Marketing Roadmaps

Politics/Policy

More on the Writers Strike

by

The writers are doing a great job communicating their story on the Internet. I wish them luck, and will be doing what I can as a fan to support them. If you want a good summary of the issues, watch these two videos.

 

And check out these sites:

The issue is resonating particularly loudly in the fandoms I follow, chiefly the Whedonverse and Battlestar Galactica. Joss Whedon has posted on Whedonesque multiple times and Ron Moore of BSG just started his own, personal blog (versus the scifi.com one he sporadically posted to last year.) And of course writers Jane Espenson and Mark Verheiden, whose blogs I read on a regular basis anyway, have been covering the strike in their usual articulate fashion.

Tags: , , ,

What does Facebook want to be when it grows up?

by

Facebook. It’s hot. It’s become one of the most popular social networking sites mere months after opening up to the masses. It’s cozying up to, and getting tons of cash from the big boys.

But what does it want to be when it grows up?

Some of its recent actions suggest that it’s a little confused.

If it wants to stay the adult equivalent of the college facebook, then I guess it makes sense to have a terms of service that requires that people use real first and last names on their accounts, a security measure that has its roots in Facebook’s beginnings. And to boot off people using pseudonyms. But then it won’t really be an inclusive social networking site, will it? Lots of "people" who would join, and bring their rich social interactions, will find someplace else to (net)work and play.

If it wants to enforce its own definition of obscenity on the entire community, in direct contradiction to US law, by banning photos of a legal act, breastfeeding, while allowing things like pro-anorexia groups, the company certainly has the right. It’s not smart to alienate current and future customers, but it is their playground,so they can set the rules. They have every right to define obscenity as something that would make a 16 year old boy uncomfortable… in a bad way. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Facebook. It has tremendous potential as a social networking platform. But even as its valuation rises, it seems to be making short-sighted business decisions that will ultimately affect its future growth.

Personally I like the fact that I know my friends on Facebook are real, live people. I’m not likely to befriend an avatar. And I’m not a big fan of anonymous blogging. However, I do engage in other networks like Twitter with folks using pseudonyms. Sometimes I know their name "in real life" and sometimes I don’t. And I don’t care. Wouldn’t the smarter decision be to allow pseudonyms, but require that it be acknowledged in the profile? Transparency. You have the right to know that Jon Swift is a pseudonym before you friend him, but it is ridiculous to require his real name. His online friends don’t require it. Why should Facebook?

And the obscenity thing. The legal definition of obscenity is complex (and by the way, doesn’t even apply to breastfeeding in public which is legal in all 50 US States.) In the US, we rely on the Miller test. Facebook on the other hand appears to be applying the frat boy test. Or something. Truly, they have to straighten this out. Either  Facebook supports free speech or it doesn’t. And "doesn’t" is a really bad business decision which doesn’t have to be made explicitly. Inconsistent application of community standards accomplishes the same thing.

It’s time for Facebook to grow up. Think about the long term implications of its actions. Understand that the seemingly trivial issues of breastfeeding moms and anonymous avatars are fundamental business decisions that ultimately will affect its ability to become the preferred public social networking platform.

Or not.

UPDATE: The Facebook account of political humourist "Jon Swift" has been restored.

UPDATE 11/2: In this corner Microsoft and Facebook. And in this corner Google and everyone else. Ding Ding. Yesterday the Internet was abuzz with the Google OpenSocial announcement, and today the kids at Facebook are looking at a whole new world. They still have the users and a very powerful Big Brother in Redmond. But they can’t afford to keep making stupid mistakes. Because it seems we have a viable alternative.

Tags: , ,

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: , , , , , , ,

Al Gore’s Nobel and Hillary Clinton’s Laugh

by

Just one more side trip, friends.

First, to express my delight that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No hanging chads in Norway I guess.

And to share with you what has got to be the most absurd moment in the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign to date. As you may remember from my Sexual Politics post last week, I am continually dismayed by the amount of attention paid to female candidates’ looks. Well, CBS has taken it one step further and actually had the nerve? stupidity?  to comment on Hillary Clinton’s laugh. And actually not her laugh, but more specifically, the absence of her "cackle" during a recent MSNBC interview.

On Talking Points Memo, Steve Benen writes:

I was particularly fond of the way CBS tried to distance itself from its own report. The senator’s laugh, the report said, is "overly analyzed." Apparently, it’s so excessive that CBS finds it necessary to note its absence.

In related news, Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech yesterday in which he didn’t answer his cell phone; Mitt Romney answered questions without abandoning a position he held five minutes prior; John McCain hosted a town-hall forum in which he did not refer to anyone as a "little jerk"; and Fred Thompson went the whole day without responding to a reporter’s question with, "I don’t know anything about that."

And just think, the election is still more than a year away. How much weirder is it going to get?

Tags: , , , ,

BlogHer Recap Part 2: Everything and the Kitchen Sink

by

There was a lot more to BlogHer than a bit of a fuss about public relations, including seeing so many old,  and meeting so many new, friends. Since I am bound to leave someone out if I do a list, know that I was so happy to see or meet you, and was sorry I missed so many people that I know or read. Next year….

This post is going to cover a variety of things, from the unconference on Sunday to politics and why the major media didn’t come to BlogHer.

In fact. let’s start there. Joanne Bamberger of Pundit Mom and  Jennifer Pozner at  the Women’s Media Center have done an excellent job of summarizing the issue: the national media didn’t bother with BlogHer, with 800+ women bloggers in attendance, even though a major policy effort, BlogHers Act, was a key element of the program and Elizabeth Edwards was featured in the closing keynote. Yet a week later. everyone finds time to go to Chicago for YearlyKos. 

Why?

As I posted in a comment yesterday to my previous BlogHer post, I wonder if it was in part because of the absence of assholes?

Bear with me a moment.

It’s a well known fact. Disagreement and invective make better stories than agreement and community. At least as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Don’t believe me? Just pick up your local morning paper and look at the front page. Besides, there really is no other explanation for Ann Coulter.

Why doesn’t the mainstream media understand that 800+ women bloggers are a powerful political presence? Especially in the context of BlogHers Act, a collective effort to make a difference on a significant issue, global health?

 I’m wondering if it is because the BlogHer community generally embraces its diversity instead of encouraging controversy? The media loves arguments and assholes and division, and you know, there is plenty of all three over on most political sites. But 800 women coming together out of a mutual interest in using blogs to share their experiences, whether professional, personal or political, and agreeing to respect the diversity of the community, not proselytize?

Nah. That’s no fun.

It’s also not right. Think about how you can change it.

Moving on, let’s be crystal clear. Just because the BlogHer community isn’t a bunch of jerks doesn’t mean that there aren’t  political differences among the members. Julie Marsh, mothergoosemouse, touched upon them on both her personal blog and on Imperfect Parent. As she notes, the women in the BlogHer community are good at coming together on the areas upon which we agree. But there seems to be a liberal bent, which may be off-putting to more conservative women. How do we embrace both groups? It’s not a trivial question.

Especially in context of the thing that worries me the most about US politics, which is that we seem to have become so polarized (call it red/blue if you must) that we cannot come together on anything. I posted the following on BlogHer a few weeks ago and Lisa Stone referenced my question during the Edwards keynote:

I continue to be inspired by how EE called Ann Coulter on her lies and innuendo. I would be very interested in her take on how we can return the level of US political discourse to conversation about issues. Versus the hyperbole, innuendo, cult of personality and battle of the soundbites it has become.

Can we? Or have we become so polarized, so divided (call it red state blue state if you want) that we can’t talk about issues, we can only talk from positions?

If we do not agree on gay marriage, does that mean we cannot discuss healthcare? If we do not agree on abortion rights, does that mean we cannot discuss childcare? If we do not agree on the war, does that mean we cannot discuss the economy?

Certainly, it is in the best interests of the major political parties that we stay so divided. But is it in ours? I do not think so.

———————–

Okay, that’s the political discussion. On to social media. As I mentioned, I attended the unconference, sponsored in part by my client HP, and I have nothing but good things to say about it. The format and facilitation were great, and I got as much out of my four hours there as I did from the previous two days. That wouldn’t necessarily be the case for every BlogHer, but for us quasi or totally techie social media types, it was heaven! I wish I could have stayed until the end.

I participated in three topics: advertising on blogs, the death of communities and how do we define social media. The discussion was terrific, and I can in no way do it justice here. My notes are pretty awful 🙂

But I would like to share with you some things I shared with my fellow "open spacers" last Sunday.  And not just that John Mackey from Whole Foods was a jackass for his anonymous Wild Oats bashing, which he was but I’ll let others wax eloquent on that. I have no time for a public company CEO with so little responsibility to his shareholders.

Back to the unconference. The three sessions I participated in gave me an opportunity to share two themes that I have been noodling for quite some time. The response in Chicago was pretty positive-  thanks, BlogHers, and Hims. Would love your thoughts as well.

First, a common issue that seemed to underly all the discussions was the delta between what customers/bloggers are interested in, and what companies seem to put out, whether in advertising, blogger relations or communities. I’ve long thought of it in terms of product — task — emotion. Companies love their products, sometimes understand that tasks, not features, motivate, but rarely understand that the true motivation is the underlying emotion: WHY the person wants to do the task. Jack Vinson from Knowledge Jolt, created a good example from my starting point: We understand that the drill (product) is purchased to drill holes (task) but what we miss is that the real purpose is to build a birdhouse and watch birds.

There is almost always a higher order, emotional purpose. Look for it.

Then over lunch, we tried to come to a definition of social media, and were only slightly sidetracked by Whole Foods and furries, but not thank heaven, in the same sentence. Mackey is a vegan after all.

I shared a construct that drives my thinking of social media. For me, social media are the tools that let us return to a simplicity of communication not dissimilar from the village. Here’s how it goes.

Way back when, we had villages. And in the villages, everyone knew everyone. Call it the beat of a drum or gossip or simply society. People spoke with each other, and directly learned what they needed to know. And then everything exploded. The Industrial Revolution begat the Modern Age, and mass media intermediated. You didn’t get your information from someone you knew. You got it from Huntley & Brinkley, Chancellor, Tom, Dan and Peter. Mass media became the filter to our experience.

And then the Modern Age begat the Internet. And social media tools like blogs and social networks and Twitter and whatever comes next…. they allowed us to talk to each other again. Directly. Without editors.

Which means we filter a lot of crap. But it also means that a landlord can’t bamboozle a young couple. And companies can’t dismiss warranties. And a whole lot of other things.

Because we know each other again. In our little village called the Internet.

At least that’s how I see it. What do you think?

Tags: , , , , , ,