Marketing Roadmaps

Gender

Lame web celebrity lists and gender equality

by

Yesterday, Forbes published its annual web celebrity list and last night, we had a bit of chatter on Twitter about it. I promised a post to further explain my thoughts on the list. Here goes.

There’s more than one problem here, so let’s start with the most obvious. Do we really need yet another web celebrity list?

If we truly believe what we say, that social media is about more than celebrity or rank, that it is about the democratization of media, that the long tail is just as important as the mass market, then we need to put our money where our mouths are.

We need to look deeper than the A-list. And not be fooled by lists like this one that merely scratch the surface of the richness of the blogosphere.

Now, I am not at all surprised that Forbes takes the easy way out by pandering to our culture of celebrity by creating a list that seems more appropriate to PEOPLE or the STAR. It’s a chance to show that they are more than just a stodgy mainstream business publication. Oooh Perez Hilton in Forbes… who would have thought….

Unfortunately, this perpetuates a misconception about what social media is, and what it can become. What we can become as a result.

Not only is that a real shame, but also it goes a long way to explaining why so many companies get it wrong when they engage. If we treat social media just like everything else, why should we expect that they’d "get it?" That they’d understand the fundamental differences between mass markets and the long tail, between bloggers and journalists. And so on.

The other problem is the gender imbalance. The Forbes list, like so many others, suffers from an over-representation of white middle class men. Only four women out of the 25. That’s 16%, for the math jocks out there. That doesn’t match the demographics of either the US population or Internet users.

The Forbes list is merely one among many that suffers from this problem. In the tweet-around last night, Chris Baskind forwarded me yet another recent  list that purported to summarize the definitive blog posts of 2007. Just as bad. I counted 38 different authors (many of the same ones as in the Forbes list by the way) and 5 women. That’s about 13%.

Quite often, these lists mention the same women. Not to take away from their work and significant contributions, but there truly are more than a handful of women engaged in social media.  And don’t get me started on the fact that the "definitive posts" post attributes CommonCraft’s great "RSS explained" video to Lee Lefever alone. No mention of business and life partner Sachi LeFever. 

Now, we could say that these are stupid, lame lists, and why would women and minorities want to be on them anyway?

Unfortunately, that would miss the point of true equality. 

True equality means that women and minorities should be adequately represented everywhere.

Certainly anything that claims to be a definitive summary of web influence.

And even lame web celebrity lists.

Tags: , , ,

Blog Council

by

By now most marketing and PR bloggers have heard about the new Blog Council — created by Andy Sernovitz, former head of WOMMA, 12 big company members, etc. etc. In fact, most marketing and PR bloggers have already written about it and I don’t have much to add. I’m going to reserve judgment until we see what the Council actually does.

However, I do have one comment, which is that I am once again disappointed by an industry group’s speaking roster. So far the Council appears to have had nine members-only presentations of some sort, with  13 speakers, some from vendors, some from member companies. 10 men (77%), 3 women (23%). Better than some recent events, but still not good enough.

We have to do better than this. I hope the Blog Council does.

One more for the road and one for the Roadmap

by

I promise, I do have some actual marketing content in this post, but before I get back to the Roadmap, I’ve got one more comment "for the road" about the absurdity that is our national presidential elections.

You may recall my comments in earlier posts about how the media always seems to pay inordinate attention to the appearance and demeanor of female candidates — hair, make-up, nature of their laugh. You know, the really important stuff that tells voters whether a candidate is qualified for elected office. You know, more important than the issues facing our country like the war, health care and the economy.

Well, I must extend kudos to USA Today and reporter Maria Puente for an interesting story on the front of the LIFE section this morning about how style is "an issue for ’08".   The story presented a pretty balanced view of the media’s obsession with the candidates’ (and especially Hillary’s) looks.

But the best was the sidebar on page 2 of the section that dissected what all the presidential candidates are wearing. Absolutely priceless. Absolutely perfect. Here are just some of the gems:

John Edwards

[…] Earlier this year, Edwards was captured on camera fussing over his hair. Then there were jeers when it came out that he spent $400, twice, on haircuts. But Edwards laughed off the criticism, spoofing the kerfuffle with his own video (featuring Hair from the Broadway musical).

Rudy Giuliani

The former New York mayor gets applause for finally giving up on the comb-over and accepting the realities of male-pattern balding. Now if only he could spiff up those oversized, un-stylish suits he sometimes wears.[…]

John McCain

[…] Then it was reported on Radar Online.com that he was miffed at his staff for dressing him like a metrosexual in a "gay" V-neck sweater over a T-shirt. McCain’s campaign did not return calls seeking comment, then or now.

Mitt Romney

[…] Romney criticized Edwards on the haircuts, but then it came out that he had spent $300 on a makeup job before a debate. […]

Go read it.

Now back to the roadmap. You remember, the Marketing Roadmap 🙂

The media landscape is shifting. Right in front of our very eyes. Customers are increasingly taking control of their own brand experiences. Generating the content, deciding what is important. Targeting by behavior is more effective than demographics. It’s not just about viral, it’s about spreading the right message for the right result.

Now, if you’ve been active in social media marketing for the past few years, none of the above is news to you. At all. You already know that the traditional lines between PR and marketing are blurring. We aren’t talking in isolation to influencers (the media) and customers. Intermediation is no longer the name of the game. We can, and must, talk directly with our customer, who is simultaneously both influencer and buyer. Forget about messages. We have to connect with people. Honestly. Authentically. No bullshit.

If you’ve been doing this for a while, you understand how important this new communication is to our brands, our companies, our survival. You’ve sucked that social media kool-aid right down. You get it.

But it can be hard for people to put their heads and arms around when faced with it for the first time. And there’s no real way to cut the learning curve down. You just have to jump in.

Now, I am always suspicious of business experts who don’t actually do what they write about, so I viewed Larry Weber’s new book,  Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business, with a bit of a jaundiced eye. Sure, he has the PR background but I’m not sure he even has a blog…  How much could he really know about marketing to the social web without doing it? Without being in it?

Well, I can’t answer that question, but I just read an excerpt from his new book in BrandWeek, and while I’m not sure I’d get much new information from the book,  I was pleased with the 12 steps he outlined for companies to follow toward an interactive future.

Which makes me think his book might be a good intro for brand marketers and PR execs.  Budget is tight right now, so I don’t plan to buy the book, but I’d love to hear from my readers if it is any good. And of course, Larry Weber, John Wiley & Sons, if you send me a review copy, I will read it.

Books are pretty much the only things I do review here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Feeding the trolls

by

This week, events in two blog circles in which I travel drew the trolls out from under their bridges: the League of Maternal Justice’s BreastFest and the "retirement" of a PR blog character whose public face was attractive but who was best known for its ill-spirited, trollish attacks on other bloggers.

When a topic is controversial, even if only mildly so, the trolls are inevitable.  What do you do when they show up in your place or in your face?

The safest and sanest approach is to ignore them.

That’s why I don’t feed the trolls. Sure, I’ve had them here from time to time, but  lack of sustenance leads them to go elsewhere for their jollies. I don’t respond here, and if they attack in the comments on other blogs or Web sites, I ignore them there.  It’s hard, especially when they get personal, as they always do. But the child’s nursery rhyme is true: sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Dealing with the trolls was particularly hard for some of the women actively engaged in the breastfeeding debate. The act and the decision itself are so highly personal, and  it didn’t take long for the trolls to get offensive.  But remember: the troll is the one with the problem. Not you.

If a troll or two turns up here as a result of this post, I’ll ignore them. But unless a comment  is obscene or libelous, I won’t delete it. I stand by my words. Let them stand by theirs.

Some folks take a different approach. They bait the troll, on the theory that a troll’s arguments are so ridiculous, the troll will end up proving the initial point it is attacking. This can be successful, but you have to have a really strong stomach. Because a troll is not rational. No matter how logical your argument, it will never penetrate the troll’s generally thick skull. You will never convince him. Or her.

But maybe, just maybe, proponents of this approach argue,  if you can stay the course, the weird non-logic, personal attacks and ramblings of the troll, as compared to your logical, reasoned arguments, will convert a few folks on the fence. And of course, initially there is an adrenaline rush from building your argument to beat the troll.

The rush doesn’t last, the troll will get ugly, and the chances of changing anyone’s mind this way are pretty slim. So, think hard before troll-baiting. Because it is going to hurt.

As for the late, not lamented blog character, Robert French’s "eulogy" for the not-so-dearly departed says it best. 

Tags: , , ,

In Support of the League of Maternal Justice

by

Tomorrow we will return to our regularly scheduled marketing topics. Today, however, I post in support of the League of Maternal Justice. And I remind you, this is from a woman who chose to not breastfeed for my own personal reasons, but will defend to the end another woman’s right to do so, wherever and whenever her child is hungry. (YouTube video embedded below)

Tags: , , ,