Archive for the ‘Rants’ Category
Can a Villain Become an Antihero?
Friday, February 26th, 2010
In a great ongoing conversation with Amy Sample Ward about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and whether companies can authentically engage, we discussed whether they can simply create marketing fanfare or tell a genuine story. Authenticity must be something that truly reflects a culture, not some mechanized program designed to bluff stakeholders. This is particularly true of companies who have been publicly decried for great wrongs. It’s not easy to turn a villain into an antihero.
Not all companies are villains. But the point can be seen the same way. Trust in corporations hit an all time low last year. No one believes that companies — particularly public ones — wants to do more than turn a higher profit for their quarterly earnings statements. The resulting tensions with corporations’ burned communities — employees and customers alike — has resulted in the recent cause marketing turn to revamp and boost tarnished images (See David Conner’s 2nd CSR Internet Revolution post).
Makes sense to me. But to do so branding oneself as an angel doesn’t seem like an authentic path. If one considers the archetypal antihero, they are flawed, and lacking some of the attributes that make a heroic figure, as nobility of mind and spirit… But we love them anyway. Perhaps the best post I’ve read on the archetype is Jocelyn Harmon’s Dirty Harry story.
Perhaps a great example of flawed fanfare can be seen with Pepsi’s Refresh efforts. Surely $20 million in a free-for-all contest would impress many, but contest flaws have marred the efforts. Without a rudder or stated Theory of Change, the campaign seems to be marred.
As Zoetica CEO Beth Kanter said in a post last night, “This strategy is more appropriate for selling products, not social change. Let me say this. If brands want to be authentic in their social media for social good effort, they need a fusion approach that balances marketing with social change.”
Now authenticity isn’t showing flair or a rock song or even dropping $20 million. It’s about demonstrating a little heart and passion, even flaws. Be real, and that’s the problem with many corporate social responsibility programs. They lack a frank pragmatism about business and its internetworked ties to the community. To build trust, people need to believe you’re authentic. Thus over-glossed CSR programs without substantive cultural acknowledgment — even flaws — fail to compel people.
There’s no greater example of flawed CSR — of a villain bound to stay a villain — then WalMart’s current efforts (see Joe Waters: Ten Reasons Why CSR Programs Fail). As I discussed on Wednesday, the primary thrust of WalMart’s CSR effort is its green initiatives.
The big issue with WalMart isn’t the green contributions, which are substantive, albeit new. These are great and in the end are smart for the community… and the bottom line. The problem lies in its continued labor practices, it’s detrimental impact on local economies, and it’s terrible healthcare programs. When you read WalMart’s CSR page, you get no insight that the companyhas these flaws or is even trying to address them.
I wouldn’t like it if WalMart said we hire cheap to keep prices down, but I would respect it. Just like Dirty Harry may be abrasive, but does the right thing (sort of, in a very violent way). I would respect them even more if they invested in creating a more vibrant local economy and universal healthcare initiatives (WalMart does have healthcare initiatives, they just don’t directly address their own employees, just their customers).
Instead I get this, “We’re proud to be a “store of the community” for all of the communities we serve.” Still selling, still promoting. All of the local charity and foundation work does not really address WalMart or its problems. Thus for many, in spite of the fanfare, Walmart remains a villain.
Everyone understands business is business, but if you want CSR to work, a company needs to acknowledge its own place in the world, and its positive and negative impact in the ecosphere. An amends cannot be received if there’s no acknowledgment of wrong. Instead of selling and posturing all the time, simply try to be a part of and contribute, too. Show us who you (a.k.a. the employees and culture) really are.
Popularity: 18% [?]
Tags: @kanter, Amy Sample Ward, authenticity, Beth Kanter, coethica, David Conner, Jocelyn Harmon, Joe Waters, Pepsi, Walmart
Posted in Cause, Rants | 7 Comments »
Six Things To Change In Buzz
Monday, February 15th, 2010
My professional opinion on Buzz aside, as a user I find it to be a frustrating experience (image by tifa). Perhaps I’ve become spoiled with other networks, but Buzz strikes me as the Hyundai of social networks. Rather than just complain, I’d like to offer some suggestions. Here are six things I’d like to see changed in Buzz, all of which have been submitted to the Buzz team.
1) The background is killing me. There’s so much white space in Buzz, that I find it hard to read. Google’s patented look yes, but it does not lend itself to a friendly web screen presence… And since there are no real Buzz clients yet, please allow me to inject some customization and color. My old man eyes need it.
2) Can’t say it any better than this: It’s new and clunky. Make Buzz fluid, please.
3) Don’t forward commented posts. A fellow who shall not be named posted eight photos of a young lady’s derriere yesterday. I commented on the post to this effect: “She’s beautiful, yes, but this photoset indicates stalking.” Next thing you know this fellow’s post is in all of my follower’s feeds, and the ladies were not happy about it. I unfollowed said person simply because I cannot afford to anger my user base with someone else’s online behavior.
4) Give users the option to decouple email: Buzz makes Gmail a bacon haven, and that’s not good. I get too much email, and more socnet email is not what I want. Nor do I want notifications in my email desktop. Making people figure out a GMail filter is not cool, either. Generally speaking on Gmail and Buzz together, Boo!
5) Hasten the apps process: I think not having desktop or mobile clients out the gate was a mistake. Did Google strike with an element of surprise? Yes, it did. Does its service suffer for it? Why, yes, it does.
6) Similarly, publish a FAQ. Why do I have to search for all of the ways to integrate Buzz into my social media. Google should be doing everything it can to make the experience easier on users.
What would like to see changed about Buzz?
Popularity: 20% [?]
Tags: Buzz, changes, Gmail, social media, social network
Posted in Geekery, Rants, social media | 21 Comments »
Not Buying It! Sponsored Media = Advertising
Friday, February 12th, 2010
Sometimes the 2.0 world tries to reinvent some things, like advertising, and give it a new name (image by nocas). And so it is with the term, “Sponsored Media,” perpetrated by the likes of such companies as Pay Per Post, oops, IZEA, and TwitAd. These companies have even solicited, and in some cases, paid for the support of some of PR 2.0’s most celebrated voices in support of sponsored media.
The sponsored spin reminds me of the energy industry’s clean coal positioning. No matter how you greenwash it, it’s still dirty.
Ironically, the end result is less trust in peer to peer media. Why? Because some of the most trusted voices are now blogging for money, and can’t even do so in a clear-cut transparent manner by declaring these posts as paid advertorials (remember that term, media buyers?). Instead they hide behind the “new term” sponsored, which is in fact a retroactive term dating back to the 50s and 60s when broadcast advertisers were called, gasp, “sponsors.”
I’m not so disappointed in IZEA and the like. With the rise of new media power, it was inevitable that money would come along and seek various ways (good and bad) of becoming associated with the voice of the authentic amateur.
It’s understandable that some people see this as a legitimate means of monetizing their blog or Twitter stream. Selling placement on your blog/media property is. It’s also a Faustian dance where depending on how far below the surface you sink, you sacrifice trust and relationships for contractual riches.
My disappointment lies in those that go so far as to claim that they are ushering in a new era of media transparency; that they are leading the PR 2.0 revolution, and yet support — even promote — this sponsored media spin. As someone who has been along for a great portion of the ride, I am saddened by these developments. Some people who I hold in high regard look tarnished now.
Frankly, the term sponsored media fools no one. Except the people trying to rationalize their IZEA pay check.
Recommendations
Organizations: Don’t believe the hype. It’s advertising, and as such has value, but sponsored media is nothing more than the electronic advertorial. And no matter what someone tells you, the post will be met with less trust than a traditional one.
Bloggers/Media Owners: I think everyone understands that monetization needs to happen for some. If at all possible, try to monetize in different ways though, for this method sacrifices your integrity and trust factor, especially with frequency.
Also, call it what it is. The sponsored media bit makes you look slimy, and actually increases your distrust factor exponentially. Why? You look like you are trying to trick people. Readers will be much more accepting of the occasional paid placement if it is simply called an advertisment.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Posted in Rants, social media | 18 Comments »
Messaging Still Fails
Thursday, January 28th, 2010
One of the greatest triumphs of the social web remains the open citizen revolt against marketing messages (bored image by Samael Trip). Note how well the Apple iPad name flew yesterday online (ahem, let’s not go there). Nonprofits experience the same disinterest from their stakeholders as companies due.
In fact, a recent report by marketer Nancy Schwartz (hat tip to Beth Kanter for forwarding me these stats), 84 percent of 915 nonprofit leaders who completed the survey last month said their messages connect with their target audiences only somewhat or not at all. Nancy’s post includes comments from survey participants explaining why their messages fail to connect:
- “Our messages need to be more succinct to communicate how effective we really are.”
- “We don’t move our base to action.”
- “We have individual elements that are ok solo, but no unified path.”
- “Our messages aren’t hard-hitting or targeted enough. So they fall flat.”
- “We need to shape messages that are simple enough for staff to remember and feel comfortable in repeating it to others.”
- “Too much jargon. I can’t even understand what we’re saying.”
Maybe, but… Let’s be frank as I’ve written about this over and over again in the past on the Buzz Bin: The Cluetrain Manifesto was right! “There’s no market for messages.”
It doesn’t matter if you have a compelling cause or a public interest, or if your company contributes to society. If you drill people with messages, they will absolutely turn their back on you.
And you know what? You deserve it. It’s like entering a party and spamming people with solicitations, stale lines, and hucksterisms. Thanks for talking about yourself and what you want from me all night. Cause or not.
The 20th century approach of communications is over, regardless of medium. Mass communicating at people no longer works. Even Super Bowl ads are starting to fail now, thus Pepsi’s $20 million (troubled) social refresh program.
Whether its social or not, cause and corporate communicators alike need to stop and retool their strategic approach towards messaging. What we learned in business or communications school has changed. The old dynamics of media, specifically the concept that there are limited channels of media that people get information from, no longer applies.
Look at messages as conversation starters (see this post I wrote on the starter message premise). You won’t control the dialogue, but the fact of the matter is you already lost control and some argue, you never had it. Instead let’s have real interesting conversations that matter to us (organization and person), and society, in general.
Popularity: 19% [?]
Tags: Apple, Cluetrain Manifesto, iPad, messages, messaging, Nancy Schwartz, nonprofit, Pepsi
Posted in Cause, Rants | 19 Comments »
Really, It’s None of Your Business!
Friday, January 15th, 2010
Mega web companies harnessing users’ social media want privacy to go away. Consider Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who recently opened up the privacy settings on the social network to end social networks. Facebook users’ photos, home towns and friends lists are all public now, and the CEO would redesign the network to make all data open. Is it any wonder that Facebook has had numerous Federal Trade Commission complaints filed against it by the Electronic Privacy Information Center?
The general belief is that everyone’s data should be available, for users’ personal searching, and for organizations to extrapolate data for content, social and purchase recommendations. They’re dead wrong.
While using the semantic data — or the harnessing of social information to serve users with “smarter” content — these companies, and increasingly nonprofits, sacrifice that most important aspect of the social web: Human relationships. In return for receiving users information in a trusted relationship, they move away from sincerity and return back to the 1.0 machine of consumer exploitation.
The side effects can be hazardous. People find their information online and used in ways that they never wanted, in embarrassing ways. From friends and family seeing things that could be questionable to data used to oversell them or against them in business or legally, users can expect their private data to become publicly served.
Shonali Burke thinks organizations need to return to relationships.
Really, companies need to understand, it’s none of their business! Yes, data can be used to make better decisions, but they are in the people business, not the database/email list business. A personal email gets answered, spam gets deleted.
The social web’s great promise to organizations remains better relationships, but the exploitation of personal data will yield the same result as mass media spam did: Distrust, anger and lost customers. Unfortunately, it seems we will need to learn that lesson again.
There are additional side effects. The semantic web has been a long time coming. But as we harness the terabytes of data, our content choices seem to become “mush,” creating a digital collective that unfortunately takes the uniqueness out of individual voices. Kind of sounds like an artificial concentrated version of mass media.
Personal Recommendations
Frankly, Facebook has a long history of loops in privacy with Google and through friends of friends pages. Individuals who think a private network like Facebook is truly private should think twice.
The real answer for privacy seekers is don’t put it online, private or public. An increasingly hard task, but if you think it can hurt you or embarrass you, remember a screen shot by even the most trusted individual can be posted on a blog. And frankly, if you are posting it and it comes back to bite you, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Its kind of like hitchhiking.
Further, trust with data and information served needs to be doled out with thought. In this era more than any, skills that matter include being able to discern quality information. Keep in mind, each person has their own benchmark for quality, but be intelligent about those personal decisions instead of simply saying yes to anything said or done online.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Posted in Rants | 15 Comments »
Fear and Loathing at U.S. Customs – A Profiling Experience?
Thursday, December 31st, 2009
The above photo features me nine hours before my international flight to Washington, DC
Many have heard about the “crackdown” on international flight security since the failed Al Qaeda Christmas day attack. And after my experience, there’s much to fear and loathe entering the United States.
Flying back from a fantastic one month trek through Argentina, the Buenos Aires International airport was backlogged with hard core security lines, a result of new provisions for U.S. bound flights. This was an unpleasant, nasty experience, but frankly expected after the well publicized news that U.S. in-bound security had reached new levels of strictness.
What was not expected was the unusually nasty Customs and Border Patrol experience AFTER the flight at Washington Dulles. Apparently, even after you land & you are a U.S. citizen, you will be heavily screened as a potential terrorist.
It was clear that I had been profiled. I currently have a nice tan, a two day beard and am a dark looking Jew. My thick Philadelphia accent is a clear marker for the Middle East, too.
The first Customs agent looked at my seven year old passport and asked me to lift my beanie to check my hairline to match the photo (seriously I am balder. Please forgive me.). Then I was grilled me about why I shaved my goatee seven years ago… Ironically, I had to provide a new picture and finger prints (this has privacy issues in its own right) one month ago at the same facility on return from France. Guess the agent hadn’t looked at the screen or DHS hadn’t updated my profile.
After, a couple minute grilling, I was cleared to get my bags. I did, and then got the fifth degree again upon exit. I was asked why I was abroad for a month, what I was doing in Argentina, etc. The process was clearly heading to full-on bag inspection until the agent asked my profession and then grilled me on what a blogger was. As soon as Twitter and Facebook were mentioned, I was cleared to go with a suddenly amiable attitude.
Dear Customs Agent: Too late.
Mind you, I am a U.S. citizen. I can’t even imagine what it’s like to be foreign citizen coming into the United States. Especially, a swarthy fellow with a “questionable” passport.
It seems to me the Obama Administration, and in particular DHS, has already given a victory to Al Qaeda with this kind of post flight treatment. In my mind, a crackdown like this, a reaction to the Christmas Day attack, finds its basis in fear and not logic. As a result, we hurt our travel industry and our global reputation with Draconian measures.
In fact, perhaps reviewing and improving measures should have occurred first rather than simply “cracking down” with more bad and useless procedures. I’m just going to say that the Department of Homeland Security has overemphasized post flight security, which does nothing to stop airplane incidents and hurts the travel industry. Instead of acting out of fear, we should act more mindfully and address the causes of terrorism.
Popularity: 23% [?]
Posted in Pop Philosophy, Rants, Reality | 11 Comments »
Why People Believe They’re Social Media Rock Stars
Sunday, October 4th, 2009
Kyle Flaherty wrote an interesting, truthful and important piece last week dubbed, “You Are (Most Likely) Not a Marketing nor Social Media Rock Star.” At the same time, I felt it was important to add some perspective on why some of our louder or more respected voices drink the rock star kool-aid.
Here is an edited, hyperlinked version of my comment on Kyle’s post:
By no means do I consider myself to be rock star. And you know this, Kyle. I put my pants on, collect a paycheck, take out the garbage, and pick up dog poop every day like many Americans.
I also speak roughly once or twice a week on social media or marketing. I’m oft respected publicly as an innovator in our business. I receive lots of kumbaya laurels, and when I am out and about I have a hard time at public events going anywhere without someone stopping me. Though I wear a ring on my finger, I get blatantly hit on by beautiful women at least once a week. Why? Because people see me as a rock star, at least in this nano-bubble.
I choose to see things from your perspective. I know this is more on them than me, a sign of hero worship, and a demonstration that they really don’t know me. As Caitlin (my wife) likes to say after any of these incidents occur in front of her, “Remember honey, you’re just a dork.” And I do remember.
See, I know that I’m only as good as my last big accomplishment, my last project, or even my last blog post. I refuse to rest on my laurels, and, in the case of these accolades, I don’t take the nanofame very seriously. But, I have had moments.
If maybe, just maybe, you’re a geek who never got a lot of attention, or if you are insecure then this kool-aid can seem pretty inviting. One must ask one’s self, can we blame these “rock stars” or feel sorry for them? To believe these fans is to acknowledge one’s reality, though a fake and shallow one thrust on us for public, industry specific accomplishments. Without perspective and spiritual balance, I think it’s a very easy thing to do.
A little more color to the story post comment… The phenomena of nanofame is a by-product of people’s attachment to others, or parasocial behavior. Pam Slim wrote about this in her post last year, “How to avoid being a ‘fan boy’ or ‘fan girl when building relationships with people you admire.’”
This type of behavior will continue so long as we have people creating content or actively engaging in public. People will have to learn how to deal with it, either well or poorly. When it first happened to me, I was so perplexed by it I even did a short movie on it. Welcome to the journey.
Popularity: 54% [?]
Posted in Me, Myself and I, Pop Philosophy, Rants, Reality, social media | 4 Comments »
Why I Truly Loathe Personal Branding
Sunday, July 19th, 2009
This post needed to be published on my personal blog. It’s strictly an opinion, one that involves spiritual beliefs, and has nothing to do with marketing companies.
My professional post last week on reputation vs. personal branding sparked another wave of comments and posts about personal brands. Ironically, the people that seem to care the most to write posts are personal branders. Or is this really a surprise?
I mean we are talking about people who think about themselves nonstop to the point that they manicure an online personal representation, so why should their defense of this practice be so surprising? In fact, that’s why I truly loathe personal branding: It’s so selfish in nature.
This post was triggered by a response from Scotty Hendo stating that character was the most important part of a personal brand. Boiled down: In essence, if you don’t work on character than your personal brand will be mud (read the full post to get it). I have a question for Scotty, and that is what kind of character does someone have if they are thinking about and working on their personal brand all the time?
By my very nature I am a selfish person. I am the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, much of spiritual journey in life has been about combating my own selfishness. I’d rather not rehash my past on the Internet, but for the purposes of this post, when I was a young man in my teens and much of my twenties feeling good was more important than doing the right thing. I lacked character, shirked accountability, and hurt many others; family, friends and acquaintances — all to feel good.
Today, I am not the man I used to be. There was a moment of clarity, one where I literally looked in a mirror and saw a man I did not like. As a result, I worked my tail off to change.
This work continues more than a decade later. I do service work throughout the week to think of others instead of myself. I do some of this without publicly stating (or tweeting) it, and without recognition… Why? Because it is simply not about me, it’s about doing the right thing. That’s why I have such a love for nonprofits in my heart.
Beyond these acts, I spend countless hours in prayer and meditation to become a better person. These spiritual acts help get my head to a point where I can at least think about others for a while everyday, perhaps acknowledge my wrongs, make amends, and continue striving forward. I will not claim sainthood or a boy scout badge. I am a flawed man (and there are many folks who would agree with that statement), but the road I travel today can be and often is a better one.
Am I selfish and egotistic still? Yes, but I recognize it as a core defect of character. Thus, when I see personal branding — in addition to the professional dangers it offers my clients — I am repelled. Even revolted. Because it is dangerous to me. It represents a major step backwards. I’d rather walk in the opposite direction and focus on something, or someone else. Like helping a friend in need, a cause, or some other random act of kindness.
To my personal branding friends, I hope that some day you will reach a level of awareness that you can see there is more to life than image. Or follower counts, or even publishing books and selling companies. In others we find solace and greatness. Through spiritual giving, we come to find a better world.
In the interim, please forgive me, but I simply cannot accept or participate in the personal branding wave for many of the professional and personal reasons stated. May your journey be a good one.
Popularity: 56% [?]
Posted in Me, Myself and I, Pop Philosophy, Rants | 14 Comments »
Take Your Meme And Shove It!
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008
New aluminum MacBooks! Oooh! The world is going to end because the stock market crashed. Blog action day! Do you have an iPhone? Why not (Image: 11 Cloned Men by Bobasonic)?
Oh shove it. Seriously, take your memes and shove them.
Everytime I am online the memes pop out in my Twitter stream, and on Facebook. As a marketer, I am fascinated by the trends. I actually believe in the good of blog action day, but think it should be something incorporated into our daily lives. But this is my personal blog, and personally, the memes make me want to throw my MacBook out the window (I settle by covering up the logo with a gelaskin).
That’s what it means to be punk. It’s not a mohawk, it’s simply counter-culture. You run the opposite direction, just because. And you don’t care whether people like it or not. It’s called being true to oneself rather than running after the herd, screaming “Me, too!”
OK, that’s it.
Popularity: 64% [?]
Posted in Pop Philosophy, Rants, Reality | 12 Comments »
Gerry Connolly Should Not Hold Office
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008
Fairfax County Chairman Gerald Connolly should not be elected to Congress. He is the Democratic Candidate for VA- District 11. That’s coming from a fellow Democrat.
His handling of the Huntington Flood situation disgusts me. My once-gentrifying neighborhood has suffered because government bodies moved Cameron Run and never maintained it. After the cataclysmic flood of 2006, the neighborhood has never been the same. Now we are plagued with wave after wave of evacuations and possible floods with every major storm.
Government’s answer? It’s not my fault. I don’t pretend to know the legal aspects of this case, and who or why some organization is to blame. That’s why we the residents have a legal team behind us.
And thank God we do. Because it’s obvious that Fairfax County Chairman Connolly won’t act on our behalf, instead trying to weasel blame on other parties. Regardless of who is actually to blame legally, Connolly needs to act like a real leader and stand up for this district. Instead he backs down like an atypical political scum bag.
This is not Congressional material. And it’s not the first time Connolly’s shady character has come to the fore. He has a questionable job at SAIC, which makes his current political position seem like a conflict of interest to me.
No thank you. I am voting for Keith Fimian.
Popularity: 64% [?]
Posted in Rants, Reality, Video | 2 Comments »
