Five Must-Read Posts from Last Week

(360/365) (207/365)Despite the various pronouncements that blogging is dead or being replaced by Twitter, I continue to find great writers all over the web. Some are new and some are well-known (to me at least). However, it is easy to be overwhelmed with the flood of new blog posts and ideas. As an antidote, each Monday I will write a brief post linking out to FIVE must-read posts from the last week.

Hope you enjoy them!

  1. Mack Collier’s Companies Don’t Fall for Social Media’s Fear Factor: As usual, Mack trains his laser focus on the business blog to dispel some of the myths
  2. Katie Chatfield’s Where Did the Future Go: Sharing a great presentation by Bruce Stirling
  3. Sonny Gill’s guest post on Danny Brown’s blog: Asking are we too connected, or not connected at all. Think about your own situation and weigh in on the topic
  4. Valeria Maltoni covers the Brains on Fire Manifesto: Valeria reminds us that passion drives conversation, not products and shows how Spike Jones and the team conceptualise this.
  5. Charles Frith reminds us how clever Michael Wesch is: “Context collapse” helps us understand how we cope with and process digital media within a social context. Fascinating.

And a quick question – what were your most interesting reads last week? Did I miss them?

More Behaviour Less Measurement

New strategies require new measurement – or so says Helge Tenno. In this fantastic presentation, Helge suggests that when it comes to the social web, we are using the “destination web” as a basis for measurement – and we are, therefore, using an outdated system to measure the efficacy of emergent networks of value. And I tend to agree. Quoting Adrian Ho:

This is because measurements create their own context. For example, I’d argue that it’s precisely because we measure horsepower that horsepower is valued.

However, the flow-on effect of this is profound. It means that we must fundamentally shift the way in which we create strategy and drive its implementation. Gone are the days where strategy can be built and refined over months and sometimes years. Strategy must be what Katie Chatfield suggests:

… you have a core thought, but it should be fluid, evolving and allow you to do several things simultaneously and build on the ideas that work.

And this comes back to a process for continuous digital strategy. It means, for marketers, living life at the edge of your brand. But fundamentally, it is understanding how people change behaviour, not why – for it is not the behaviour that we want to track, but the shifts in sentiment around points of action that are useful indicators to brands. And it is only by working with those levers and feeding that back into our product and service development that we can begin to link consumer behaviour to the brands that people love.

A Drop of JaffeJuice over Dinner?

P1000448July is going to be a busy month. Not only is it birthday month for Jye Smith and I, it is also conference time for the Australian Direct Marketing Association (ADMA) which runs July 8-10. Ian Lyons, Mike Zeederberg and I are running a “Dive into Social Media” session on Day 1 – which should be great fun. In fact, Day 1 looks like it will be fantastic. It kicks off with a keynote from Joseph Jaffe on The AND Economy, follows through with some great local and international speakers and then breaks into workshop streams.

But for those of you who just don’t think that one keynote with Joseph Jaffe is enough, here is your chance to squeeze an extra drop of JaffeJuice out of the event … that’s right, we’re talking dinner and drinks! 

If you are interested in coming along on Thursday, July 9, leave a comment below – or register for the twtvite event here (search for Sydney). I will organise a venue once I have some idea of numbers.

Making Influence Valuable

ChemistryI have written previously about the strength of social media’s weak ties, but I would like to also broaden this discussion into a conversation about the particulars of personal influence, about social judgement and about the way in which the nature of influence and trust is transforming the way that we interact and engage with brands and the people behind them.

Clearly we are all comfortable working with convenient fictions – we regularly invent stories and work within “roles” to allow us to behave as if the world we live in is anything other than chaos. Think about the roles that we take on as parents, lovers, soccer players, good girls, bad boys (and thousands of others). Think about the way these overlap and how we switch between them on-demand. But we are not made up of these roles – they do not define us.

Now, think for a moment about our roles as marketers. We:

  • Superimpose definitions on the “audience”
  • Harangue these audience “members” with questions about their intentions, preferences or past choices
  • Interrogate the resulting sea of half-mumbled data for insight
  • Transform this insight into something resembling strategy

SecretsThe problem is, that the further we get away from the initial impulse – that is, to understand the complex way that we humans behave – the weaker the signal becomes. We subject this weak signal to repeated bouts of interpretation and analysis. We box it and strain it through frameworks and end up, somewhere down the line with a profile which we are comfortable to work with.

Now, before you fire up the Bunsen burner, I must hold up my hand to these very same crimes. But there is a deeper, more fundamental error that lies at the heart of this problem – and that is that we have convinced ourselves that we need to think big. We need to think on a mass scale. And we need a BIG idea to match.

My view is that this is also a convenient fiction, for all we need is to understand the nature of influence and tailor our marketing efforts accordingly. How does this work?

Seth Godin suggests that marketers are either scientists or artists, and that we change hats according to the situation. It is this shifting that we must become comfortable with – we need to analytically identify those people whose behaviours match the profile of our products or services and then creatively engage these folks with a range of communications and experiences that generate the type of behaviour that, for us, constitutes success.

Notice the words “range of communications and experiences”.

As Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield and Andrew Shimberg explain in the MITsloan article How to Have Influence:

If you want to confront persistent problem behavior, you need to combine multiple influences into an overwhelming strategy. In management and in their personal lives, influencers succeed where others fail because they “overdetermine” success.1 Instead of looking for the minimum it will take to accomplish a change, they combine a critical mass of different kinds of influence strategies.

Our challenge is to influence the influencers. This is where the FOOTPRINT part of your digital strategy comes into play. After all, we are not always on the same online networks at the same time. And we don’t all listen to, or interact with, the same people, sites or networks. Furthermore, we also play different roles in different spaces. One person might have a substantial network on LinkedIn, yet have only a small number of followers on Twitter. Another may have thousands of blog subscribers but only half a dozen Facebook friends.

It is only by understanding the granularity of influence in this way that you can craft the different kinds of influence strategies that will deliver your outcomes. And this means throwing out the convenient fictions and embracing complexity and chaos. But it also means focusing in on real people. Find a way to make their influence valuable and you will create the type of win-win situations that social media has always promised.

Does Social Media Bring Us Too Close to the Past?

From time to time I get a Facebook request from someone that I have not seen in a while. I don’t know if you are like me, but it always seems like a shot out of the blue. But is it?

I actually think that this has more to do with a type of delayed ambient intimacy. After all, just because we don’t see or speak with people doesn’t mean that they AREN’T in our thoughts – and because they ARE in OUR thoughts we have a personal perception of proximity.

So what happens when an old friend reacquaints themselves with your present? What happens if you DON’T want to connect with these people? Are some relationships better off forgotten? Jeremy Fuksa explains how you can avoid your past on Facebook. Watch it. It’ll make you laugh and gasp along the way!


My Social Graph Is Getting Weird from Jeremy Fuksa:Creative Generalist on Vimeo.

The Landscape of Influence

Earlier this week I attended a lunchtime seminar hosted by the Insight Exchange. There were some fantastic presentations on the nature of influence from:

Ross Dawson has a great summary of the presentations and the following conversations that freely jumped between audience and panel. Ross also shared his Influence Landscape framework which seeks to visually represent and connect the way that people think, behave and spend. It is a handy visual tool that disassociates the simple causal link between “social media” and “influence” – showing that there is much more at play.

InfluenceLandscape_Betav1

And reinforcing this complexity, Beth Harte has written an excellent post on influence, reminding us that it is not the strong links between people that create movements, but the weak links. This strength of weak ties actually goes a long way to explaining why “viral” marketing is hard to predict. However, it is the work of Duncan Watts and Peter Dodds that shows why marketers may, in fact, be looking in the wrong direction. As I have written previously:

The findings of Mark Granovetter’s research into social networks demonstrated that it is the WEAK ties that lead to action. If this is the case, then influence may only play an important role in the very early stages of branding efforts — to facilitate AWARENESS. But as consumers begin to engage with the brand messaging and various forms of communication, it appears that the power of the social network lies not in the level of influence of any select group but in the susceptibility of the audience to contagion.

Why is this relevant? Because on some level, our role as marketers, strategists or activists is not simply to raise awareness. Our job is to change the way that people think, or act — we want to prompt a change in perception or in behaviour. As marketers then, perhaps our best efforts — and probably our strongest DIGITAL STRATEGY lies in activating the weak links and leaving influence to the mass/traditional media (or to those bloggers who have mass audiences).

It is why we should forget the influential and embrace the curious. And maybe, just maybe, we use Ross’ map to help us surface them.

Walk Like a Man, Talk Like a Man

When the Cluetrain Manifesto exhorted corporations to begin communicating as people – to people, many marketers scratched their heads. Ten years on, many businesses continue to struggle with the language that they use to communicate with people – with “consumers”, “suppliers” and “partners”.

So it is hardly surprising that social media presents a challenge for many marketers – for unlike almost any other form of business communication, authenticity and believability in social media REQUIRES thinking, speaking and communicating in ways that are fundamentally “human”. But what does this mean? How can we break it down?

Christina (CK) Kerley has a great post on exactly this. Hi, I’m Here to Help You Be More Human outlines some of the key transitions that traditional marketers need to consider as they begin to experiment and grow with social media:

  • Ivory towers keep marketers locked safely away
  • Losing control is chaotic
  • Moving from ‘The’ to ‘Me’ is tough stuff (at first)
  • People don’t speak in buzzwords, but marketers sure do
  • Marketers are used to campaigns that start and end. Not conversations that keep going… and going
  • The path to Web 2.0 cuts straight through the department labeled “Legal!”

Take a good read through CK’s post and then think about the challenges that your brands face. Think about how YOU can make a difference to the way your products and services are perceived in the marketplace. And then identify two or three areas where you can make an immediate impact. Go on. You know you want to!

Twitter for People (not Businesses)

Mark Pollard recently held a meeting where he freely shared his insight and understanding of Twitter with anyone wanting to learn more. Of course, there was no “backchannel” or “tweetstream” for the event as it was a talk for people who have yet to delve deeply into Twitter and the noisy place it can sometimes be.

The event was held at The Leading Edge and coordinated by Kelly Tall. It sounds like there was plenty in-room debate, with Mark describing the audience as falling into five categories:

  1. Social professionals: natural communicators who enjoy networking and talking about what they do.
  2. Banterholics: on Twitter to talk, exchange witty commentary and pass the occasional social judgement.
  3. Lost and confused: ‘someone else made me do it’ – perhaps a bit of social pressure has driven them onto Twitter and they’re trying to work out what to do next.
  4. Looking to mobilise: on Twitter to influence.
  5. Hell nos: outright rejecters of Twitter who see no point or purpose in it.

My personal experience in speaking about Twitter with non-Twitter folks correlates with Mark’s view – that there is definitely a chasm between the committed Twitter users and those who are yet to try or are in the early stages of “testing the waters”. As with any (social) technology, the challenge is how to find value quickly and how to make it easy to assimilate it into your work/private life. With those two barriers out of the way, you can quickly begin to expand your use and your network. In fact, it reminds me of my early blogging experiences.

Mark has made his presentation available which he would love for you to share with anyone who asks the question – Twitter. WTF?

View more presentations from Mark Pollard.