut to a certain corner of the world - Ontario, Canada - where a so-called 'socialist' economic system has kept a steady stream of academic and technology talent belly-full and wistful in creating a new cultural value system for current and future generations. Discussions with several of my colleagues there have shed light on the thought that we can not only use microfinancing models to engage whole communities of people in affecting social, political, educational and environmental change, but that we can develop whole new ecosystems in the process.

'Ecosystem' is the operative word here - representing the ecological and economic aspects of tying culture, commerce and common interests all together. Sounds like a load of verbage, but when you think about the fact that central banks can be removed from the development process, again, we are sitting on something of great value and worldly influence.

Think about it. Hollywood studios can barely support the arts, let alone themselves in getting movies and TV shows made. The recession has nearly killed off the entire independent film market, and TV shows are only getting harder to produce as private investment from independent entities is shrinking by the day. To boot, entertainment properties on the whole are still fetching up decent upfront advertising dollars, but the ad business has been plagued by commoditization, and consumers are tired of being fed thousands of messages a day. And where technologies have been able to abate the hemorrhaging by providing the promise of conversation, we are still stuck with the challenge of how to keep those dialogues ongoing and how to tell better stories.

Notice a theme here that we touched upon earlier: parity. More importantly, there is a clear symbiosis between the elements of storytelling, media influence and culture... the coursing thread of which is clearly economic.

So what does this mean?

It means that a good idea can be invested in. It means that technologies can be built to host, cultivate and help spread good ideas. It means that communities can adopt and shape stories as their own. It means that higher learning institutions, research facilities and entertainment arts centers can be built. It means that endowment funds don't have to wait on quarterly contributions to be redistributed to those in need. It means that global non-profit organizations can employ top-shelf private sector talent to run their divisions like real businesses.

It means that on the media side of things, we can tell stories the way we want to, and that we can be platform agnostic if we so choose. It means that we can create new channels if we so choose, and that we don't have to find ourselves beholdent to media models that only serve the needs of holding companies and upper management.

It also means, coming full circle, that we can monetize on our own terms, as well as build infrastructure that can create jobs and new economic opportunities. As a people.

Even better, we can get governmental support, and corporate participation, precisely when and where it is needed. This is not a party plan, or a special interest play... this is literally the manifestation of by the people, for the people, of the people.

So here's an abridged blueprint of how this might work in what can be considered a transmedia capacity, and know that in certain parts of the world... it is already happening.

A narrative is built around a cultural, cause-related need - be it educational, social, environmental, political, or perhaps all of these combined.

Communities adopt the narrative and shape it as their own; in effect, they tell their own version, and supply their own story arcs or touch-points.

The microfinancing process begins; incremental payments are made and moderated by community designates, those trusted by peer groups and with reputable track records in their respective areas of trade or interest.

Brands are recruited into the development process and are invited into the conversation, using their own stories to empower the process, supply their product as utilities to support it, or to fund further development as passive investors.

Collaboration ensues at scale, allowing others with like interests to participate. Jobs are created, and more stories develop.

Technology tools are built or provided to formalize this job creation and syndicate these stories. A thread is created between the jobs or tasks at hand, and the stories from which they are told.

'Spread' occurs. Adoption happens on a larger scale. The model is replicated to other communities who have similar needs, or those that can lend support.

Government is empowered to regulate, and reaps the benefits of a higher tax base, all streaming from the private sector. It then has the ability, and discretion, to develop new programs tied to the transmedia narrative, or, create new ones using a similar model to the previous one.

Brands who have been involved in the ebb-and-flow of development can then purchase pieces of the narrative that most accurately represent market needs and specific consumer interests; these are new currencies that will take on strong economic and social value.

A new media marketplace has been building; now, these currencies have a proven value, a 'convertible shareability' of sorts that move with markets, as opposed to pushing against them.

Creative development resurges; new artists of all types and backgrounds emerge into the fold, inspired by commonality and challenged to exceed the latest quality standard. Their efforts are measured by their true merit, and they are well compensated for it, along with others who have participated in the process.

If you believe in our future, believe in this. It is very real, and the possibilities are virtually limitless.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might discover and create." -Albert Einstein

It's time to create.

Where on Earth is the 'Multi' in Multicultural Advertising?

2009-10-08T09:00:00.001-07:00

The power and influence of advertising, marketing and media never ceases to amaze me. In fact, what's even more amazing (or appalling, depending on how you look at it) is the fact that many of us can work our way through the days of the week not fully realizing this power or even exploring all the ways to harness it.

But those are the inherent challenges of working in a business where the bottom line can often drive us to forget the very reasons why we're here. The social web has introduced a great new way to remind us of why we're here, and the importance of making our decisions - whether personal or professional - count for something.

And then there's this thing called 'Multicultural Advertising'.

By definition, 'multicultural' means two things:

1. Of, or relating to, or including several cultures;

2. Of, or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interaction in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

Let's take a peek at what some of the top global brands have produced in the way of 'multicultural advertising'. Since I’m a digital guy and I believe this where the most progress or harm can currently be made, we’ll focus on websites.

In the spirit of the new FTC guidelines, quick disclosure: I was not paid by anyone to express the opinions you see in this post. However, when you see some of this so-called ‘advertising work’, you might be incensed enough to call the FTC yourself and have some of these brands sanctioned and put under review for unethical, and questionably illegal, marketing practices. I’ll go even farther out on a limb and say that I’m not sure that some of this stuff is even constitutional.

Let's start with one of the industry's more popular (and unsurprisingly controversial) efforts from McDonald's, called "365 Black".

As you can see, this is a real gem of brand innovation. Where do we possibly begin? Well, let’s start with the fact that if I am ‘black’, I get to be ‘black’ 365 days of the year. Well isn’t that progressive. But most importantly, the mighty Bodhi, or Baobab tree, tells me never to forget my roots. Wow. Truly inspirational, especially since the tree’s silhouette so brilliantly resembles an afro.

Now let’s move onto the wondrous 365 Black homepage that is “deeply rooted in the community” (trademark).

Gee, I didn’t know that cultural IP – you know, the stuff that you share every day – could be copyrighted. But have no fear, cuz you can have a “Flavor Battle” with your homies. How dope is that, yo? Spin some fresh shit and you get a quarta pounda! And don’t forget that Dwele got a lot new fans, you know, homies, after he started working with McDonald’s. I just can’t believe none of my ‘black’ friends are doing this.

Oh, and for you Far East types, the McDee offering gets even better with ‘MyinspirAsian’.

Dude — Dollar Menu Money Origami! Really??? And since so many Asians are lacking in real career opportunities, now they can take workshops that teach them how to make paper dragons, fly kites and spin wool. What a godsend! And if that’s not enough, you can shock your friends by mastering NEW Asian phrases, not to mention you can download event photos, cuz, you know, Asians like to take lots of pictures and share them with each other.

Hey, I’m lovin’ it. Let’s just call this new movement exactly for what it is: McOriental. Or just plain McTarded.

Moving on, here’s another gem of brand wizardry soon to come from American Airlines, called Black Atlas.

First of all, Nelson George, what the f&*# are you thinking? Do you really need the extra money to whore yourself and your ethnicity out to a brand that actually thinks that there is a unique and extraordinary travel experience to be shared exclusively through ‘sophisticated’ African-American (kudos for not saying ‘black’) travelers? And just what is the ‘black experience’? Are we talkin’ Soul Plane? Oh, I forgot, this is for the elite.

And to AA, might I ask, what exactly are the criteria for ‘sophisticated’ African-American travelers? That seems pretty inane, considering that not only excludes a large portion of the African-American population, but a large portion of the population in general. Oh, and in the hopes that something of merit might be explained away prior to Black Atlas’s launch, I read a PR posting on BET.com:

Hmmm. Nice headline. A wealth of information here. All the respective marcom agencies really thought this one out. Did anyone get the memo that there are hundreds of ‘Web sites’ out there, you know, things called social networks where people of all races, colors and creeds can share content, and if they want to join a common interest group, for say, travelers, they can? One really popular social site is called Facebook.

To make matters worse, the post had one comment, coming from an understandably jaded ‘black’ person:

He nails it right on the head: “I wonder what their motive is?” Ain’t that the truth. It sure as hell isn’t meant to inspire advocacy. I’m even willing to bet that not one African-American was even involved in the development of this priceless idea. I say priceless because, thankfully, this site probably won’t make AA a red cent. Or is that a ‘black’ cent?

I checked out least two dozen other ‘multicultural’ sites and discovered similar travesties. That said, not all of them are offensive. This effort from General Mills is at least a thoughtful attempt at treating a definable community as a part of the cultural mainstream.

No exploding pinatas here, or overweight senoritas cooking enchiladas for families of fifteen or more. In fact, the site would rather tell you how to reduce your cholesterol and provide expert advice on nutrition. This is a site that chooses to look at people for who they are: General Mills consumers, and family people that care about quality product and a better quality of life. They even have the decency to say what a rich life this is. Seems they are talking about culture at large. Fathom that.

If you run a Google search on 'multicultural advertising', you'll see a whole slew of marketing agencies, organizations, non-profit groups and educational entities listed right there on page 1 and 2. Yet not one of them seems to be influencing the majority of messaging and content on offer both online and off. Apparently, from various sources that I know, groups like the AHAA (The Association of Hispanic Advertising Agencies) have been battling these issues for years, and have had to contend with the fact that ‘general’ marketing efforts eat up most ad budgets, leaving the ‘multicultural’ marketing groups in the lurch... Or simply fighting for the scraps.

Sounds logical, given how screwed up the system can be. However, money doesn’t have to be an excuse for poor strategy and creative execution. For one, building websites is far less cost prohibitive than it was only two or three years ago. For another, the social web affords us plenty of opportunities to spread messages and build real currency. In other words, there shouldn’t be any excuses. Not anymore.

Now, I'll also let it be known that I don't officially work as a 'multicultural marketer', but it seems to me that multicultural work should do three primary things:

1. Expose cultural mores and defy ethnic stereotypes.
2. Establish points of commonality and build mutual respect.
3. Embrace individuality, while buffering against group ambiguity.

Actually, this sounds a lot like what I do. When we socialize media, we set out to do exactly these three things. Further, when we run technographic, psychographic and/or ethnographic studies, we quickly realize that, in many environments, common interests often supersede age, economics and ethnicity.

So why then are specific ethnic communities targeted on their own?

Why are they targeted so poorly?

Most importantly, we are these efforts exclusionary?

Granted, we don't live in a perfect world. We also don't always share physical spaces with people who are different from us, or interact with them in the real world, in the ways that we probably should. But isn't the point of responsible advertising and marketing to change or influence these social dynamics in positive ways?

I’ll tell you one thing, I’m not going to raise my children according to a world that knowingly chooses to identify people by their race, color, creed or sexuality. Some may argue with me on this, but as a person of mixed ethnicity and heritage (Native American, German Jew and Irish Catholic), I believe racism only exists if we choose to recognize it. And it seems to be pervasive in a lot of the advertising we currently see.

Time to wake up, folks. Time to take a stand. Cultural wealth and integrity is a shared responsibility, plain and simple.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Welcome to the New World Web

2009-09-29T23:34:00.001-07:00

We are ubiquitous.

Think of people as pixels (or vice versa). The semantic web is taking on new life beyond artificial intelligence – it is incorporating real human sentiment and building personality into its own evolution. Scary? Perhaps. But perhaps it’s better to give rise to human growth, not just the machines. Case in point: online ads no longer follow ad inventory, they follow people -- tribes of them. The point is that we must move with markets. Ubiquity will also give us better opportunities to self-regulate, so even if we are followed (and we interact), we don’t take offense. On a more positive front, we are on the verge of profound, sweeping changes... All of which are activated in the ‘real’ world. As one might say, “You may be on, you may be off, but where you are right now can be anywhere.”

SaaS has evolved into multi-dimensional PaaS, Enterprise & API suites.

Google Wave is just one example of where web utility is meeting universal connectivity. Now we can not only aggregate content, we can create it, rate it and edit it before, during or after we share it. Look for brands via super-user communities to evolve as the new publishers, as well as those that turn brand content into adoptable vehicles that any user can shape and add to as their own. A further extension would be more active product development -- advocates using brand materials by way of network publishing tools to create and distribute their own products. The development community never mattered more than right now. And it’s not just about the cloud, it’s also about redefining culture. Want to be a great developer? Get out from behind the keyboard for part of the day and look around you... The world needs you. Seriously.

Transmedia is the high standard for planning & content development.

Speaking of culture, it’s time to start thinking from the perspective of the other side. If we truly want to remove the notion of ‘them’ from the equation, then we need to start thinking about how ‘they’ think... and why. Brands, communities, companies, countries, governments and new societies need to be shown commonality. Many-to-many means a one-to-one synchronicity involving a deeper understanding of language and action, knowing their differences, and marrying them accordingly. Media matters greatly in this mix, media of all types, and it all comes down to building strong, spreadable stories that can live on as currency beyond campaigns and cultural mores. Sure, choosing channels is important, but in the greater context of life, what we say is as important as how we say it (or maybe the other way around...). Bottom line: people are media. Give them a better voice and empower them to use it. Right now.

Research is not just a marketing function, it’s an inevitability of life.

The social web is teeming with truth. But understanding the truth is not only a product of how we listen, but what we actually hear. Predictive is one thing, adaptive is another. Can you handle the truth? (Sorry, had to go there...) Stop talking so much and listen in. YOU are lucky to be the topic of conversation, and if you’re not, you should be just as lucky to find out that your category has a reputation. Brands can take years to build, and mere seconds to destroy. Why? Because if your industry is a target, so are you. The Dominos YouTube Debacle wasn’t really about two knucklehead Dominos employees, it was about two people who were bored out of their minds in a pizza joint, desperately needing to express themselves and find a purpose behind their work. This could’ve happened to any franchise. Companies need to think more seriously about the bigger picture – their investment in human capital. As for brands, if you want to join in the conversation, and come away with real insights, you better bring something cool to the party. Try this on for size: instead of marketing brands, we really should be branding markets. Who’s better at this skill will boil down to contributors versus followers. Technology alone will not get you there, for the simple fact that you cannot automate sentiment, you have to cultivate it. Which is why ‘brand monitoring’ is a wholly deceptive term.

Brand (and product) collaboration is key.

Contrary to popular agency belief, crowdsourcing isn’t such a bad thing – we’ve been doing it for years whether we chose to accept it or not. In fact, cavemen and women were great at it. And while Neanderthals still exist within some of the higher agency ranks, there are plenty more brilliant people coming up through the ranks who recognize that real collaboration leads to catharsis, not calamity. The difference between yesterday and right now is that we need to guide it and make it our own. This requires a shared responsibility that balances wants and needs with healthy sacrifices for the Greater Good. As marketing agents, we must be better at shouldering this responsibility in the near term, and in the longer term, empower consumer groups to share along with us by giving them tools and information that have real cultural value. Turn breweries into learning centers. Make local reps into national icons. Use sporting events to inspire creativity in the darkest and loneliest of places. Think big and do better – together. And as brands, walking before talking means that we can be objective while still being ourselves. After all, people sell products to other people.

Utility is uniquely portable & competitively shareable.

Look for fixed, destination-prone, ad-like objects such as microsites (at least as we know them) to take a significant back seat to things like ‘dynamic content packets’ (formerly known as ad units) in which the extensibility of informational content can adapt to the needs, desires and passions of common interest groups. This will create a new media paradigm, as well as a much larger cultural one. Yes, all this talk about culture might conjure up images of a Petri dish, but great tools mean game-changing and life-changing offers, borne from brand stewardship, yet made by the people, for the people. Where does advertising fit into this mix? As culturally-relevant value adds (not ads), that take the ‘text’ out of contextual messages and turn them into conversations that are ongoing. You want to break through? First ask yourself the Nick Law question: “How do you fit in?” Fitting in entails that brand utilities actually change our daily lives in acutely powerful ways. Nike and Target have been doing it, other brands like P&G are working hard at it. Here’s something to chew on: even competing brands (like Coke and Pepsi) can share a voice – even complementary roles – in creating utility. Why? Because their legacies are everlasting, unlike many of their products. How? By acknowledging that brand loyalty is really about sharing consumer needs and experiences, and accepting that this requires the commitment of more than one company in the same category.

Mobile means a lot more than a platform.

Forget 3-screen thinking for now (and perhaps forever), there’s this thing called ‘content connectivity’. Set-top boxes aren’t just boxes, just like PDAs aren’t just devices – they’re assistants. Geotilities and purchasing apps like Red Laser are guiding us in ways that not only call retailers out on their bullshit, but are showing us that consumers have ultimate power in making the decision to purchase, as well as how to purchase. Preference-based platforms are enablers for this movement, although, as we’ve seen with large cable providers, not necessarily the gatekeepers. Comcast made this mistake, but wisely got hip to the way the game can be better played. Again, shareability is everything, especially to the bottom line. Perceived failures, such as Slingbox, provide windows into the truth about how we consume both media and product (or media product). Another thing to take note of: mindshare is collectively owned. The next time you make a trip down the aisle (no, not that aisle...), you may come to the realization that your friends are better to you than you might’ve thought. Ralph Lauren understood this before and after technology came along, which is probably why the brand uses it so well.

Good content is good content.

Here’s the shameful thing about Hollywood. Most movies are pieces of crap. Even worse, good movies often don’t make money, and bad movies most often do. Okay, that’s fairly subjective (not really), but you get the point. It shouldn’t be this difficult to create and distribute good content. Well guess what? It really isn’t. Video networks are overtaking cable nets in both viewership and engagement. Even better, we’re seeing strong correlates between TV viewing and online participation. This tells us that if we can’t provide people with entertaining and fulfilling content, they’ll either get it from somewhere else, get it from multiple places at the same time, or they’ll just make it themselves. Now of course, there is a ton of mediocre content on offer as well, but the extension of the mid-tail is creating – actually forcing – a higher demand on quality. Further, the intricacies of a channel experience demand that a story arc is told specifically to that touch-point. In other words, you better know your medium before you start delivering a message. When most internet marketers started touting that video ads were the Second Coming, they failed to realize that message and medium meant the same thing: good content. Further, things like curtains and overlays are interesting, but they don’t hide shitty content, nor do they sell ads. So, when we say that the origin of content shouldn’t be a deciding factor as to why we watch or engage with it, we must always pay our respect to the value of ideas and hope they can be adopted through stronger distribution channels. Which, by the way, might explain why MySpace has one of the best video platforms few people seem to know about or use.

There are new channels out there, just waiting to be discovered.

Actually, they’re not so much ‘new’, so much as they are ‘over there’ or ‘right here’. God has a wicked sense of humor. It’s called irony. There are 1.6 billion Internet users, yet 95% of the Internet is hidden from us. Tim Berners-Lee created the greatest Divine Comedy imaginable. Or maybe he, like God, wanted us to use our hearts and our imaginations to seek out more equitable paths in our communications. Heard of micro-financing? Well, you have now. A few Wall Street groups and foreign banks are using it to subsidize our future, by putting control and moderation back into the hands of the people. Notice a theme here – people. People are going to build infrastructure and create jobs. People are the ones who are willing to put money in the hands of other people, knowing that they can gut check their own agendas. What’s even more incredible about this, at least from a technology and media perspective, is that these channels will reveal themselves as carriers of new currency that can adapt to market fluctuation and asset flow. In vaguer English, communication is not limited to what see or hear, and it is often activated by what we don’t see or hear. Which is precisely why, in a social context, we have to earn media before we can share it. More importantly, this means that the next big media channel could be you and your peer group.

Networks are becoming truly interchangeable.

Here’s where the fight for world domination seems so glaringly pathetic. We no longer need to squabble over bigger pieces of the pie, we just need to create bigger slices in order to make the pie bigger. For more historical reference, hark back to the early 90s, when U.S. car companies colluded and created an enterprise fulfillment exchange so that parts suppliers wouldn’t gouge them on price or inventory. It worked, and this type of thinking rarely seen within the automotive classes saved the industry at that time (unfortunately, as we know, they now face much bigger challenges). Cut to present day, where ad networks face a similar dilemma over inventory and demand. The larger solution is to work together, and the smaller solution is to figure out how to enable the little guys to become more valuable. Users are no longer loyal to places, but they are loyal to information. Go where they go and help them get there, especially if it means crossing borders. Look, even Google is shrinking its mighty algorithm to serve the needs of the people, and ultimately recognizes that people make for the best publishers. And who has a renewed opportunity to play a mighty role here alongside Google? You guessed it – The Purple Cow. No need for pink elephants in the room, or on the network.

Embrace the human condition with real-time social search.

Attention brands (and agencies): you no longer own search. Repeat. You no longer own search. In some ways, you never really did, which is why it can cost so damn much. This might have something to do with the fact that people own brands, and more specifically to do with the fact that more and more search queries are user generated. Think about it – social sites and related content comprise a majority of the ‘webiverse’, not to mention that they fulfill both ends of the conversation loop. The funnel is stretching sideways, folks, and doing so in a way that is turning the Long Tail into a new mass market. Tipping points aside, what will come of paid search? Well, ask yourself this question: Do you own language? Maybe you do, but keywords don’t really live inside of ads, they thrive inside of conversations. If you want to send a message, write about it and be sincere. If people like what you have to say, they’ll share it (and index it). Look at everything they do, or you do, as a ‘Twiggle’ or ‘FaceFeed’. Sounds silly, but so is paying someone to wait in line.

Good marketing means improving the world. Period.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Facebook Causes is one of the largest active platforms around (well, actually it’s an app – which makes it even more impressive) with 75 million registered users. Consider the the three “Es” of social change – economics, environment and empowerment – then consider this: if you want to be relevant in the world, you’d better help improve it. Global brands like Dove, Kellogg’s and even Aflac (quack-quack) are leading the way. Why? Because they’ve realized and embraced the fact that brand equity is as important as product quality. Further, brands are not only the expectation of things to come, they are the projection of what we can be. At the end of the day, doing good is profitable. Really, it is. Now hold out your hand and open your eyes.

Welcome to the New World Web. What can we do together?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Before media can be earned, we must earn each other's respect...

2009-09-18T14:19:00.001-07:00

[Image created from a painting by Stephanie Ramer]

Just this week it dawned upon me that the social web is an amazing albeit tough place. Just looking at the blogosphere alone, the new and profound shift in conscious communications brings with it a rash of harsh criticism, personal attacks and digressions that often seek to well up emotional sores as opposed to cultural mores that can be collectively challenged in more positive ways.

When we think of earning media – what the social web mandates in our interpersonal exchanges – we must also consider that respect is a core value that has somehow gotten lost in the frenetic race to stay ‘ahead of the social curve’ (if that’s even possible).

Maybe we need to understand, or reacquaint ourselves with, what respect really is.

So what is ‘respect’?

According to Wikipedia, it is esteem for, or a sense of the worth or excellence of, a person, a personal quality, ability, or a manifestation of a personal quality or ability. In certain ways, respect manifests itself as a kind of ethic, or principle, such as in the commonly taught concept of "[having] respect for others" or the ethic of reciprocity.

Esteem for, or a sense of the worth, or excellence, of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability, for example, "I have great respect for her judgment."

Deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.

Three things immediately jump out at me: esteem for others, what ultimately amounts to self-worth, and the ethic of reciprocity.

It’s funny because in the social media world, we talk about things like reciprocity in terms of transparency and authenticity, but rarely, if at all, do we discuss self-worth and esteem for others. Sure, we express mutual admiration, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that this is an attribute that primarily exists out of self-interest. For example, and at the risk of being cynical, if I commend you on something over, say Twitter, I am really soliciting you to commend me on that acknowledgment.

There’s nothing wrong with mutual admiration, by the way, but I’m trying to make a larger point which is that we often lose sight of the substance and inherent value behind our communication streams by virtue of how we actually engage in these communication streams.

As for esteem and self-worth, well, those are things we need to work on within ourselves so that we can evolve along with everyone else. There is a certain amount of heavy lifting we need to do in the way of self-introspection so that we can present ourselves to each other on the social web in a way that is emotionally resonant and contextually relevant. Perhaps technology has enabled us to cut some corners here.

So back to respect.

For purposes that hopefully extend this position beyond semantics, let’s reframe what respect can mean, or better yet, be, to us within a social context. Let’s make it all about reciprocity, about sharing something of value pretty much every time we come to the table with a desire, a need or an inquiry, so that when we share media – and all that it represents to us – we not only understand its value, but we then know that its discourse does not lose sight of its purpose... Which is to build trust, a primary tenet among many other things.

If we can accept that people are media, then respect is the foundation of successful relationships not only with brands, but the things that brands represent in the larger context of the world around us. In turn, the media that we earn then allows us to make a real difference in our lives, and, gives us real purpose behind our purchases.

So, perhaps we can reframe respect as a function of true reciprocity.

Enough of my pontifications... What do you think?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Revolutionary Power of Transmedia Storytelling

2009-09-17T14:20:00.000-07:00

The following is a cover story article that was published on iMedia Connection on September 8, 2009.

The revolutionary power of transmedia storytelling

By Gunther Sonnenfeld

September 08, 2009

Article Highlights:

Unlike widgets or individual pieces of content, transmedia elements can be experienced an infinite number of times
Transmedia is more than an integrated campaign, as each channel needs its own voice in the story arc
Successful transmedia narratives make consumers hungry for the other elements while driving them back to the main product

Next in media planning & buying

There has been quite a bit of talk in recent years around the concept of transmedia storytelling. Few of these narratives have actually been implemented, but a select number of companies have chosen to satisfy consumer affinities, put great ideas on a pedestal, and think of creative ways to proliferate those ideas through carefully chosen channels.

On a deeper level, transmedia narratives strike an amazing balance between medium and message. In doing so, an exposition can carry out a story arc through application and dialogue that transcends all media execution. Whether you are a brand, an agency, a studio, or a publisher, transmedia storytelling is and will be an integral part of our future success as media entities and content providers.

Transmedia's history
So just what is transmedia storytelling, and why hasn't it been fully adopted?

For starters, it represents a process where integral elements of a fictional narrative get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience, as defined by Confessions of an Aca-Fan.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, the concept of transmedia storytelling was formally hatched by Henry Jenkins, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and author of the groundbreaking "Convergence Culture." In the book, Jenkins deftly deconstructs not only the inefficiencies of media influence and consumption (or what we might regard in this context as "confluence"), but also identifies most advertising outreach as communications streams that are significantly limited in what he describes as their "hypersociability."

Hypersociability is a term used to represent the conversational -- or what Faris Yakob has coined as the "spread" -- nature of content. So the idea is that if we can create a true story arc around or within an idea, the scalability of that currency (what we share) is virtually limitless. In effect, it takes us from passing along a piece of content, an application, or a widget (which may die on the proverbial vine), and allows us to engage and participate in a phenomenon, and do so indefinitely. Case in point: "The Matrix", along with many of its associated harbingers, will be the topic of discussion at cocktail parties and dinner tables for as long as the media world exists in its own vacuum.

Transmedia development emerged along with the advancement in digital storytelling, but as Ivan Askwith, senior director of strategy at Big Spaceship, points out, it was also partly cultivated as a means for solving the problem of marketing and licensing excess. This has been a particularly frequent issue with feature film franchises, but has reared its head across a variety of media.

Askwith actually studied with Jenkins and earned his masters at MIT. His thesis was an exploration of how television programs use transmedia extensions as part of a larger attempt to create audience engagement -- a means for allowing viewers to stay personally invested in a storyline. He also did work on alternate reality games (ARGs) as part of a separate research effort completed at the institute. Alternate reality solutions have been around for some time, but have only just begun to reveal themselves in a more seamless format.

Putting theory into application
One of the more famous case studies that blends content from a television property and utilizes (in part) ARG extensions is the hit series, "Lost." In addition to the popular television series, the creators of "Lost" have produced a wide range of narrative extensions, including original webisodes featuring the main cast; numerous websites for fictional organizations featured in the show, such as Oceanic Airlines and the Hanso Foundation; a bestselling mystery novel that was published as a final manuscript by a character on the show; a video game that lets players explore the island and interact with the characters in an original storyline, and much more.

"Lost" is a perfect example of transmedia as marketing technique because it blurs the line between advertising and product, according to Askwith. "While most of the transmedia extensions around 'Lost' are ultimately intended to drive viewers back to the mothership of the television series, some viewers might just as easily (and legitimately) feel that the show is driving them outward, to seek out the other pieces that complete the narrative," he says. "So all of these other pieces might be advertising the show, but they're also advertising themselves -- and, increasingly, providing the ability for content creators to tell more complex stories, while generating new sources of revenue."

Coca-Cola's 2007 campaign, "The Happiness Factory", brought out the true narrative potential of what originated as a purely advertising-based vehicle. Inspired by the success of an award-winning television spot depicting the fantastic world and creatures that exist inside each Coca-Cola vending machine, Coke has expanded "The Happiness Factory" into a full-fledged transmedia franchise. This comes complete with an interactive website and "Open Happiness," a new commercial song featuring several popular music artists.

While brands like Coke are far from deficient with respect to their media budgets, it seems they may be challenged with finding more objective and resourceful solutions such as those provided by Starlight Runner Entertainment.

Jeff Gomez, Starlight Runner CEO and a pioneer in developing transmedia content for a number of Fortune 100 brands, including Coke's Happiness initiative, knows that this is no easy feat.

"There are short stories and multi-volume epics; transmedia narrative is a way of conveying messages, themes, and stories -- a tool or methodology if you will," he says. "Smaller efforts may become as ephemeral as a tale written in a magazine, while truly grand and artful ones will aspire to epic literature. We try to distinguish transmedia narrative implementation from standard terminology such as advertising campaigns, although the two can co-exist or overlap."

One example of this type of real-world integration is Dove's now famous initiative for Real Beauty. When you think about it, Dove took a very transmedia-esque approach. With the simple core insight that women of the world don't describe themselves as beautiful, Dove deconstructed our media portrayal of beauty, uprooted messaging geared towards women that has been ingrained since their childhood through multiple sources, and quite effectively, defied cultural mores and peer pressures associated with those deeper messages.

According to Gomez, this is an approach that demands a kind of brand discipline not associated with most initiatives. "[It] requires a combination of diplomacy and a fierce loyalty to the tenets of the IP or brand itself above all else," he says. "Studios, agencies, and publishers that are not doing this are finding themselves trailing the frontrunners."

Spreading the love
Askwith and Gomez are two early adopters who have taken this phenomenon to new heights, but there is a host of emerging players who have not only made their mark with distinctive and groundbreaking creative strategies, but who have endeavored to offer scalable business models that serve a higher purpose.

One such play is "Humanitainment," the brainchild of Michael Fox.

What started with a successful viral campaign for Barack Obama (featuring 5 No. 1 viral videos including "Baracky" and "The Empire Strikes Barack") that helped to define the Obama brand and shape the 2008 election, has evolved into an innovative transmedia branding model that organically fuses commercial entertainment with socially-relevant messages. It's what you might call pop culture... with a purpose.

As Fox -- a former entertainment attorney turned cause advocate -- explains, "We are living in a time where technology enables us, and the state of the world requires us, to use new media not only as a revolutionary marketing tool, but as a way to galvanize the consumer to participate in transforming the future. Twenty-first century branding is not just about making consumers' lives better... it's about making the world better."

Reconstructing cultural paradigms
Goodwill and great intentions have been necessitated by tough economic, environmental, and social times. To the extent that we can seek out powerful interpersonal connections within the transmedia landscape, we also have to account for what type of thinking is required and retool the processes by which we implement this thinking. You might look at this as a hybrid of management consulting, technology development, creative ideation, and hub-and-spoke deployment.

The reality is that many agencies are not equipped or set up for success in this regard. Transmedia vehicles cannot be confined to a predetermined media plan or buy. And, as Conn Fishburn, a former senior partner at Ogilvy and recent head of partner innovation at Yahoo, points out, this is an inventive methodology that takes us far beyond creating just an ad campaign.

"Transmedia programs are inherently about the creation of culture. About understanding the living story, how it is picked up and adopted by people who add to it, shape it, and make it their own based on a core brand DNA," he says. "Agencies typically make static objects that have no history or future and represent ideas that are somewhat plastic. Great ideas must weave themselves into the broader cultural zeitgeist."

Further, all inter-agency departments need to be able to ideate and touch the work in a truly collaborative mindset, and this must translate well past coloring ad units, websites, mobile apps, advergames, or outdoor elements with the same brand palette.

Transmedia development is not a repository for the window-dressing that has become a host of fairly innocuous integrated solutions. What we're really talking about is building conversational elements with their own personalities that are endemic to a particular touch-point in which each channel has its own voice in the collective arc of a storyline.

Following audiences and moving with markets
Let's also not forget a paradigm that has left us all scratching our heads in the search for a viable solution: branded content and product placement. Many talent agencies and creative shops have scrambled to monetize content within very challenging and shifting models. Transmedia narratives have the potential to create greater opportunities by extending stories, reaching multiple platforms, and enabling better audience targeting when done right.

"Audiences are more willing to engage in a number of different ways now," according to Jesse Albert, senior new media agent in the Global Branded Entertainment division at ICM. "Loyalty is given to entertaining content and not to distribution, and audiences will look to find that content wherever they can or please. With transmedia, brands and IP can take advantage of the consumer's willingness to explore distribution channels by extending content offerings across the spectrum."

Loyalty is the operative word, and a formidable hurdle, when we consider the advances that new technologies are making to bring content to us. Retargeting, for example, presents a seesaw battle between what is intrusive and what is seamless. As content providers, when we move with people and not with ad inventory, we have to be very careful about how we extend invitations to interact with content.

As Albert explains, "Content only becomes of interest to consumers when there is something unique to each medium that extends the value proposition of the core IP offered, rather than simply replicating it. Above all, we must reward the true fan who follows the IP thru all channels with wholly unique offerings."

Marketing and development functions
What Albert and Fishburn allude to are actually two fundamental parts to transmedia: the marketing functions and the development functions of a rollout strategy. This requires a bit of reverse engineering, to say the least.

The marketing functions would serve to optimize a media plan or spend (in other words, reduce waste), or, from the ground level, would build out a framework that serves a market need -- in effect, putting the consumer front and center. The idea behind this is that we would actually brand markets, not market brands per se, so that common interests would supersede age or economics. So, in this sense, we are talking about developing initiatives in a true psychographic and technographic capacity as opposed to a mere demographic one.

The development functions would serve to build a mythology around IP. You could take your favorite CPG or electronics brand and build a storybook around its core DNA that is rich in lore, platonic soft text, amazing iconography, and a suite of virtually endless outcomes -- think of video annotations without a set number of second or third acts.

You can then take tools that are already on offer within the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and build layers that extend these stories out into the world, free of dictation, compartmentalization or even language barriers. Subsequently, you'll be creating a seamless, organic and highly collaborative experience.

In conclusion
We are literally looking at a global shift in the way we view ourselves and the way we relate to others in our natural environments, all through the possibilities and intricacies of our own imaginations. Picture this: Using a transmedia narrative to engage and build a new set of cultural values for a society completely different from our own, and creating an entirely new ecosystem in the process. Or perhaps it would call competing brand environments into gamesmanship.

Imagine Adidas's latest declaration that "Impossible is nothing" joining the ranks of Nike's "Just do it" on a wondrous stage blending fantasy and real human emotion.

What this means for advertisers is a potential windfall of consumer engagement and advocacy, or true "super-use." What this means for consumers are potential gateways of self-expression that can be mass adopted and at unprecedented scale. What this means for media is an adoption of content generation that breaks down silos and gives rise to human growth (not the machines).

With this type of quenchable mythos, anything is possible.

Gunther Sonnenfeld runs his own digital media consultancy, ThinkState.

I Hate Social Media (Well, sort of...)

2009-09-11T12:19:00.001-07:00

I make my living , in large part, from social media. It's not specifically what I do (that still remains a big question to many, including myself), but it is a catalyst or a major complement for what I can do as a strategist and a technology developer.

What I've really come to realize is that social media - and all of the respective channels - represent so much more than what we make them out to be. In many ways, we’ve compartmentalized and siloed social media as a practice that is supposed to operate like another form of advertising outreach. Further, it’s become such a buzz term that it’s gaining popularity at an exponential rate... in spite of itself. And, to top it off, most brands and consumers don’t really know what it means or is supposed to represent, other than the experiences that are unique to each and every one of them.

Let’s lose the term. I hate it. It’s complete bullshit.

With all due respect to the early adopters – no doubt some very bright and very influential people who I admire – how do you honestly ‘evangelize’ human behavior? How are you an ‘expert’ in culture? Are you an established sociologist or pathologist or social archeologist? A behavioral scientist? Are you Nostradamus? Do you know something that the rest of us don’t? Are you somehow the online world’s ‘social chairman’? Better yet, were you even popular in high school?

My point is that all media is inherently social.

I’ve said this many times before, and I’m certainly not the only one to say it. You can argue with me all you want on this (I hope you do), but the fact remains that conversations happen in and around TV ads, print ads, pre-rolls, posters, banners, in-store displays and a whole slew of ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ media. This isn’t any real mystery or revelation. ‘Word of mouth’ has been around since cavemen and women could grunt and point, hunt and procreate.

We’ve already reached an inflection point with the ‘social media revolution’ -- every Mike, Maggie and Martha is waxing poetic about “10 ways to optimize your Facebook fan page”, “6 ways to get more Twitter followers”, “27 ways to build an online community”, “42 ways to be an effective blogger”. To boot, most social content these days is regurgitated and redistributed to the point that parity and duplicity are afterthoughts. What about originality?

Let’s be honest, social media is about culture. It is culture. Plain and simple. The value is in what we talk about, not so much how we talk about it. More important, it’s what we are prepared to do as people, members of society, who are responsible for one another. Fathom that.

If you consider brands to be people, or owned by people, then why all the convincing that this is such a viable method of engagement? People shouldn’t have to look any further than themselves for the answers... Other than, of course, the meaning of life (and even that’s debatable).

Ok, so we don’t live in a perfect world. I’m not suggesting that we now establish a new term for ‘culture’ and add to the hyperbole we throw out at clients and partners that makes their faces scrunch, their brows furrow and their throats dry up. What I am saying is that we need to get real about our intentions and the substance of what we’re trying to say. Advertisers and agencies alike have incredible power in creating and influencing people in positive ways. But most often, they treat this as a right, not a privilege.

Well, I say fuck that. You want to get into ‘social media?’ Step down from the ivory tower and get creative in empowering culture. That’ll create something everlasting... Oh, and dare I say, improve the bottom line.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

What does advertising really mean to us?

2009-09-02T14:31:00.001-07:00

Having grown up as Gen-Xer, it’s been fascinating to witness the transformation of media in everyday life. It’s crazy to think that when I graduated from college in 1994, I didn’t have a mobile phone or an email address, and any ‘computing’ I did happened on a funky, bulky box that ran on MS-DOS. It’s even crazier when I realize that the Internet has officially been around for 40 years (3 years longer than me).

In looking back at my own unconventional and sinuous career path, I’m actually glad I was somewhat slow to adopt some of these technologies early on because it forced me (by default) to make a commitment to understanding, and contributing to, the integrity of a story. When I was creating on-air promos at the TV network, for example, I would often fight with executives over copy lines that lasted 5 seconds or less. I thought that my tiny little contribution to the passive viewership of America would somehow shine brighter because of a few word choices. And perhaps it did. Or maybe my eggshell ego deluded me into thinking otherwise.

Or maybe I just took this for granted. I gave up. I let myself get beat down by the system. But I also didn’t have the benefit of technology to tap into the consciousness of those who shared my common interest, those who could somehow acknowledge or validate my efforts.

Today, this is a double-edged sword. As much as I am an advocate of the digital revolution, I also believe that advertising has used technology as an excuse to defray our thinking and persuade us that we need things that ultimately don’t matter.

The problem with advertising is that it has evolved into a discipline that often presupposes a need for manipulation, not meaning, and meaning is sculpted by conversation.

The problem with media is that they are often self-serving, despite the fact that people crave sociable content that doesn’t confine them to channels. The hubris of media confines brands to the products they represent; case and point, you can sell a product any number of times and not have a successful brand.

We live in a sell culture. As long as a I can remember, we always have. But what happened to the iconic experiences from our youth – the Mikeys and the Cal Worthingtons and the Smith Barneys of the world – people or experiences that we could actually relate to, no matter how odd or funny or mildly endearing or even silly they were, and affinities we developed that stood for something apart from the brands being spoken for?

Further, even if some of those icons exist today, where do we possibly think we can go if conversations, by nature, must live beyond campaigns?

You see, there is great power in advertising, just as there is great power in technology. I’m talking about real power – the kind that is not only transformative, but ubiquitous. But in order for us to bridge the gap between delivering messages and creating conversations, we need to create real meaning – a higher purpose – behind our purchases. It starts with the little things that we’ve done in an edit bay, a programming bullpen or a conference room – the same things that must be done for, and must be accessible to, the people who consume media or buy the products we sell to them. It will continue to evolve with initiatives that aim to empower people in making this world a better place.

If this sounds lofty, then so be it. Our cynicism has only inhibited our desire to innovate. And to affect change.

This is why I build social technologies and help brands understand the value of connecting all the dots of their outreach. And this is why many of my colleagues – whether they are planners, buyers, designers, creative directors, developers or operators – do what they do despite all the fragmentation, fussing and hype that we are exposed to on a daily basis.

Bottom line: we are making a return to the truth, and harkening back to a time when marketers would hand out flyers at train stations and people would talk about the things that mattered most to them in front of a company representative or an entire executive team. We are coming full circle because consumers are letting us back into their lives, and on their terms.

The question remains, what roles will we play in this new transformation?

Better yet, what role will you play?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Bing this...

2009-08-31T17:01:00.001-07:00

With all the talk circulating around what Bing actually is – ‘decision engine’, ‘real-time search platform’, ‘content filter’, etc. etc. - you have to love it when the brand can be presented in the form of a soda can. Seltzer, to be exact.

It gets you thinking about how promotional products can solve the brand problem. You just...well... Drink it in. Imagine a dialogue between two people who could care less about the deeper meaning of some random technology engine:

“Cool name. What the heck is it?”

“Beats me, but I like the bubbles.”

“Yeah, the bubbles are cool. Although it doesn’t have any taste.”

“Yeah, but it’s all natural and fat free. And no carbs.”

“Maybe I can lose a few pounds drinkin’ this stuff.”

“Maybe.”

“Hey – I think I’ve seen a commercial for these guys. They didn’t mention anything about soda...”

“It’s not soda, knucklehead, it’s sparkling water.”

“Sparkles... Right. I still don’t get the commercials though.”

“Who cares about commercials?”

“Good point. I get most of my entertainment these days online.”

“Hee-hee...”

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

How the Pixel is Evolving as Real Human Sentiment

2009-08-27T10:47:00.001-07:00

We’re witnessing this on a mass scale – the adoption of social technologies that are helping to transform communication in incredible ways.

Perhaps something that we may overlook at times, as well as be shocked by, is how the pixel is evolving as a means for real human sentiment. Sure, we can monitor sentiment and analyze conversational topics online, but patterns of advocacy and tribal interaction are indicating that a great new phenomenon is afoot, and building with its own intelligence that seems to suggest that these lifestreams are more organic than artificial in nature. Expression clouds are just the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe artificial intelligence (what we have defined as the ‘semantic web’) is giving way to a new kind of organic offspring. Maybe there is a rise in human growth, not just the machines.

Well, for now, we should probably ground ourselves in practical application. So let’s take a top-level look at what the components are and how they function together.

APIs are creating more and more relevancy in the marketplace. Not only do they provide functional utility, but they actually connect people. We’re seeing this with brands, both big and small, and particularly with cause-related initiatives.

Aggregation feeds the retargeting or remarketing beast. Now we have the ability to drop pixels on people and follow them everywhere they go. They might not like this idea, but the argument can be made that there is possibility of not feeding them useless or irrelevant content. What’s even more striking is that in following people, we’re not bound to web real estate or pre-set inventory; you can bid on impressions within an ad exchange and move that real estate if it doesn’t fit the user profile, or more importantly, the market.

Which leads us back to application. Sure, apps can be regenerated as APIs, but what we’re really talking about here is building suggestion engines that aren’t just automated, but adaptable and in a larger sense, predictive. Imagine being put into a dynamic environment in which competing brands play in the same sandbox, all for your sake – your desires, your wishes, your preferences. The thinking is that if the market segment expands, everyone stands to gain because the shares of the pie are bigger. And what we can take from that experience are real affinities that are market based, not brand based.

The larger takeaway is that we can’t control brand affinities just like we can’t really control markets. But we can cater to them, and we can empower them.

Just imagine what Nostradamus might think if he were alive today...

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The New Micro Media Aggregation, Syndication & Social Search Model

2009-08-25T16:21:00.000-07:00

Given the current state of our social technology landscape, it seems that a new model is emerging that sheds very serious light on consumer control and activation; it is comprised of:

- Premium long-tail content developers (influencers, super-users and 'prime' blog networks)
- Content aggregation platforms (Facebook / FriendFeed )
- Conversation & social search engines (Twitter / Google Caffeine / Collecta et al)

The idea is that content developers will keep developing more premium content to cut through the clutter and saturation of mediocre mid-tail content. Conversation and social search engines will continue to filter the good content from the not-so-good content, and aggregators will give users ease-of-use and relevancy, such as dynamic comment threads, in order to interact and spread this premium content.

So why call it 'micro media' (which is not a new term, by the way...)? For three main reasons:

1. The lines between content and delivery are becoming more blurred, to the extent that these 'packets' can live in shorter bursts, or be digested in smaller, more relevant bits.

2. The portability of these packets allows them to be dynamically and semantically indexed into search, most often in real-time and also re-threaded through content or commentary streams (like FriendFeed).

3. Further, these content streams will be reshaped so that new semantic layers will build up (think of a new form of cookies) a value chain that is unique to each and every user, and will not only have topical relevance, but one that will represent a new relationship between local markets and niche categories.

Micro media give influencers more targeted reach, as well as the ability to tap into niche markets that represent degrees of conversation - people in their social graph and relevant communities. As such, we will see a dramatic rise of super-users and common interest communities (tribes), and in using social technologies such as monitoring platforms, for example, we will then be able to accurately map groups of people (social graphs) that we can then target with more meaningful and useful information and content, which of course they can then spread to their peers, and their peers, and so on.

Ultimately, as the players within the landscape narrow and more consolidation takes place, new channels will form that offer more utility for creation and use. Whether or not networks and agencies play a role in this - at least as we know them - is anyone's guess. But one thing is for sure... if you're a brand, you definitely don't want to be late to the party.

Thoughts? Reactions? Upheavals?

Michael Vick: The Greatest Marketing Story Ever Told?

2009-08-15T08:31:00.000-07:00

AdAge wrote an interesting piece yesterday on Michael Vick's signing with the Philadelphia Eagles, who plan to pay him $1.7M this coming year, and an option for $5M the following year, provided that Mr. Vick acts like a good little fallen sports star and represents the Eagles organization - and the league - in the best integrity and intentions. The article goes on to discuss the various scenarios with advertisers, but I think the real question is, what will Mr. Vick do to prove his worth to us, the members of society who he has so sorely disappointed? Further, how will marketers empower this shift?

Here was my comment:

Stories of forgiveness and redemption can be as powerful and influential as the critical mistakes that were made preceding them. Public contempt towards Mr. Vick is completely understandable, and I am one of those folks who is incensed by athletes and other privileged celebrities who have foregone their position as role models for self-indulgent excesses and political grandstanding. However, most people deserve a second chance, and if Mr. Vick can prove his worth to society, his athletic achievements - as well as his marketability - will fall in line.

You see, Mr. Vick is sitting on a mole hill that could slide further into a spiritual and financial abyss, or bring him into a light that resembles some of the luster of Jesus Christ Superstar.

Now don't get me wrong, the man has only just begun his repentant journey, but he did spend 23 months in federal prison, paid exorbitant fines and pretty much lost anything and everything that was dear to him.

And this precisely where organizations like PETA should come through the darkness to see the light.

Think about it: as altruistic marketers (yes, they exist), and the believers behind our messages, we look for two primary things:

1. Undeniable truths

2. Converts

Using PETA as an example, Mr. Vick's actions - and subsequent counter-actions - provide a contextual backdrop that could amount to one of the greatest stories ever told. It has all the elements: corruption, temptation, benediction and redemption. More importantly, organizations like PETA have an opportunity to use Mr. Vick as someone who represents all the people they've been trying to convert (and believe it or not, he's not even one of the harshest examples) for years.

Even if Mr. Vick was thrust into this position, it doesn't matter. His personal development is, unfortunately, not the focus. However, what comes of his involvement in his public story may prove to be as cathartic as any... and may produce the kinds of revelations that we don't see every day in the more manufactured campaigns we're fed from marketers at large.

What do you think?

Twitter, A.M. Turing & The Brain in the Vat (the new Google?)

2009-08-11T13:43:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it's good to go back in time before we can move forward.

The way the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and The Cloud are shaping up is rapidly calling into question our individual and collective positions in the digital universe, and ultimately, the real world. We've touched upon topics in earlier posts such as sensory marketing and how we put our social personalities into application, but now we are seeing a profound shift in how we aggregate our intelligence... and the prospective methods we will use to mine it, cultivate it and optimize it.

This week's announcement that Facebook acquired FriendFeed (a real-time social search & aggregation platform) brought to light a very alarming truth: our souls are beginning to show.

Think about it: the emotional self is loud and often illustrious. The spiritual self is quiet and often unwavering. In between is the layer of our existence that is almost entirely subject to interpretation, yet one that is almost readily identifiable - and in some ways, predictable - in patterns. Granted, these patterns constantly change, but nonetheless they tell a story about who we are, both as individuals and as whole tribes of people.

So back to the possibilities.

My guess is that as Google looks under its own hood (as it has been for a while) its algorithmic next step is to provide us with a solid, qualitative and quantitative look at this 'intermediary layer'.

Of Google's current algorithm, A.M. Turing predicted it outright: that a purely logistical view of mathematics is inadequate. He also talked frequently in his essays about the problems of word association in compact or niche groups. The point is that probability on the web - which, in conversation, shows a categorical emphasis and proximity to activation - is not entirely an extraction of content, but rather the combination of content and its interpretation and all the variants (or sub-variants) in between.

Here's where Twitter fits in. And where Google may benefit.

Twitter never claimed to be a content aggregator. Twitter is a true microblog - a conversation engine - that has served its purpose, and continues to serve this purpose, as a relatively straight-forward measuring stick for sentiment and topical evaluation (among other things). Google is refining is indexing methodology to include not only the extractions mentioned above, but the variants used to determine adoption and sentiments amongst users and tribes of users.

So the relationship is simple: Facebook/FriendFeed control the ebb-and-flow of content aggregation, and Google ala Twitter facilitate the perception management of these offerings into more finite and digestible bits... those that are more organized and more scalable.

fixed patterns > | new semantic layers | < infinite variables

We must remember that people do not fundamentally change, technologies do, so ultimately, where we go and how we get there is determined by our own doing.

As for the brain in the vat, well, you're in it right now, so only time will tell...

More Social Currency Evolving... (Like Swine Flu)

2009-08-11T11:06:00.001-07:00

Our friends from TRÜF discovered an interesting follow-up to the Obama/Joker poster. This street campaign seemingly goes on the offense against some folks’ favorite right-wing bag of gas, Rush Limbaugh. Fair or not, and after comparing Obama and Pelosi to Nazis, spewing hate on a daily basis and being guilty of nothing short of inciting violence, semantics seem to point to just about anything that links him to the word "swine". Unlike the Obama/Joker poster, this one seems to have a more pointed message. One guess is that it is something about the viral and toxic nature of certain right-leaning commentators. Or maybe something bigger: is true mass influence sourced from good intentions, or evil ones?

Which begs the question: who will adopt this currency as their own, and what new statement will they make of it?

Further, are we ready for the street campaign battles that are about ensue?

Perhaps are collective conscience is taking hold of itself and revealing different faces in the process...

Oh yeah, and if you’re curious and ready to spread the conversation, be sure to remember the hashtag #H1N1 in your tweets... Gotta be true to a viral phenomenon.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Role of the Agency: Business Shrink

2009-08-05T13:33:00.000-07:00

Assuage me.

This is the telepathic message every marketer cries out to a prospective vendor. Sure, some are more confident than others in their ability to build new relationships with consumers, but we all know that the game is changing so rapidly that, well, historical precedents and benchmarks are few and far between.

Psychologically, we can use specific keywords to ease the conversation, words like 'listening', 'advocacy' and 'brand loyalty', but these often fall into a rhetorical place that has no logical return, particularly on investment or intent.

So perhaps we need to get real about the landscape.

Service layer bundling is already a necessary function of any agency. Either you play in the same sandbox with folks in your peer group, or you run the risk of being shut out by virtue of your resource pool. You can't really hold your cards all that tightly to your chest, because if you do, you'll lose out on critical business opportunities.

Regarding the business opportunities themselves, you can run a separate P&L, but the fact remains that your bottom line has to be tied in some way to that of the client's. Gotta have some skin in the game, son. Especially if we're dealing with outreach strategies and devices that are largely experimental in nature.

We're already at the tipping point. Soon, we will arrive at the transformative point.

My guess is that we - as in our collective media mass - will be whittled down to publishers, networks and portals, in which we create conversational loops between marketers and consumers and fulfill very specific market needs.

What is and what will continue to evolve is a new marketplace. What goes in it can be anyone's guess, but rest assured, it will be dictated and navigated by the stakeholders in brands.

Good luck to us all, the future is careening around the corner, Godspeed.

Inside the Frenetic Social Mind: Creative Technology Development

2009-08-05T13:28:00.001-07:00

In the ongoing effort to tie commerce with common interest, creative technology development demands the navigation of an often paralyzing conflict: the balance between sensibility and unpredictability.

From a logistics or methodological standpoint, those of us who choose this path must blend UX with UI and AI and any other fairly useless designations I can’t think of at the moment.

From a business standpoint, elements of the supply chain rear their ugly head. Then scalability bellows into the left ear, for the right brain to somehow process.

From a cultural standpoint, identifying and assuming behavioral patterns are fleeting. It’s easy to miss the important details, such as a purchaser’s bluff.

All the for the pursuit of profit. But to whose gain? Ours?

Then all the color, the lines, the interconnectivity reveal themselves in a conflagration of possibility. We then resign ourselves to the notion that it doesn’t matter what comes of the creation, just that we’ve created it and it stands for something. Or anything.

Match up our thoughts. Bid on our feelings. Sell pieces of ourselves. And if we ascribe a higher purpose to it all, then the meaning can’t get lost.

Or will it anyway?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Evolving Our Social Currency (Whether Objectionable or Not)

2009-08-04T22:09:00.000-07:00

An interesting thing happened today on the ThinkState Facebook fan page. Manolith.com had posted a propaganda image of Barack Obama (on his birthday no less), depicting him as the Joker (Batman's nemesis) along with the label of 'socialism'. I happened to find the image via my friend Charlie Ferguson's posterous page. The image is certainly evocative, but what really struck me was the power of individual use to convey a sentiment that, regardless of its basis in fact, had a perceptible impact that transcended the words themselves.

The thought arose: if we label people - especially public figures - we should be prepared to visualize them in that context. In other words, imagery can shape semantics and can impose a cultural value system upon us, no matter how small or self-contained.

So my longtime friend and colleague, Adam Goldberg, responded: "We should also be prepared to suffer the consequences of our own labeling and lies. And if need be, own them. If slanderous propaganda, God forbid, incites some kind of vigilantism against Obama, do you think that those who disseminated those mistruths will hold themselves accountable? No way. Freedom of expression should be a two-way street."

Then he posted an augmented image of his own to the comment thread and labeled it 'racism' - the image you see above.

This through me for a loop, because now there was a clear and conflicting relationship between the words and the image. It jumped right out at me.

Was this new augmentation suggesting that Obama represented racism, or was he the victim of it? Was it saying that he was two-faced, or the victim of party posturing?

This is just one example - where the possibilities can reach epic proportions - of how media influence and social currency can shift perceptions in an instant. Looking at this hypothetically, imagine if the images had reached a wide, long-tail net of users. Further, imagine the lengths to which people could attack and counter-attack using these productions of words and imagery. Who knows, they may by tomorrow, or sometime in the next hour. We can never underestimate a groundswell of elicit conviction and perceived moral fortitude.

Ultimately, it forces all of us to ask ourselves about the role we play in sharing the responsibility of our messages and their subsequent actions.

Going forward, what role will you play?

Campaigns: Serving the Needs of Marketers, Not Consumers

2009-08-02T11:49:00.001-07:00

The rapid-fire shifts within the media landscape are forcing us to think differently. And while we have done a much better job of listening to consumer passions, desires and interests, we are, by and large, still trying to shoehorn our own ‘media solutions’ into their daily agendas. Quite frankly, this needs to change, and perhaps we can start by retooling our deployment methodology.

Let’s dive into theory for a moment.

A campaign construct is based on in-points and end-points which lend to a relatively short lifecycle. Sure, you can run a campaign for an extended period of time, but by default, we essentially ascribe a time crunch on what we hope is the development of conversations around a brand offering. But this seems entirely antithetical to engagement: how can we generate conversations on our timetable, not those of the consumers we hope to reach? Further, how can conversations be generated organically within fixed environments?

The concept of transmedia storytelling provides an interesting context – it represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience (via Henry Jenkins and his Confessions of an Aca-Fan blog). Perhaps it is a context in which we can make more sense of how to turn messages into conversations, primarily because the timelines for engagement and adoption are indefinite.

There are two fundamental parts to transmedia: the marketing functions and the development functions of a rollout strategy. This requires a bit of reverse engineering, to say the least.

The marketing functions would serve to optimize a media plan or spend (in other words, reduce waste), or, from the ground level, would build out a framework that serves a market need – in effect, putting the consumer front and center. The idea behind this is that we would actually brand markets, not market brands per se, so that common interests would supersede age or economics. So, in this sense, we are talking about developing initiatives in a true psychographic and technographic capacity as opposed to a mere demographic one.

The development functions would serve to build a mythology around IP. Imagine taking your favorite CPG or electronics brand and building a storybook around its core DNA that is rich in lore, Platonic soft text, amazing iconography and a suite of virtually endless outcomes (think of video annotations without a set number of ‘second’ or ‘third’ acts). Now imagine taking tools that are already on offer within the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and building layers that extend these stories out into the world, free of dictation, compartmentalization or even language barriers... Subsequently creating a seamless, organic and collaborative experience.

We cannot expect brand advocacy to be furtive and ongoing if we continue to bastardize our relationships. For those on the brand side – marketing directors and CMOs – it may be daunting to present something that is quantitatively challenging to a board of skeptics, but by the same token, all the time that is spent pouring over numbers can be used to develop business plans (not marketing plans) predicated on market insights that are measurable and open to adaptation. In other words, if you treat the consumer relationship as your business, you can remove much of the guesswork that goes into predicting behavior – a central component of campaign development that seems to fail.

Food for thought. What do you think?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

A Lesson in Social Responsibility: Our U.S. Healthcare Reform Bill

2009-07-30T12:33:00.001-07:00

Regardless of what you think about the current system, your feelings about privatization or the party lines that have been drawn, one thing to consider in all of this is the fact that it’s going to take a shared risk approach to fix the problem.

Personally, I’m tired of scrutinizing the outflow of my tax dollars, especially to the needy or underserved - their happiness and integrity is as important as my own, even if it is assumed that they are not ‘incented’ to work harder to contribute to a higher tax base down the road. If you want to look at this from a purely fiscal standpoint (which is totally understandable), it would seem to be in everybody’s best interest to make sure that all socio-economic classes are healthy and strong so that they can contribute to our GDP in positive ways.

This does not make me a liberal, left-wing, socialist, Democrat or Republican or any other baseless designation. It simply makes me human. It also calls into question the idea that we’ve lost faith in our own people on account of the fact that we’ve been blinded by abject greed.

Which leads to a much bigger point: with the steady erosion of the middle class (at least what is perceived to be...), perhaps we we are getting closer to a ‘flat world’ of social participation. We are starting to blend our personal interests with those that affect the corporate bottom line. Instead of making this an issue of whether or not privatization should dictate the ebb-and-flow of commerce, perhaps we should look at what corporations should play in conjunction with government agencies and special interests groups. Ok, fine, this is idealistic, but then again, we said the same thing about our current president before he was elected and look what happened there: the people spoke out and opposing sides banded together.

Look, I don’t have the answers. But I do know one thing. Pointing fingers and making this a political debate isn’t going to affect change. With a depleted surplus, the money has to come from somewhere, so the people that are capable should shoulder the responsibility until we can transfer the access and tools to those who can contribute on their own.

What do you think?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Duh Moment in Blog Participation (The FB Fan Page)

2009-07-27T10:03:00.000-07:00

Ok, so some of us are a bit slower when it comes to those cathartic moments. You know, the simple revelations that are more "duh" than "aha". This one came in the form of a really simple truth: that the Facebook Fan Page IS your following and commentary base for your blog or blogs (as well as microblogs).

Think about it: even the most popular blogs - at least those that are specific to social media thought leaders - are lucky to have a following of say 50 or more people. And unless you are bookmarking like a fiend, it's really not that easy to elicit commentary. That is, unless you are actively posting to your FB page.

This is where the FB genius begins to reveal itself. First off, the utility aggregates from all the major (as well as niche) blog and microblog platforms. Aside from the usual suspects like Blogger RSS feeds and Twitter/FriendFeed APIs, a great example of this is Posterous. Posterous is a new blog 'network' of sorts, so unless you are highly visible within social media and were an early adopter of the utility, subscribers and new comments will be few and far between. It also requires that you are heavily active on Posterous itself, since most influencers there are vigilant about generating and reading each other's subscriber posts.

But who has that kind of time? Further, how do we distill the content that we want to engage with?

Truth is, with 80M+ blogs on offer, it is really tough if not impossible. The other thing to consider is that we shouldn't abandon our blogs, but we should look at them differently: they are really content repositories that essentially feed spots of hyperactivity or hypersociability.

It's funny because I didn't think that my 188 fans was all that much - and maybe it isn't - but when you consider most blog followings, it's actually not so bad. About 10% of my followers interact with the content I generate, and all of this is easily measurable.

So, the bigger lesson here is go where your social graphs are interacting the most. These are sort of like social junctions where people can read, evaluate and interact with the content of their choosing. If you tend to write about stuff that is fairly esoteric and theoretical - like I do - this is especially important.

For me, the FB fan page is a saving grace because I can not only create engagement with certain posts, but I can also better understand what types of content people are reacting to.

Defining Content in a Digital World

2009-07-24T09:58:00.000-07:00

Much discussion has been centered around the burgeoning landscape that is media convergence. The careful alignment of medium and message is undoubtedly one sign of the rapid advancement of how we tell brand stories. In my ongoing discussions with transmedia advocates and thought leaders such as Jeff Gomez (@Jeff_Gomez), Jesse Albert (@jessalbert) and Conn Fishburn (@connfishburn), it dawned upon me that technology, as vital as it is for delivery, is really sort of an afterthought when you consider what content ideation can really be or really become.

So let's forget about technologies for a moment.

Let's look at the nature of content itself. There may be an important and delicate wrinkle within content development that may lead to leaving stronger and more indelible impressions on our mindshare. Let's also make this a more theoretical examination of where content development can go, something more expansive than mere (albeit innovative) case studies we've seen from the likes of Coke, Audi, BMW or EA.

First, let's redefine what content is. Wikipedia defines it as "information and experiences created for an audience". We can this step further and define it as: "anything that can be shared."

See, what we share with each other via of word of mouth is content, and arguably the most powerful form of it. The ethereal elements, the intangibles, are indelible and everlasting. The ideas we associate with them are the most shareable and scalable. Which is precisely why we must try not to confine them within ad or media units and inhibit their ability to scale.

Let's look at some hypotheticals.

Movies as user-generated mash-ups.

TV shows as multi-channel annotations.

Books as ongoing topical forums.

Periodicals as user-suggested news repositories.

Music channels as user-created set lists.

Clearly you see a common theme here: user-generation. While this is far from being a new concept, there is an element of reverse engineering at play here.

For one, the guesswork that goes into what content providers think what people want is somewhat buffered by merely giving them what they want. For another, once this content is reproduced and redelivered through a qualitative creative process, the new ideas that are generated start to proliferate. What evolves become phenomena.

All phenomena formalize as ideas that are exchanged and transformed through circumstance and lore.

So we can even ascribe a simple formula for 'good' content development:

CONCEPT (C) + ADOPTION (A) = PHENOMENON (P)

The concept represents the initial idea. Adoption materializes in the form of scalable ideation - people talking and developing new currency around the initial idea. The new ideas that are generated and owned and proliferated by people within their social graphs make this into a phenomenon.

The ultimate takeaway here is that we should probably look at content as something that takes on its own personality, and does so by virtue of what it represents in and of itself. Just as brands are owned by people, content also thrives on the construct of mindshare. The associations we make are potentially the stuff of legend.

Now back to the technologies that will facilitate this new movement... ;)

Random Thoughts on Data Visualization

2009-07-21T16:58:00.001-07:00

Ahh, the semantic web. Artificial intelligence – a seemingly oxymoronic term in its own right - sheds its artifice. Neon representations of thoughts and feelings reveal a true character of sorts. Us.

What will become of us? What forms will we take on? Why will we take them on?

Live our minds, be our word. If we can’t be omnipresent (at least physically), we can be omnilingual (just ask H. Beam Piper). Add pictures to the words and the sentiment becomes more real.

The spiritual self was quiet... Until now. Emotion is loud. We’ve always known this. But the spirit has its own voice in being visual.

We can replace numbers, or at least color them, with symbols. Quantifiable measures incite fear. They impose expectation. Symbols can assuage.

There is sound in silence. It’s strange to listen to your own mind, especially when you defeat the noise.

The power is in being. Simply say “I am”, and you are. Call yourself into existence.

Remember this: when the lights go out and the screens switch off, what will you envision in your own mind?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Solving the 'New' Media Problem

2009-07-20T20:35:00.000-07:00

Let's face it: media companies are in major trouble. And contrary to what some may believe, this isn't just an issue of being able 'to go digital'.

It doesn't matter if you buy, sell, plan, optimize, broker or bundle, the issue is less about offloading inventory than it is about proving its inherent value. Think about it: with more dollars shifting to digital with smaller overall budgets, the supply can't find the demand because outreach is more limiting across the board.

The ironic part of this, at least when it comes to content, is that media companies are still the gatekeepers. They should be. It's not as though they aren't looking to expand their offerings or invest in new technologies - because many of them are - it's just that, well, the model needs a facelift... and needs to wear many more faces.

Case and point: 'social media' or 'innovations' groups within media agencies are like red-headed step children. What possibly can a big agency CEO think when his own innovations group crashes YouTube with a series of virals that garners over 7 million views - quality views no less, with average engagements of over 2.5 minutes - in less than 48 hours, and makes the agency a measly $12,000 in revenue? The issue wasn't that they didn't run any other media alongside the seeding campaign... it was the fact that they didn't have to.

Now this is NOT to say by any stretch that we shouldn't implement mixed media strategies alongside social content or applications - quite the contrary. I've personally been a part of the campaign development for expensive apps that essentially sat idle while DWOM efforts fell flat on their face. Social ads have certainly proved their worth in building engagement and advocacy around certain platforms. But the rub is not so much attributable to an integrated construct, but rather the campaign construct itself.

In other words, we expect that consumers will engage and advocate on our timetable. It rarely works out that way. But there are ways to solve this problem. That is, if we're willing to re-engineer our thinking.

We need to think in terms of initiatives, not campaigns. Ideally, let's remove in-points and end-points from the equation. Sure, we can launch an initiative by running ad content within its normal media silos, and we can even run ads alongside our 'featured' content. But if we want the party to last, we need to distribute new ideas and tools to share - not more ads - so that advocacy can live on within our targeted social graphs, and allow these ideas to proliferate as phenomena.

Trust takes time. In fact, the run on this is indefinite. Why? Because consumers are thrown thousands of advertising messages at them every day. They're not looking for prescriptions, they're looking for conversations. Sure, they'll watch an ad, and they might even click through a banner. But what happens after that is not up to us... it's up to them.

The people are the media. A colleague said this recently, and it is so entirely true. Even 'traditional' channels like broadcast are seeing new life in the marriage between offline engagement and online conversation - and we have all the research to prove it. So, we can show people a glossy TV ad or cool page takeover, but if want to take this beyond the stunt or gimmick stage, we better generate impressions that are indelible. In other words, this content better be portable in some way, shape or form, and endemic to specific touch-points created and approved by each and every consumer.

We don't own mindshare, we merely 'rent' it. Just as companies don't own brands (people do), the currency we generate becomes the collectively owned property of the tribes we engage. We can buy a ticket to the party, but it's up to the group as to whether or not we'll be staying there, and for how long.

Technology can facilitate, but it can't really expedite. We've learned to communicate faster, but not necessarily more efficiently. Truth is, we've overwhelmed audiences with too many options in too little time - we've commoditized our own media markets. We need to be smarter about the channels we choose, and even smarter about the experiences we recreate or share.

Tell stories and develop overarching narratives. The longest running and best running 'campaigns' in history were those that became the stuff of lore. That built or enhanced our cultural value system in some way. We're at the point now where consumers are dying to collaborate, and further, they want to be shown that their purchases aren't simply meaningless activities. This goes beyond developing a relationship with a brand, and into a place where people can celebrate the connections they make with each other as a by-product of a brand's efforts. Ads alone can no longer accomplish this. But enriched experiences can.

Never forget the power of a legacy experience. With extended narratives come the reminders of why we live as consumers. To enjoy a sitcom in our living room with our families. To shop at the mall with our friends. To attend a matinee with a significant other. To check out a live show in the square. To take a leisurely stroll through the park. If we can empower those experiences - no matter what channels are involved - then we've empowered the people we want to reach in allowing them to share those experiences with others.

Think in terms of the relationship, not the upside. Consumers have made it clear - especially with the social media blitz - that there is only so much we can 'milk' from them before the honeymoon is over. Direct sales don't happen unless the decision to purchase is an informed one. To boot, corporations are starting to realize that whatever they do on the inside is reflected on the outside. It really is a brave new world. And it's marching to its own heartbeat.

The bottom line for any of us communcations agents is quite simple: we need to reinvest in people if we expect them to reinvest in what we have to offer. We have no choice but to put our hubris and agendas aside, and innovate with the very people that have the potential to become true stakeholders in brands.

They're ready and willing. The question is, are we?

What It Means to Earn Media

2009-07-15T12:18:00.001-07:00

Marc Brownstein posted something interesting today in AdAge’s Small Agency diary on how ‘free media won’t be the end of paid agencies’; his post and respective comments carried very salient points, but I thought what was missing was the notion of how media really needs to be earned, and what that entails.

http://adage.com/smallagency/post?article_id=137942

The following is my response:

Nice post, Marc, as always.

For starters, one key distinction should be made: "free media" should really be labeled as "earned media". In the social realm, and considering the glut of branded content on offer, this distinction must be acknowledged because many brands don't have the equity (or the relevance) to create engagement by simply offering up free content. As one colleague put it recently, in a social context, we ARE the media, and therefore it must be an earned dynamic.

Another point I'd like to address with respect to what binarypoet said is the notion that "agencies can push big budget campaigns to more targeted audiences". I think you'll find a lot of pushback here. For one, shareable content shouldn't be confined to a campaign construct (how can it be?), and for another, innovative thinking demands that we move away from creating ad-like objects. So at the end of the day, big agencies will most often strive to serve their big media models, not earned media, simply because there is way too much management and operational inertia. Don't get me wrong, there are many talented people within these ranks, it's just that the new economics don't favor the system.

Finally, your point about TV is really interesting; I think this is a legacy medium that does speak very well to online extensions (there is plenty of research to back this up). The great challenge now is to develop ways that can bundle media and at the same time create content that can live 'beyond the buy'. Further, there are new opportunities to develop show properties through the use of 'online piloting'. But, to binarypoet's point, the system and respective models must change, and how soon that will happen is the billion dollar question.

Best,

Gunther

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Hypersociability of Now

2009-07-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

Calling All Creative Thinkers...

2009-07-11T10:36:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to the Business Leaders in Media

2009-07-10T14:46:00.000-07:00

To Any and To All:

I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. I am a failure. It is important that you take note of this because I don’t want you to develop any false notions about who I am or what I’m about to share with you. Because it’s important for you to understand that what I am about to tell you is something you already know, but you may just not know it yet. Further, I think you and I are more alike than you might think. But we’ll get there in just a few moments.

I have spent my entire professional life in the pursuit of communication. To relate to other people. To share and cultivate love and acceptance. I have taught myself how to copywrite, shoot, edit, design, and even program, because, truly, honestly, I desperately wanted to share ideas with the world. To make an impact. To be a part of something much bigger than myself.

And through all of this, by and large, I have been told that I am “unfocused”. That I need to “specialize”. That I need “to carry a bigger title”. That I should go back to school and get an advanced degree, or take a job at a big agency in order “to advance my career”. But see, therein lies the rub. I can’t do that. I’m not qualified.

Or am I?

I’ve written print campaigns. I’ve built websites and mobile storefronts. I build social platforms. I’ve directed commercials. I co-wrote and produced a feature documentary that actually won an award. I can write a business plan and a marketing plan, and know the differences between the two. I can manage a P&L sheet. I’ve started three companies. I’ve even planned and purchased media. I can do just about anything you can do, or at least claim to do.

More importantly, I like people. I genuinely care about what they have to say. I’m good in a room. And I’m not an idiot.

Most importantly, I have failed. I failed in the sense that the companies I started didn’t last or make much money. But with each, I took invaluable lessons away from the experience.

So then, you might be wondering, what’s the issue? And on a macro level, what’s the point?

Well, for starters, I’ve stopped blaming everybody else. It doesn’t matter that recruiters most often don’t care about ‘transferable skills’, or that most agencies and media companies ‘just don’t get it’. Not only does it not matter to me, but it certainly doesn’t matter to the rest of the world. Audiences and consumers certainly don’t give a shit - they want to be dazzled and entertained. They seek inspiration. They seek to align themselves with some form of legacy.

You know what? I don’t give a shit either. It’s not that I don’t ‘care’, because I do. I care a lot. I just don’t have the time or the energy to waste anymore on trying to convince the ‘change agents’ that I have a vision. I can only show, not tell. I can only do what I ultimately seek to do... Which is to make a profound difference in this world. I’m 37 years old and only have one life to live. As Andy said to Red in The Shawshank Redemption: “You can get busy livin’, or you can get busy dyin’.”

The point I’m trying to make to you is that I have some idea of what I am capable of. I am a failure not because of my potential, but because of my inaction. Because I’ve spent years with one foot on the sidelines seeking the approval of people that were never going to validate my dreams, or help me find a path to enlightenment. All of that exists from within.

So to all of the agency tycoons, media mavens and business titans out there, let me ask you this, if you’re still listening. What is your legacy? What are you going to leave to your children? To the world? Aside from money, houses, cars and a title? More importantly, what are we going to do together? I ask these questions because as much as I hate to admit it, I need you. You have far too much influence to be ignored. And while that may change, what got you to this position was extraordinary. And I’d like to openly acknowledge that.

Look, we live within a cultural paradigm. At some point in our collective, formative development, we diverged. We were hurt by something and came to the conclusion right then and there that we needed to protect our self-interests and compete. And while competition has bred innovation, we have in many ways lost sight of who we are as a people. We have been conditioned to believe that we must be better than one another, to steal market share, to own mindshare. But none of it is really ours. It probably never was.

Don’t get me wrong, making money is great. It can be very fulfilling. It is important. There’s nothing wrong with having things. But innately, don’t you want more? Isn’t it no real mystery that the ‘things’ we have are simply not enough, and never are enough?

So what if I told you - what if I simply reaffirmed for you - that you can spend the rest of your life doing what you love, and continue to make money, all the while playing a major role in expanding and advancing our collective conscience and goodwill?

No, I’m not telling you anything new. But I am pleading with you to turn these ideals into realities. I am asking you to look past the spit-and-polish conference tables, the fish tanks and glass backboards, and join me... join ‘us’... in helping to cure the ills of the world. I am asking for your hand and for your guidance. Because I cannot possibly do it alone. And for you, I will make the solemn pledge: that I will stop at nothing to get things right.

So think about why you got into this business in the first place. What you dreamed about in ad school or business school. I know it wasn’t just about making money.

So let’s begin the conversation that is the next stage in our lives. I hope these words find you well.

Kindest Regards,

Gunther

Brands: Imitation is No Longer Flattering... Let's Go Back to War.

2009-07-09T10:27:00.001-07:00

There is something to be said for the good ole’ days when brands pulled no punches in an attack/counter-attack mentality that resembled chess matches in a public park. What was once a “less filling, tastes great” environment has now become a breeding ground for geckos, ducks, lizards, bears and a slew of other negligible icons that act more out of self-importance than they do in calling out the value propositions of their competitors (actually, I like the Sobe lizard – we tweet each other occasionally... Sorry, dude). Further, when you look at the technologies being used to communicate these sentiments, parody seems to be the theme of the day. Granted, in the 80s and for most of the 90s, we were limited to a default suite of three types of media – print, TV and radio – but that’s entirely the point, and a fairly obvious one at that: if we now have more to choose from, why aren’t we doing more? More importantly, why aren’t we doing things differently?

Time to differentiate. Time to stand out and start delivering knockout punches.

Without giving away free ideas (God forbid), let’s examine some inverse relationships that can lend to this notion of ‘reactive advertising’... And some of the potential consumer touch-points.

Greenwashing – alright, so pretty much every brand on the planet is touting some form of green-friendly something or another. In some cases, it may be true, but in many, this amounts to spin-doctoring of the highest order. I know first hand because I’ve worked with activist groups like NRDC and have seen some of the abject bullshit that these companies sling at the public. That said, this has to be the lowest hanging fruit for true, green-compliant companies to tout. Here’s the catch: most consumers don’t know what ‘green’ is, so there’s an educational curve. You’ll have to spend the time and the money to teach first, then tout your wares second. But if you can, you can certainly knock a few of the big boys off the green block.

Company Culture – this one seems like an easy tactic, although I’m sure there are a number of red flags. You probably can’t call out the fact that a competitor’s CEO is bedding a bunch of young blondes – I mean hey, those are just allegations – BUT, you can point out how great your own little cultural ecosystem is. You don’t hear a whole lot about employee testimonials, or better yet, why an employee defected from the competition. If you’re smart enough about it, you can give consumers a real glimpse inside of the very thing you have with each other that makes for a good product.

Labor Practices – yet another dicey element, rife with potential legal crossfire, but I think we all know a few major brands out there who are cutting major corners in this regard. You can take a more diplomatic approach and discuss how strong employee benefits lead to a stronger product... And of course, insinuate, insinuate, insinuate!

Pop-Culture Trends – now this is an area where I simply do not understand why brands don’t take more potshots at each other. For example, there’s a certain automotive company that recently ran virals of gay dudes washing one of the Transformers cars as a co-promotion – LAME. If I were a competitor, I would have a field day with this. Further, you can run a whole initiative of different stories that jab the competition just by looking at the material they post online.

Random Stuff – Further along the UGC front, there are so many nuggets in the rough coming from people all over the world that can be re-purposed and expanded upon, and even made ‘category relevant’. Just use your imagination. Your creative teams will thank you.

All in all, if advertising wants to stay relevant, it better start taking more risks. All the fodder is there, so let’s look at the flaws within the system to garner new insight into what can be done. And won.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

"Outliers" Hits Home: Lending Perspective on the Achievements of Our Elders, and How That Applies to Now

2009-07-02T11:13:00.000-07:00

It's easy to get caught up in the madness and uncertainty of media chaos. We eat, breathe and consume information and utilities as part of a daily, frenetic diet - one that is certainly not balanced or necessarily supplemental, which is probably the way many of us like it.

And then we often forget who we are, where we came from or even why we exist. This conundrum presents itself in a slipstream of thought, a struggle to reinforce our identities, and ultimately, some form of higher purpose.

I finally got around to reading Malcolm Gladwell's latest effort, Outliers. I suppose any book that you can buy in an airport by default is susceptible to an onslaught of talk and relative criticism (although it is selling quite well), so I decided to wait a bit and let the surge settle. I have to say that as a follow up to Blink and The Tipping Point, Gladwell has found a nice cadence with his narrative and brought colorful expositions to the more statistical nature of his real-world examples.

Here's where I'm going with this.

I had dinner the other night with my father and my soon-to-be father-in-law, Richard. It was the first time my father met my fiancee's (Emily's) parents, and the experience turned out to be delightful. It's one of those things where you bite the bottom of your lip for the first ten minutes hoping that there won't be a clash of egos or anything else that tends to surprise you about parents. What really struck me was the depth of knowledge that both men shared - not just in book smarts or academia - but in pure, emotional, and dare I say, metaphysical, intellect. This is something we often take for granted with our elders, or, something we simply don't look for within them.

Quick backstories: My father is a German-Jewish immigrant who left Nazi Germany in 1940, took the trans-Siberian railroad to Shanghai, China, and lived in a tenement with a Catholic priest and a group of Eastern European families that could represent the United Nations of Benetton, in a scene straight out of Empire of the Sun. Eventually he emigrated to the US, graduated high school at 16, and earned 4 degrees, including a doctorate in biochemistry. At 76, he still practices internal medicine 8-12 hours day. Oh, and did I mention he received a heart transplant in 2001?

My father-in-law, a Russian-Jew, was born in Boston and grew up with nothing but the shirt on his back and tattered shoes. He shared a tiny apartment with his two brothers, and ran a paper route so he could scrape together a meal that he would share with the family while his dad was out trying to muster up work. Eventually, he saved up enough money ($300) to buy a Plymouth, and after turning down a full scholarship to Harvard Law School to ensure he could care for his mother in California, he accepted a scholarship at Bolt (Berkeley's law school), where he graduated second in his class (there's a nice segue to this, hang on). At 72, he runs his own law practice and is bar accredited in 5 states. In February, he will be taking his 6th state bar exam, and plans on practicing until he is 76, but will likely go on much further than that.

For those of you who haven't read Gladwell's book (I won't give too much away...), Outliers discusses the unique relationship that environment has with focus, and the delicate balance between God-given talent and the means with which we cultivate that talent.

My father described a woman in class when he was a resident at UCLA who was absolutely brilliant with theoretical analysis, but when it came down to making critical decisions, she was completely inept. Gladwell in his previous book, Blink, describes this as being able to "thin-slice" our decision-making: the few-second intersection where empirical knowledge marries instinct. Well, unfortunately this woman didn't have the gut-checking chops to make it as a doctor (a career she desperately wanted) and now teaches psychology at an Ivy League school.

My father-in-law, Richard, graduated second in his class behind a guy who stuttered. When I say he stuttered, I mean to say that he could barely get a word out. Richard's theory was that the guy was so brilliant that the wheels turned too fast inside his head, and therefore he had trouble speaking. Richard said that the guy finished his exams nearly an hour before everyone else, and would consistently show up to class late, munching on an apple or a banana. He never took notes. He would doodle random images, often disturbing classmates who would curiously glance over and then shudder. He never became a lawyer, but last Richard heard, he led a reclusive life as an author of "clinical logic" books, somewhere in a rural area on the east coast.

The obvious takeaway from both examples is that there are two different types of intelligence: one that you can apply, and one that merely allows you to imagine application. What's not so obvious are the pathologies behind these examples, and very critical, and often subtle, differences in our conditional or situational foundations.

The difference between the success of the woman or the mute man and my dad and Richard could have boiled down to a formative point in their childhoods. My dad and Richard - despite being raised in very challenging environments - were encouraged very early on to explore their talents, to read, to write, to learn, to adapt. These other folks clearly reached a stopping point in their emotional or even cognitive development that rendered them useless as functioning members of a prospective trade culture, whether in a court room or in an operating room.

There is also one undeniable factor in all of this: passion.

Passion is what gets my dad and Richard out of bed every morning at 5 AM. Passion is what drives them to succeed at all costs - to win. Passion is what also drives them to always seek the higher ground, even if an easier solution is presented to them. The ethics and moral fortitude they live and work by on a daily basis is something we can all learn from and be inspired by.

So this inspired some thoughts of my my own with respect to our industry, and some things we should consider that go beyond developing a marketing strategy or building a piece of technology:

Build your social compass. We are experiencing a profound shift in consciousness. But we need to cultivate and maintain it. We need to integrate a stronger set of ethics not only in the ways we do business, but in the ways we communicate with our audiences. When we tell stories, we need to think of the lessons that can be applied, not just a lead in to a sale. Look at it as helping to rebuild our cultural value system.

Go with your gut, and be accountable for it. It's easy to make hasty decisions and then pass the buck... or the puck. What's not so easy is to take calculated risks with data-sets that may change tomorrow. We don't have to be right, we just have to be open. Innovation doesn't happen any other way. And success often doesn't happen the first few times out of the gate.

Take your time to build the relationship. Do you really know your audience? How can you - they're constantly reinventing themselves. We all are. Psychograhics and technograhics are predicated on shifts in the environment. All we can do is assimilate and hold on for the ride. However, it is important to note that people don't change, they just become who they really are over time.

Brand markets, not people. "Follow your nose, it always knows" can be construed in this day and age as "watching the herd". Fact is, profiling only goes so far. While their constitutional makeup doesn't change, people can be entirely unpredictable. Crowds change the score, and can do so in a split second. Our challenge is to garner insights from those interactions, when they happen, as they happen.

As we head further into transmedia narratives, think about pathology and circumstance and how they can apply to the next conversation you start. You might be surprised by what you find out. And you might just discover the inner genius that constitutes the Outlier.

Transmedia Task Forces

2009-06-25T16:00:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of very smart people working at creative and media agencies. A lot of great talent to mine. There is no shortage of good ideas. In some cases, robust technologies on offer. In other cases, account management that is deft and multi-functional. Leaders who can do more than just sell. Creatives who understand business objectives. Media folks who get messaging and conversation.

Despite this, the agency construct, by and large, lends itself to failure. We've seen this and talked about it ad nauseam - how departments and disciplines operate in silos, how traditional and digital are at odds, how media and creative don't walk the aisle et cetera et cetera.

So my colleague Ezra Cooperstein, who works at one of the biggest media agencies in the world, made a great point: As the system continues to fight for its self-preservation, why not establish and deploy task forces that exist entirely to run point between these silos?

Ok, so you're probably thinking that this idea isn't anything new, and in theory it really isn't. However, when you look at all the "disruption" groups within agencies and networks, the idea still isn't working. In fact, I would venture to say that many of these groups exist purely to window dress and satiate the paranoia of clients and upper management who need to know that an integrated practice somehow exists or is being put into place.

There is also a much larger issue: finding people who can truly think and speak in a transmedia capacity. If you were reared in a big agency environment, chances are you were groomed as a specialist of one thing or another, or, if you were multi-disciplinary, you were probably discouraged from developing ideas in this way. I can't tell you how many people I know who have suffered this fate, and had to work extra hard to become competent in areas outside of their focus. I can also tell you that personally, this is the first time in my career where having multiple skill-sets has greatly benefitted me... although big (or bigger) agencies are still hesitant to hire me full-time. Go figure.

So, the questions remain: who would make up a task force and how would it operate?

A task force would likely be comprised of anyone who advocates ideas. Sounds rudimentary, I know, but if you really think about, the current system mostly prioritizes placement or mechanism first, and the idea second. How many times have you seen an idea shoe-horned into a media buy? An expensive application built without a strategy? A broadcast campaign with all stars and no substance, not to mention no calls-to-action with complementary media? A viral video campaign that spikes and then dies on the vine? The point is that there are media planners, digital strategists, traffic managers, art directors, web developers, copywriters and biz dev folks who all have the capacity to connect the dots on the landscape and are willing to collaborate. They just need the opportunity. They want to dive into new areas of innovation. They crave the challenge. And, more importantly, these are the folks that are invested in the future of the agency... people who are true "change agents" (Man, I hate that phrase...)

As to how the task force operates, well, this can be sliced any number of ways and really depends on what can be streamlined within the org chart. What often happens with disruption groups is that they have meetings about meetings and don't immerse themselves in the development nitty-gritty of the various departments. They don't really want to know how bad communications or operations can be, and they certainly don't want to management consult, nor do they know how. So, the simple solution starts with a staffing assessment (who is involved in development meetings and what roles to play) and implementing hard-line communication protocols, such as limited email correspondence, no mobile use during meetings and the mandate that everyone has to come to a development meeting with a potential solution set laid out. And the respect to all the inter-departmental briefs that are generated during "phases"... whittle that mess down to one initial brief, one mid-point summary and then an activation plan.

This is clearly fodder for a much deeper conversation, but you get the point.

Look, we all seem drawn to this crazy business because of those intermittent and often fleeting connections we make with consumers. We recognize that advertising can be such a powerful thing. So maybe it's time we got our act together. After all, we're consumers too, and if nothing else, we owe it to ourselves.

Insights from the Blogwell/GasPedal Conference in SF

2009-06-24T04:20:00.000-07:00

Well, aside from the fact that it was a glorious day in San Francisco (75 degrees and clear as far as the eye could see), the Blogwell event was a pleasant experience. Great turnout from brands, technologists and thought leaders in the social media space, and while many of the case studies were those we might have seen before, it was really nice to hear from the brand reps themselves who seemed to really flourish as speakers in the shorter interval environment. And of course, Andy Sernovitz brought his affable and always informative presentation style into the fold, sharing insights that were truly valuable and doing so in a very non-intrusive way. Andy certainly knows how to talk with people.

So... the trip was a success for several reasons. Starting with meetings we had with two of our technology partners, here's a recap:

- On the brand monitoring/social analytics front, we had some very exciting discussions with eCairn on business intelligence and the semantic web. In a nutshell, outbound keyword emphasis through text mining will become the new SSM methodology (social search marketing). This means that we are not only able to filter out sentiment at the highest or deepest level, but we can highlight keywords and retarget them for use in respective messaging in things like ad units and carry that sentiment over to new profile groups within the community map. More on this in the coming week...

- On the video syndication front, Sharethrough (750 industries) has successfully created an overlay on the YouTube player that can not only track quant and qual data but can break down views into things like share ratios (among a few others). They've already launched two huge campaigns (one for Microsoft and one for Right Guard) using this new technology, and, here's the best part - it's still a completely opt-in mechanism. To boot, the player and respective content can be deployed as a rich media solution, the difference being that you have far greater sharing capabilities. We also talked about how to leverage the platform for dynamic focus group testing both with DR ads as well as actual product integrations; in this capacity, we would use this as both a profiling tool and an engagement "stick". More to come on this in the coming weeks...

- David Witt from General Mills on Yoplait Kids: blogging is just about the only way to reach moms online. Yes, you may have heard this before, but now you're hearing it from the source. Mr. Witt also lent some interesting insight into how mom bloggers provide scale in a very niche category. Another interesting note was on the fact that Mr. Witt's group can track repeat redemption with their coupon programs. He wouldn't give us the goods on actually how they do this (these are proprietary methods), but it was a nice discovery nonetheless.

- Joel Nathanson from Wells Fargo: during the worst of financial times since The Great Depression, the brand basically has made its strongest social media effort. The real takeaway here is preparation - don't wait for issues to arise, build your story and be preemptive. Wells has done terrific job of tapping into its rich history for this. Mr. Nathanson also spoke about how 3rd parties are not always reliable, so it is key to have strong back-up channels for customer service.

- Andy Sernovitz on the FTC crackdown of bloggers: the issues are largely attributable to a lack of a solid ecosystem to manage and protect content. Blog disclosure is easy, but what to disclose is not so easy. The new disclosure best practices toolkit greatly mitigates the risks, and is based on an open forum for collaboration and experiential input. The biggest risk right now is the failure to train. Agencies and contractors must be clear on guidelines with corporate internal groups, and everyone must spend the time to get it right... or at least close. Through a Twitter dialogue with Rob Reed (@maxgladwell) on this, I concluded that perhaps a failsafe is for corporations to conduct an ongoing dialogue with the FTC for "pre-approval" of their blogger outreach practices. More to come on this...

- Hilary Weber from Kaiser Permanente: in probably what was the most recent development from all the brands, KP talked about its new Beta-phase platform (KP Town Square Ideabook) that allows 160K plus employees to share ideas and experiences, as well as maintain basic and efficient communications streams. Some of the really cool features are things like searchable tags that are connected to people's profiles - great organic SEO. Mrs. Weber also talked about KP uses a wiki as a "family tool shed" for the business to house and optimize its information. Using wikis, the internal SM team has no developers, page designer or technologists. The takeaway: there's a big emphasis now on internal communities to collaborate on projects in order to maximize external efforts.

I did not attend the Cisco, Dell or SAP sessions (one can only be in one physical place at a given time...), but we did have a really nice chat with Kira Wampler from Intuit on using specific SM platforms to maximize frequency for their broadcast group - tying back to the dynamic testing methods mentioned earlier.

THE GRAND TAKEAWAYS...

Social media work as complements to other integrated marketing efforts. We have advocated this for a while now, but it's great to see all these case studies really focus on ROI measurement standards, and also be able to carefully delineate between engagement intent and purchase intent.

Successful outreach is all about trust. We need to trust ourselves before we can trust others to share conversations. A lot of what Andy and the brand reps talked to repeatedly was the notion of reestablishing a system of ethics and values that can transcend other areas of the business. By improving communication streams internally, the end product or service vastly improves.

All in all, great stuff. Aside from the stalwarts, we're seeing a lot of major brands that were skeptical even a year ago start to embrace social media and technology in some very profound ways.

Here's to investing in the conversation.

The 10 Commandments of Social Transparency

2009-06-17T17:02:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I've harped on the bulleted to-do lists that all too often fill our blog channels and community platforms. But in this case, I couldn't help share this list of well-articulated commandments that were developed through brainstorms with a colleague of mine.

The following list, in our humble opinion, constitutes key elements that all companies should abide by in their online outreach efforts:

1. An understanding that being responsive to customers with service level agreements must entail knowing no boundaries, channel barriers or time constraints.

2. Recognition that the online experience you provide is your brand. Great first experiences, like the theoretical ripple effect of a butterfly’s wings, are the catalyst for something larger, positive, profound, and influential that associates a company with trust.

3. Admission that honesty and transparency trumps double-talk and corporate babble-speak. In fact, it’s this real discussion (warts and all) that constituents crave.

4. Have a network of smart employees, marketers, agencies, and customers who prompt consumers to interact because they know that will increase the likelihood that consumers will transact.

5. Have the foresight and knowledge that customer engagement means more than launching an online discussion board, it comes organically through enabling valuable and motivating experiences at every touch point.

6. Tend to have empathetic staff that question what they do for a living and then juxtapose this against what they know their constituents actually need from them—implementing beneficial solutions as a result.

7. An appreciation that new web analytics and measurement tools need to speak to where the visitor is going, and not merely to ‘where the puck is’. Conversely, measurement systems know where the visitor came from and why. Additionally, recognition that web analytics is not optimization.

8. Acknowledgement that although user-generated content diffuses or mitigates corporate governance and editorial authority, it can be leveraged to benefit a company if a UGC strategy is well thought through, implemented, and measured. It may be humbling to point out that 1 in 8 natural search engine results for a branded keyword are user generated content.

9. An innate ability to harness the talents of each individual employee to share their knowledge and leverage their personal connections.

10. Realizes that effective word of mouth campaigns cannot be manufactured. They tend to be spontaneous, honest and truly viral events that incorporate humor, oddities, insider news, the taboo or the just plain awe-inspiring.

Have We Forgotten How To Listen? (Or Maybe We Just Never Learned...)

2009-06-12T13:29:00.000-07:00

(special thanks to Kneale Mann for sending over this image...)

While having breakfast with my two friends, colleagues and blogmates - Ezra Cooperstein and Thor Clark - it dawned upon us that the mad dash for connectivity and conversation within social media has been roadblocked by one simple, undeniable fact: we don't really know how to listen.

Take Twitter for example.

When you sign up for a Twitter account, you get the 20-person hit list of celebs that they suggest you should follow. Why? First of all, I don't give a shit about Ashton Kutcher (maybe because I'm 36 years old and straight - certainly no offense to my gay peeps). Secondly, most of these people don't actually listen or have substantive two-way conversations with their fan base. Ezra describes it as a "really loud chamber effect"... essentially, these people shout out relatively inane blurbs about God-knows-what, and to no one in particular. Third, if you look at the "subscriber funnel", you also find that the 90/10 rule which applies - in which 10% of the Twitter population generates 90% of the tweets - ignores the entire mid-tail of folks who actually have something of value to say.

Now, don't get me wrong - I find Twitter to be incredibly powerful and I use it often and with the best of intentions - but this really calls into question the social dynamics around how we listen, and why we should listen more carefully.

I think part of the problem, as articulated poorly in my previous post (sorry, that was a bit of mental masturbation...), is the fact that we're collectively still taking sides and operating in cliques. Let's face it, it ain't easy breaking into the Twitter mix, or to become a member of the "Twitterati" for that matter.

The other issue is the sheer amount of content that is being slung around - creating a sensory overload of sorts. How can any of us listen, if we're too busy just trying to be heard?

Here are some considerations for improving this cultural deficiency:

- Listening more means learning more (duh...).

- We need to distinguish between what we hear and what has been said (don't dwell on the response before the statement is even finished - we are all guilty of this).

- Sit with your question(s); take the time to understand what is being said before you respond.

- Take the time to really get to know someone, even if it's virtual - do you want a relationship with a person, or a bot?

- Turn off the noise inside your head; interacting socially, even online, is somewhat of a meditative process - we need to be clear and authentic in our communication streams.

- Listening is more powerful than speaking. Really.

I'm done talking. Say something, damnit.

Crowdsoothing (Who Am I, Who Are You, Why Are We?)

2009-06-11T01:07:00.000-07:00

I've decided after many sleepless nights, apishly grooming myself in bed while the blue glare of the television screen loops random images across my imperious face, that I am a cross between William Safire and Andy Rooney.

Professionally, I call myself a "Digital Brand Strategist", which really means that I reposition phenomenae with what I think are somewhat interesting labels and ascribe to them what I think are fairly quirky, sometimes serious and/or humorous aspects of human behavior. Oh, and then, where appropriate, I sprinkle in a neurotic dose of technological knowledge to make things a little more compelling. In a nutshell, all this mumbo jumbo often times produces results for my clients, at which point I let out an exasporated sigh, say to myself "How the fuck did I do that?", take a day or two off, and then decide to get back on the merry-go-round for another ride.

Why do I do this? Well, I suppose I do this for a few primary reasons:

- No one really knows shit anyway, so why not try to make sense of all this shit? The operative word here is "try".

- Human behavior never ceases to amaze, especially when there's technology behind it. Automate us monkeys. Turn us into robots with feelings. Make that brand talk back to me (or dirty to me). Simply fascinating stuff.

- One of these days (hopefully before a nuclear holocaust), we're all going to call each other's bluff and go back to wearing pelts anyway, wielding clubs over our shoulders. At this point, I'll be out of a job and all the crazy platforms I've helped build will be obsolete. And hopefully I'll still be with my wife-to-be... if she hasn't been dragged into a cave by some other dude.

So what does this all mean?

It means that it's time we formally made a return to the truth. It's happening anyway, albeit at a clip that tends to blindside us. All the hype around digital next, and behavioral that, and cloud thinking over there is a train wreck of assumption and often surprising pieces of the obvious. But what we don't know how to do is obviate the need for these obsessions.

Welcome to "Crowdsoothing", a way of calling into question, and answering, the who am I, who are you, why are we of our media-consuming existence. Let's face it: we are a culture saddled by fear, so we need a little consoling, a little soothing in our consumption. The experience is sorta like the movie studio exec in Barton Fink - I'd like some milk with my whiskey, please.

Crowdsourcing, a phenomenon brilliantly identified and formalized by Jeff Howe (yes, we follow each other on Twitter, thank you very much...), talks about how virtual communities have formed out of shared interest. As remarkable and inspirational as this groundswell is, an interesting thing often arises when we actually witness or participate in the wisdom of crowds, a "yang" if you will: we pull back or shut down altogether.

Gary King, a social scientist and statician at Harvard University (yes, we also follow each other on Twitter, thank you very much) talks about unifying statistical analysis, vetting out partisan symmetry and establishing conflict causality in his white papers as things that are ultimately products of human behavior that are largely predetermined and heightened by an inherent need for rational and practical explanation. A common theme throughout (excuse my layman's interpretation) is the idea that our decisions, particularly within groups, are predicated on individual identities that shift when we are observed or take part in observation.

So let's apply this to social media. In a recent data-point analysis conducted by HubSpot on the usage of Twitter, it was discovered that only 24% of people actually put a bio description on their page, down from 80% a year ago. It was also discovered that...

79.79% failed to provide a homepage URL

68.68% have not specified a location

55.50% are not following anyone

54.88% have never tweeted

52.71% have no followers

This is simply alarming. All this shared interest and potential currency, yet there is a blatant lack of commitment to any sort of formal relationship with the crowd. Further, the ambiguity new microbloggers employ suggests that they want to be a part of the conversation, but fear they will somehow not be accepted.

Now let's come full circle. The reason why I shared with you a truthful and self-deprecating account of who I am at the top of the post was to illustrate a point: aside from exchanging information and experiences, it is imperative that we offer up pieces of ourselves. Technologies themselves don't cause us to become disconnected or disenfranchised, it is our perception of who we are and why we are in relation to those technologies that does.

So let's ask the questions and soothe the mode of consumption so that we can create a background of relatedness:

Who Am I? The discourse or continued action of my role as it pertains to you, my functions, my role, my importance and relevance to you.

Who Are You? The discourse or continued action of your role as it pertains to me, to others, those functions, newly discovered roles and the importance of spreading commonality as well as trust in the form of currency.

Why Are We? The discourse and continued action of our collective conscience; desired needs, wants and passions, observations sourced through shared wisdom, and personalized or internalized as to cyclically affect individual thought and/or action.

If we now apply these queries to a profile, it might look something like this:

Name John Doe

Location Somewhere in Particular

Web http://www.realurl.orpersonalurl.com

Bio Professional Description, colorful character description, several descriptors evoking a sense of personality and interest to engage with others, along with a higher purpose proposition.

And if we summarize what this person's posts might look like or do, they would:

- Share interesting information endemic to a trade

- Share interesting experiences endemic to local culture

- Generate insights about the world at large

- Offer guidance in the explanation or use of relevant technology

- Show humility, not hubris, in these observations

- Be aspirational in nature

- Invite people, even those with very different backgrounds, into the conversation

Crowdsoothing is mere theory, but can very easily be indoctrinated into the daily flow of our digital, or even real-world, interaction. We have something special - many things that are special - within our new channels of communication. Let's not fuck it up by allowing history to constantly repeat itself... or at least dictate how we think or feel.

SMADHD (Social Media Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) A.K.A. "The Hyper Tweeter"

2009-06-04T15:37:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I have become somewhat of a social media junkie; I constantly update my Facebook, Twitter and FriendFeed accounts and always look forward to seeing if I've connected with new followers. It's kinda like crack - I've never actually smoked crack, but I get the feeling that the jonesing process is somewhat similar.

Despite this, I also find myself looping in and out of reality. Fact is, I'm not really interested in giving people the up-to-the-minute, play-by-play of my every move.

"Hey - taking a sh-- in Rockefeller Plaza."

"Scratching my nuts in Central Park."

"Receiving an award and shaking some important person's hand."

"Surfing at third point - oh, sh-- just dropped my iPhone in the water."

These types of correspondence (if you can actually label them as such), are really where microblogging has taken on a highly narcissistic front. Worse, if people aren't expressing the need to be into themselves, they are expressing the need to be wired... all day, all night, and at all times.

Welcome to the phenomenon known as SMADHD, or "Social Media Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder", or, what some have come to know or be as a "Hyper Tweeter". Just when you thought humping like a siwwy waaahbbit was bad, now those like the carnally unskilled are transferring a bad habit into their PDAs and anything else they "input" on.

Granted, we live at a time where technology is moving at a clip far faster than us mortals can keep pace with, but we really do need to be more grounded in reality. I mean, isn't the whole point of connecting digitally intended to get us people developing stronger relationships in the physical world?

Here are some ideas for shaking the habit:

- Form a local "Tweeters Anonymous" group - and no, you can't do this via a tweet-up.

- Spend some time outside; maybe walk a little more, get to know your dog, and make sure both hands are being utilized as to stave off the urge to thumb the 'ole keypad.

- Try a phone call, or perhaps even an in-person exchange, before deferring to the screen.

- Spend some more time, quality time, with yourself; no talking allowed or gazing into the mirror.

- Help the underprivileged; chances are they don't have any devices, just a fundamental need to be loved and accepted.

- Read a lot more - real books are preferred, but if you must use your Kindle, well, I guess we can make an exception.

Good luck, and if you need to talk to someone just call 1-800-NO-TWEET - counselors are standing by...

Why Brands Should Rethink Partnerships with Bloggers

2009-06-02T03:45:00.001-07:00

The following is an article published today (June 2, 2009) in iMedia Connection on how bloggers and the brands they sometimes represent have been caught in the FTC's crosshairs. Here are a few specific examples that highlight just how convoluted this battle might become. The article was co-written by Emily Levin, a corporate IP and eCommerce attorney who did a terrific job of helping to break down the FTC's often confusing legalese.

Some of you may have heard by now that the FTC is planning to implement "self-regulation" policies for bloggers and other social media influencers who are either paid to write on behalf of companies or as affiliates of those companies.

While the move seems restrictive, the reality is that as social animals, we do need rules. In fact, we would assert that by enforcing the virtues of transparency and authenticity, these types of policies are what will ultimately keep the net neutral. The challenge, then, is to help those in the blogosphere understand what exactly is being asked of them.

Co-author Emily Levin is a corporate attorney.

The following is a constructive look at the FTC regulation of blogs and other social media. Since there is a clear disconnect between legal and creative license, these insights are told through the perspectives of a both a blogger and an attorney.

We'll examine modern examples provided by the FTC to illustrate its revised guidelines.

The question is, given the examples and the guidelines that the FTC derives there from, can the above-average blogger (let alone the everyday blogger) understand and conform their communications accordingly? And even if the blogger can't evaluate them from a legal or liability perspective, might they provide guidance and improvement nonetheless?

Let's explore.

FTC Example 5
A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser's products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog.

Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion's ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition.

FTC Position: Advertiser and blogger are both responsible for blogger's (1) false or unsubstantiated statements and (2) failure to disclose clearly that she is being paid for her services.

Blogger Position: The FTC recommends that advertisers should train and monitor their bloggers, but will bloggers live in fear that their statements are not sufficiently substantiated and hold their tongues?

It seems that the most pre-emptive way to avoid the substantiation snafu is to qualify or preface any threads with a set of personal guidelines. While this may conflict with the more random nature of blog threads, it could establish etiquette that is top-of-mind. Further, this would engender a type of social responsibility that could be spread throughout the blogging community at large.

FTC Example 7
A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal blog where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software.

As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review.

FTC Position: The reader is unlikely to expect that the blogger received the game for free, and this would impact his review. The Blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge.

Blogger Position: Should a blogger always have to disclose when they received a free sample? Would it matter whether a manufacturer a) targeted a particular blogger; b) sent samples to random video testers; c) gave samples to everyday people at a conference or d) handed samples out to people at a trade show? Would it matter whether the site was hosted by a) the manufacturer or b) a student?

This poses a curious and considerable debate over the free exchange of ideas, and cross-posting or cross-linking in particular. In other words, one man's roost is not necessarily another man's fodder. With respect to content, it seems necessary that the original blogger qualify the "spread" of information, and to the best of his abilities, credit those in his affiliate network of sites with the potential legitimacy of a product's credibility. From a product standpoint, it also seems fair to say that "neutral" links should be provided that show those product specs in an indifferent light. Ultimately, self-imposed qualifiers can help regulate within environments that have varying guidelines.

FTC Example 8
An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices.

Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer's product.

FTC Position: Unclear, but the implication is that there would be liability for nondisclosure by the employee. The Poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her employment by the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.

Blogger Position: If an employer has a blog, should they be required to have a social media policy? Should they be liable if they don't? What if the employee disobeys the social media policy, should the employer be liable then?

These scenarios are certainly not uncommon, and a social media policy does not preclude an employee from liability or great risk to his or her reputation as a blogger. The key here seems to be that both the employee and employer need to construct a shared risk arrangement in which proper editorial monitoring is conducted, along with structured milestones that include issue management guidelines. Again, full disclosure is paramount to not only building trust among community members, but also in helping to define corporate outreach policies that may still be nascent.

FTC Example 9
A young man signs up to be part of a street team program in which points are awarded each time a team member talks to his or her friends about a particular advertiser's products. Team members can then exchange their points for prizes, such as concert tickets or electronics.

FTC Position: The rewards program impacts the credibility of the endorsements. The rewards should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, and the advertiser needs to make sure of this.

Blogger Position: How can the advertiser ensure the necessary disclosures are being made?

A company can't really play watchdog over conversations that occur in the street and expect its message to spread organically. However, if the incentive program includes very detailed milestones that reflect various potential outcomes by virtue of these conversations, then the risk is greatly mitigated. In other words, the milestones define the disclosure guidelines. The thinking here is that if a product garners enough attention through word of mouth, the conversation will inevitably change, and therefore the representative -- on behalf of the brand -- has ample opportunity to course-correct messaging and/or respective content positioning.

Conclusion
In all scenarios, a definable and adaptable sense of social responsibility is required to ensure the credibility and protection of all parties and products involved. And while the unpredictability of blog or social conversations can be a wonderful alternative to the more intrusive nature of advertising messages, we are still in the infancy stages of what this all means for brands, bloggers, and consumers alike. We must defer to good personal judgment and work together to establish parameters that allow for self-expression in ways that are positive and proactive.

Thin-Slicing Our Communication Streams (Being Personable)

2009-05-29T15:30:00.000-07:00

95% of the web is hidden from us. It is a distribution and communication pipeline that, in the simplest of terms, cannot possibly reveal itself visually to all people, in all places and at all times, although ironically, it still exists within this construct. But what if we could do our best to represent ourselves as brands in the best and most dynamic of ways? Further, what if we could connect via the grey spaces in between? The semantic part of the web is creating what Malcolm Gladwell calls the “adaptive unconscious”; this is a form of rapid cognition in which user-generated media (blog content, video content, podcasts, etc.) form patches of streaming thought that allow us to connect on a higher and more focused level. It is important, therefore, that we are heard, even if we can’t always be seen.

Thin-slicing, as Gladwell describes, is the process by which we can make quick, informed decisions. If we go step further, we can postulate that social media communication thin-slices tribal interaction, and marries brevity and poignancy in our active dialogues with each other. Being personable, therefore, allows us the chance to tap into our collective conscience so that our purchase decisions represent a value system that we all share. Further, those in hiding – people who exist within the grey spaces of the web and are not visible – have a new opportunity to participate and become influencers.

It may sound lofty, but a simple landing page on your website can serve as the gateway for one of the most important and prolific conversations you can have with potential advocates of your brand. And it all happens through the thin-slicing, or optimization, of your brand communication streams.

Every thought we convey in writing or through multimedia is a means of dynamic self-expression. Being personable is all about articulating our emotional touch-points beyond words and pictures and through utility. Utility allows each one of us to be relevant to others who want to be a part of or are already a part of the conversation. In other words, our conversation.

What brings about our conversation is essentially what Louis Cheskin describes as “sensation transference”. This means that our words represent very acute and powerful emotions that not only describe our state of being, but the desire to relate with others. Therefore, it is critical that we choose our words wisely when we represent ourselves to others, and of course this translates to the various forms of media we choose to deliver these modes of self-expression.

The currency we create in the form of words, pictures, videos or even gadgets reflect a part of ourselves that is indelible. If we consider the social web as its own grid or matrix, we become lifestreams that connect with a build new social graphs. In essence, we become an active and influential part of the world at large. Further, the connections we make are predicated on a foundation of common interest, making our dialogues transparent and authentic.

Bringing Our Social Personalities Into Application & Utility

2009-05-29T15:14:00.000-07:00

Most people think of social media as a MySpace or Facebook page or an application or widget; these are merely micro-channels. Often times, they’re not even the most effective channels. The real power of social media is in the social graphs themselves – in people and their personalities. And this is a good thing too, because people own brands, not companies. In fact, people are brands.

The thing to understand about the social media phenomenon is that spontaneity isn’t random. The dialogues we carry on through social media are governed by a set of rules. And as humans, or social animals, we all need rules. In fact, when properly observed and respected, we thrive on them. Therefore, it is imperative that brands not only develop a strong personality, but establish boundaries, just as we do with our children or the people that we love. Our concern for their “digital balance” is what creates an element of trust and understanding as well as a clear line of communication.

Listening, and then responding appropriately, is key. The “noise” that we experience where there are disconnects in communications – particularly amongst groups or tribes – is based on our need for validation, not for relatedness. So when we look beyond ourselves, and defer to the ebb-and-flow of our tribal communications, ideas and experiences of great value are allowed to flourish.

Giving and discerning the right amount and right kind of information creates and maintains a healthy digital balance, and carries over into any medium.

It’s easy to think of brand utility in terms of things that we can use. But where there is at times a void is when brand utilities no longer serve as relevant parts of our daily lives. This boils down to a fundamental failure in our line of communication, a stopping point in our ability to share or build conversation around communities of people.

While it is important to think about what a utility can offer, it is even more important to think about how it can scale. Utilities are really representative of the social graphs that grow and shift within the media landscape, which is precisely why the landscape constantly changes. In other words, we need to treat tools in the same way we treat people – with respect, creativity and inspiration.

Social utilities foster human interaction. So when we think of building a website or an application, we should think of how that platform or tool can make a real difference. We need to update it constantly. We need to respond and act. We need to give new participants a voice in an ongoing conversation. We need to ask advocates what it is they want, and then provide it for them, in real-time.

So instead of creating widgets, we create lifestreams. Instead of passing along badges, we pass along codes of conduct. Instead of conducting tweet-ups, we create movements.

Ultimately this shared responsibility we take on is representative of the cultural super-ego that exists within the social web. It is crucial to our evolution that we cultivate it with the utmost integrity and goodwill...you never know when you'll need a friend. Or a new tribe, for that matter

The Ubiquitous Web

2009-05-26T18:06:00.000-07:00

These are exciting times in the world of digital (and all media for that matter). I personally believe we're still in the nascent stages of what is considered "Web 2.0", but I thought it might be helpful to summarize this transition towards "The Ubiquitous Web".

WEB 1.0 - reading & writing (static) "push" The Informational Web

WEB 2.0 - reading, writing & publishing (dynamic) "pull" The Influential Web

WEB 3.0 - reading, writing, publishing & manufacturing (transformational) "instantaneous"

The Ubiquitous Web

Web destinations are steadily giving way to web applications. This does not mean that portals or other types of destination sites will go away entirely, but they will literally act as portals, or pass-through environments. Not only will functionality be a byproduct of user customization, but the components of those environments will be dynamic and modular in such a way that their use will become almost entirely transitory.

Destinations represent the "static" that has become the world wide web. To boot, there are billions of choices out there.

But what if we didn't have to choose anything? What of we could just be, whatever we wanted, wherever we wanted, at any given time?

Applications are providing the gateways for this shift into ubiquity.

In the not-so-distant future, people will create and promote their own products, using resources licensed from the brand and distribution tools given to them by their peers. As such, brands will always carry the value of their legacy. But the products they represent will constantly be changed and redefined.

Behold the present and embrace the future...

MicroProgramming: The New Content Frontier

2009-05-12T09:00:00.000-07:00

I remember when I was a writer/producer at NBC and the thought of tagging a promo with an actionable url (or just a url) was "revolutionary". Then with the advent of the content-rich web, it was interesting to hear how IPTV and VOD would fragment and destroy the television experience for viewers. Of course things have evolved much further, and multiple screens have become touch-points for an experience that seems to closely mirror some crazed, content chaos theory - if it's there, and it's cool, it's likely to be watched.

Which is what makes content portals like Hulu so very interesting. With Disney's plunge into the mix, Hulu will likely go from the world's 4th largest captive network (including all cable nets), to something that may overtake everybody's favorite behemoth, YouTube. Now, keep in mind, this has very little to with the highly coveted "video content monetization model" (which has yet to take shape), or even content development (although it should), and everything to do with how we, as viewers, consume our media.

First, we have to consider the correlates between online content viewership and long-form content on your TV. Recent studies have shown that those folks who view topical, genre or show-specific content online are likely to seek out and watch this same content in their living room. Starz Online issued a detailed report to TelevisionWeek in January and Neilsen has backed this info up with findings of its own. To boot, folks like Integrated Media Measurement have reported that during most weeks, TV viewers are spending as much as 15% of their viewing time online. And, as Lead Researcher Amanda Welsh stated, "Rather than simply cannibalizing audiences as has been feared, offering content online presents a huge opportunity for television content providers to reach elusive ad-avoiding audiences and to achieve higher engagement with them."

Well, it's no wonder then that Primetime and cable nets like NBC, ABC, VH1, ESPN, GSN, Comedy Central and a host of others are all embracing the once-feared "fragmented" programming model - it actually works. Watch any of your favorite shows these days and you can join polls, forums, blog commentaries or video commentaries, most of it captured in real-time. You'll even see more cross-promotion (network to network) between competitors. Why? Because audiences are about shared interest; increase the market for shared viewership, and you can increase your piece of the pie.

Which brings us to how show content is being promoted online, such as it is on microblogs. Nearly every major network - prime, cable, online or otherwise - has a healthy presence on Twitter, and their updates flow like dynamically-enabled news content or RSS feeds...go figure. I'm a sports fan, so I get my updates from ESPN online, then go to the TV to watch specific clips. It's both interesting and bizarre because two things are evident: a) I now watch TV in intervals, and b) I still don't want to watch these clips on my computer or my iPhone. This may change, but for now, this is my experience, and I know I am not alone.

But there's another twist to this part of the story: search. Remember we mentioned YouTube earlier? Run any datapoint on social media, and you'll find that linking - not originally sourced content - is what gets page rank; in fact, we ran a case study on this in March, and sure enough, we found that most indices are flooded with links and cross-postings. What this tells us is that content may be king, but what people say about that content is even mightier. Hence the YouTube dilemma: microtagging videos ain't gonna do the trick, especially with a Google algorithm that doesn't seem, at this point, to filter or scale very well.

YouTube has another problem in the form of exclusive content and the accessibility of higher quality, mid-tail content. The networks got smart when they realized that a seemingly endless tail of marginal video content would take a hard left and inevitably force content providers to raise the bar on quality. Case and point: people are still paying for premium content, and they're doing this in large part because they're sick of watching recycled content on YouTube, or worse, home video stunts. When you look at average engagement time of video views - even the most popular - this points even further to the fact that good storytelling wins out. Let's see if YouTube can save face with its new content deals - don't count out any of the players in this programming game.

Finally, mobile has arrived (well, it's at least on the cusp of broadband greatness in the U.S.), and will offer up a flurry of hyper-targeted video content. In other words, MicroProgramming. It's taken quite a long time for mobile content to make its mark here - it was projected by some to be a $12B market by 2007 - but we now see a relationship formalizing between text or microblogging and content engagement. This is exciting.

It's funny because 10 years ago or so, we feared that we would be watching content in a small box. Well, that still may be true, but let's not forget that good programming is good programming, and we'll watch it in, on or around the most comfortable spaces we can find at any particular time.

Cheers to MicroProgramming. The new content frontier.

The Theories Behind Connectivity - On Creativity & Marketing

2009-05-06T09:50:00.000-07:00

On creativity...

Ideas cannot be broken down into silos, only people can. When people look beyond themselves, ideas happen.

You don't have to be artistic to be creative, or creative to be artistic.

You just have to be open to new ideas.

On marketing...

Do not confuse "belief" with "advocacy" or "evangelism". There is nothing to "get", only something to share.

So, if I believe in something, I don't need to advocate or evangelize it. I'll just share it, rather than be assumptive.

And if you so choose, you can then advocate or evangelize it.

Online ratings systems, discussion forums and blogs are the forms of social media consumers believe are the most valuable sources of information. Trusted sources also included family and friends, word-of-mouth and Consumer Reports. (Society for New Communications Research, 2008). More than two-thirds (68%) of online Americans say they visit online blogs, communities or social networks. 47% of all respondents say that blogs, communities and social networks have influenced their decision to purchase particular brands or services to at least some extent. (Insight Report from MarketTools, September 2008).

The Social Worktable, Pt.3 (Creative Pathology)

2009-05-04T14:14:00.000-07:00

I've been working with a couple of independent agencies on various integrated initiatives and it's been an absolute blast. One of the things that has made it so pleasurable is the openness and objectivity of the creative teams themselves, who have a real willingness to listen and learn and not just constantly fight to be heard.

There have been some interesting articles written lately on agency size as a contributor to disconnects in the ideation or development process. The assertion is that once an agency reaches a certain number of employees, it loses the passion and capacity to perform at its best. Taxi - a very progressive agency based in NYC - is one shop that has has taken this theory to heart and has successfully spun out second and third versions of itself (Taxi 2, Taxi 3). This may be an effective tactic, but I also think there is another solution, which is to build an internal team that loops in key people from each group and acts as a strong liaison between them.

This is far from a new idea; we've seen a lot of shops big and small try to employ this concept. However, what seems to have happened in each and every situation that failed is the fact that people bought into the theory, but were far from willing to actually invest in the practice.

This is where the notion of a "creative pathology" enters the picture. As important as it is for creatives and other team members to understand their history and successes as they relate to the contributions they can make now, is the establishment of a historical process - the good, the bad, the negligible. So what might this entail?

- Powerful and relatable sayings. Sure, every shop has quotes on the wall, but some are far more effective than others (think of Ogilvy's famous line: "We're not selling mattresses, we're selling a good night's sleep!"). It's also important to think in terms of actionable results.

- Multi-disciplinary inspiration. Art, philosophy, politics, sport...it's all had a hand in what ultimately gets conjured up in our collective big brains. More time should be devoted to discussing these game-changing events in history, without having them relate back to what needs to be pitched tomorrow. Keep this free-flowing and open-ended.

- Personal histories. Again, why are you here? What is it that you seek in being an agency creative or a developer? What are your big-picture aspirations? It all matters, and it all shows up in the work, whether you choose to see it or not.

- Social responsibility. This is a theme commonly discussed on this blog; we must all assume a shared risk and ownership in the things we bring to the table, and those things we know (marketing assets) that may make it out to society at large. It's both internal and external, and it really matters. Really.

- Post-mortems. It's annoying and time-consuming, but we need to be able to learn from our mistakes, not just in terms of results, but in terms of what lead up to the results. The more we look inwardly at this, the more effective we are the next time around. The key is to not point fingers, but to be accountable.

There are probably dozens more things to entertain, feel free to add to the list. It's especially important right now, because the agency model may be struggling, but the creative process is still a wonderful haven for those who want to touch the lives of people in different places and in different ways, no matter how subtle the effort is.

The Adaptive Ad Model (Just-In-Time Advertising)

2009-04-29T23:42:00.000-07:00

Steve Rubel, Edelman's guru strategist, wrote an article in AdAge a year or so ago talking about 3 digital ad models that would become the staple for brand marketers around the globe; the first was advertiser-supported advertising (we all know what that is), the second was advertiser subsidized devices, and the third was what he coined as "Just-In-Time Advertising". In looking at the current landscape (the one as of right now, not yesterday ;), I thought the latter two have taken on some new meaning as of late, especially as a hybrid concept.

Think of Dell's Ideastorm, essentially a dynamic repository for ideas coming from "superusers" to collaborate with Dell employees on developing new product, as a great example - and potential "supercandidate" - for this. I realize I've chosen a pretty popular and much debated example, but, in all fairness, Dell has done a lot of things right, and they seem primed to capitalize even further on the Rubel-inspired concept. So let's dig in, and call it "The Adaptive Ad Model".

Ideastorm, wisely, has a pretty robust presence on microblogs like Twitter. Their blog content - when you run a search on blog and brand monitoring tools - has a healthy presence across syndicated forums and bookmarking sites. Their assimilation into desired categories such as Healthcare and Life Sciences seems to be fairly seamless, and generating a considerable amount of participation and "spread". It seems that the real issue with its porting of information is that there is too much of it, and ironically, it may even be too democratic in the way it is developed and shared.

Here's where things can take an interesting turn with the "adaptive" approach. If we use the advertising medium - in this case, your standard IAB banners - and were to create units that would only port relevant headline information, precisely targeted and dynamically updated in the environments where users or superusers sought information specifically relevant to that category, we may have an experience that takes on new life.

Here's a theoretical user case.

You run a search on healthcare reform. You scan several results either on a Google page or Google-indexed portal landing page (an affiliate), and choose one, a medical portal. The page is customized to only run relevant text to your search parameters (keywords). This means that you only see exactly what you've requested - no text links, snapshots or preview panels - and you have the option of finding out more (link). You choose this option. The leaderboard unit dynamically populates the Ideastorm Twitter feed of relevant conversations, and suggests 3-4 topics to read, which may or may not reside on the Ideastorm portal itself. Without having to leave the page, you choose one or all of those options and can find the exact information you want, or, search for more. Any new keywords repopulate the page and the content within ad unit. If you decide to click on the unit, great, if not, the brand's utility is has left a positive effect on your experience and you will likely visit the Ideastorm site again to run other searches.

Now comes the part about devices. Ideastorm takes Kindle, or a like app, and bundles its relevant information for the user, and more importantly, adds a feature in which that user's posts and other contributions are indexed in real-time. Co-promotion, affiliate marketing, whatever you want to call it, the brands support and enable the user experience to new heights. A superuser might even have the opportunity to get paid for content that is repopulated and retargeted in units that are deployed in relevant environments, sort of an AdSense model in reverse.

These are rather crude examples, but you can see where this is going: use the ad as a directory with "pull" potential, as opposed to a piece of real estate pushing messages at you. And this doesn't require anything flashy, just a little strategic foresight to optimize pages and pull relevant communities together.

In my humble opinion, with search indices as flooded as they are, it would behoove category experts and respective communities to band together to optimize consumer experiences. The idea here is that if you expand the marketplace, everybody's share of the pie is that much bigger.

It will be very interesting to see what comes of the new Twitter-enabled ad model; we know that TwitAd and the much scorned MagPie have already taken their lumps. But if we can think of advertising as a savior in all of this, as opposed to a culprit, we may really be onto something. Just as Mr. Rubel had predicted.

Adobe TV: Please, Don't Flash Me!

2009-04-22T09:38:00.000-07:00

Adobe's recent announcement that it is offering Flash for your TV (and specifically your set-top box) presents a curious and conflicted look into the multi-platform user experience. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of weaving interactive or conversational elements into broadcasts or on-demand video content, but I certainly don't want to optimize the intrusive nature of ads by giving them more pomp and frequency.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Or maybe not.

Dan Rayburn makes the strong case that this is a neat idea in theory, but the reality is that viewers want high-quality - HD quality - content and Flash is well behind the curve in this department. I tend to agree. There is a ton of mid-tail programming out there (such as cable shows you find on VH1 and the Food Network), all of which are produced affordably, but they are nevertheless well-crafted and viewed in HD. While they are also created for conversations online, these experiences have way more to do with social media utilization than they do an interactive function, meaning that, at the end of the day, function outweighs form.

Now, we do need to look at the other side of this. If Flash, particularly Flash Lite, and the many lingual iterations of the software, can be optimized in such a way that high-definition streams have a better way of reaching our eyeballs, then great. It is also highly conceivable that in-show games, dynamic chat streams and other bells-and-whistles will find better life in this new TV environment. However, we still have to contend with the fact that this presents more ways to throw ad messaging at us, and to even entice us into conversations we may come to find that we didn't really want or need. But I suppose you can say that about anything media-related.

Here's a simple suggestion for the folks at Adobe: whatever you decide to do, make sure that viewers can functionally opt-in or out, depending on the level of interactivity. This will likely become a shared responsibility with the platform and content providers, so don't shirk, because if things go really awry, you can bet that you'll be a little more than guilty by association, and that's never fun, especially in the currently fun but messy world of technology and content. Or the phenomenon we have come to wonder about, known as "branded entertainment".

In the meantime, perhaps we should chalk one up to innovation. Just don't flash me. Not yet, at least.

Market Branding Versus Brand Marketing

2009-04-20T16:03:00.000-07:00

For years, all of us - whether on the brand, agency or product sides - have been attempting to play Nostradamus in determining who our audiences are as well as developing assumptions about their purchase behaviors. Now, we have brand monitoring tools that not only enable us to make more educated evaluations about who they really are and what they talk about, but we can also profile and segment those purchase inclinations into real personas. What this ultimately means is that we are creating markets of opportunity first, and marketing associated brands second.

Take for example the now famous KOGI Korean BBQ case study, in which various social media tools were used to geo-target specific affinity groups in order create coordinated offline experiences. KOGI looked at three key elements to their grassroots activation:

1. Associated interests and social graphs already a part of a larger community.

2. Physical spaces for food consumption tied to these common interests.

3. Types and patterns of media consumption that would keep conversations or buzz ongoing.

When you think about engagement in this way - in which the return on intent far outweighs a sale of an actual item or product - you then realize that product branding can be removed almost entirely from the equation. In other words, community activation relies on branding a phenomenon as opposed to a product. The KOGI initiative could've just as easily been an effort around a category or an industry such as "Korean BBQ" or even something broader such as "exotic Asian foods". The response patterns, particularly through microblogs like Twitter, spoke directly to an experience tailored around sharing fine food in distinct urban settings that engendered loyalty to this market.

This is why brand monitoring leaders like Scout Labs, Radian6, eCairn and Overtone play such a vital role - because brands no longer have to take on the inherent risk of launching a product through empirical guesswork. The nice part about this as well is the fact that in many instances, profiling and segmenting don't require a huge window of time, compared to the more traditional methods involving focus groups and product testing.

So, in sum, perhaps it's time for brands to not look at themselves as needing to outpace their competitors in releasing new products, but identifying and supporting new market sectors that would essentially incubate a suite of products. Only time will tell, but it seems like we're already heading in this direction, and fast.

Proactive or Preemptive Relationship Management (How the Domino's Fiasco Could Have Averted)

2009-04-15T17:47:00.001-07:00

By now many of you have either seen or heard about the infamous YouTube video that was posted by two Domino's employees, and the response video that was posted by the company's US President. This begs a curious investigation into what crisis or issue management really means, and the major difference between reactive positioning, and proactive or preemptive relationship management.

In watching the employee-posted video, if you put aside the sheer idiocy and disregard for human decency, you can also see a clear desire to self-express. The female employee even qualifies this at the beginning by saying how bored she is. The other male employee, a gay man, makes a couple of references to his sexual orientation and makes it clear that he is frustrated in his own way. Does this excuse their actions? Certainly not. But it does make a case for the notion that these impostors could have just as easily been evangelists if they were truly empowered to do so. By simply giving them a voice.

When you look at the internal branding efforts from companies like American Express (OPEN), Pfizer (Health Solutions) and Dell (several programs), you realize that empowering employees to express themselves gives the brand unprecedented access to new levels of sentiment. Further, when you look at the fact that people are thrilled just to be a part of brand exchanges, you also realize that negative perceptions can be reshaped through transparent conversation. For example, over 95% of all WOM conversations, no matter how negative the sentiment was going in, inevitably turn towards the positive by simply acknowledging the consumer or employee.

So, what does this really mean? It means a few things:

- Give employees and consumers an intranet and extranet platform to speak their minds before a crisis like Domino's happens; you can respond accordingly, and best case scenario, you can develop them into superusers and "uber" brand evangelists.

- Filter out "deconstructive" elements from sheer negative ones, and keep those touch-points alive throughout ongoing conversations so that brand perception can build up its own equity in an authentic way.

- Give the public "shades of the bad"; acknowledgment and accountability breeds credibility; like people, brands are imperfect and are entitled to act imperfectly, provided they own up to it when they do.

- Use a debate context within the organization - opposing sides - to enlist and engender points of view on the outside. Arguing is good, provided there are solutions available.

So, outfit your employees with cameras. Teach them to blog. Encourage them to tweet. Give them channels of expression that allow them to not only share their insights, but build community ties around them. That way, as a brand, it's likely you'll never find yourself having to apologize for something you didn't advocate in the first place.

Twitter, Local Search, and Social Relevancy

2009-04-15T09:10:00.000-07:00

Twitter is inherently local, relevant, and social. They’ve organically created a powerful mix of content and relationships, and there are a couple of simple things that they can do to unlock more value, and that local businesses can do to leverage the platform.

Twitter has a great opportunity here to further develop a system that adds true social and geographic relevance to search. There’s much more to say about that, and this discussion is meant to focus on some specific UI changes that uncover more of the value in Twitter search from a social and geo standpoint. In the short term, it would be great to see an indication of social relevance: maybe a graphic bug that indicates how “close” the tweet is to me in my Twitter social network. Geographically, I like what they’ve done with the “near:” option in the search query, and for travelers or people that don’t read the manual, maybe a “show me results near me” checkbox could be a simpler solution.

As Twitter volume and usage grows, what are the opportunities in this area for local businesses?

Here’s an example I just took a look at. Lou On Vine is a local restaurant in Los Angeles that we really enjoy. The owner has an interesting and offbeat wine cellar, and their food is sourced from small farms locally and across the US. The menu changes regularly. They’ve gotten some good press, and are a little off the beaten path in terms of location. If they were up on Twitter, I’d certainly follow them if they announced new wines, menu changes, weekday specials, and so on. I might even RT if I saw something I was particularly enthusiastic about.

For the local business owner, this is simple, quick, and effective. Local businesses do not always have the time and attention required to create a full-fledged email program - maintaining lists, designing emails, writing paragraphs of content, and so on. This small effort brings them into a huge mass of potential customers that are already grouped – very generally – by common interests and social ties. If I re-tweet a LouOnVine message, it’s going to my followers – a group that is likely at least a little more interested in this type of restaurant than the general population.

And when someone searches on Twitter for “Lou on Vine” they’ll see that menu change or new wine, or my re-tweet. When someone I follow is in LA and searches for “good restaurants” and checks the “select results near me,” maybe they’ll see a tweet of mine referencing Lou On Vine , and that I’m very close to them on the social graph.

If you run a local business, don’t wait: start a business account on Twitter. It literally takes 2 minutes. Then at least once a week post relevant messages that are useful to customers and potential customers. Follow people in the area that are passionate about, or at least interested in, the types of services or products you provide. Twitter is a great way to get more out of your valuable relationships and content.

Other thoughts on Twitter and Local Search? Let me know on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/thorclark

Snacklish in Action - Adaptive Targeting

2009-04-13T17:25:00.000-07:00

A colleague of mine has been keeping me up to date through Facebook on the brilliant Snickers "Snacklish" initiative. What it represents are the first initial steps to interweave social media elements within a more traditional campaign construct. Everyday non-descript items are replaced within Snickers billboards and posters and the "adaptive" messages - really conversational points - are streamed through social nets like Facebook and other photo-sharing platforms.

There are two things that are absolutely cool about this:

1. It turns the notion of display advertising (of all types) completely on its head, making it dynamic; and

2. It allows consumer advocates to develop messaging alongside the brand, as well as see it displayed in more "organic" or "legacy" environments.

So in trying to avoid a deep-dive into semantics, we can also look at this as a new form of "adaptive targeting". Adaptive is the operative word here because the communication mechanism goes beyond a push feature that is location or content-based, and into a realm where conversation drives messaging in more of a ubiquitous sense. In other words, the medium really is the message, and that can exist just about anywhere and at any given time.

This is also an exciting peek into how "offline" media is starting to resurge, in large part due to the influence of social media. Just wait until real-time feeds (like those through Twitter) create more widespread activation...the possibilities are limitless!

The Theories Behind Connectivity - On Production & Products

2009-04-13T10:24:00.000-07:00

On production and products...

You may know your product better than anyone. But what you probably don't know is what that product means to everyone.

Perception is key, and ever-changing.

Production is the art of understanding your audience.

Producing content is about aggregating ideas and reshaping them perspective and context.

Producing great content is about the experience you associate with that product, and one that you can share in perpetuity.

33% of online Americans sat they engage in product research to help them make a purchase decision. (Insight Report from MarketTools, September 2008). Forrester estimates that almost $400 billion of store sales - or 16% of total retail sales - are directly influenced by the Web as consumers research products online and purchase them offline. This will grow at a 17% CAGR over the next five years, resulting in more than $1 trillion of store sales by 2012. Affluent visitors (with annual incomes of more than $75K) are most likely to research products online before buying (43%). (Insight Report)

The Theories Behind Connectivity - Technology & Production

2009-04-08T23:38:00.000-07:00

In backing up a previous post on The Theory of Connectivity, we thought it might be time to look into some of the development components of why people connect with brands, particularly as these conversations are conducted through select media channels.

On technology...

You can't be everything to everyone. But you can be everywhere at all times. Well, at least in theory.

You can mash up tools, but you're really mashing up people, as well as the ideas they represent.

Remember that people relate to people, not pixels.

Who do you think you're having a conversation with?

On average, 3.5 billion WOM (Word of Mouth) conversations occur daily in the U.S. Offline WOM accounts for 92% of these (75% face-to-face; 17% by phone); email, IM/text messaging and chatrooms/blogs account for a combined 7% (Keller Fay Group, June 2008)

On production...

Everything is "user generated", including the ideas behind your TV spot or print ad. Where do you think you got the idea in the first place?

The question remains as to whether or not you recognize that collaboration. "Traditional" and "non-traditional" are just descriptors to delineate actions, not experiences.

Your experience is your own and you can share it in anyway and with anyone you'd like.

Approximately 60% of Americans use social media, and an overwhelming majority of these (93%) say companies should have a social media presence, while 85% of social media users believe these companies should not only be present but should interact with consumers using these same channels. Among social media users, 59% interact with companies on social media websites and one in four interacts more than once per week. Some 56% of social media users feel both a stronger connection with and are better served by companies when they can interact with them in a social media environment. (Cone, September 2008)