Monday, May 20th, 2013

Am I God, or is it me on Facebook?

“How many of you have 500 friends or more? 750 or more? More than 1,000? OK – if you have more than 2,000, keep your hands up.  Now, how many of them will pick you up at the airport?”

Nervous laughter follows – with many knowing nods of the head…point made.

The above is one of my standard keynote routines when I discuss social networks and their power.

Truth is, we have come a long way in understanding the reality and the hype around the meaning of numbers of friends, amount of “likes,” legions of followers and such across the various social networks/channels/services – whatever – but not nearly far enough, and much of the angst marketers and even users have around numbers is grounded in market-driven digibabble and not in actual insight and understanding.

As I have written many times – look no further than Facebook’s public offering to understand that mere “thumbs ups” do not necessarily translate into dollars. And it’s no wonder that honest marketers struggle with ROI as the social companies themselves struggle with monetizing and more and more are adding subscription fees or other premium service payments to augment meager advertising returns.

Let’s be clear – social is powerful – always has been, always will be, and its amplification by digital means is exponentially powerful – when understood.

Having said that, I read a fascinating study by Fenne Deters and Matthias Mehl, from the Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany and the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, published late last year in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/20/1948550612469233

Let me share the abstract:

Online social networking is a pervasive but empirically understudied phenomenon. Strong public opinions on its consequences exist but are backed up by little empirical evidence and almost no causally conclusive, experimental research. The current study tested the psychological effects of posting status updates on Facebook using an experimental design. For one week, participants in the experimental condition were asked to post more than they usually do, whereas participants in the control condition received no instructions. Participants added a lab “Research Profile” as a Facebook friend, allowing for the objective documentation of protocol compliance, participants’ status updates, and friends’ responses. Results revealed:

  • That the experimentally induced increase in status updating activity reduced loneliness
  • That the decrease in loneliness was due to participants’ feeling more connected to their friends on a daily basis
  • That the effect of loneliness was independent of direct social feedback (i.e., responses) by friends

Bottom line – we look for our 15 mgs of fame – if you will (thank you Bob Greenberg) – and like the Andy Warhol 15-minute analog model, it is completely divorced from anything but our own egocentric lives.

Ergo – it’s no wonder that it’s tough to monetize – when no one listens but yourself….

The weekend FT Magazine had an interesting take on this study – with I think a good and healthy caveat – but with a fairly strong view that we need to really understand what the real dynamics are, including the value of offline response to online postings (Digital Exponential):

“Perhaps Facebook updates make us feel connected even though nobody out there is listening. That suggests a curious view of social networking: it may have little to do with true socialising. We may simply feel satisfied with the illusion that someone is paying attention.”

The implication for brands is as clear as the implications for you and I – Who listens?  How do they listen?  And where is the real action recorded…if any?

I call to your attention a wonderful scene in a British black-comedy movie from 1972 called The Ruling Class and starring Peter O’Toole, who plays a paranoid schizophrenic British nobleman who thinks he is Jesus…listen:

“Lady Claire Gurney: How do you know you’re God?

Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney: Simple. When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself.”

And there you have it – how much of what we do is talking to ourselves (me included…) and even so, does it make a difference?

My sense is that the answer is with us as people, as marketers, as real friends – understanding what is and isn’t – separating the digibabble from the powerful possibilities that are ours to have – knowing and accepting the limitations while actively building on the infinite opportunities before us….

What do you think?

 

  • \The implication for brands is as clear as the implications for you and I – Who listens? How do they listen? And where is the real action recorded…if any?\ I suggest we keep that thought front and center when developing our messaging strategies, creative and content. It reminds me of how we sometimes (often) sway for the concept the ...
Monday, May 13th, 2013

Bald Cats, Putin, Homer and Algorithms

“Read Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey and try and figure out why they’re still being read, searched for, turned into movies or (digibabble) digital video content.”

The above was my reply to a question I was asked on a recent panel about what young creative types should do today to better prepare themselves for success in our world. And, while it might seem a bit facetious…it’s not meant to be – not in the slightest.  Frankly, if you think the answer is to learn social media/technology, you will fail – unless you understand why people share and why it is that some things share better than others.

BuzzFeed, for example, can talk all they want about their algorithm, but at the end of the day their young and savvy editors find the cat pictures, create the lists and recognize the news items they instinctively know will zoom from person to person – which in my book makes them that much more powerful and a true example of Digital Exponential, and that is the point.

Yet, sadly, it’s still only the holy algorithm that analysts and the digibablers want to worship. Because in their zeal to monetize, just how exciting is a story about hungry-smart editors versus the grail search for software that eliminates the human element?

The joke is that they abandon the latest greatest for the next as soon as the quarterly earnings don’t match their initial rave predictions, and of course Facebook, Groupon and LinkedIn are casualties of this fickle market – although while Facebook and LinkedIn are real, Groupon was a complete fabrication of the digibable financial set who perhaps one day will be called to task for misleading the public.

And more and more, the market leaders are turning to the need for human insight and interaction in order to better their products – sales – and earnings.

Bottom line – learn – learn from the greats. Don’t fall into the conceit that the fabulous technology we have today has created a revolution in human behavior.  Understand, rather, that it’s an amazing evolution in terms of what we can do and achieve in leveraging and enhancing exponentially our core human values and needs.

I share with you a conversation between Rudyard Kipling and Mark Twain (two of my favorites) that took place in Elmira, New York, in June of 1889.

“The two men discuss the difficulties of copyright before moving on to Twain’s work. ‘Growing bold, and feeling that I had a few hundred thousand folk at my back, I demanded whether Tom Sawyer married Judge Thatcher’s daughter and whether we were ever going to hear of Tom Sawyer as a man.’

Twain gets up, fills his pipe, and paces the room in his bedroom slippers. ‘I haven’t decided. I have a notion of writing the sequel to Tom Sawyer in two ways. In one I would make him rise to great honor and go to Congress, and in the other I should hang him. Then the friends and enemies of the book could take their choice.’

Kipling raises a voice of protest: to him, Tom Sawyer is real.”

Source: Hello/Goodbye/Hello by Craig Brown

This conversation could have happened today – copyright issues, crowd sourcing, social media extensions…but it didn’t and that is the point.

But allow me to end with Kipling’s final thought, which I believe brings us back to Homer, The Bible…all the great and living ideas and thoughts that will last way after the latest iteration of Bald Cats that look like Putin will be gone and forgotten…and by the way, I’m not knocking that—just making a point….

Listen:

“‘Yes; but don’t give him two joggles and show the result, because he isn’t your property any more. He belongs to us.’” Kipling to Twain

And there you have it…it always belongs to us – once the genie leaves the bottle, it can never be put back in. And that is the secret – not the software, not the technology, not all the digibable in the world….

So Bing Homer (the original, not Simpson) – and ask yourself why – and by the way, spend a few minutes with Twain and Kipling too.

What do you think?

 

Monday, May 6th, 2013

The Race to be Wrong — Is it Right??

reddit, its (r)editors and “old-fashioned” media channels all took negative hits during the recent tragic Boston bombing and its frantic aftermath.

Interestingly enough, if you cut through the digibabble and pontificating punditry, the issue is actually the same – the need we have to provide the scoop – to be the first – to have the 15 minutes or 15mgs of fame as the source of information that everyone wants but no one yet knows.

Some would say that the CNN and other broadcast news problem is the need to fill 24 hours of airtime with meaningful content – while the digital issue is how to verify the source when torrents of information assault the system.

Stay with me here – cut through the crap and there is no difference. In both instances we have a need to communicate, a need to share, a need to be first, a need to own what no one else has.

In both instances – unverified information from sketchy sources caused bad, wrong, invalid and in some instances hurtful information to be shared. In both instances we distributed “onwards misinformation” – WOM – digital and analog perpetuated the problem and in the end – an old guy who noticed blood on his boat cracked the case.

Bottom line – the power of digital communication and digital sharing is akin to wearing Iron Man’s power suit. It takes our human need and behavior…exponentially increases it, and at its best opens up new and exciting opportunities for problem solving – in fact, that is the true promise of reddit – and it works.

The mistake is to think that the reddit blow up in any way denigrates what they can do or that the mindless chatter we saw on CNN and other broadcast channels in any way denigrates what they do. (Jon Stewart’s take on this is a must see.)

And finally, read up on Dewey-Truman – you know my view – connecting the dots backwards propels us forwards….

At the end of the day…no one person or channel or anything has a total and complete lock on veracity…listen:

“No one can be right all of the time, but it helps to be right most of the time.”
Robert Half

And there you have it. We need to stop making excuses.  Lose the digibabble and figure out how to better vet our incredibly expanded and expanding range of sources. If we don’t? Dewey-Truman will haunt us – exponentially….

What do you think?

 

 

  • Following the thread from Graham, Reuters pursue the mantra 'fastest and most accurate', but following this mantra lead them to be swamped by Bloomberg and other news sources who provide 'opinion', which is taking the facts plus the journalists POV to deliver more column inches, therefore publishing slanted coverage, which can easily become inaccurate as a story breaks and morphs ...
  • BBC News and Journalism were an old client of mine and pride themselves on being the news source that will only publish a news piece once it has been validated by three separate sources. It let Sky News own the 'fastest' position but for a public service striving to deliver 'World Class Journalism' integrity of the story outweighed speed ...