Inspiring Approaches: Gauguin To Da Vinci

While there is little doubt that businesses need to approach social media differently than individuals, sometimes the conversational nature of medium distracts from the much more fluid nature of inspiration and pushes a myopic impression of the space that denies the situational reality of communication, innovation, and invention. Great ideas don't just happen from one point of a bell curve; they can spring forth from any point.

Paul Gauguin. After growing frustrated from the lack of recognition at home, Gauguin gave up everything, including his family, to escape European civilization and "everything that is artificial and conventional." There, he slowly turned inward on himself and drew inspiration from the primitive nature of man and the focus on self.

Andy Warhol. Warhol was the greatest American figure in the pop art movement. Elevated up by the masses and widely diverse social circles that included bohemian street people, intellectuals, celebrities, and aristocrats alike, he epitomized the more personal aspect of the social media movement that has reinvented his concept of "15 minutes of fame" into reaching "1,500+ friends or followers."

Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo is often described as the archetype of the Renaissance man as he constantly looked deeper than anyone else thought possible in every discipline. As a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician, and writer, da Vinci was seemingly inspired by a greater power and frequently surrendered himself to it.

Although I've positioned Andy Warhol at the top of the mass movements, even he recognized that greatness doesn't just follow on the heels of popularity. It was his celebration of individual voices, which make up conversations and draw attention to unique perspectives, that set him apart. It didn't matter to him whether those voices expressed enthusiasm or dissent as long as individual thought and expression overcame blind devotion and promotion. It's also why some of my best friends are my most outspoken critics, myself included. All individual perspectives are welcome.

"If everyone's not a beauty, then nobody is." — Andy Warhol

Trending Ad Agencies: Reardon Smith Whittaker

According to a survey conducted by Reardon Smith Whittaker (RSW), the percentage of work assigned to full-service advertising agencies is on the decline. In as little as two years, work assigned to full-service agencies dropped from approximately 60 percent to 48 percent.

The poll included 184 marketing and brand executives in November. It included representatives from companies such as AT&T, Merck, MetLife, and Revlon.

What seems significant about the November study is how it compares to another study released by RSW earlier this year. Only 38 percent of 103 key agency principals (slightly more than specialized agencies) believed that the type of agency that would be most successful in 2008 would be those with a specialized focus or service.

Are Full-Service Agencies Losing Their Luster?

While Adweek picked up on the top-ranked reasons respondents launched reviews — unhappiness with their agency's strategic thinking (46 percent), dissatisfaction with creative work (40 percent), and not being proactive enough (38 percent) — the open questions provided even more insight. By using TagCrowd, we discovered a takeaway that reinforces where agencies might be missing the mark.

If you had one piece of advice to give to agencies about their marketing efforts, what would it be?

Understand the client better, listen, be honest, and show respect.

If you had one piece of advice to give agencies about their presentations (other than making them shorter) what would it be?

Customize the plan, research the market, and produce relevant creative.

While creative remains a key factor, clients are becoming even more interested in agencies that understand their markets and demonstrate strategic thinking. It stands to reason. The most common agency selection method is a competitive pitch process, which asks full-service agencies to create compelling campaigns with the least amount of client interaction to win the account. More often than not, the client will then introduce new information that alters any semblance of what the agency pitched.

The result? Almost half of the executives admit they don't know what to expect until after the relationship begins. Forty-six percent also said their last agency of record retained the account for less than two years (18 percent said less than one year). Most clients also work with several agencies and specialized firms in addition to their primary agency.

Being Human: Chris Brogan

If there are lessons to be learned from the veracity of a conversation that occurred this weekend around Chris Brogan, president of New Marketing Labs, it might not be what most people think. What began as a question of ethics quickly descended into something else: a not-so-subtle reminder that for all those social media participants who mistrust companies, the people who make up these companies might have cause to not trust social media participants.

And why should they? It's all too easy to deduce that social media participants eat their own.

What began as a relatively harmless sponsored puff piece by Brogan, describing a K-Mart shopping spree like a kid in a candy store, ended in charges that Brogan might never be trusted again.

Initially, it seemed like an excellent ethics discussion, but then it morphed into what some people might describe as a French mob. Then it morphed into a civil war (given that people seemed evenly split). And then again, it morphed into a 'reverse' French mob against Damien Basile (among others), a senior associate editor for CritqueMedia.com, because he was as outspoken as Brogan was sometimes defensive. If you get the sense it was a mess, you might be right.

The initial conversation seemed promising enough.

On the forefront of the conversation, it was just a review by Forrester's Jeremiah Owyang: "Transparent, Yes. Authentic? Debatable. Sustainable? No." (Hat tip: Arron Brazell). And then it was easy to see that there were ethical questions being raised (never mind it was less clear which ethical questions were being raised).

For some, it was whether or not sponsored posts are ethical. For others, it was whether Brogan appropriately disclosed his relationship with Izea, given he also serves on an advisory board. And for others still, it was whether personal relationships and reputation are exempt from ethical review.

The general topic reveals paying for posts is split, but shifting in favor of.

The question of blogger compensation has been around a long time. Last March, there was a survey that touched on the practice, but it was written wrong. However, if you spend enough time speaking with various people, you'll find they are generally split on sponsored posts, with most who find them acceptable adding a condition of disclosure.

Of course, even with disclosure, there are always going to be challenges with sponsored posts. One blogger might accept payments and only write positive posts regardless of how they feel, while another might accept payment and remain perfectly objective. Thus, credibility belongs to the individual and not the practice (usually, hat tip: Owyang).

The conversation might have been better served without being personal.

Brogan's K-Mart post fell in a decidedly gray area. The primary complaint seems to be that Brogan wears many hats. He is generally regarded as a leader in shaping social media, sits on a board of advisors for Izea, and accepted payment from K-Mart through Izea. In addition, Izea wants to run a campaign for K-Mart, using a sponsored post program.

While there were plenty of voices, Basile was one of the more articulate (though sometimes overly passionate and sometimes personal about his principles). Looking back over Basile's comments, it seems to me he was trying to convey that Brogan might not have been a suitable choice for Izea because it is in Brogan's best interest to ensure Izea delivered everything K-Mart hoped it could. In other words, it wasn't the K-Mart post as much as it was his demonstration of Izea delivering puff pieces.

I tend to view ethical questions with IABC's Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators as a guide. Not everyone does, and there are plenty of others to follow. Of the twelve articles that make up IABC's Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators, only one seemed to stand out.

Article 9. Professional communicators do not use confidential information gained as a result of professional activities for personal benefit and do not represent conflicting or competing interests without written consent of those involved.

I asked Brogan if he was paid by K-Mart or Izea. Although he was clear about it in his post, he was a good sport and answered direct. He was paid by Izea. This clarified it for me. Brogan was representing Izea, paid by Izea, and disclosed that arrangement. If you want a contrast, consider Julie Roehm, who accepted gifts from agencies seeking the coveted Wal-Mart account.

Given he wasn't double-dipping, it seems to be less a question of impropriety and more a question about the perception of impropriety. And if we get into the habit of questioning the perception of other people's ethics, we're only disclosing our own lapses of ethical judgment, as Valeria Maltoni so aptly alluded to today.

"Personal experiences have become the new barometer for extrapolating trends. We stopped outsourcing trust to institutions but instead of holding ourselves accountable for our own ethics and behavior, we have shifted that responsibility onto others. Then we cast stones at people we hold up as influentials when we were the ones putting them on the pedestal in the first place."

You cannot be disillusioned by people, unless you're illusioned by them.

Which brings up that other point. While so many people vouched for Brogan's integrity, some of it was done at the expense of others like Basile, who raised valid points. So it's always better to attack issues and not people, knowing someone doesn't preclude them from ethical misconduct. Believing otherwise makes the issue about you and not the subject, invites diatribe that makes discussion look like a popularity contest, and distracts from the most important lessons of all.

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." — Thomas Jefferson

Sure, Brogan's post changed the perception that some people had of him based on the opening of Julien Smith and his own Trust Economies with a descriptor that reads "We are suspicious of marketing. We don't trust strangers as willingly. Buzz is suspect. It can be bought. Instead, consumers and business people alike are looking towards trust." But did he do something unethical? Not that I can see.

But perhaps more importantly, did the resulting conversations demonstrate a sensitivity to cultural values and beliefs, engaging in fair and balanced communication activities that foster and encourage mutual understanding as IABC advises and many social media participants suggest? Not even close. Trust is fragile, indeed.

Reflecting On Forrester: People Don't Trust Hammers

Sometimes the interpretation of research frightens me. And today, I can now count the interpretation of the Forrester Research study — which says 16 percent of consumers don't trust hammers, er, blogs — among those that do.

Since you won't find the obvious in the report, I might point out that you will find the obvious on author Josh Bernoff's blog: People don't trust companies.

Another missing element from the study is the methodology. You'll find that on Bernoff's blog too. According to his blog, Forrester surveyed 5,000 people they believe to be representative of the U.S. online adult population (18 and older) online. They then asked those opt-in participants to rate how much they trusted information on a five-point scale, from 1 (don’t trust at all) to 5 (trust completely).

"In this case about 80% of those we polled said they did use corporate blogs," explains Bernoff. "Of those who used them, only 16% rated them 4 or 5 on the five-point trust scale."

While I still don't know how they conducted the survey or if "use" can be defined as "read," I do know now that the "3"s were counted in the "don't trust" column to craft that headline. Hmmm ... why would they do that?

Well, it might make for a better headline since we already know 20 percent of the respondents don't even trust e-mails from people they know. (Sorry, Mom. Next time, please call.) That, and most of the footnotes track back to high ticket reports, which makes it feel a bit more like a lead generation piece than a content sharing piece from a company that encourages sharing.

Of course, there could be another reason. Headlines like that and the promise of juicy data create a flurry of promotional, er, blog posts. Geoff Livingston provided an uncharacteristic scolding of sorts. Kami Huyse tried a more subtle approach. And Max Kalehoff was one of the few people to get it right by saying Forrester Research got it wrong.

Know what I think? Blogs aren't to be trusted much in the same way hammers aren't to be trusted.

It's the people who provide the content that you decide whether or not to trust. And, the level of trust that occurs is based on the accuracy of the information provided or the value of the conversation it creates or the character of the people involved. To say otherwise doesn't seem all that genuine to me. In fact, to say companies shouldn't talk about themselves on their blogs is especially ridiculous given some experts talk about themselves so ad nauseam that they need a second blog to cover it all.

Until some social media experts figure out that social media isn't a second plane of existence, they will continue to bump their heads against the wall and all those surveys that say, time and time again, that nobody trusts anybody, except the people they know, er, 80 percent of the time.

The bottom line is this: if you earn a level of trust with someone, then it won't really matter where you have a conversation — in person, on the phone, in an e-mail, on a blog, or across a social network. It's about that simple.

Gambling On Viral: "Whopper Virgins"

Although the Motrin viral marketing campaign is slowly fading from memory, viral advertising is not. There are plenty of companies willing to play the sometimes high stakes game of pushing marketing as opposed to products with the hope it might go viral.

According to Ad Age, Burger King's "Whopper Virgins" video is slowly going viral, but still slower than the fast food chain had hoped (which might explain the recent public relations support). The "Whopper Virgins" concept was to take the Whopper on a world tour, documentary style, where people who have never seen a hamburger could taste a Big Mac and Whopper.

"Whopper Virgins" is the second viral video that Burger King has attempted. The first, "Whopper Freakout", captured reactions from customers visiting a Burger King without Whoppers. It had limited success. The new video is better conceived, but it comes at a different price. Some people are annoyed by it.

Pushed by Burger King super fans — loyalist customers — "Whopper Virgins" is being seeded on various online video sites. The agency also claims teaser videos prompted a successful start, but based on YouTube counts and comments, it doesn't seem likely. While one teaser had 49,000 views, another only had 300. Some random comments left on the former:

"Lame, arrogant commercial - their website is even worse. It's an embarrassment."

"This video is to exploit indigenous people."

"I don't look at this commercial as offensive at all. I'm glad and proud to see that Hmong people are, probably for the very first time, being featured on mainstream TV."

Cathy Erway, writing for The Huffington Post, summed: "But most of all, you get a classic story of American corporate colonialism, sickly masked in that all-too-proud illusion of goodwill." Caitlin Fitzsimmons, writing for the Guardian, wrote: "It's either a fun and original ad or yet another example of the crass exploitation of the world's indigenous people." And Michael Lebowitz said: "I'm not always the biggest fan of Crispin Porter & Bogusky's work, but what they've been doing for Burger King is impressive."

Good, bad, indifferent?

PRWeek suggests that all buzz is perfectly all right given that using controversial ads can help boost a brand. And in many cases, that is the only intent of viral marketing: create some controversy, get some buzz, and hope that translates into "something" later on. If it doesn't work out, you can always say you're sorry.

So what kind of advertising is likely to go viral? As B.L. Ochman, Ad Age, recently offered up (paraphrased):

• Advertising that is funny, shocking, intriguing, or surprising.
• Ideas that customers can relate to and care about.
• A clear-cut message so people are able to pass it on.
• An easy way to pass it on such as link, embedding code, "share this" button, etc.
• A concept that builds relationships with customers by getting them to interact with others.

The caveat is that viral advertising isn't viral until it's passed on by the public. And, of course, not everyone agrees with on what measurable outcomes make for a viral success.

At the end of the day, someone has to ask if "Whopper Virgins" made people want to eat a Whopper (because it certainly didn't convince anyone that the taste test was authentic). Or, someone might even ask who really won — Burger King or Crispin Porter & Bogusky, the agency that produced it? Hmmm...

Is the new objective of marketing to market the marketing by encouraging super fans to push the marketing creative simply with the hope it goes viral based on, er, online views and perhaps start a controversial conversation? Some people seem to think so.

Communicating Rights: Human Rights

On Dec. 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). At that time, the Assembly called upon all member countries to publicize the UDHR and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

For the sixty years since, human rights has seen its share of successes and abuses. So many, in fact, it's sometimes hard to discern which direction the world might be moving with regard to human rights. After all, it was only a little more than thirty years ago that then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted only 23 of 82 countries receiving aid from the United States could claim having no major human rights violations.

Today, after skimming through the 581-page Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, you'll see not much has changed. Perhaps it's worse. In fact, Jack Healey suggests less than five percent of world even knows the UDHR exists despite a growing number of organizations working to build awareness online.

All awareness without action will erode over time. It's only a question of how fast.

It might even be eroding in the United Nations. According to UN Watch, a non-governmental organization based in Geneva whose mandate is to monitor the performance of the United Nations, only 13 of 47 U.N. Human Rights Council member states had positive voting records on 32 key resolutions. And, as a result, it seems more likely that it will be up to the individuals to step up to preserve the UDHR.

A few already are. In an effort to draw early attention to human rights, Bloggers Unite and Amnesty International USA developed the first major social awareness campaign last May, guiding 1.2 million blog posts and 500 news stories, including CNN.

Even more striking than the volume of the first campaign, the majority of these participants took action — signing petitions, writing letters, and donating funds — to various human rights-related organizations. Some, for the first time in their lives, made long-term commitments by joining Amnesty International and other like-minded organizations.

In the last several months, there have been several specific efforts that have followed as well, including "Bloggers Unite for Refugees" in November, the Save Drafur Coalition petition on Facebook, and the One Day for Human Rights project, which calls for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be printed on passports. The latter is an especially good first step.

Only with awareness comes action. Only through action can people become engaged.

As Larry Cox, director of Amnesty International USA, recently said: action is what makes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a "living" document, not something just to be remembered or invoked in ceremonies, but something to be fought for, celebrated, and fulfilled every day.

It's also a message that the United Nations might remember. In addition to supporting its own celebration, the United Nations HRC needs to revisit some of its mandates that have overturned portions of the UDHR.