Asking Questions: Fresh Content Project

It's no surprise to me that the best solutions often come from the people who ask the right questions, whether or not they are prepared to answer them. This week's fresh picks in review ask some killer questions, and some of them provide answers.

Even if your content can be translated, will your audience understand you? Can you really manage communication or are you better off managing the information (assuming you're not going to lie about it)? Does dissent strengthen understanding of a topic or simply undermine relationships? Can someone really be expected to do it all in social media (unless all they do is social media)? And how has the Internet changed our profession for the better, especially among those who never really knew any other way?

All of them are amazing for consideration, some worth much more depth than I afford them here. See for yourself.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of June 14

• Lost In Translation.
Tom Fishburne shares his first hand account of feeling lost in translation. It's a marvelous story that serves up a healthy reminder that many terms do not translate, even those that are somehow exempt from being classified as jargon or industry speak. As one of his examples, Fishburne retells how disruptive innovation might mean something to you or me. But to the audience he was speaking to, he might as well have told them to kill their existing businesses. Yes, sometimes presenters are charged with covering introductions into subjects they never intended to cover.

• A Pool Approach to Coverage.
"Should we believe that BP's decision to limit media access or withhold vital information was made for fear of running afoul of those who govern the New York or London Stock Exchanges?" asked Peter Himler before providing five bullet points on how BP could have effectively used social media to manage the information related to the spill as opposed to attempting to manage the communication related to the spill. You can't get much clearer than his five ideas, all of which would prove better than what they are attempting to do.

• Social Media Examiner Defends Their Own Inaccurate Content.
Sometimes private discourse is only a foreshadow to public discourse. The most common kind occurs when one blogger might casually mention to another blogger that they disagree. But when they disagree in private, there are no benefactors. Adam Singer knows this, and benefits us all in recapping the discussion between himself and the folks at Social Media Examiner. Interestingly enough, I know something about the subject. Singer is right, based in part on the same confusion caused by this study.

• If Your Content Is Your Concerto ...
While it's always distracting to see images spill into the side bar, Peter Winick's visual misstep is par for the post. There are dozens of people who are proponents that social media is a one-man show, with the executive taking center stage and somehow managing the company. Not so fast. Maybe there is a balance to be struck because even great composers lead orchestras as opposed to playing every instrument. The solution is as simple as knowing what you are good at and sticking with it. Sure, the composer can dazzle everyone with the surprise solo set now and again, but daily it doesn't make sense.

• The Internet Wasn't Around Then.
Frequent fresh pick Valeria Maltoni shares some insights about how she experiments with her own blog, but places an emphasis on the people who read it. But where the fresh pick content really kicks in is in the contrast of how things once were and how they are today. Real time communication provides immediate feedback, for better or worse, from a much larger pool of professionals with practical skill sets. The benefits are only tempered at times when it becomes impossible to know everyone who is paying attention.

Touching Consumers: The Space Bringing Us Closer Might Keep Us Apart

Researchers at MIT Sloan School of Management seem to have found evidence related to something that used to be second nature to advertisers. Touch matters, right down to the details of a business card.

The paper choice, cut, weight: they all matter. Flimsy cards tend to be taken with a little less enthusiasm. The same holds true with most collateral. I once kept a Cirque du Soleil press kit around for several years, simply because the stock felt much more like silk than paper. My firm's first brochure (when we had brochures) considered touch too. Spot varnish across the cover gave life to near invisible words with a tilt and a texture contrast meant to be felt.

Sure, many advertising professionals still know all this, especially those who work with packaging. But there are an increasing number of creatives who don't consider touch. Why would they? For the most part, collateral is falling out of favor for computers. Maybe there is an unseen impact associated with the shift.

What MIT Discovered About Touch.

Through a series of experiments, Joshua Ackerman, an assistant professor of marketing at MIT Sloan (along with John Bargh, a professor of psychology at Yale University; and Christopher Nocera, a PhD candidate at Harvard University), tested how weight, texture and hardness can unconsciously influence judgments. They suggest that their results have implications for anyone and everyone, ranging from job seekers to marketers.

“What we touch unconsciously influences how we think,” says Ackerman. “In situations where evaluations and decisions really matter, we need to pay attention to our physical surroundings and, in particular, how we engage these surroundings through our sense of touch.”

According to their statement, the researchers suggest that interactions involving touch, from handshakes to cheek kisses, may have critical influences on social interactions. First impressions are especially liable, with control over the entire environment becoming important.

• Heavier clipboards influenced evaluators in choosing job candidates. Judged candidates whose resumes were seen on a heavy clipboard were rated as qualified and more serious about the position.
• Rough puzzle pieces tended to describe a story about social interaction as harsh, when compared to participants handling smooth puzzle pieces.
• Participants holding a hard block while hearing a story about a workplace interaction tended to judge the employee as more rigid when compared those who held a soft blanket.
• Subjects seated in hard chairs while haggling over the price of a car tended to be less willing to negotiate than those who sat in softer and more comfortable chairs.

Electronics May Play A Role In How We Process Information.

While it wasn't part of the study, the clipboard experiment seems particularly applicable to an increasingly tech reliant world. After all, there is a growing reliance on communication where marketers have no control over the environment, which could be influencing online interactions.

Does it make a difference whether the computer is set up in a cubicle, noisy living room, or open office with a window view? Does an expanded keyboard change the perspective of what's being written? Does a mouse feel better than a touch pad? And does ergonomics, which we seldom hear about anymore, change the pace of the interaction?

Who knows? Harsher critics may indeed be sitting at home on uncomfortable chairs in front of old computers. And there may be subtle differences between the communication and correspondence on a Droid vs. an iPhone. For all we know, there might even be an unseen element that will change the way people feel about the iPhone 4 vs. the original titanium-backed models.

The point to consider here might be futile or especially important as we increasingly rely on electronic communication, sacrificing our ability to communicate with touch, texture, and weight. At minimum, thinking about the impact might also be important, at the very least, to gain an understanding of the people sitting at an opposing screen.

Social media, after all, isn't necessarily one-to-many communication. It's often one-to-one communication, played over several hundred times a day. Except, as noted, we have virtually no perspective of where any of us are at any given moment or what unseen influences might be contributing to how we communicate, with the advantage going to those who know how to make the environment disappear and fade away in to the background.

Cleaning Lenses: How To Wipe Away Marketing Woes

“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is — infinite.” — William Blake

Many marketing and advertising professionals learn the lesson too late. Most campaign strategies are less than optimal. Sometimes the problem is blamed on outside help when the problem might be internal. Sometimes it is the outside help. And sometimes, even when sales are setting records, dominant brands have to start all over.

Why does it happen? It happens because perception plays a powerful role in the decision making process. And perception, despite its emphasis, is usually muddled.

The lesson, not to rely on perception, recently came up in a new client meeting. When one of the agencies we work with asked where the majority of the client's marketing dollars went, the client said "the Yellow Pages" without blinking. Discussion followed.

"The Yellow Pages."

"What are the Yellow Pages? Do people still use phone books?"

"Well, we get all of our non-referred business from the Yellow Pages. It works."

"Where else do you advertise?"

"Nowhere else. The Yellow Pages works so well, we invest almost all our marketing dollars there."

"Did you ever consider that most of your non-referred business comes from the Yellow Pages because that is the only place anybody can find you?"

Exactly. Even measurement doesn't mean much unless you're willing to clean the lenses every now and again. Truth be told, I only know of one Yellow Pages success story. There is a local restaurant that published its entire menu inside the archaic directory. It was the least expensive way to get inside every hotel room in Las Vegas, where they deliver. Pretty smart.

"The new limitations are the human ones of perception." — Milton Babbitt

I know a few social media pros who are probably laughing at the very idea of the Yellow Pages. They're like me. I toss the bulky book in favor of drawer space. And all those advertising dollars right along with it.

However, some social media pros nodding in delight might stop chuckling about now because they do the same thing (you know who you are). They declare advertising dead based on the case studies of companies that succeeded on social media alone. But did they really? I can only imagine a mix might have increased sales or helped them reach those sales records faster.

Similarly, reading all those posts that suggest Facebook is better than Twitter (or Twitter is better than Facebook) and Reddit is better than Digg (or Digg is better than Reddit) seem pretty stale to me. It has nothing to with the platforms as much as it has to do with the interests of the online community, the type of information being shared, the type of business establishing a presence, and the proficiency of the person managing the account. Right. They all work. And none of them work.

I recently advised one of the clients we work with direct to include their social media hub address on all of their in-establishment collateral. He blinked.

"I thought we wanted to move away from traditional advertising."

"No, we want to engage your customers," I said. "There they are, right in front of you. Now all we have to do is engage them when they aren't here too."

"Advertising, public relations, and social media is all about perception. But perception has nothing to do with planning it." — Richard Becker.

Did you ever read "Lamb" by Christopher Moore? One of my favorite passages from the book occurs when a Buddhist monk sets two small cups on the table and then proceeds to pour tea until they begin to overflow.

"Hey, doofus!" the protagonist yells. "You're spilling the f**king tea!"

The monk smiled and set the bowl on the table.

"How can I give you tea if your cup is already full?"

Marketing, advertising, public relations, social media, and communication are much like that. It doesn't matter how good you are. If your cup or your client's cup is already full of opinions, then there is nothing I could ever do for you. And no one else either.

Case in point. If you never read Lamb and the tea story still sounds familiar, you might have seen it in the movie 2012. Maybe they robbed Moore outright. Or maybe that's only my perception. For all I know, Moore could have robbed the story too.

Going Somewhere: Why Bhakdi's Web 3.0 Feels Like Web 2.1

Johannes Bhakdi, chef knowledge architect of sophotec.com, published an interesting little book earlier this year that has gone largely unnoticed. There many be some good reasons for that.

The book comes across as a fleshed out PowerPoint. The price point is high. And for all his experience working with companies like McDonald's, MasterCard, Microsoft, Siemens, and Unilever for BBDO and J. Walter Thompson, Bhakdi isn't necessarily established in the social media mix where this book might be appreciated (despite the price point).

Like many creative strategists, he tends to be less visible despite his contributions. And with the exception of Slideshare and perhaps a slow loading Klatcher site, his social media presence doesn't seem especially established. There may even be an irony in that Bhakdi wanted to implement his book using a model in the book, which suggests success provided the marketing is right. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced the marketing is right.

Web 3.0 User-Generated Business • and why everyone becomes a media entrepreneur

But where Bhakdi is at the moment hardly matters within the context of the book. The real question is whether or not there is any real value inside the pages of Web 3.0 - User-Generated Business. There is some.

• The Historic Context. The opening chapters present a quick history of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. They are interesting enough for any newcomers to the Web, with an underlying emphasis on why Web 2.0 was a disaster. Specifically, the average online author earns about 25 cents per hour. Yep. That's a disaster for anyone except hobbyists.

• The Theoretical Sidebar. One of my favorite portions of Web 3.0 has little to do with the Internet. What Bhakdi does very clearly is define the two faces of capitalism against socialism. The latter, he says, tends to organize people in working for the common good but falls short because then people are less inclined to contribute anything useful.

As for capitalism, he discusses how one facet can be destructive and exploitive, driven by ruthless people looking to earn quick profits for as little value as possible. And he stresses that it doesn't have to be that way. Most business people have a more transformative view of capitalism and add positive value on their terms and then change the world with a win-win construct. It's eloquently explained, certainly worth a follow-up post here someday.

• The Visionary Construct. Personally, I was never very fond of the assumption that everybody would become a media entrepreneur, but I've always been comfortable that "anybody" could be. This one word makes a big difference.

Otherwise, I've never understood this ever-present assumption that people want to be media entrepreneurs. From everybody I've spoken with online and off for the last ten years, most people can't be bothered. Sure, some like to create and share content, but most just want to connect with friends, play games, and read the news.

Still, even for that small percentage of people who do want to create content, Bhakdi raises one good point. The current Web 2.0 structure allows platform providers to generate income from content creators who work for free. Ergo, Twitter would be nothing without the flurry of moderately visible pros who put up content and contribute daily.

However, Bhakdi's solution to fix this doesn't necessarily add up as much as he would like. Eventually, he sees Web 3.0 as a place where content is assigned value. In other words, quality content would receive higher compensation over the shareable silliness that tends to drive Web 2.0.

As much as I agree with the idea, I'm not sure it's pragmatic. Intellectual property has variable values that are largely based on perception.

• The Blueprint. Bhakdi does a solid job at outlining a social media content business model in the last chapter. For me, I wish it came much earlier. Reading 150 pages of anecdotal conversation when the real content starts on page 151 is troublesome. It's the primary reason I read so few social media books.

By the time you arrive at the last chapter, Bhakdi outlines Web 3.0 into three parts: outreach (social networks), core media assets (a site or blog), and opportunities for monetization (Zazzle, Ad Sense, Lulu.) There is nothing wrong with that except that it's what exists now. So unless I missed something, the blueprint is not so unprecedented.

Final Thoughts About Web 3.0 User-Generated Business

Web 3.0 User-Generated Business has some high points, but it's difficult to consider it a book. It's a PowerPoint conversion with added conversation. There are a few high points and novices might find it worthwhile. But anybody beyond the entry level of monetization concepts will find it anti-climactic.

Simply put, if you are among the relatively small audience who is already dabbling in becoming a media entrepreneur, you aren't likely to find a breakthrough in this book. However, if you are a blogger who is just considering monetization, then Bhakdi's book may help you get up to speed, assuming you haven't connected with people who write about this stuff daily.

Otherwise, Web 3.0 User-Generated Business comes across as what I call a "business card book," which is indicative of most books being introduced in the field. I don't get it. Most social media books are long on attempting to demonstrate thought leadership by sharing what a healthy percentage already know with the shrinking pool of people who don't know anything.

Further, in using his own social media assets as examples, the book seems to miss out on a viable purpose. If the book, using its own blueprint, aims at being the revenue generator, then more care might have been taken to ensure it didn't pitch platforms owned by the author. That said, the book seems less interesting than the impossibly slow-loading Klatcher (the first time anyway) or Bhakdi's posts and presentations. Get to know him in those places first.

Slipping Away: When Viral Success Is Less Than Effective

About a week ago, I posted a free spirited and wildly creative Volkswagen video that is short on sales and long on fun at Friedeggs, a fresh and campy social network that is similar to Twitter but with a more robust platform like Facebook. Everybody loved the video.

They weren't alone. More than 700,000 people have watched the video. By most measures, it's a viral success story. It's only a matter of time before it will pass the one million viewer benchmark. And somewhere around the one million mark is where most advertising industry pubs will pick up the story (if they haven't already). After that, youngling creatives will rush to copy it.



Not so fast, younglings. After mulling over the spot for more than a week, there might be a problem in bookmarking this video for a future ripoff. There seems to be something missing when compared to the Coca-Cola Happiness Machine video. Any guesses?

Why The Volkswagen Fast Lane YouTube Video Works.

Let's start with why it works. It doesn't focus exclusively on the product, which softens the sales element and increases sharing in social media circles. It celebrates the relationship between people and emotional concepts like youth, freedom, and fun.

The presentation of spontaneous and unexpected stimuli almost always works. We all like to watch how people react to such scenarios, sometimes wishing we were there to take a turn.

Why The Volkswagen Fast Lane YouTube Video Doesn't Work.

There is no question that I love the piece, but there is a problem too. It doesn't make anyone want to buy a Volkswagen. It makes them want to buy a slide. That's a problem.

So what went wrong? If you do follow the link to the Coca-Cola spot and watch that spot again, it becomes more obvious. The Coca-Cola commercial focuses on the relationship between the product and the customers. The slide spot, however, focuses on the relationship between a slide and random people.

Sure, it's a metaphor of sorts. But with the exception of slide transportation, this spot could be transposed on any product or service, ranging from a production company demonstrating creative interaction to a speedy microprocessor tucked inside a computer. The brand is so disconnected that when people share this video, many call it a "slide video" as opposed to a "Volkswagen video."

Of course, if we want to be picky, there is the additional problem that the concept is nothing but a fast lane cliche, which is a clear violation of advertising rule number 8.

Right. There is nothing more boring than tagging any car company with a fast lane cliche, despite how well executed as this video might be. The only saving grace is that they really don't attach the cliche to a car or van. It's attached to a slide, which works.

Why Advertising Is Hard Work.

The push back on advertising is never related to the fact that people hate advertising. If they truly hated advertising, Super Bowl spots wouldn't be covered by prime time news. What people hate is bad advertising (which means most of it).

Great advertising requires a careful balance between entertainment and motivation. Advertisers want people to do something, usually related to buying the product or finding out more. This spot didn't seem to make most people want to buy a Volkswagen or join Facebook. It does make some of us want a slide installed next to every escalator on the planet. And that's a problem no matter how many times we watch it.

Talking On Target: A Lesson In Public Speaking

Wondering why President Obama continues to slide in the polls and Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, was ousted from the daily operations of the BP oil spill? Both men delivered poor performances in public speaking and it undermined any faith in their ability lead.

One came across like a lawyer at best, administrator at worst, mostly concerned about an obscured vision of the future. The other came across as being overly coached by lawyers, paralyzed by an obscured vision of the past. It seems obvious that neither men are living in the present as both seem out of touch with the public.

An Analysis Of President Obama's BP Oil Spill Speech.

If there is any doubt that President Obama's BP oil spill speech was the low water mark of presidential speeches since he took office, a new study of Presidential speeches by HCD Research confirms it. On a scale of 1-7, the speech rated 4.4 among Americans, marking a continual decline in the president's likability, believability, and sincerity. The more he speaks, the less he's liked.

What went wrong for the one with the once silver tongue?

While less than scientific, a word cloud of the transcript reveals the flawed strategy behind the speech. The transcript wasn't about the oil spill crisis. It was about clean energy.

The decision to use the spill as a platform for petroleum reform rather than what Americans wanted to hear — how will we plug the leak, mitigate the clean up, and provide help for those affected — was flawed. No matter how you slice the speech, President Obama's emphasis fell just short of calling this disaster a failing of the American people for not being more aggressive on alternative energy.

While there is a time and place for everything, the administration clearly missed that this was not the time or place. Post polling shows the public believes overwhelmingly that President Obama has failed in handling the BP oil spill. It also raised severe doubts about his ability to handle a future crisis. Worse for Obama, there is ample evidence to suggest long-term damage compounded by continued missteps.

After his speech, his second term re-election outlook dropped an additional one or two percent among ALL political groupings (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents). While it is a long way until the next election, Obama's re-election chances are increasingly grim, with 27 percent of his own party unwilling to vote for him again. More than 61 percent of Independents and 91 percent of Republicans feel the same way.

Was there anything redeeming about Obama's speech? Yes. The sticking point picked up by a friendly media was to press BP and create a $20 billion escrow fund. When BP agreed a few days later, it was a minor victory among an ocean of missteps. Obama said he would make BP pay, they agreed. Of course, they intended to all along.

An Analysis Of Tony Hayward's BP Oil Spill Testimony.

Although Hayward's testimony performance has earned the scorn of the American public and pushed aside (hat tip: Geoff Livingston) as the man in charge of the company’s response, most media covered only a portion of the story. Hayward's prepared testimony wasn't all that far away from capturing public trust. It was the question/answer/statement section that crushed his opportunity.

The prepared testimony itself, at a glance, focused on the facts with an emphasis on the current BP response. Where it still missed, however, was that Hayward doesn't have the answers Americans want. They want to know precisely what went wrong and who is liable, facts that will still take months to sort out (beyond the most obvious, of course).

Another aspect missing from the testimony was genuine remorse and an apparent inability to provide reasoned responses to the congressional grandstanding. Instead, focusing on coaching from attorneys, Hayward frequently appeared to duck and dodge the questions as if he had nothing more to say.

Was there anything redeeming about Hayward's stint? Yes. While the American media played up his lack of answers, the international media saw it differently.

All they saw were a few American congressional leaders working hard to paint BP and Hayward as public enemy number one. So, while Hayward might be performing on U.S. soil, the global community chalked up the exercise as American congressmen looked stupid and petty in the hopes of trying to pad their own re-election campaigns.

What Can Be Learned From Public Speaking In A Crisis?

Stay on topic. Stay on topic. Stay on topic.

Winston Churchill did not address policy change or progressive ideas in his speech "We Shall Fight on the Beaches." He did speak of his country's failures in allowing the roots of fascism to take hold in Germany or in acting too late as the Nazi party expanded its reach across the Europe. He stayed on topic, without concern for how many words were in each sentence. His audience got it.

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

John F. Kennedy did not shrink from responsibility in ushering forth a new era and new frontier, crying that a minority of legislators were somehow undermining the majority. No, instead of focusing on division, he focused on unified ideas that could bring people to solve the current crisis of the day. His audience got it.

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility — I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it — and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

Where Obama And Hayward Fail Most Miserably.

They both lack passion and inspired nothing. Instead, they drifted away from their respective responsibility of communication: Obama as a choice and Hayward because he doesn't know what Americans want to know. Worse, they offer up that "nothing more can be done than what they are doing." Americans, they say, need to wait patiently and place faith in their leadership.

That hardly works in America. The citizens are used to taking action when faced with a crisis. And when government doesn't deliver, they tend to take matters into their own hands, resenting those who failed to act in a manner greater than the crisis. Ergo, if the crisis requires a hammer plan, they expect the President to fix it with a sledgehammer plan.

Don't these guys get it? Handling a crisis is not public relations. It's about taking immediate action that is grounded in the present. You can lynch anyone you want, but put the fire out first. You can use every keyword on the planet, but your brand still sucks while the leak gushes oil.

One final thought, it seems to me that both men miss one word that has been included in virtually all great speeches. The word is "WE." And yet, both Obama and Hayward seem to avoid it. The only exception is that Obama uses "we" when referring to his administration and Hayward says "we" when he is talking about his company.

Don't these guys get it? This isn't an "us and them" story with the American public listed under the "them" column. Those people down there, whether funded by BP or directed by the White House, are Americans doing the work. They don't visit the spill area now and again. They live there, every day.