The problem is, however, that the majority of us are not listening; we are interrogating. We are looking for a gap, a way into the conversation, and often our efforts result in clumsy social interruptions. We may be listening, but we haven’t changed our mindset or become attuned to the patterns of online social interaction.

You see, social media monitoring is like eavesdropping from afar. People are (sometimes unwittingly) sharing their thoughts, intentions, and actions with others as they engage in the activities of life—and social media surfaces this and makes it available for all who care to look or listen. But it is only very rarely that these observations are actually about your brand or your product. Mostly it’s about that person, your customer. Your brand is just there—like a free consumer-generated product placement.

This is a small but vital detail, but understanding it changes everything.

Think about how you listen to music. What stands out in the music that you love? What sends tingles down your spine? What brings you up and can bring you down? I believe that, as marketers, we have to listen to our customers like they are the musicians that we love. And for me, one of the most profound musicians—and one from whom I can learn—is Natalie Merchant.

When I hear Natalie Merchant sing, I tend to hear beyond the words. I listen for the intention. I listen for the care that she takes in phrasing. What she emphasizes. Where she attacks the note for emphasis and where she pauses for impact.

In the YouTube clip below, Natalie performs with the Perkins School for the Blind. Watch the clip and listen. Really listen. At about 3:10 through to 3:25, there is a particularly powerful section where Natalie zeroes in on her partner. She watches, collaborates, supports and allows space for him to share his voice.

Hesitatingly, his body moves, his breath stutters, and he delivers the line just in time. And all the while, Natalie calmly waits, ready to step in.

This is how we should be listening to our customers. Sure, we have more than a passing interest in our brands—but it is how they are brought to life through our customers that counts. That’s the thing that drives recommendation and interest. And rather than interrupting the flow of our customers’ conversations, we should be looking for ways to shepherd them through various levels of engagement. After all, what else are you listening for?

There was a promise to it that seemed to speak to the way that I was already living my life—online, connected, fragmented.

But it took years for this to mature. And it took some serious innovation for these good ideas to come to maturity. Take video, for example. I was working with some of the big media agencies on digital streaming projects, and we were encountering big challenges—bandwidth, computing power, cost, and compression quality. So when YouTube arrived, it changed the game. It changed the game because it took the technology out of the process. Apple does the same with its products. Technology companies succeed when they focus on removing the barriers to participation. They succeed when they begin to take a different path—what I call The Social Way.

For the marketer who works in the social way:

• The brand is a means to an end. The brand exists, the people exist. We don’t need messaging, but a tune to dance to.
• Marketing is about bringing the brand to the people, not bringing the people to the brand.
• The glare of the logo is a distraction and a barrier to forming relationships. What we need is a name and a face, not a 12pt white space exclusion.

But what does this mean? What can be achieved?

Take a look at the Dear Sophie video from Google. I have been waiting to see something like this from Google forever. It could just be me, but this feels like a turning point in the way that they are telling their story—through the eyes of others. Sure, there is a technology story in here, but it’s not the story of our love affair with technology. It’s the love story of a father and his daughter. And it is a story that is yet to be fully told. There are more chapters. More angles. Heartaches and promises.

But I am also excited by the fact that this story is being told by Google in this way. It’s like a guide that we can all learn from. Think about your own business. How can you tell your social story in this way? How do you move beyond the benefits? How do you articulate the experience that is beyond words? If Google can get emotional, so can you and your brand. It’s time for us all to change the game.

It was found by a man in his hedge in Wiltshire, 140 miles away. He read the name on the balloon and took it to the little girl next door. Excitedly she wrote to Laura Buxton to let her know that she had the balloon. The catch? The girl was also named Laura Buxton, and she was also 10 years old.

The girls arranged to meet.

They were amazed at the similarities between them. They looked the same, had the same colored hair and had dressed in blue jeans and pink jumpers. Each had brought along a pet guinea pig. The pets were also remarkably similar, with a small patch of brown on their tails.

Years later, the two Lauras are now firm friends. The story of their meeting is astounding, but is it something more? Is it a miracle, fate, or simply an amazing coincidence? Take a listen to the program from WNYC and make up your own mind.

If you are like me, one of the most intriguing parts of the story is not what is told. What is NOT told – at least as part of the headline – is the story of statistics, of coincidence and the inconvenient facts which were omitted.

You see, the balloon only found its way to Laura #2 because her next door neighbor thought it belonged to her. He could easily have disposed of it. One of the Lauras was ALMOST 10 – not quite.

This story is being told with microscopic precision. Facts that don’t support the sense of coincidence are removed or downplayed. Why? Simply to help the story create a pattern that we can see and respond to. That’s right – the story is all about the audience.

Our brains work to identify patterns, to make connections and to ultimately make sense of so-called random events. When a pattern is identified, the brain releases dopamine – the chemical trigger that produces a sense of reward and pleasure. So as readers, as listeners, as people engaged with the story, we are being pulled further into the story with each new revelation.

Think about the sense of realization and excitement for the two Lauras. Think of the way their friends and family would have reacted. Think about your own response to the story.

In many ways, the ultimate goal of branding is to create coincidences that our audiences are able to piece together, experience by experience. We leave out extraneous details and focus on the pattern-building aspects – repeatable symbols, names, images and so on. But this is branding with no soul. The real challenge is to open the brand up to the world of individual experience, of interaction. If we really want to recreate the magic of coincidence, we have to do this in the realm beyond the borders of your brand.

It is, perhaps, why social media has so captured our attention. It is the perfect field for the discovery of these kinds of coincidence. And who knows, maybe social networks really do act as a form of brand oxytocin, reinforcing a sense of trust that plays out as what Kevin Roberts once called Lovemarks.

But there is no doubt about one thing – it’s the power of the story that attracts us. And the two Lauras are living proof.

When I began writing my blog I did so with no expectation of return. Like a long-dead star, I felt that I was emitting the weakest of signals with no hope of a destination. The gravity of my expectations was as light as utterance, each word or post marked only by the steam of my breath.
But over time an unexpected, slow kind of success appeared in my orbit. Each comment felt like a gift, each email a revelation, and each face emerged from the ether to reveal some other …. living, breathing, longing being.
Through words, through ideas and by sharing stories we began to find each other …. you and I. And each time we brushed past one another we each revealed, perhaps inadvertently, some secret or grain of truth. And yet in losing some small essence, rather than being diminished ,we grew. We prospered. Not in the way of casual connection, but in more mysterious ways …. for we were encountering ourselves by way of grace.
The paradox, of course, is that with every gift of self, with the free transmission of what-is-mine to what-now-is-yours, our gravity expands. Such reality requires new thinking on all our parts. After all, who among us has not looked with envy on the success of our peers? It’s as if the well-spring of success has only finite resources and each cup taken is a cup lost to us all.
But we are living now in a time and a space where both opportunity and results are being reconsidered. We are turning towards the hard face of generosity …. where an act of grace is not just expected, but is a mandatory condition for a relationship to take root. We are mercenarily applying the judgement of our peers and their peers to the decisions that we make in business, as families and as individuals.
This does not mean that we are un-generous …. quite the opposite. It means that your reputation precedes you. It means we act, not alone, but in cognitive unison. We’d like you to understand this. We’d like to help you make all our worlds better places. It starts by being generous. It starts with good grace.

Shepherding an idea through various checkpoints and turning it into something tangible takes more than just a few words, a blog post or a string of messages on Twitter …. it takes a broad range of skills, perseverance, commitment and yes, creativity.

When it comes to social media, creativity also requires time. It takes time to plan, time to identify participants and time to enthuse people. It takes time for participants to ramp up their knowledge and to become comfortable with their mode of participation. And then it takes time for all this to lodge within the collective minds of your audience.

For brands, this means that you have to move away from the “big idea” and begin to embrace DOING as a form of ongoing strategy. As Brian Solis explains in his Social Media Manifesto, “With everything you do in social media, you have to participate in order to build bridges that connect people and the company”. In part, this means allowing creativity to flourish in places where you least expect to find it.

Yet while this sounds fine in theory, experimenting with your brand in this way can cause many sleepless nights, and can, in some instances, dramatically shorten the length of your tenure. How then, can marketers safely begin to experiment with the forms of creativity on offer via social media? Perhaps Marcus Brown has just the ticket.

Marcus has spent considerable time and creative effort setting the scene for Social Psycho, identifying participants and thinking about where this all may lead. In his own words:

Social Psycho is a work of fiction that intends to build on this terrifying idea and I’m inviting you to get involved. It’s my new project. Although I will be mainly writing and developing the main character of the story, you are invited to develop sub-plots and characters in order to build stories of your own.

And the invitation is open. The opportunity is real. There is a Google group that you can join to share story concepts, challenge other participants, and to  share what you learn along the way. And your participation can take a variety of forms …. from blogging to video to Twitter and back again. It is wide open.

And for a small investment of your time, you will learn, from the inside, what it takes to be creative with social media. You will work independently, yet be part of a creative process that spans the globe. And you will test your own creativity and ingenuity in a private-public space.

So what do you say? Are you in?

One of the posts that I noticed from January 2008 discussed my media consumption patterns for the week of January 28 (building on a meme from Neil Perkin). So I thought I might compare this current week with last year’s to get a sense of what has changed in the last 12 months.

Media	2008	2009
Books	Michael Port’s Book Yourself Solid; John Grant’s Brand Innovation Manifesto: How to Build Brands, Redefine Markets and Defy Conventions	Snoop by Sam Gosling, Chris Penn’s ebook on synchronising social networks
TV/Movies	A couple of movies borrowed from local video store; and shows from ABC TV.	A couple of movies downloaded from the web; and shows from ABC TV.
Music	Missy Higgins and Sneaky Sound System downloaded from iTunes	Sonixtrip’s new EP, Counting Crows. But more personal play lists from YouTube
News	Newspapers delivered to my door on weekend. No magazines. A handful of feeds and a lot of blogs	Newspapers delivered to my door on weekend. SMH.com.au during week after scanning Twitter for latest news, Facebook status/feeds, WotNews, SocialMedian alerts. And around 200 daily feeds

Now, compare this with Zac Martin …. a young marketing student. He reads no newspapers, does not watch TV, and doesn’t listen to the radio. His consumption is all digital. So while there is a significant shift in my own consumption patterns to digital …. this pattern of “switching off” is a conscious choice. However, if you have never even “turned on” non-digital media …. it is clear that new business models need to emerge – for as Craig Wilson explains, “my kids will be the death of traditional media”.

How does this sit with your own patterns of media consumption? What’s changed? What’s stayed the same?

After considering a number of options, I settled on a clip from the movie entitled The Downfall – about the last days in Hitler’s bunker at the end of World War II. Since the middle of 2008, there have been several hundred remixes of this clip including one parodying the Democrat nomination of Hillary Clinton (receiving hundreds of thousands of views) as well as a version about the Microsoft Xbox Live service.

It seemed to fit the bill …. it would be readily identifiable, it would already be well-known not only to our authors but also to the marketing directors who we hoped would purchase copies of the book. More importantly, it was easily adaptable …. because the dialog is in German, subtitles can be used to tell an alternative story, requiring minimal intervention and re-work.

After mapping out the storyline, I set to work tightening the messages to match the tempo of the acting. After a couple of attempts it was ready to go. Or so I thought.

I checked the video one last time and sent a note to my partner in crime, Drew McLellan, letting him know that the video was ready and available. Drew then sent an email to 237 the contributing authors asking them to use the clip to help publicize the book and build some additional sales momentum – and within minutes we began receiving feedback.

While some found the clip humorous, others were concerned about the subject matter. Some felt it was “on the money” while, again, others felt uneasy. What we had done was drive a wedge right through the center of our safest audience …. the authors who had committed their ideas, energy and time to the project. We needed to take this feedback onboard, quickly, and respond.

This year’s edition of The Age of Conversation is broken into eight separate sections, with authors contributing 400 words or one page that section. There are manifestos, chapters on “life in the conversation lane”, discussions on creativity, privacy and secrets, business models and essays on how ideas become reality. But the section entitled My Marketing Tragedy began to assume a new significance. I would have done well to review this section …. especially Douglas Karr’s chapter entitled “You Are Not Your Audience”.

Clearly accommodating the views and perspectives of over 200 authors from 15 countries is going to present a challenge. However, it soon became apparent that we had both succeeded and failed. Sure, we had created discussion and dialog – but it was not the conversation that we had wanted. We had used humor where many could find nothing but horror. We had shared a story that few wanted to propagate. We had created concern and anxiety where our intention was to do the opposite.

In the Age of Conversation, the path to success is littered with failures both large and small. The challenge for us all is to put relationships ahead of messages, or people ahead of process. This, of course, means changing the nature of how many marketers “do” marketing …. and this perhaps, is the underlying message of many chapters in this outstanding collaborative book. But it is one thing to understand, and quite another to unlearn what has taken an entire career to perfect. As Johnathan Trenn suggests, “our first challenge is to understand others”.

And now, if you will excuse me, I have some re-reading to do before creating our next promotional video.

The Ruby Pseudo team have a great post on the Teen Commandments for Brands Wanting to Go Digital
…. but the same lessons can easily be applied to any audience and any
form of engagement that is based on two-way (or polyphonic)
communication. Commandment Ten states:

10. Finally, with Facebook and MySpace etc, please remember that
you’re in their (digital) space: they didn’t ask you to be there, and
they can’t very well ask you to leave, so talk nicely. And if you
haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all…

Just because intangible factors are harder to measure does not mean
they are less relevant when it comes to your brand. It just means that
you have to use insight not as IDEATION but as execution – and that
means a whole lot more listening and much less shouting. Or as Mark Hancock said, “It is not the aspiration that is at fault – it is the implementation”.

This is more important than ever. In What’s Greater than Sex?, Scott Monty shares the results of a recent survey
into the media habits of American men in the 18-35 age group. One of
the key findings is that the Internet is considered more important (as
in “can’t live without) than TV. But look also at the context in which
these men live their lives:

• 63% have a smart phone and one in four use their mobile device to connect to the Web
• 40% use the Internet for more than 22 hours a week    
• 36% say they can’t live without the Internet for socializing
• 33% say they can’t live without online entertainment    
• 59% notice online ads
• 35% like ads that allow them to play a game    
• 34% like online ads that allow them to participate in a contest

Obviously there is a seismic shift underway: 

Why is this important? Because the printing press … and for that
matter, blogs, social networks, video and picture sharing tools,
conversational and other “Web 2.0″ sites are not just tools. They don’t
just FACILITATE communication and interaction. They MEDIATE it. The
impact of this is profound. 

If the way that we understand the world is, in turn, mediated by it,
then those brands that do NOT engage with new media are placed at a
significant disadvantage. This goes beyond the question of whether your
company or brand “should have a website” or a “blog”, but whether it is
important for you to be part of the web of signification that creates
the worlds that we live in.

This is serious news for
ANY brand whose normal go-to-market approach relies on traditional,
broadcast-style campaigning – but in TOUGH economic times, the impact
of this will be felt more keenly. If you are not actively creating the
conditions in which your brand will thrive, and if you are not adding
value to the conversations that circulate around your brand, then
irrelevance will be the death of your business.

But while I have a great affinity with Twitter,
it is feeling more and more like a broadcast medium every day. Sure
there are some small-scale discussions occurring but they are hardly
conversational. Plurk, on the other hand, have placed conversation right at the heart of their design.

Let’s take a look at how a simple question “who really gets social
media?” generated an entire (and wide ranging) conversation with a
range of participants and countless “eavesdroppers”. Ann Handley’s question resulted in some immediate recommendations … Sean O’Driscoll, Mack Collier, Valeria Maltoni and Connie Reece were all mentioned.

But then the conversation shifted. It became more personal,
capturing the nuance of a real world conversation — mixing personal
anecdote with professional discussion. There were clear moments of true
friendship and caring between people who were thousands of miles apart
and then, snap, the conversation moved again and that moment was lost.
Well, not exactly lost — as it now exists in a form of immediate
historical, hypertext archive.

But the most interesting aspect of all this was the way the
technology played second fiddle to the conversation, and that the
emphasis and energy built over a relatively short time frame. The
threaded discussion feature of Plurk ensured that participants could
jump in at any point to extend, redirect or refocus the discussion.
There was no clicking, chasing, or adding-in new conversationalists as
is required by Twitter — it was all in plain view.

Increasingly, the tools that loosely fall under the term “web 2.0″
appear to be facilitating the style, manner and emotional resonance of
personal relationships that would otherwise be subject to the tyrannies
of distance and geography. And while these interactions are evanescent,
each participant invests these “social media interactions” with an
emotional resonance that attaches not only to the conversation and its
memory, but also to the social media tool being used. Over time and
with use, tools like Plurk (or its variation) will become loved by its
users. Already Twitter, for example, is well loved. On a larger scale,
so is Google.

So who gets social media? Clearly those who understand that the future of your brand is in micro interactions. And more importantly, those who realise that the smart money relies on the human drive to connect.

By the way, if you want to see another great example of this in action, take a look at this discussion instigated by Mack Collier.

But rather than speculate on the Blog Nothing Day of action, I thought it would be interesting to hear from those responsible. Dino Demopoulos was responsible for dragging me into Blog Nothing Day and he offered to put me into contact with the organizer — Jason Verwey who happily answered a few of my questions.
GH: What is Blog Nothing Day?
JV: Blog Nothing Day happened on November 26, 2007. The date was arbitrary but the cause was not. Blog Nothing Day was created to raise awareness and show support for the ongoing WGA Writer’s Strike. The premise was simple …. contribute nothing to the “blogosphere” for 24 hours. No posting, no comments, no user-generated content.
It may seem like an unlikely or even undeserving cause for unpaid bloggers to rally behind but there was one key issue that I believe struck a chord with our community: compensation for works distributed digitally either by DVD or Internet downloads. For many of us, the digital world is not only our playground; it is our bread and butter. It is important to set the precedent now while the digital model is still in its infancy. Not only does this ensure fair compensation for a writer’s work, it validates the web as a medium in some sense.
This is obviously important to us geeks. The WGA Writers may drive nicer cars than us but we could still empathize with their fight. As my good friend Dino
Demopoulos put it, “Just because we make no money doing this, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.”
GH: How many participants did you have?
JV: Since the action was in the inaction, it is impossible to truly get a sense of how many bloggers participated. That being said, we did have 35 confirmed participants promoting the event in advance of the big day.
The number may seem low but keep in mind that these were some very smart and prominent bloggers whose influence reaches far. You might even say to the very tip of the “long tail.”
GH: How did you get the word out?
JV: Spreading the word was the easiest part (believe me; not contributing for 24 hours was the hardest). We basically started with a couple of blog posts and a Facebook event and left the rest to the amazing power of social media, as cliché as that sounds.
GH: Silence is an interesting tactic in a time where social media is driving conversation. How do you see this playing out?
JV: Sometimes there are so many conversations going on that silence is the only way to get noticed. Every day seems to be a race to how many blog posts you can complete, friends you can poke, e-mails you can clear, RSS feeds you can read, hits you can get, tweets you can tweet, etc.
And when everyone and everything around you stops, even for just one day, you take notice; At least in my mind.
GH: Do you plan on more activism? Will it follow a similar vein?
JV: I’m not sure Blog Nothing Day constitutes as activism but I suppose it did pop my proverbial cherry. I find it incredibly interesting and even more inspiring to see people with no former relationship or connection join together for a cause they believe in.
Obviously this concept is nothing new but technology has made it so much more obtainable. The web has made is possible to actually see and in real time how you have made an impact on the world around you and it is a very powerful thing. It has always been so difficult for us to realize that one person can make a difference and it is the Internet that is finally allowing us to see this is true.
These are exciting and hopeful times when anyone with a computer can make an impact, even a ripple. You no longer have to be a celebrity, politician, or corporation to have your voice heard. Amen! I’m not sure what’s next for me but I am definitely looking forward to it.
GH: What would you do differently next time?
JV: More planning. Definitely more planning. It would have been nice to be able to create a home for Blog Nothing Day that wasn’t trapped within Facebook or individual blogs. If we had given ourselves more time, it would have been nice to set up a wiki for everyone to collaborate on.
We also only had less than a week to get the word out– The web is fast but not that fast.
I think some people didn’t realize it was Blog Nothing Day until the actual day of the event or even after. I’m thinking we could turn this into an annual thing. Perhaps pick a different cause to support each year and enjoy 24 hours of read-only web. We’ll see. A year is a long time away.

This year, I want to go a step further. I have setup a team … and I would like you to either sponsor me or JOIN. To make this easier for those based in the USA, I have setup a team with the US organisation which means that any donations made are tax deductible in the US.

I am particularly keen to see the MarketingProfs contributors with a MO, along with … David Armano, Mack Collier, David Reich, Peter Kim, Cam Beck, Drew McLellan, Clay Parker Jones, Greg Verdino, Kevin Dugan, Lewis Green, Mark Goren, Matt Dickman, Mike Sansone (ok you have a headstart), Sean Howard and Paul McEnany. Anyone else you want to see with a mo? Let me know and I will add them to the list.

To sponsor me:

1. Visit the Movember website
2. Choose to donate or to sponsor
3. Enter my registration number : 158914
4. Begin to FEEL GOOD about doing good

To JOIN the team:

1. Visit the Movember website
2. Choose the Join a Team option
3. Use the Captain’s registration number 158914
4. And my email address: servant [at] servantofchaos [dot] com
5. Begin to FEEL GOOD about participating

So I then spent a few more years studying drama, computing, psychology and literature … only to find myself with a generic degree and no clear vocation. My dream of becoming a playwright or a poet was never going to pay the bills and I just so happened to land a job with a legal publisher who liked my combination of skills (oh — and sparkling personality). Yes, clearly, it was time to re-think my thinking … and accept a new approach.

It was in the early ’90s and the publishing industry was in a state of upheaval. The newspaper typesetters that were displaced by automation in the ’80s had found their way into the business publishing houses, but even here there was short term respite. Desktop publishing and online coding was biting into the role of the production department and the IT teams were bringing in bigger servers, databases and new distribution and search methods.

Looking back on this, I can see that there was a lot of workplace fear and uncertainty. Jobs and skills were being re-imagined and there was no place for a 30-year publishing veteran who could not understand the new markup schema. The whole industry was quivering … the steps between writer/journalist and published item were being truncated. But as a new entrant, I found all this exciting. Challenging. Cool, even.

This was business transformation powered by technology. The computers came in and the people went out … and with it went history, know-how and community. The publishing industry’s “job for life” was facing extinction and the great dream was a “paperless office.”
Yet I wonder whether the changes achieved the outcomes first envisaged … in fact, knowing that a large percentage of IT project fail (in excess of 80% I believe), I expect the answer is an open secret. But in a world of technological progress, we move onwards towards the next shining beacon of innovation … we don’t pause to re-evaluate or re-assess. Re-thinking was off the agenda.

With the growing power of social media forcing another round of structural and business changes to the publishing industry, it is somewhat disturbing to see many of the same arguments being deployed again. However, this shift seems to be ABOUT people. The technology is pervasive, but it has taken a backseat on this ride to extinction. These changes are about thinking … about the roles of thought, thought leadership, news and opinion — all very human.

Underlying this shift are the citizen journalists and citizen marketers of the social media world who are taking centre stage. This strange cult of niche celebrity gives us all the opportunity for 15 seconds of fame … about the time it takes a media snacking public to click between headlines. All the talk is, again, about a “paperless office” — just this time the talk relates to “newspapers” and not the stuff they are printed on.

In many ways, the publishing industry has taken this to heart. They have seen the shifts from print classifieds to digital and they have witnessed first hand the rise of digital advertising powerhouses like Google. And we bloggers shout the claims of a new industry … a democratized, levelled playing field where the latest news can be captured on a mobile phone and shared globally within seconds. But rather than embracing and building on the benefits of this, publishers appear (for the most part) to be focusing on staking out their own turf. They appear to be turning inwards upon themselves rather than re-thinking their position and embracing the opportunities being presented.

Each week there are news stories that are disparaging of new and social media … there are “online exposes” spreading fear and anxiety, living cheek by jowl with heartwarming stories of connection and human emotion. As Katie Chatfield points out in this great post:

The ability of the online medium to tell stories and to allow journalists to create new ways of creating understanding and describing the agenda seems to be lost in the contemplation of dwindling revenue.

But there is some re-thinking occurring … in pockets. There are those who do embrace technology and the new opportunites that social media presents. Bruce Nussbaum is looking at the changing face of magazine publishing … indeed, he is up to his armpits in a revision to the status quo. Will Business Week succeed? Will we see a rennaissance in journalistic in-depth storytelling of a kind that will re-engage a disillusioned public? I truly hope so.

Sometimes we need to re-think our positions on social and industrial change, and sometimes we really can learn from the past. This Information R/evolution is supposed to be about the “human web.” Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all benefit from its opportunities?

One of the best tips I have ever had, was to look through the eyes of a child. Try to experience something anew … as if you are seeing it for the very first time.
But what does this mean? What does it take? Is it even possible?
At the upcoming InterestingSouth conference in Sydney, I will be presenting on the how you can look through the eyes of a child. Literally.
I will be showing some of the digital snaps made by my four-year-old daughter. And I can tell you, they are fascinating. Fresh. Interesting.
For a start, the composition is askew in almost every photo … the angles are unexpected, always looking up or zoomed in close. Others are looking down, macro-style, examining the minute detail of the world. There are artful arrangements, candid moments and a lot of blurry, out of focus shots that seem to capture the subject out of the corner of your eye.
Now, I don’t know whether these shots SEEM better because they were taken by a four-year-old. I don’t know if they FEEL more interesting to me because of my relationship to the photographer. I don’t know whether the STORY of the process is more important than the end result.
But the randomness gets my heart racing. The generosity of the subject matter and the sheer number of shots is compelling (I still have over 1400 photos to wade through). And there is a great excitement in the sharing of these. I get that personally, but I also feel this right now as I write this post.
Cam Beck has a great post on sharing and ideas … he argues that you need to “share like you are seven”. And looking at these photos, I can’t help but agree. Share like you are seven … or give it away like you are four. I bet you will receive more than you bargain for!

But things are changing… because the world is changing. But also because our audiences are.
This video is another in the series produced by Michael Wesch at the Kansas State University. It is four minutes long and provides an insight into the lifestyles, aspirations and realities of today’s students … the very same students who inhabit (or very soon will) the lucrative demographic groups that marketers and advertisers crave. The video starts with the following quote:

“Today’s child is bewildered when he enters the 19th century environment that still characterizes the educational establishment where information is scarce but ordered and structured by fragmented, classified patterns, subjects, and schedules.” — Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Massage, 1967.

But as the video goes on to show, the order, structure and scheduling imposed by the educational environment (that still exists) has been entirely subverted by the behaviors and actions of the restless participants in these classes. What is clear is that this “audience” is fundamentally different to all that have come before. It is participative. Active. Engaged. And more networked than Google.

But do your clients bite?
Do your ideas fall on deaf ears?
This competition could be the opportunity you have been waiting for!
So, you think you can market?
The Bargain Queen is a leading fashion blog that has a unique challenge — they have their female readership all stitched up, but how are they going to reach a MALE audience in time for Christmas?
The brief
Get men interested in buying fashion gifts for their other half this Xmas. They hate department stores. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a boutique. They would rather wrestle a crocodile than accompany their lady on a shopping-trip. But somehow, they have to find her something she’ll like. Something she won’t sigh and send back. Something classy. Something that’s good value, but isn’t cheap. Something, in short, that will guarantee some peace and goodwill to all on Christmas morn.
You have a low budget. Around $500.
But you have access to some top notch design and technical resources on The Bargain Queen team to compensate. They can handle online/technical deployment of your astonishing viral marvel, and they can design any necessary creative dinkuses you may require.
All you need to add is “the spark” that will bring the campaign to life!
Who is the judge?
This is where it gets interesting. Not only do you have to come up with a knockout idea, your ideas will publicly go head-to-head with the best in the business. We will randomly draw your name from a hat and allow the marketing community to VOTE for their favourites.
This will happen across a number of times in round-robin style. Only the entry with the most votes will pass through to the next round. We will continue until there are only TWO entries left. And then final voting will commence!
What’s in it for you?
First up, this is the chance to showcase your style. With some of the best marketing minds looking on, it is a great chance to demonstrate your worth. You will also get a bucketload of profile and buzz from the blogosphere.
Finally, since The Bargain Queen is a site that’s going places, you get the very bankable cred of being able to say “I knew her before she was famous — in fact, I made her famous”!
And, just ‘cos it’s Christmas, the winner is up for a funky new iPod Touch.
So, what do you do next?
Check out thebargainqueen.com to get the look and feel of the site. That should tell you everything you need to know about who we’re trying to reach and what we have to offer them. Sketch out your idea in no more than the equivalent of one page. Remember this is a competition, so your entry will be up for public consumption.
Submit your ideas and your questions here — just no later than October 31, 2007!
Voting starts November 1!

The potential is enormous … you stand a great chance of developing a top-shelf campaign with an integrated, cooperative feel from the beginning. You get buy-in from the best creatives in your employ, ensure that the focus is on the “work” and not on “who owns what” and extract real value for money out of those costly retainers.
It may work out that you get additional ideas generated in the competitive free-for-all — and these can be kept on the back burner, ready to go at a moment’s notice.

And while this approach is increasingly in favour with CMOs, does it actually achieve outcomes? Does it contribute to the long term viability and innovative spirit of your brand? And, importantly, does it deliver on strategic flexibility across your marketing system?

Let’s take a look at how inter-agency collaboration might play out …

First up, let’s take a look at the relative strength of position within an agency roster. Normally functions and responsibilities will be broken down into silos. Agencies hired for media may be looking for a foot-in-the-door for your digital work. The digital team will be hoping for a shot at the advertising account and the promotion group will be keen to demonstrate their strategic thinking and big picture capability. Throw in a couple of fee-for-service upstarts and even the most stable roster will adopt unruly behaviour.

To shake up things even more, you may want to take a couple of agencies out of their comfort zones … making them work on business that is outside their specialty. After all, it is quite possible that a winning idea may come out of the chaotic cauldron of collaboration.

And then it starts. What is the BIG idea? Oh, yeah … and who owns it? The bidding will begin … ideas will come thick and fast. There will be pitches, informal meetings, lunches and the offhand harbour cruise. Eventually, and quickly an idea will need to be adopted … even the deepest retainer will only cover a small investment in this style of competitive collaboration. Will this be the winner? You are hoping so.

Now the work is divided up. There is a production line in place with dependencies up and down stream. On the conference calls and in meetings it is all vicious smiles. Pleasantries are exchanged, timelines are discussed and promises are made. But then it is time to crunch.

Delays in approvals stall the production before it starts. Snags in final copy and storyboards send the ideas back to the creative team, rewrites, rethinks and new scenarios are agreed. Time doesn’t stand still.

Misunderstandings start to filter through the teams … deliverables arrive in wrong formats, Mac and PC fonts cause creative meltdowns, budgets appear to be heaving and there is more focus on the brand than you were expecting — now the CEO wants an update. Meanwhile, the TVC editing has been proceeding apace — all looking good, with the one possible exception of missing disclaimer text. Print materials have been approved and the direct mail piece is winding up, the media slots are locked in … and the CEO briefing goes well. Now, if you can just get legal over the line …

Of course, your campaign is a huge hit. The calculated risk paid off. This time.

However, there is much that can cause damage in any collaborative process … and when it comes to inter-agency projects, the stakes are high … and the mistakes or pitfalls can have serious consequences for your brand. Things to remember include:

• When it comes to execution, everything is tactical. This means that the balance of power may shift between agencies and lead to friction.
• Rivalries don’t suddenly cease to exist. The money you save in cooperation may need to be spent in project management.
• Handovers never run to plan. Agree all formats and timings up front.
• Plan for Plan B up front. Don’t expect that just because you EXPECT collaboration that you will get cooperation.
• Establish a cross-agency steering committee and ENSURE they meet regularly (especially during production)

But what do you think? Does/can inter-agency collaboration work? Should it?

Keystone Yield Sign · 1950’s
Originally uploaded by Bravo Six Niner Delta

This is an interesting comment for a number of reasons … but the primary interest for me lies in the underlying assumption that Facebook is, in fact, in command of its own strategy.
Facebook have done a pretty good job of creating a friend-2-friend community enablement platform … they have some nice tools, an open and relatively transparent technology base and a growing developer base who happily build widgets until the cows come home (purple or otherwise). And while this is all very Web 2.0 … it is also very “Enterprise 2.0″. By opening up the platform in the way that they have, Facebook have taken the bold leap into strategy by community. There are some keen advantages to this:

• Sampling — Some of the brightest minds in the business are experimenting and performing R&D on Facebook’s behalf. Not only are Facebook benefiting from this, they are also able to observe and analyse the outcomes of these efforts as strategic initiatives are rapidly exposed to the marketplace. This allows for both niche and broad market trial of concepts and technologies.
• Adoption — Passionate groups are activating and driving participation of the Facebook platform. This is proving particularly effective in those people (such as myself) who had thus far been resistant to Facebook.
• Self segmentation — Of course there is a wealth of information in the demographic data, in the self-profiling routinely performed by Facebook participants. At the very least it provides deep insight into trend-related information in a very usable format.

And while these are all powerful benefits, there is another that, in my view, outweighs them all — they have a ZERO RISK strategy-execution model in place. Because the various communities plan, implement and activate initiatives, Facebook is able to watch and learn. There is no IMPERATIVE for them to decide whether they are a professional or social networking platform — that decision will be made for them by the communities. And because we all flock to the network that provides us the most value, you can bet that there will be a market value to it.
Do you think Facebook is concerned about this open source strategy? I bet no one on the Board loses a wink of sleep thinking on it.

Drew McLellan points out that a number of corporations are banning the use of Facebook during work hours. One of those companies is Telstra – Australia’s leading telecommunications company. And a raft of other companies seem to be following suit.
Leaving aside the fact that some of these companies so afraid of Facebook are, themselves, online or technology-focused organisations, there seems to be another agenda at play.
And while employers may well be concerned that Facebook could chew up a significant portion of their employee’s days, it is clear (to me at least) that prohibiting access to them is not the answer.
You see, employees are as much a part of your brand as the products that you sell. Your employees largely determine the experience that consumers have with your brand and products/services and, importantly, they provide a humanising effect — they ARE the “customer face.” Just as there are expectations on employee behavior and approaches to engaging and working with customers, so too should there be policies about “acceptable use” for social networking sites.
But there is more.
In the never-ending pursuit of “value,” Facebook and employee networks are the closest thing that many organizations are likely to find to an “Expert Network.” Somewhere out there, probably only a couple of connections away, your employee will have access to someone of great influence. They may be a great thinker, designer or writer. They may be creative or analytical. And through the network of social connections, their good ideas can be activated within your organization — like innovation by proxy.
I am sure there are many of us who have tapped our personal networks for ideas, for pointers or for solutions. And sites like Facebook provide a neat way of segmenting and activating communities of interest through their group functions — and while not perfect, they work.
In this Age of Conversation, participation is the name of the game. The art of competitive advantage now lies not in control but in activation … and the best way to learn this is to open the doors and start to play.

We have profiles all over the place, pictures, links, likes, dislikes, favorites and widgets. There are movies, music and clubs. There are groups, messages, inboxes and discussion boards. In fact, there are so many pieces to the puzzle that re-membering — actually putting all of your virtual limbs together — is a challenge.
But what happens, one day, when it all stops?
Never happen to you? Think again.
Because social networks rely on the power and reliability of the network members, there can be consequences for even a perceived breach of the “terms and conditions.” A friend of mine experienced this with Google AdWords some time ago … analytics seemed to indicate that he was inflating his clickthroughs by some kind of robot/program and he was therefore removed from the program. A couple of appeals went nowhere, and to this day he is on the blacklist. And while he was completely innocent of the charges, there was no further avenue to appeal.
Fair enough … this is Google’s network and they can do what they want
But what happens to the personal detail that is held in these networks when they turn you off … or, perhaps more importantly, when they close down (as they do)?
This question was raised by Harry Joiner this morning … as he had been evicted from Facebook.
And while Harry may have a beef … what about you or I? What about sites like Flickr? What happens to your personal content that resides on their network? What about the time that you have put into building your social network through links, messages and groups? Where does that investment go (and what happens to the images/digital assets you created)?
If our digital personalities are the sum total of the digital traces that we leave across the web, then the question of trust and ownership arise here. It is not just about the files and connections. It’s about something more important.
So … who owns YOU?

What so often passes as a piece of “web fun” actually performs a vital role in the creation of a brand or organization’s web strategy. Let me explain.
A couple of days ago, I found a site that allowed you to upload photos of yourself for scanning and comparison against the faces of celebrities (my closest match is William (Capt Kirk) Shatner). The site then constructs an image that showed those celebrities who most look like you (or is it the other way around?). Sounds like fun, right? It is… it makes you want to send it to your friends and colleagues.
As Tom Cruise (a.k.a. Drew McLellan) points out, there is a serious piece of strategy at play in this gimmickry. By creating an online tool that encapsulates its brand, this fun tool from MyHeritage.com simultaneously demonstrates how the site functions as well as providing an immediate emotional linkage between the consumer and the site — you are, after all, uploading a photograph of yourself.
This same approach worked spectacularly well for the Movember charity campaign in Australia last year (hey … is anyone following this up for 2007 in North America?). Why does this work? Because there is a strategy in place to drive an increase in trial/sampling … and the strategy does so by placing the consumer literally at the center of the experience.
And this is something that the web can do like no other channel. So if you think that a “web strategy” is not something applicable to your brand … think again. And think harder.

I was pondering this while watching that beautiful Sony Bravia TV commercial featuring the hypnotic music of Jose Gonzalez. But this wasn’t on commercial television, but featured on a show about art. The segment wrapped with a quote from Guy Debord — “The spectator does not feel at home anywhere, because the spectacle is everywhere.” Suddenly the bells began to ring in my mind.
In a world where so much of our daily experience is mediated by technology, “engagement” no longer seems to be an end goal, but rather a milestone. “Engagement” does not reach far enough nor adequately convey the restless desire we have to connect — with brands, with organisations and with each other. Just look at the words we use to describe a website (home page) or an online network (social community) and you will see evidence of this underlying yearning.

Perhaps because the “spectator” cannot rest, a transformation is underway. No longer content in this passive role, consumers are stepping out of their comfort zones into the worlds of social media, co-creation and multi-channel conversation … and technology is being harnessed as a first and necessary step.
It seems to me that brands who continue to invest in the spectacle will be able to “engage” at least some of the people some of the time. But those brands wanting to delve deeper will need to find ways to transform our experiences — one heartbeat at a time.
Photo credit: Beagley

He even said that some had become like family … (even if we are weird or dysfunctional — but I think we all know who he was referring to there ). The meeting place for Tim’s family is not the dining room table or the campfire, but his blog.

I’ve been addicted to you..
Originally uploaded by interpreter.

And it made me think … I, too, have made some great friends through blogging — many of whom I have never met. Many of them are regular readers and posters here at MarketingProfs. But does the fact that we met online change the nature of our relationship? Does this make a blog-friendship better or worse than an old-school friendship?
Furthermore, what does this mean for brands and the way that consumers engage and interact with them? And the more that I thought about this, and the more blogs I surfed to, the more traces of BSP were found …

David Armano has a thought-provoking piece on shared experience and intimacy. David is well-loved and respected because of his willingness to push himself, ask hard questions (of himself and us all) and to bring his personal views and sense of the world into the blogosphere. And in this post, DA does so again, teasing out the flavours of a personal moment and making it applicable to us all.

John Dodds also has a very interesting post on how you get people to notice you — and while he is talking about the "future of advertising", he ends up at the same place — intimacy. For John, that deep connection, or an intimate relationship, is about details not about big ideas. You know, I am sensing a congregation of ideas …

And so, serendipitously, I am trolling through my old draft article list and I find two links in the body of a post. One is this — I found it around Christmas time when I was having a most harrowing time. It struck a chord and I thought that I would return to it at some point. Both articles deal with sincerity and authenticity — with intimacy and engagement.

As marketers we all talk about engagement and about conversation… but perhaps we are really striving for intimacy, for details, for a way to map out the thin but vital connections between us? Perhaps this IS what we want as bloggers, but do Marketing Directors or CMOs want this? Funnily enough, I think the answer is NO… but on the other side of the coin, on the consumer side, there is little doubt that we are seeking a place to belong.

The connections we make, the conversations we participate in, the moments and memories that strengthen our bonds can occur on and offline. What I sense is a blurring of our different modes of being. For those of us who still think there are boundaries between on and offline, the implications are profound. For a younger generation, the implications have been lost in the rapid merging of adoption, expression and identity — there simply are no questions to consider.

But what I do know is that the longer I interact, learn, play, laugh and argue with this community, the surer I feel that I have a place of belonging. Where do you belong?

Why, you belong here with me.

One of the things that blogs do REALLY well is open our listening ears.
I remember some time ago reading this post over at CK’s blog. She had picked up on Drew McLellan’s posts on his visit to Disney World and the lessons that his experience has for marketers. And after CK’s success with the Voice-in PDF about why we blog (if you don’t have one, grab a copy now), she challenged Drew to pull together this insight into a PDF that could be sent to his clients and prospects.
And the payoff?
Not ONLY happy customers … but a smidgen of sillyness — CK would, herself, don the mousketeer ears.
Well, Drew had his OWN ears on (ok Drew, where’s the picture?) … and he took that challenge. And the result is this great 11 page PDF that captures the essence of Drew’s posts in a more versatile format. He has some great sections in the PDF, including:

• Surprise (one of my current interests — surprise marketing)
• Privilege (turning purchase into something special!)
• Dance with the one that brought you (my favourite)

This is a great example of listening to your audience. Disney World does it … as shown by Drew’s observations … CK does it … as shown by … well, those ears … and Drew does it … as demonstrated by the PDF that he is now sharing with us all.
But the question for us all is … are we listening too? Are we acting upon what we hear? And are we willing to go that extra mile to make it work? Are you big enough to wear the big ears? And are you up to the tag “marketeer”?
I think the ears have it!

It starts with a good product. The Wiggles set out to create a good kids product. They didn’t start by focusing on the audience, but concentrated on creating something that was unique in the marketplace — something that was better than anything else available at that time. Their first advantage was that they had talent and were good musicians.

You need to REALLY know your audience. The Wiggles met while studying early childhood teaching. So not only could they deliver well, they understood the strategies that were required to reach and engage their target audiences.

  Wiggles & The Big Red Car 
  Originally uploaded by Bj74.

Do the hard work. When The Wiggles started touring, they booked places that they could afford close to their audiences. They played in carparks to four people. They played in church halls to 40. They played as support act to Barney, playing in the intermission — realising that kids don’t leave the theatre at intermission, but stay in their seats to eat snacks and talk about the show. Later they booked theatres in New Jersey because it was cheap and easy for their audiences to access.

Use the Internet to grow offline retail interest. In the first year of touring the USA, The Wiggles could not get retail shelf space so they sold DVDs online through Amazon. Wal-Mart took notice when they realised that The Wiggles were the fourth best seller for Amazon.

Trust your product. They were told repeatedly (and in different countries) that without changing their accents and their songs that they would fail — that the kids simply would not understand the music. The Wiggles stood firm and refused, not understanding why you would want to throw out the differentiating factor that you would need to build market and brand presence later.

Remember your community roots. In the last year, The Wiggles played live to over a million people. And while they played the theatre at Madison Square Garden, they also played the theatre at the Hornsby RSL Club — selling out both venues.

Play to the stakeholders too. It is not just the kids that The Wiggles have to please. It is the parents and other carers … the ones who spend their money and their time on The Wiggles products, merchandise and live shows. I particularly love the story about Shaquille O’Neal turning up to a show with his kids dressed as a Red Wiggle (especially the part where The Wiggles were told "Shaq wants on").

And, of course, over and above these points, there is authenticity. The Wiggles ring true with kids and their carers because they "keep it real" … they are nice guys who believe absolutely in what they do. In many ways, The Wiggles are a "lovemark" par excellence — sure you can love a brand — but how many of us wet our pants with excitement at the thought of a brand experience? That is true love.

When I was studying theatre, my lecturers would all encourage us to go and see shows. They thought is was important for us to soak up the atmosphere, get a sense of the tradition, to see and to be seen. But I would go along and find myself disappointed … sometimes it was the acting, at other times, the direction — but in many cases, it would be the script. I would (almost) never get up and walk out, but I often only saw the first half of a show.

Don’t Make Me Mad …J/K
Originally uploaded by jcash17588.

I remember sitting through one particularly dreadful play and then finding out that it had been commissioned by the Sydney Theatre Company and thinking to myself "I could do better than that".

So I gave it a try. It was actually a lot harder than I thought … but not impossible. I directed the play at the university drama theatre and it went rather well (even though I should have allowed someone else to direct it). One of the things that I learned in the writing was the need for surprise … and that to create surprise it was essential to put yourself on the line.
What does that mean? Let me try to explain …

Writing can easily done from behind a mask. Sometimes it is a corporate mask, sometimes it is a nom de plume … and sometimes you can hide behind technique. But the writing that breaks through and touches your audience is the text that hurts you — it is the sentence, the paragraph or the story that you dare not tell. You see, it is not the bare truth that the audience responds to, but the raw emotion in your audience that is unleashed by your writing.

I can still remember quivering as I wrote a section of my play … it was about a close friendship that had collapsed. I felt that anyone who read it would be able to tell who I was writing about. However, the most common response was "I know someone just like that", or "that happened to me"! As the author I was so close to my writing that I thought that the text was about me, when really it no longer belonged to me at all.

Being able to write in this way is what we often call "finding our voice". But the voice alone is not enough … because it is also easy for any writer to fall into self-censorship, to write a sentence that is "good enough" … to roll out a lazy verb (and let’s face it, we have all been there). You also need a commitment to language and to surprise — to putting your story ahead of yourself. It is not for the feint-hearted …

I was struck today by two great posts. They both made me laugh out loud, but for entirely different reasons. The first was this one by that cheeky gal, CK, promoting the MarketingProfs Book Club. The second was this one by an equally cheeky and provocative gal, Ariel (just check the title of this post).
What I love about both is that clear sense of a good story, a strong voice and a point of view that provokes your brain into action. They both provide excellent examples of what is good in blogging — originality of ideas, excellent delivery and a capacity to put themselves on the line for the sake of the story.

Actually, I think this is the only way to blog. It’s why we can all sniff out a fake (eventually) … because even the best technique can slip to reveal the dead hand beneath. It makes you wonder what goes on in some blogging brains.

Oh, and in case you DO want to know what is going on in your brain, find out in this quick test on the BBC website (via SWBU). And just in case you are wondering, I appear to fall a little on the girly side of things … but just don’t make me mad.

The concept worked because it provided an emotional reason to quickly engage with the cause. For many of the men I spoke to about it, the focus was on having some fun with their sense of masculinity. And the fact that sponsorship raised money for some good causes was secondary.
Andrea Learned’s article on the campaign has some great reasoning on why the campaign was effective. But there were also some very good questions raised in the comments that I wanted to consider during the month.

• Humor — there was certainly a lot to smile about with this campaign. The website used humor throughout, and with a gala ball and plenty of prizes, there were many opportunities for fun. Perhaps this is the perfect antidote to depression.
• Education — while the education elements were available, much of the campaign was focused on the celebratory aspects. In fact, it seemed to me that the energy of the campaign was driving towards creating a movement (or perhaps a Movember brand). Is this negative? I have further thoughts below.
• Effectiveness — I did consider this an effective campaign, and believe that it WILL generate behavioral change. As Andrea suggested in the comments to her article … it is about taking “baby steps”.

Importantly, I think this campaign worked because it allowed its participants to engage deeply (and everyday) with its subject matter. Everytime you looked in the mirror, you were reminded of the objectives. You were encouraged to raise money, to work in teams and to have fun. If you wanted to learn more about the causes, you could do so … but it was more of an opt-in arrangement.
Creating a Mo Movement
While only very few of us will be prompted to go to the doctor more regularly, I have NO DOUBT that all this year’s participants will all sign-on again next year. The campaign was well covered in all media and gained strong individual and team participation.
But between now and next Movember, when we hear about depression or prostate cancer, we will pay closer attention. And as we, as individuals, become more used to hearing these messages over time, and as we overcome personal barriers (laziness, apathy, fear) in relation to our health, then the change will begin to take place. And let’s face it, it is easier to act when you feel part of a movement, than when you are on your own.
Now I hope to hear of a US-based Movember campaign for 2007. Anyone volunteering? Is that you with your hand up Mr Armano? What’s that? Seconded by Hulk Hogan?
NOT TO SCARE YOU … but here are the before and after photos. View at your own risk!
Wait … but worse … you can vote for the Man of Movember!

This week I watched a video that made me pause for thought. This piece of user-generated content had confounded me, and I did not know where to look.

I knew that I needed to give this more consideration. And as I returned to this piece in the following days, I began to realize that there was a very deep question at the very heart of this topic — what is authenticity — and how and who is the judge?

User-generated content is often seen as being more authentic than materials developed by brands and agencies as part of their marketing efforts. Sometimes there is a freshness and energy to user-generated content … sometimes it is irreverence. And at other times, it is simply funny.

Watching this piece made me smile at first. The guitar playing was very good, and there was a real earnestness in the singing that surprised me. I could not, at first, place the song … it sounded like something that I knew but it felt alien to me … and then I realized it was U2’s One.

And by the time I got towards the end of the song, I felt compromised, confused. Out of touch with what I was seeing and hearing.

Is it getting better? Or do you feel the same?

Authenticity speaks to our emotions. It gets under our skin. And the brands that we love, that we consider authentic, are those that speak to us on this emotive and instinctive level. It is what we seek in a blog … a voice that echoes or resonates in our heads and hearts.

Can this be manufactured? Of course! The Lonelygirl115 experience was a great example.

It strikes me that it is the readers or viewers who determine authenticity. This video did not work for me, but the performance got a standing ovation from the live crowd. Just take a look at the faces of the performers, look at the way that the crowd moves in rhythm with the strumming. There was something going on there.

The music and lyrical-reworking did not get under my skin (in the desired way), but it did have an impact. I caught the pop music and pop cultural references and this “cover” version captured some of the beauty of the original causing me to open up to the message. Perhaps, for me, this was hyper-authentic — more real than real — frighteningly so.

But, at the end of it all, I was left rather empty, unsatisfied. I DID NOT want more … in fact, I wanted less.

one bank on Vimeo

As the lyrics say, “You gave me nothing, now it’s all I got.”

Special thanks to Ariel Waldman for pointing out this video.

this dangerous curves sign is dangerously dirty LOLZ
Originally uploaded by Amanda Marie.

This past week has seen some great conversations about topics that are near and dear to the hearts of many of us. CK brought us a great and ongoing debate about body image, as well as a post about the plight of Darfur, and Paul poetically positions a call to action on a broad range of topics, from human equality through debt management to obesity.
And Ann’s post on Marketing’s Honor Badge picked up some of this energy but focused it around blog credibility and trust.
All of these posts generated significant discussion online and off – and certainly gave me plenty to ruminate on. And the more I thought about it, it seemed that there was a connection emerging …. there seemed to be a desire to act, to do good works. But there was also a single (mostly) unspoken question …. where is the rallying point? Who do we look to?
The answer is obvious. We must look to ourselves.
There is already a great grass roots model that has proven to be highly successful …. the worldwide web consortium. The working committee structure is highly effective and draws from a pool of experienced practitioners who (at first instance) are passionate and interested in particular subjects.
What I am proposing is a W3C for Marketing 2.0. Call it what you will (open to suggestions). We could start with the following working committees:

• body image
• good works and
• social media.

Each committee would be responsible for leading the discussion around these topics and would release policies for discussion and adoption.
Perhaps these working committees could also do something radical – produce policy and discussion while actually working on collaborative projects. I don’t know – I am certainly not claiming to have all the answers.
What about you? Got a passion? Are you up for it? Want to change the world? Let’s start with something that we know about and see where it takes us.

As he spoke, it was like he was casting a net around us all, slowing his speech when necessary to have us rush to follow his breaths, then leaping forward on a new topic or idea to leave us gasping. It was not just a lecture but a performance.

Later, when I worked at IBM, I was fascinated by the speeches that Lou Gerstener would send to all employees. They were so well-crafted that I printed them and kept copies in my filing cabinet. I was interested in the way that he (or his speech writers) would put together ideas, tease out their implications and push through to a particular call to action. The work put into the speech, its articulation, its timing and even its relevance to day-to-day IBM-life was also a unique performance.

The great speech, however, seems to be a thing of the past … or so I thought, until I read this comment from Diana.
Diana kindly led me to this great speech by Dan Wieden over here and it made me realize the link between speechwriting and blogging. You all may have noticed this long ago … but for me this comes as a form of revelation. It is like I have been reading and writing blogs without realizing that I am not using the right reading glasses — I have been looking through old polaroids when really I needed some of these 3D types.

Does familiarity breed comtempt? Maybe not, but sometimes being too close means you see the dots, but not the big picture. More revelations to come as I try to relook at my everyday world. Anyone know where to get some of those red and blue glasses?

3D glasses on
Originally uploaded by halloweenshortfilmfestival

I was reading this post over at CK’s blog and was struck by the way communities organize themselves organically.
Of course, the article interested me straight away as it was about Buffy the Vampire Slayer (in my view, one of the best-written series ever made) … and the way that the Buffy Community continues strongly several years after the end of the series. (I work with a number of Buffy fans in our office and the passion still remains!)

But as CK points out, your community is a "standing army" of believers (they believe in your product, your service etc). They are passionately committed to your work or output. They will trial it, test it, provide feedback. They will even stand-by you when you over promise and under-deliver … well most times they will. Really, your community is your safety net.

Sometimes this means that your community will be seen as a collection of weirdos (even your CEO may take this view) … it is precisely this passion that sets them apart from the mainstream. It is this passion that makes them camp overnight to order the new Xbox360 or PlayStation console. It is this evangelistic streak in graphic designers that is harnessed so well by Apple. It is this single-mindedness that creates a market for elite racing bikes for use on suburban Sunday roads.

From the outside, a strong and active community is seen as a collection of weirdos. It’s easy to see why … dilated pupils, intense conversations, sleepless nights, spurious talk of "what-if" scenarios, compulsion, tension and even secret handshakes. Sound like anyone you know? All bloggers look into the mirror and repeat after me "One person’s passionate community is another’s collection of weirdos … and that’s ok".

Thanks to Ann Handley for suggesting this topic!

Photo originally uploaded by f.p.o..