i’ve listened to plenty of people complain recently and have read hundreds of reviews and positions on the topic of privacy and facebook.

my take? grow up. be a big person (tech literate or not) and deal with it. they wrote the code. you are benefiting from that code. you’re not paying anything for the experience. you don’t like it? get out. you’re not competent enough to understand controls or settings? get out.

if enough people leave, they will have rethink or augment their decision process. o, wait, they’re still adding thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of users per day. sorry, you lose.

take responsibility and quit leaning on other people. have expectations of yourself and if you decide to use something for free, stop whining. don’t like it? vote with your feet.

im a fan of lebron james. he’s my age, from ohio, and doing pretty well at his job. he’s a physical specimen, what seems to be like a pretty good guy (enter tiger snark here) and some are calling him one of, if not THE, best who ever lived…

except he’s not that last bit. not even close.

lebron has a problem. he’s not alone. plenty of people our age have it. it’s a product of environment and upbringing. it’s a reflection of society.

lebron (maybe the best finisher ever) has a problem finishing things. he has a problem sustaining focus and maintaining intensity across a series. the guy can take it to the rim, get his shot or get a call any Any ANY time he pleases. however, in game 4 he had 18 shots and 7 turnovers.

unacceptable.

game 3 - he owns things. game 4, not so much. he needs to bring his A-game every single night. he needs to finish a series. he may bring up his lack of supporting cast, or the difficulty in sustaining that level of play, but quite simply… i don’t want to hear it. jordan and kobe can do it, so can you. until you decide to, you don’t get to be part of those conversations. your name is scrubbed from those sentences.

i find this pattern with a lot of people my age. our generation has been celebrated at every twist and turn of our lives. medals for trying, ribbons for effort and applause no matter what. guess what - no one cares. we need to champion achievement, period. we’ve bread a culture of mediocrity and entitlement. until you are on top, don’t stop. until you’ve won it all, lebron, you’ve won nothing.

decide to be great. work until you get there. don’t turn it on and off. win, and leave no room for questions.

brand can mean a lot of things to a lot of things to a lot of people these days.

we’re hearings about consumer goods and retail products living and dying based on ‘brand’ as actual product has little true differentiation. we know that consumers have the control - that they dictate what the brand is. we’re also seeing millions of dollars being spent/invested in brand development, strategy and deployment.

Here’s Seth Godin’s definition of brand:

A brand is the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another. (source)

i think he’s on to something here. instead of talking about all of the assets and palettes and logo variations and guidelines and taglines and paid representatives and placements that comprise ‘major brands’ and ‘billion dollar brands’… talk about the role of a brand in a story or experience and the outcome because of it.

companies should be telling their consumers’ stories. if a product/good/brand is truly doing its job - if it is serving the customer/client and adding value by enhancing or creating an experience, then telling the consumers’ stories will, by default, be telling the brand story.

the vids below are examples in a specific industry - spirits - but i think the spots do a great job of telling stories about people. you find yourself understanding them not only in these instances, but imagining the back stories as well as projecting into the future and being able to construct what very well could be. you are thinking about people and experiences and thus the brand evolves from a usage situation into much more. it is a part of a lifestyle, a component in a process, an element in a look, a feel, an atmosphere. the brands assume characteristics of those who have purchased it, or, is it vise versa? the blur is the goal.

what brands should tell your story? what are the brands that, removed from your life, would remove part of your story?

and my very favorite (messaging and execution)

Crown Royal - Boss -

i said something a while ago that i thought had some value. so, i put it up on my tumblr.

we live in an economy where the currencies of attention and network often need to be spent before the currency of cold hard cash is.

i repeated this idea in an article that i recently submitted to the pursuit group to be published in one of their upcoming newsletters (not sure exactly when it’s coming out).

we’ve experienced a redefinition of value and a realignment of the engagement cycle. value comes in education and legitimization and engagement starts far before purchase, at least for those who are winning meaningful work and building sustainable relationships.

an educated buyer dictates engagement and has more access than ever before. a value transaction must begin immediately as your targets assemble profiles and self-educate, removing a portion of your previous contact [in-person opportunity] with them.

i know i refer to seth’s blog a lot, but his post today validated my position on all of this. i echo his sentiment when he says that we need to begin building trust and permission before we can ask for money.

digital is one (very important) medium when it comes to a) this broader continuum of engagement and b) the marketplace in which these newly important currencies are spent.

you know you’re in the right direction when the founders can be away, and every aspect of the business continues and even grows.

This past week it was announced that Barack Obama is the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Really?

Things to think about -

1. Nominations for this prize were due February 1, 2009. That’s less than 1 month after President Obama assumed office.

According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the peace prize should go to an individual who:

during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

2. I believe bestowing this award is really the the Nobel Committee doing what they can to box President Obama into his campaign rhetoric which focused heavily on international relations and specific U.S. participation on the world stage. Since assuming office, the President has, obviously, been dealing with some high-priority domestic issues. They are nudging you, Mr. President.

3. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are both former recipients of this award. I think this award is also the Nobel Committe sticking it to President George W. Bush in their own way.

I do think that President Obama is a fantastic speaker (though he and his team should have rethought content for both he and his wife in Copenhagen!) and seems to be committed to socio-economical and geo-political progress (define progress?) in the global theatre, but the award of this prize, considering timing and absence of real action, significantly decreases my respect for the Committee and the award. Shame on them for leveraging their position for political statements and hope for action.

I read an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal entitled “On the Internet, Everyone’s a Critic, But They’re Not Very Critcial“. In it, Geoffrey A. Fowler and Joseph De Avila note that the “average grade for things online is about 4.3 stars out of five”. This may be a surprise to many (or at least it was to me) as a good part of the criticism I hear about web - especially social web - is in regard to the capability and aptitude of people to write/speak negatively. We hear about the ability of one negative experience-turned-review to snowball into a train wreck begging for disaster relief (see Pete Blackshaw’s Tell 3000).

Grade inflation (Positive Acquiescence Bias - thanks Bryce

download Imagine That

) seems to be prevalent across the web - YouTube and Amazon are both reporting it, and averages are higher in the UK (4.4) than the US.

While I don’t see any critical problems with positive acquiescence bias on the public web (buyer/browser/analyst beware & get smart), it made me think about the manifestation of this behavior on internal social networks - especially as more organizations are exploring and deploying mechanisms and/or re-engineering for some degree of social business design (Alimeter Group, Dachis Group).

Significant capital outlay for technology, change management, HR moves and more means that social business design is an investment. The investment is worth it, according to McKinsey survey results, but as companies push deeper into the space and begin to rely more heavily on information and insights gleaned from digital environments, I think we need to be aware of patterns and possible skews.

Why?

Because connecting a workforce is proving valuable: real-time feedback and data mean fast learning, course correction and innovation. Reputational systems applied to knowledge, resources, and options can quickly gauge a global and disparate organization’s sentiment and needs, allowing for informed business decisions… ‘informed’ being the operable word here. If feedback is inflated (one way or another), organizations need to be wary of making decisions based on it. The opportunity to gather and act on data is certainly there. It’s the qualification of that data, per the tendencies being reported in similar environments, that must be remembered.

So…

As Brian Link says, “sample sizes and % participation and correlated results from different data sets are key to interpreting these kinds of things” but I’m also wondering - Do we design against/for it? Do we coach against it? I’m not even close to an expert on reputational systems (again, see Bryce)) and haven’t researched inflation results beyond the WSJ article, but it made me think:

1. Are grades inflated?
2. Are there reputational system design considerations which can be made to combat or normalize this behavior or the data?
3. Is there group behavior coaching or leadership that can modify this these patterns?

Thoughts?

the first preso was fantastic

but the second one, with new perspective and learning, is just great. key point here - not about tools. about behaviors, patterns, psychology… all that good stuff.

This morning as I began to juggle the 1023913249 things I do on a given day, I had to listen to a voicemail left on our office phone. I knew when it had been left - last night at 7:30pm - because I was still in the office but was head down working and not answering the phone at that time on a Thursday night.

So, I took the time to listen this morning. JOY! It was a recorded message from Mary Jo Kilroy inviting us to come talk about how to create jobs in Ohio, talk about our dependence on foreign oil and green technologies. (Side note - funny she wants to talk about job creation as my city - Columbus - is about to pass an income tax hike which REALLY PUMPS US UP to continue to locate and grow our business downtown. Smell the sarcasm? No, but it’d be cool if you could, right?)

Ok, seriously?

1) A recorded message mass distributed via phone (and a voicemail at that!) is F’ING stupid. Apparently she and her staff/consultants are not being exposed to the new rules of engagement and best practices that are getting just a little bit of coverage these days - personal, new media, social web, etc etc. Oh wait, Pres. Obama has been… so you’d think Kilroy’s camp would too. No?

How do I, and most people, add things to their calendar? There is a digital invite and we have the ability to explore it and add it if we want to. If Kilroy’s crew is doing this (Facebook/Email/Twitter/Meetup/other), then I’m not aware… and I tend to have a decent finger on the pulse of such things in this city.

2) Our number is on the DO NOT CALL listing. Funny how these politicians passed that act…. but left a loophole for themselves.

So, the culmination of the medium (phone), the timing (7:30pm), the fact that we aren’t supposed to be contacted like this, the completely generic impersonal effort, and the fact that she wasted my time has left me a bit put off this morning.

A (some might contend THE) business periodical in Columbus, Ohio put together a “Social Media Bootcamp” this summer aimed at small-medium businesses. The goals (quickly paraphrasing here) are to introduce social media and a number of tools for use.

I’ve got some good friends who are presenting as part of the summer-long series. These friends, unlike many, are legitimate digitals - concerned with strategic deployment, measurement and bigger picture.

However, their presentations are focused on specific tools and networks (because this is what the camp is aimed at).

I’m not opposed to the introduction of and education on tools. It’s important.

However, I think that this camp, and SMB in general, with regard to the approach to ’social media’ is off-target, or at least putting the cart before the horse.

1) Stop calling it social media. Start calling it social web. Web is the platform,  and tools, behaviors, expectations and technology are socializing it.

2) Before you pick up your hammer and swing, let’s talk about why you’re doing it. Will the picture you’re hanging balance the room? Will you be moving it later in the month when you remodel? Are others hanging pictures? Do people even want to see this picture? Is it the right one? or does it completely throw off the theme you’re going for?

-Straight up - small and medium (even large) businesses are hip to the hype - they hear “twitter” “social media” “linkedIn” “money money money” and think “my god I’ve got to get into this!”.

Ok - maybe.

I’d like people to take a step back and understand their environments in more detail before running to learn about tools.

1) Understand your business/industry environment. Who are you serving? Who should you be serving? What is your brand? What is the industry doing? etc etc. Often, when we engage clients and work through our process, we find the standard discovery is eye-opening in that the questions we are asking have never been asked (or at least haven’t been asked in a very long time). Before you run to broadcast to the world, to engage clients and activate advocates, don’t you think you should be pretty solid on who you are, what you stand for and what you want to achieve? Else, you’re creating a spike - something that’s not sustainable and won’t have lasting impact.

2) Understand the web environment. Being able to Google something and having a Hotmail account does not mean understanding the web environment (no offense to anyone there - it helps us stay in business). The web environment is not LinkedIn & Twitter. It’s not generating leads and broadcasting (read: shouting). The web environment is a combination of light, flexible, adaptable technologies, psychological and sociological factors, time and space shift, combination and recombination, human and NOW. Business-speak: the web environment is consumer empowerment and pull-model. It’s customization, comparison, 24-7, conversation and individual. The web environment is access, value-add and trust.

If you can’t understand the web enviornment, the paradigm shift from pages to streams , then tools which exist there are useless. Time put into them is useless. Lasting value can’t be generated.

Small business or large, regardless of end-goals for implementing social web in a business environment, a failure or inability to understand the landscape and fundamental parameters often means an attempt at a quick fix and an outstretched hand at dollars instead of value.

What do you think?