Posts Tagged ‘LiveSTRONG’

From Branded Content Publishing to Networks (Madonna vs. Lady Gaga)

Posted on: April 30th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 11 Comments

A written narrative of my #NextLevel Hawaii Keynote…

Issues Day - St. Mary's Hall Empty Theater

There’s nothing worse than performing before an empty venue. Yet isn’t that what most nonprofits and companies do on the social web?

The rush to play with new tools in this scary Brave New World has been the focus. We’ve seen the many, many successes, and yet organizations find they rarely succeed.

Then they blame the media forms. You can hear them now, “FourSquare, Facebook, Twitter, Gowalla, YouTube or blogs [take your pick] don’t work! And don’t even start with the Augmented Reality conversation! This isn’t what was promised in the New York Times. We were told this was where people met!”

World of Coca Cola Party

The truth of the matter is simple: Companies and nonprofits alike are hitting a real wall with social media. They’ve established their beachheads. They’ve built their Facebook and Twitter and X accounts. They might have even gotten a few thousand followers. But the results have been lackluster for most.

These are the things I hear when I talk with the disenchanted, “Click throughs are minimal. There are no tangible leads, donations or sales. No one follows us.”

When I look at their social outposts, the reason why is invariably obvious: Organizations don’t talk with people!!! Instead they play with their social media tools like they were press releases. They content publish like social media was a PR feed, controlling the message and trying to look good. That’s not what social media enables.

Social is about conversations within a larger ecosystem. And big business has come to play, yet when companies and nonprofits have done so they have rebelled. Executives and communicators alike don’t want to invest the time to be successful or allow for uncontrolled conversations.

Organizations insist on publishing hard pitches to deliver ROI. And brand control is of the ultimate essence. While this can happen (ROI and branding, not control) in social media, these objectives are all by-products of building a networked community through long term, sustainable relationships that are nurtured with real conversations! Social media is still organic!

So what’s an organization to do? Stop content publishing, stop pushing your spiel. Start talking, practice the law of natural attraction, bring your network to you by becoming part of the larger ecosystem. It’s what Dell and LiveStrong and so many other successes have done.

When you let go of the postured brand control methods of mass media communications, and become a contributing part of ecosystems, things start to happen. You see organizations entrenched within larger conversations. People start paying attention, and a community starts to take hold.

Issues Day - Theater

This kind of thinking — that your nonprofit or company is part of something bigger — is a huge breakthrough for most executives and communicators. Manish Mehta, Vice President of Community at Dell, likened it to Nicolas Copernicus’ 16th century breakthrough that displaced the Earth as the Center of the Universe.

When nonprofits and companies get over themselves and all of their contrived communications — like an awkward young adult finding themselves — they are able to focus on the big picture, and participate online in meaningful ways. They can add social to their larger communications mix as a real means to begin conversations with stakeholders. Whether that’s for fundraising/sales, community relations/customer service or volunteers/community loyalty, it really can happen on the social web.

Madonna vs. Lady Gaga

Let’s analyze a couple of stars that all of us can identify with… Madonna and Lady Gaga. The storied brand and the networked phenomena.

Madonna is an unmatched branding genius. She is able to transform and reinvent herself decade after decade and stay relevant. Her 2008 album Hard Candy was a #1 bestseller, the seventh of her 27 year career.

Yet Madonna is not a huge social media success. The branding doesn’t translate. Why? I think you need go no further than her community page, which reads: “Please note that posting Madonna unreleased material (including photos, audio and video) to your profile is not allowed. Doing so could result in the immediate termination of your membership with Icon.”

Madonna is in control, Madonna is messaging at you. And her image is complete, her content quality secure. And no one really wants to talk about her in conversational media forms, and given how she has controlled her community, is it any wonder? Prince has made similar strategic errors on the social web.

The there’s the current phenom, Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga plays the networked game, encouraging her Little Monsters in real dialogue on Twitter and elsewhere. She empowers them too, letting them take her content and repurpose it anyway they want to. Recording at a show? Post it online, no problem ( a la the Grateful Dead’s long-time community embracement). She has done everything in the face of the recording industry’s usual command and control approaches to marketing artists.

As Jackie Huba’s fantastic case study points out, Lady Gaga has built a magnificent global network of Little Monsters. Summarizing Jackie’s post in bullets, Lady Gaga has done that methodically:



    1) She gave her fans a name

    2) Lady Gaga made Little Monsters bigger than her, creating a larger ecosystem

    3) There are shared symnbols, and content, too.

    4) She makes her customers feel like they are rock stars, too (Chris Brogan is also a master at this)

    5) And lastly (note lastly) she has used social media tools to achieve these networked community objectives

Both artists are brilliant writers. They both get the stark, wild sexy imagery that captivates us all. I think it’s fair to say that while Lady Gaga doesn’t have the brand track record of Madonna, she understands branding very well.

Yet only one owns the most viewed YouTube video in history, quickly approaching 200 million views: Lady Gaga. Is it any wonder that her first six singles, good or bad, like them or hate them, have gone straight to #1? Lady Gaga has transcended 20th century marketing to become the ultimate brand of the 21st century.

Issues Day  - St. Mary's Hall Packed House

I think you get the point. Getting a packed room to listen within social channels requires a networked approach, an ecosystem ethos that caters to your community. It’s not just a flash flood either. It takes consistency, a commitment to keep delivering a larger conversational experience over time.

Unlike Madonna or other command and control organizations, it’s about making it easy for people to embrace the brand and run with it. Keep finding ways to enthrall your community, starting with the most important influencers who are the trusted voices in the community all the way down to the lurker who bookmarks content religiously.

We all have to deliver return on investment in some fashion. Measurement remains crucial. But remember, campaigns end while networks live on. When your community doesn’t respond, don’t pound home your sales message. Find out why. Look at your conversation (is it compelling and ecosystem centric?), your calls-to-action, your integration into other marketing channels. Because the problem — and the answer — is not the network, and it’s not the social media tool of choice.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Tattooing My Body “LIVESTRONG” for Cancer Research

Posted on: March 8th, 2010 by Geoff Livingston 208 Comments

Updated 3/14 at 10:30 a.m.: WE MADE IT! We have raised $5125. Thank you to the more than 100 donors!

Livestrong for banners.jpg

As some of you know, I have a close relative came down with cancer last year (he chooses to remain unnamed, but his cancer is now in remission). It turns out that my Cousin Paula (photo below) also came down with breast cancer last year, too (also in remission). That’s why I have decided to donate a little piece of my body to fundraise for cancer research with the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

photo.jpg

If I successfully raise $5,000 by midnight on Sunday, I will literally get the LIVESTRONG brand tattooed on my body in Austin at SxSW on Monday. Here’s the donation page, please contribute today. Further, changeblogger and friend John Haydon has committed to getting his own tattoo if we reach $6500 in donations!

It's Done!

Last year’s SxSW tattoo

livestrong.jpg Before you laugh too much (OK, go ahead), I just want explain a little bit. The family cancers caused me to become interested in related charities. . There was a possibility of a three year old toddler without a parent, and how we were all going to help out the surviving parent. After my cousin Paula was diagnosed for breast cancer (early stage), she could not get health care coverage for three months. I believe we can change this.

And yes, I am no stranger to tattoos. This would be my seventh, and yes, I can live with LIVESTRONG on my body. I don’t think this is everyone’s cup of tea (see related post)…

So on to SxSW. And with your help, a nice contribution for cancer research and a new tattoo.

P.S. Check out this blog post about the LIVESTRONG brand, where I discussed people tattooing LIVESTRONG on their bodies!

Popularity: 15% [?]

Social Cause Innovation Needed… And Inevitable

Posted on: October 11th, 2009 by Geoff Livingston 4 Comments
3537446024_7452c5e639.jpg

Since when did Americans discourage starting new enterprises (image by hoyasmeg)? But sure enough, I found myself reading a great conversation sparked by Kristin Ivie’s Social Citizens post encouraging nonprofit entrepreneurs to pursue different paths and work — even merge — with existing charities. At the heart of the issue is an overcrowded cause marketplace with many already existing charities PLUS the fact that many entrepreneurs don’t effectively administer Change programs.

Yet, if we shut down entrepreneurial approaches we would be denied Steve Case’s American Giving Challenge, Lance Armstrong’s Foundation, and Scott Harrison’s Charity Water. Who wants to deny the effectiveness of these efforts?

An Overcrowded Marketplace

Let’s parse the issue into two parts. First the overcrowded marketplace needs to be addressed. Overcrowded markets are always ripe for fresh approaches, for or non profit. Bigger organizations lose the fresh innovative approaches to their mission that made them exciting and new. As they become staid in their ways, bureaucracy takes hold. In actuality, small organizations drive innovation.

I have many friends in large nonprofits who complain about processes and the inability to actually do effective work. While big nonprofits can achieve things smaller ones cannot, they often fail to move quickly enough and meet major market shifts.. like social media. That’s why the suggestion to channel and consolidate charitable efforts into larger nonprofits struck me as a disaster in waiting.

If we become placated with the status quo, innovation becomes stymied. In the cancer market, we would only have the American Cancer Society’s point of view. Instead we have an exciting LiveStrong and Alex’s Lemonade Stand fighting children’s cancer in new innovative ways.

In the for profit market, we saw the same thing with telecom. The government had to break up AT&T’s monopoly in the 80s to foster innovation. That occurred with the rise of MCI and Sprint, and then wireless networks. Now wireless is surpassing landline telecom as the primary method of access.

Innovative approaches force all markets to change and adapt, becoming stronger and more effective. Just because we are talking about causes does not mean we should abandon innovative new organizations! On the contrary, we should encourage them. They make for better results, and forces larger charities to stay nimble. Consider what 350 is doing right now for climate change!

Still, Kristen’s point that a lot of entrepreneurs start nonprofits that fail or are inept is accurate. And that means dollars are going to waste. How do we prevent the crazy entrepreneur from going off the rails with an ineffective effort?

Encouraging Smart Innovation

3514718410_35d086d399.jpg

As an entrepreneur, I can tell you one thing (image: The Green+WIRED smart home is built on innovative new approaches to energy conservation). You can’t stop us from starting. It’s an inevitable part of our chemistry; it’s in the blood. I just wrapped up my first start-up as an owner, but keep in mind it was my fifth start-up experience!

Entrepreneurs look at things, see how they can be improved, tear down models, and rebuild them. So when we’ve experienced enormous successes in the for-profit world and then turn our eyes to higher causes, it’s only natural to think the same approach will work.

Granted there is ego at play, but are you going to tell someone who successfully sold a business or took a company public, that they can’t win again in a different sector? Good luck with that one!

The failure for entrepreneurs is in mission. For profit enterprises are not social causes. Changing society is different than selling product!

Discouraging new approaches and organizations is not the right way to handle this. Because in reality telling the entrepreneur not to start will only goad us into doing it even faster. Sorry, folks, it’s the nature of the beast. Further, the innovation, the new approaches that entrepreneurs can bring to bear in the industry should be harnessed!

Instead, embrace innovation, but know the problem. The problem lies in education, and as an industry we need to focus on educating new entrants on how to successful administer social change. In that sense, Kristin’s colleague Eric Johnson had it right. Let’s coach the new cause entrant and make for an even stronger industry. Organizations like Ashoka are already starting this process of social entrepreneurship.

Smart innovation through education means a much more robust cause market. We all want a better world. Whether we choose to align ourselves with a larger enterprise or start anew, let’s keep the end goal in mind and give everyone the latitude and encouragement they need to succeed.

Popularity: 5% [?]