Logic+Emotion

The Relationship Renaissance

I just finished my contribution for The Age of Conversation E-book.  The name of my "chapter"?  The Relationship Renaissance.  The idea for the contribution came initially from Roger von Oech's question during his write-up on me a while back:

"Let’s suppose Digitas says, “David, we’ll pay you to take off two months to write a 200 page book about marketing, creativity, and new media.” What would your “take” be?"

My answer?

"The title of my book would be: “The Relationship Renaissance: How design, social media and technology have created an explosion in creativity, and communication.” And the premise:

Some have called it a revolution. Others evolution. But are we really living in an age of digitally fueled invention and re-discovery?  Enabled by technology, architected through experience and supported with an “open source” thought democracy—we are living in a relationship renaissance which is forcing us to re-think the definition of brands, marketing and how we think about “consumers.”

And since I haven't been given time off to write a book—I did the next best thing.  I used the idea in my contribution (just over 500 word essay).  I won't give too much away, but here is an excerpt:

"What sparked the original Renaissance?  Some historians speculate that the “Black Death” had something to do with it.  The theory is that this caused individuals to focus on the quality of their lives on earth in addition to the afterlife.  As a result, art and science exploded with the help of Greek and Arabic knowledge.

Maybe our own “Black Death” has been business as usual.  In Advertising.  In Business.  In our everyday lives.  To be called a “Renaissance Man” means that you possess multidisciplinary talents.  Today’s Renaissance men and women combine skills in personal publishing, podcasting, virtual worlds and other kinds of digital disciplines—which connect, converse, and ultimately allow us to relate."

You'll have to buy the e-book for the rest—in addition to tons of great perspectives from over 100 other social media participants and thought leaders.  It will be worth the wait.  Proceeds go to Variety, the children's charity, and the book is dedicated to the memory of Sandra J. Kerley.

Small Is The New Big

The purpose of the post is two-fold:

1. I'd like to recommend the business of some friends of mine.
2. I'd like to get us thinking about innovation, commodity and size.

Keyword First is a business run by 2 of my friends who invested early on in learning the intricacies of search engine optimization and marketing.  They understand how organic and paid search works—and how this can put you at the top of search engines.  This is increasingly becoming an important part of our business as our clients need to be "found".  Keyword First will help you get found—and the two gentlemen behind this service are both as smart (and nice) as they come.  If you're looking to be found—you should check them out. 

Next item on the agenda.  Take a look at their Website (pictured above).  It's not half bad.  I kicked the tires a bit and it was fairly user friendly, the code seemed pretty solid and though I don't think it's the most spectacular site I've ever seen—it does come across as professional.  In fact, my guess is that if you put this site in front of a potential customer—they would think that the business was much bigger.

Full disclosure—I designed the logo for my friends.  Actually, I proactively offered them up the service at no cost and they took the logo and had the site designed around it.  Now here's where it gets interesting.  As a small business, my friends found an overseas partner to design and develop this site from the ground up.  They used Elance to find the overseas partner (who ended up being based in India).

Can you guess how much the site cost them from soup to nuts?  5k? 3k? 2k?  Try $400.00 U.S. dollars.  Seth Godin recently wrote a "memo to the very small"  where he provides step by step directions on how small business can use blogging platforms such as Typepad to promote themselves online.  This is yet another option.

So what's the take away?  Small businesses have more options than ever to act like big business.  In addition, what you are seeing here is a classic example of innovation + commodity at work.  My friends have come up with an innovative idea—provide quality search marketing services at reasonable prices.  I have a feeling their business will grow.  As for the commodity part—in this case, custom Web design has become the commodity.  Remember, the site was designed from scratch—not pre-existing templates.  It started with the identity.  And compared to many corporate sites out there which suffer from basic design or usability issues—it's not half bad.

Morale of the story?  Certain types of Web services can become a commodity.  Ideas are another story.  Small business can appear to be "big".  But will big business be able to act small?

We Are The Story

What can brands learn from social experiments?

1. A passionate community is the lifeblood of your brand.  Without it—a brand is hollow.
2. People want to interact with your brand—to be a part of it somehow, to make it their own.
3. Your community can make your brand better, stronger and smarter.
4. Inviting your community to become an active part of your brand stimulates ideas, creativity and potentially innovation.

In my last post I asked "What is the story" behind this simple visual.  What happened?  You told the story—each in your own unique ways.  You became the story.  You took the idea and poked, prodded and narrated.  Some of you translated it in a very logical fashion.  Others created tall tales around what it meant to you.  Some of you created your own visuals like the three-eyed-monster (which I absolutely love)  And I'll be honest with you—these are some of the best comments I've ever had here.

So what can brands learn from social experiments?

Well, for starters—brands can learn to experiment.  I usually narrate my own visuals—and of course feedback is always welcome.  But this time I felt you could tell the story even better than I could.  And you didn't let me down.  Sometimes we mistake these invitations as not having a strong sense of self-identity.  If brands let their communities define them—are they strong brands in the first place?  The answer is yes.  My voice is my voice.  It will not change—I am who I am.  But my thoughts and actions can be influenced by what you say and do.  Are brands willing to do the same?  Does this make them weak or strong?

My original intent was to call out some of the comments which "nailed" the visual.  But the truth is that you've all nailed it in your own ways—so now I'll have to re-think what to do with these thoughts.  I'll probably pull them together in some type format for easy distribution—maybe a PDF.  It's more work for me, but in the end I know it will be worth it because it's worth sharing and proves a point.  The point is that a healthy brand does not live in isolation—just like healthy people.

What's The Story?

What is this visual saying?  You write it.  If it makes sense, I'll add it to the post  with your name and a link.  Have fun.

I Am The Media

Blogs aren't growing at the predicted rate   
Participation on Web 2.0 remains weak
Executives remain wary of Web 2.0

Somebody forgot to send Alain Thys the memo that participation and adoption of Social Media isn't as compelling as we think.  A few months ago, he created an amazing presentation which takes a comprehensive look at how our relationships with brands and each other is changing.  Given the recent headlines, you should really check this out as  a Ying to the Yang of the other reports.  Alain has done an amazing job of blending stats with story.  This is a wonderful presentation.  Wish I could have seen it in person.

How Old is Your Brain?

It's Friday.  Everyone seems to be talking about Coke in Second Life.  That's great.  But I'd like to talk about a subject even more dear to my heart.  Two of my favorite thinkers recently got together for a chat.  Author and inventor Roger von Oech and BusinessWeek's Bruce Nussbaum.  Roger is 59 years old.  Bruce is 60.  One of the priceless things about my blogging experience is the access I now have to minds like this.  Roger and I connect fairly regularly and Bruce and I correspond every once in a while.

But I don't want to talk about their age or my relationships as much as I want to point out something that I feel these individuals have in common.  In my opinion, based on my interactions with both Roger and Bruce—I believe both posses very rare minds which I would describe as "young brains".  Each time i interact with and observe Roger and Bruce I see the willingness to experiment.  To take risks.  To speak their minds and say what they really mean.  To be open to other points of view regardless of the source.

For example—whenever I talk with Roger, he tends to ask a lot of questions.  The only other person who asks me more questions than he does is my six-year-old!  And the way Roger took to blogging was fascinating to watch.  He experimented, tried out different things, tinkered etc.  Bruce has been interesting to observe as well—as someone who's been around the block a few times, he's met all kinds of important people through his career as a journalist.  But from Bruce's writing's, I don't get the sense that he's easily impressed.  I often think about how my boys would react if they met someone famous.  They would be unimpressed too.  Oprah or Bono would be just another "grown-up" to them.  And as Roger mentions in his write-up about their meeting, Bruce has gradually been modifying his blogging style on BusinessWeek.  He's engaged his audience a bit more.  I've seen comments from him on other blogs.  He's allowed himself to be influenced and as a result his behaviors have been altered.  I believe he's "un-learned" some habits that no doubt have served him well in the past.

What's my point?

My point is this.  In the past, I've worked with inflexible people who are set in their ways.  I'm sure we all have.  The thing is that these folks were much younger than Roger and Bruce.  But their brains didn't always reflect this .  They possessed "old brains".  Brains which crave the familiar.  The routine.  The status quo.  Brains that tell them that they know what's best because of their past experiences.  One of the things that blows me away about people like Roger and Bruce is that they think and act a little differently.  They take in viewpoints from not only peers, but from people outside their immediate circles.  In my opinion, they posses "young brains"—not so different from the kind of mindset I describe above.  I'm inspired to do what it takes to keep my own neurological clock from ticking along too quickly.  Maybe I can turn back the clock a little.  Maybe we all can.

Breaking Silos

The above visual is one that I've used before in different contexts.  This is a bit of a random thought, but I've been observing some of our Flash/Ajax developers working feverishly over the past few days.  There's been a lot of activity here lately and the developers have been working on each others projects.  It's not an assembly line.  Each touches a part of the project—a piece of the code while another works on other parts.  Sometimes it's at the same time.  Other times it's not.  No one has clear ownership, bugs come up and are taken down one by one.  People leave their cubes to go help someone else who's hit a wall.  IM's, e-mails, and impromptu "meetings" happen in rapid fashion, unplanned and spontaneously.  Territories don't exist—the goal of making the launch date is everything.  It's a shared goal—a purpose.  QA includes not only links that work correctly but animations and design assets looking just right.  Execution and fine-tuning happen simultaneously.  It's organic.  It's collaborative.  It works.

Tip for all the executives out there.  Get out of your offices every once in a while and go to where the action is.  If you find yourself working in silos—ask yourself why this is.  If our people in the trenches can work this way—so can we.

Thought of the Day

"My openness makes it easy to find exactly what I want, when I want, without the need for the one-way messaging that is the status quo for our business.  Sure, I watch plenty of TV, but I haven't seen a television commercial in weeks. That is, besides on YouTube, but that's reserved only for the incredibly good and the hopelessly bad. I spend copious amounts of time on the web, but with robust ad blocking software, I hardly ever see a banner ad, pop-up or the like. I still listen to the radio, but the play button on the IPod is pressed at the mere hint of a break. I don't read magazines. I don't read newspapers."
~Paul McEnany

L+E Links For 04.18.07

It Could Get Worse
Marcus Brown has stopped blogging rather abruptly.  This may be something we see more of—as blogging, which can be a form of "serious play" for some turns into a burden for others.  It takes a lot of time and dedication to cultivate a blog.  At one point or another, most bloggers will ask themselves "is this really worth it?".  I read some of Marcus' rationale behind the decision and I'm happy that he made a healthy choice for himself.  Marcus, thanks for the sharing—and the sausage.  :)

Agency.books
Former agency.com colleagues Anotai Batz and Andy Hobsbawm, have written books.  Actually, Andy is in the process of writing his upcoming book which will be called "Small is the Next Big Thing".  He shares the first chapter in his blog.  Here's a very brief sample:

"The story of this book is about a fundamental shift in the balance of power and centre of energy in the modern world: away from the monolithic, the hierarchical and the centralised, and towards the miniature, the networked and the distributed. But the story starts before then."

Speaking of small, Anotei has gone the private publishing route via Lulu. Her book is titled "My Life in Black and White". The book is actually a journal that you write yourself.  Anotei provides the framework and questions.  Interesting concept.

TED
TED's new site offers multiple ways to view the video content from the full range of TED speakers including "themes".  The video quality is very decent and offers some nice interactive features such as re-sizing and "chapters".   Go and kill and hour or four.

 

Who's Content is it Anyway?

For the past several years, since this whole "Internet thing" has really taken off—we've been told that handing over control in your content, your brand, your PR, etc.—is risky business.   Well it is—there are no guarantees.  Remember the Chevy Tahoe ads?  Give your consumers a blank piece of paper to write on and you don't know what they'll say about you.

But how safe is it to have complete control of your content these days?  A couple of stories have come to my attention recently.  At first—I thought they were totally unrelated and I planned on writing about them separately.  Now I'm not so sure.  In my Marketing Profs Webinar, I called out USA Today's re-design as a good experience citing the easy registration and social features as a big plus.  Media Post has just published a report which claims that registrations on USA Today are up a whopping 380%.

"USA TODAY'S COMMUNITY-CENTRIC MAKEOVER LAST month appears to be paying off in dividends. Indeed, the site has seen a dramatic 380% increase in registrations since the re-launch, while its unique visitor rates have grown 21% from February, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.

Targeting today's interaction-hungry readers, the Gannett-owned paper last month relaunched its Web site in the guise of a social network laden with video, blogs, dynamic content-sharing and recommendation tools.

As such, the new USAToday.com includes expanded user-profile and social-network capabilities, and public comment and content contribution tools across the site. In March, nearly 40,000 user comments were posted on the site."

Can this be chalked up to ROC (Return On Community)?  Well, not really.  The re-design offered huge improvements all around including a fast and simple registration process which never takes you off the front page.  But I do think that the social features have something to do with it as well.  So USA Today hands a little "control" over to their community and it turns out pretty well for them.

What about when we seek to control our content?  Is there any risk in this?  Traditionally there never was—but consider this recent development.   Bruce Nussbaum writes about the fact that he was not allowed to blog snippets from A Beautiful Diversion, a free downloadable PDF organized by GK VanPatter of NextD (a site dedicated to the design community).  Bruce writes:

"I was censored by GK and told I could not take the 50 comments off the pdf on his journal. This is what he emailed me: "I believe you have been ill advised in your “Enemies” mission. I don’t agree/share your views and ways, so honestly I have no interest in continuing Beautiful Diversion on your “blog”. We are quite happy with its present distribution. Thousands have already been downloaded from the NextD site."

OK, let this sink in for a moment.  First we have to ask ourselves "does GK have the right"?  Yes, GK has every right—the document is his doing.  And he exercised his right through expressing his wishes via e-mail.  Now, let's ask a similar question of Bruce—does he have a right to blog about his feelings of "censorship"?  Yes, he does. It's Bruce's blog and he exercised his right to speak his mind.  In the spirit of transparency, Bruce asked my opinion on this matter and I advised him that if he had strong feelings about this, that he should make it an even broader issue.  Bruce did just that—but he went further and added the details of his interaction with GK.  This surprised me, but I guess it shows just how strongly he feels about it.

I have to say that I'm fascinated by the dynamic of these events.  On one hand we've got mainstream media outlets such as USAToday and BusinessWeek either designing for their communities—or wanting to distribute it's content.  On the other hand, you've got a community member seeking to control the format of his content.  No disrespect to GK who I don't know—but I'm not sure what the design community gains by this move.  Nussbaum's blog has some quality readership, and to be honest—I'm not confident that the average businessperson would download the sixty page document and read it word for word.  In my opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea to get some of that content out to a broader audience in bite-sized nuggets.  Is this so bad?

So there you have it.  It feels a little like bizarro world to me, but I could be wrong.  I'll leave this post with a question put toward the contributors of A Beautiful Diversion.  Was GK doing the right thing by asking Bruce not to re-distribute your thoughts on his BusinessWeek blog?  The question seems only fair since you are the ones who provided the content in the first place.  Would love to hear from you.

Contributors: Sir George Cox, Tony Fry, John Thackara, Elizabeth Pastor, Anne-Marie Willis, Tim Brown, GK VanPatter, Neal Moore, Geoff Crook, George Kembel, Ellen Lupton, Thomas Noller, Mark Breitenberg, Kristian Bengtsson, Gill Wildman, Cameron Tonkinwise, Gunnar Swanson, MP Ranjan, Uday Dandavate, Richard Buchanan, William Tate, Paul J. Nini, Martin Mangold, Peter Schreck, Nate Burgos, Jaime Barrett, Birgit H. Jevnaker, Jean Schneider, Thomas S. Bley, Michelle Siegel, Chris Arnold, Dan Roam, Adam Kallish, Stefan Holmlid, Hans Kaspar Hugentobler, Alun Price, Nicola Morelli, Shelley Evenson, William Tschumy, Zachary Jean Paradis, Brett Patching, Leslie Alfin, Tiiu Poldma, Loretta Staples, Jørgen Rasmussen, Claire Hartten, Michael Erlhoff, Eric Niu, Alex Cheek, David Sless, Christopher Vice.

The Conversation Virus

"We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it "

~Billy Joel

Andrew Davies throws his hat in the ring and visualizes what he sees as the differences between "Monologue Advertising" and "Conversation Advertising".   In his visual (above), he describes the newly emerging consumer dynamic as "Consumer DJ's".  It's an analogy I've read about in other places—but works well in the context of his visual.  "Consumers" are exhibiting DJ-like "traits" as we mix and mash our on-demand lifestyles while expressing ourselves creatively.

And so the conversation virus spreads.  We didn't start it.  The authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto didn't start it.  If we are to give credit—it belongs to the first individual who decided to listen before choosing to speak (or grunt).  Now all we have to do is unlearn some of the things we've been taught as professional adults and move forward.

Sun-shaped Collaboration

"Collaborate. The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife, exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential."
~Bruce Mau Design

Let's take another look at "Sun-shaped people"—but before we do that, what is your perception of collaboration?  When you hear the word "collaboration" do you envision a group of people holding hands and singing Kum Ba Ya in perfect unison?  To some people this is the textbook definition of collaboration.  But to others who have collaborated to create something worthy—we know it's messy business.  It's not neat and tidy.  It's organized chaos in some ways.  Authentic collaboration is more like a mosh pit than a carefully rehearsed waltz.  Make no mistake, even a mosh pit has a code of ethics and boundaries.  But anyone who's ever been in one (I have) will tell you that the people in mosh pits are the nicest you'll ever meet.

So what happens when we take several Sun-shaped people who bring both passion and diverse skills to the table?  Here's a hint:

Get ready to mosh. 

Sun-shaped people can actually work very well together when galvanized by a common purpose which each individual shares.  Take a look at the visual.  Each "ray" from one individual "dovetails" with another.  I could envision the "Sun-shaped" team members rotating—swapping the respective dovetails as the project time line moves forward.

So this leaves us with a couple of thoughts:  what does collaboration really mean anyway, and how can we persuade passionate professionals who tend to be "Sun-shaped"—to rally around a shared purpose?

Picture of the Day

Sunny skies in Chicago. Spring is around the bend.

T-Shaped + Sun-Shaped People

As you probably already know—I'm a big fan of the "T-shaped" mindset.  So much so, that I dedicated the notion of it on my personal Website.  The first time I read about this was in an Article in Fast Company written by IDEO's Tim Brown.  The article is called "Strategy By Design".  It's a must read.  Here's a snippet of how Tim describes a "T-Shaped" individual. 

"We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they're willing to try to do what you do. We call them "T-shaped people." They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T -- they're mechanical engineers or industrial designers. But they are so empathetic that they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That's what you're after at this point -- patterns that yield ideas."

This notion instantly connected with me.  I approach creativity as a "generalist"—blending skills in multiple areas.  Recently I thought about what my "T" would look like if I visualized it.  I put my "principal skill" in the vertical leg as "design".  I've always been one kind of designer or another.  Then I put my "branches" in the areas of brand strategy and user experience.  These seemed to be the best labels I could come up with regarding how I approach my work (or at least try to).

But lately I've been wondering—is there another way to look at this?  What if we took a more basic human truth.  Most of us have some kind of passion in a specific area.  For some—it's a hobby or interest.  For others, it's directly related to our work.  I fall into the latter category.  If you were to ask me what my "passion is"—I would probably say that at the core, it's creative problem solving.  This is pretty broad and incorporates a lot of disciplines that can relate to it.  But that's the point.  What if we start with our passions regardless of discipline, and look at the skills which radiate out from it the same way we think about how rays from the sun radiate warmth?

Does this make us "Sun-shaped people"?

OK, I know I'm getting a bit literal here.  And I'm not proposing another way to bucket ourselves.  But it was interesting to try this.  Once I started doing the second visual here—when I began with my core passion vs. competency, it was easy for the "rays" to flow out from the center.  I learned something about myself while doing this.  More importantly it makes me think about the bigger implications of being a "passionate professional".  I wonder how individuals like this fare in risk-averse corporate settings where the focus is primarily "the bottom line".  Most corporations will tell you that they want passionate people who think differently.  But what happens when they get one?  What do they do with these types of individuals?

How does a company like Google operate behind the scenes?  I don't know since I don't work there, but I wonder if it's different from companies who seem to be averse to taking risks and experimenting.  And who are the Sun-shaped people out there anyway?  Are they designers?  Are they businesspeople?  Are they entrepreneurs?  Are they the ones doing all the "2.0" stuff out there?

Labels.  It's a double edged sword.  Who is a designer exclusively these days anyway?  Who is an "Ad guy/gal"?  Who's still making widgets? (in the economic sense)  Are you?  Call it T-shaped—call it Sun-shaped.  How has your job description changed in the past 6 years?  I hear a lot about information Architects doing storyboards and incorporating storytelling into the process—I don't remember this 7 or 8 years ago.  I see Art Directors concerned about usability.  I see designers writing.  I see Planners being part of the creative process—part of the solutions.

I don't see this all the time—but I often wonder if we'll be seeing this more or less frequently in the years to come.  What is your job title anyway?  Can you narrow it down to one thing?  One thing that I like about the Sun-shaped model is that, metaphorically speaking—it's about shining and radiating.  It's about sharing warmth vs. keeping it to yourself.  And like the actual Sun, people—just like planets tend to gather 'round it.

Food for thought.   

Remembering Sandra J. Kerley

Most of you who know CK have probably heard the news that her Mother died very suddenly and unexpectedly as a result of an accident in the home.  You can read about it here. 

CK's mom has a name.  It's Sandra Johnson Kerley.  Not only did Sandra raise a wonderful daughter, but she was generous and kind.  One of her favorite charities was Habitat for Humanity—a well run organization dedicated to providing housing options for those who have none.

You may be seeing this badge on a lot of familiar blogs in the days to come.  It's not to make us look good.  We want to honor the memory of Sandra by collecting funds which will then be donated to Habitat for Humanity.  Even if you don't know CK, this something worth doing.  The badge should link to the site where we have Paypal set up.  You can also go to the site we have dedicated here.

If you know CK through her blog, this is an opportunity to show her you care.  We talk about conversation—let's not forget that action is a part of it.  This is a community. 

Thanks for listening.

Anatomy of an Idea

Where do ideas come from?  How do they move beyond the realm of abstract thought into something more tangible?

Every day is an opportunity to learn.  To observe.  To ask ourselves "why?".  And to take things apart before we put them back together.  To my surprise—the article I authored for BusinessWeek ended up being featured as the lead story in the Innovation section.  And I just noticed that it's in the Top 5 most read stories at #4.  Did you know that this article would have never come about it wasn't for the actions of the following individuals?  Here's how:

Valeria Maltoni
Several months ago, Valeria sent me a handwritten note including this phrase "You are designing conversations".  It was this simple combination or words which sparked the initial idea that designers could become conversation architects.  I thought about how the role of information architects used to be about organizing information and how this is evolving.  I asked myself—could we become conversation architects?

Jessi Hempel
Jessi works at BusinessWeek and featured my blog a while back.  I sent her an e-mail saying I had an idea around designers/marketers being "conversation architects".  That's pretty much all I had.  Jessi forwarded my thought to Helen Walters, an editor at BusinessWeek and we began working on the idea some more.

Helen Walters
Helen took the initial draft and encouraged me to broaden the context.  She's also responsible for some pretty darn good editing.  And she made the brilliant move of turning a key line from the article into the headline "It's The Conversation Economy, Stupid".  I buried the lead, and Helen dug it right out again.

Ann Handley
Ann brought me in to Marketing Profs to do a Webinar titled "Emerging Media's Impact on the Customer Experience".  Though I found the Webinar to be challenging, it basically ended up acting as my revised outline for current version the article.

Bruce Nussbaum
Bruce caught wind of the Webinar and sent out the signals that he liked what he saw.  This added momentum to the idea.

You
None of this would have happened if it weren't for YOU—the active participants who add to the daily conversation here.

So that's the anatomy behind the article.  That's how an abstract idea turns into something more tangible.  Inspiration can come from anywhere, at any time.  Collaboration is not always what you think it is.  And challenging yourself in ways that make you uncomfortable can lead to good things.  That's what I learned today.

The End of Thought Leadership (As We Know It)

(click for larger image)

Thanks to Karl Long, I got a early heads up that my BusinessWeek article has already gone live.  The title is "It's The Conversation Economy, Stupid": go and check it out if you have a few minutes to spare.  And special thanks to Helen Walters from BusinessWeek who did some fantastic editing on the piece.  I really enjoyed that process, and it made the writing much better.

But I'd like to talk about something else that is both directly and indirectly linked to the conversation economy.  The diagram associated with this post basically illustrates two possible paths that one can take in pursuit of becoming a "thought leader".  In my visual I describe these two paths as the "round world" way and "flat world" way.  The point of this visual is to illustrate the different types of behavior one can take to help spread the idea virus.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, then you already know which path I have chosen.  Prior to starting Logic + Emotion as I've stated before—I had never written a whitepaper.  In fact, I once wrote a draft for one which never made it past the "formal process".  With only an undergrad degree in Design—I  don't have an academia pedigree, and it's only been recently (post blog) that I've developed an extensive network.  I certainly had no relationships with the MSM, and I was not hired at Digitas to bring any thought leadership to the table—I was hired to be a Creative Director.  My everyday job responsibilities (which I seldom discuss here) are very much focused around using my abilities as a director to serve our clients.  Think about this in contrast to individuals who are brought into an organization where thought leadership is part of their job.  In the "flat world" way they work with their internal PR folks to publish content and make appearances.  It's a coordinated affair.

What I'm trying to say here is that this all may be changing.  I've bucked the system, just as I'm sure that many of you have as well.  In the conversation economy, dialogue rules.  Monologue, and rehearsed presentations play second fiddle.  An academic or corporate pedigree is nice—but really doesn't matter.  If you have something valuable to say and you are willing to listen, share and participate—then you have the opportunity to "submit" your ideas and be heard.

These are the new rules of the conversation age, or economy or whatever you want to call it.  This is why, if you  have adverse reactions when you hear strange words like "blogging" or "twittering"—then you are a fool.  I'm sorry but it's true.  I'm not saying that we should all jump on the bandwagon of the latest buzzword or technology that gets thrown out there.  I'm actually saying the opposite.  We need to investigate the latest tools to the best of our abilities and decide how they impact our own worlds.  The blogging movement was never about blogging in the first place—it's about a new way to share, connect, collaborate, discuss, debate, and ideate.

It's always been about us.  About people.  Eliminate the word "blog" from your vocabulary and you are still left with the power of personal publishing and content distribution.  These ideals will never go away—they are hear to stay.  This is not a fad.

So back to my original point.  How is thought leadership changing?  Thought leadership can now come from anywhere.  We don't need to work with PR.  We are PR.  If we can't schmooze at events Because it's not "part of our job"—we will schmooze virtually.  Our networks will be formed digitally.  What good is a PHD if we can only lecture and not facilitate a meaningful dialogue?  Have you ever met an individual with Aspergers?  They are usually highly intelligent—some are in the genius realm.  But they often struggle with social graces, nuances and conversation outside their areas of expertise.  Monologue isn't difficult, but social interactions can tend to be a one-way street.  Sometimes I feel like traditional marketing and to some extent thought leadership is like a form of Aspergers—the interactions are a bit narrowly focused on getting their own viewpoint across and it's slightly awkward when things get informal.

I believe that the "flat world" path to thought leadership will not go away.  Corporations will still implement formal processes that require defined parameters and requirements.  Some will say "yes, you can do this" to some while others say "no, you can't—it's not part of your job".  Academia will continue to play a vital role.  Schmoozing at the conferences and "being seen" alongside the right people will always be a part of our social fabric.  We are social beings.  But I do believe that another path exists which extends opportunities do those of us who don't have the connections.  Or at least don't start out that way.  We will build our foundations digitally.  Our "connections" will begin here and move their way into the physical world.  Our relationships will be formed purely out of merit—from what we have to offer and what we are willing to share.  These relationships will strengthen and evolve as we develop them outside of our digital networks.  And some mainstream organizations may take notice.

This brings me to the BusinessWeek article.  It wouldn't have been possible without the technology of personal publishing (AKA blogging).  I've been able to leverage this platform to make my own rules as opposed to playing by the flat word rules.  Like I said, I'm not the only one.   I guess that leaves us all with the question of "now what"?  And I don't have an answer.  Actually, I have the same question.  I just wonder what will happen when there are more stories like mine that pop up all over the place.  What then?  Will we be accepted—or "encouraged" to forsake the flat world path for the traditional round world way?  What do you think?

Picture of the Day

Grandpa Glass and Mason in Michigan....

The Conversation Age

Some exciting things are in the air.  This Sunday, BusinessWeek will be publishing a 1300+ word article I've written around the "Conversation Architect" mindset.  More of that to come on Sunday evening.  And in true conversation/co-creation fashion—Drew McLellan and Gavin Heaton are spearheading a collaborative e-book effort titled "The Conversation Age".  I'll be contributing by designing both the cover as well as talking about "conversation architecture" and "the relationship renaissance". 

Some of the other contributers include:

• Gavin Heaton
• Drew McLellan
• CK
• Valeria Maltoni
• Emily Reed
• Katie Chatfield
• Mack Collier
• Lewis Green
• Sacrum
• Ann Handley
• Mike Sansone
• Paul McEnany
• Roger von Oech
• Anna Farmery
• David Armano
• Bob Glaza
• Mark Goren
• Matt Dickman
• Scott Monty
• Richard Huntington

But you can participate too (just e-mail Drew).  Here's some additional info:

"The Conversation Age", an e-book featuring submissions from 100 bloggers, all addressing the subject of "conversation" from different perspectives.  And in the spirit of community, the proceeds from the sale of the book will go to Variety International, a charity dedicated to helping children across the globe.  You can learn more about the project from Gavin and Drew, including how you can get involved with this exciting project.

Thinking In Pictures

I'm sorry, but the people behind the one laptop per child display moments of brilliance.  I recently visited the site and was greeted by this visual.  I think it says a lot with very little.  And the nod to the Sugar OS which runs on the laptop is a no-brainer.  Here's a fun exercise for you.  Take your own brand and see if you can break it down into a simple statement.  Then use images to make it visual.  Print it out and hang it up next to your workspace and when you feel like you've lost your way—take a look at it to refresh your memory.  PS, this works for personal or "micro brands" too.

Insights Fueling Ideas

Here's some interesting Stats I recieved recently via e-mail from Christopher G. Fox of Bain & Company:

Bain & Company asked over 1200 global executives about their attitudes towards top management tools and trends, and much of the data suggest that executives across industries are showing new seriousness about consumer insight:

•   Nearly 6 in 10 executives are concerned that their products and services are viewed as commodities, i.e., that their value is easily replaceable by cheaper competitors
•   Just over half of executives believe that insufficient consumer insight is hindering their performance
•   Customer loyalty is understood to be an issue, but 44% of executives do not believe their company has a clear vision for how to improve it
•   So-called "soft" issues matter internally as well. 91% of the respondents felt that culture was as important as strategy for business success

Executive anxieties about losing touch with their customers is driving higher and higher usage of customer tools such as CRM and segmentation. These tools have moved from below average use to second and third place, respectively, in the 10 years since Bain has included them in the survey:

•    84% of executives are now using CRM
•    82% are using segmentation to tailor their marketing programs and offerings to groups of customers who exhibit common patterns of behavior
•    New tools are emerging. Use of loyalty management is at 51%, and the use of ethnographic methods to observe customers in the real world is becoming more mainstream, at 35%. But in 2006, each of those tools rank below average in terms of executive satisfaction.

Thought of the Day

"I speak with marketing professionals every day (both client and agency side) who are defining social media strategies but are not themselves active users of social media services, much less students of them.  They market on blogs, but aren't themselves bloggers (or even regular blog readers.)  They define strategies for social networking but don't themselves use social networking sites like MySpace or Facebook.

Of course they are burning to "do something" in Second Life but often haven't even gone through the registration process (if they have, many more don't make it past Orientation Island.)  And never mind newer social services like Twitter and Tumblr -- they've never even heard of them (but as soon as they do, they'll want to find ways to tap those tools for marketing purposes too.)

Yet, when all is said and done, they don't understand why their social media campaigns didn't work..."

~Greg Verdino

Enemy of Design Poll Results

So here's where we landed in response to Bruce Nussbaum's "Enemy of Design" post.  The safe choice won out.  :)  Actually the safe choice was probably the sane choice as much of Bruce's post was meant to be provocative to get us thinking.  But a good portion of you agreed with the sentiment.  The "other responses" show what some of you typed in.  Biggest surprise for me at least was that 5 of you could care less.  Too bad as I think there were a lot of important issues raised in Bruce's piece.

Any last thoughts on this before we move on?

MVB Round 2: David and Cuban-liath

Well, Mark Cuban the Blog Maverick himself fought dirty against our good friend the Servant of Chaos via Jaffe's MVB competition.  And even with his resorting to biting and scratching—he barely took Gavin out.  ;)

But payback is a you-know-what...

So, now I face the giant billionaire media maven with nothing but a handful of RSS feeds and my trusty sling.  Who will prevail?   VOTE NOW

And congrats to Roger von Oech for making it to the sweet sixteen.  He's up against Brand Autopsy.  Go Creative Think!  Here's the rest of the lineup.

• Heavyweight Matchup 1: Seth vs Rubel
• Brand Autopsy vs Creative Think
• Wired vs Why Business People Speak Like Idiots
• Heavyweight Matchup 2: Russel Davies vs Hugh Macleod (Gaping Void)
• Jaffe Juice vs Cool Hunting
• Church of the Customer vs Spring Wise
• Logic + Emotion vs Mark Cuban
• Beyond Madison Avenue vs Radical Trust

Fool for a Day

I was a fool today.  But maybe you were too?  No, I'm not quitting blogging—I was just having some fun with the day.  A day of fools. The nice thing about April Fools Day is that it's an open invitation to not take ourselves too seriously.  It's an opportunity to pull a prank or be a good sport about it if you were on the receiving end.  There were quite a few pranks going on today including Techorati's jumbling of letters which made for some interesting word combinations.

So how did you react to the day?  Were you a good sport?  Did you play along?  Did you pull a prank?  Did you laugh?  Or maybe you were just annoyed?  Humor is a touchy subject as it's fickle.  What's humorous in one culture or individual is often times offensive to another.  Whenever we attempt a moment of levity we risk offending someone.  So the question is when do we take the risk and why?

I think we take the risk when we're pretty sure that no one's going to get hurt and we have a chance at giving people the gift of something unexpected.  Fact is that most of us enjoy being fooled.  It's why we go to movies, read fiction and seek adventure.  We want something unexpected to happen every once in a while to make our everyday lives interesting.  Take a look at how the notion of Suspension of Disbelief is defined.

Today we payed homage to Sir Tom Foolery.  Some of you probably figured out my "trick" from the beginning (Ann Handley!).  Others fell for it and experienced something unexpected followed by a "punchline".  Some of your comments made me laugh, and I suspect you may have had a good chuckle as well.  At least that was my hope!

So, thanks for being such good sports.  The conversation will continue here—right where it left off.  :)

My Last Post. Thank You for Everything.

I'm not big on long goodbyes so I'm going to keep this short.  After much thought and consideration, I've decided to stop blogging on Logic + Emotion.  There are a number of reasons for this which I really can't get into—I hope you'll respect this decision as it wasn't an easy one.

I just want to say THANK YOU, all of you for everything.  It's been an amazing year and I've learned so much from all of you.  I can probably go on and on, but it's just better that I don't.  Hopefully you can understand this even though I'm not giving you much to go on.

Please know that I will always be available via e-mail, and I'm still keeping my Twitter account open.  I will also keep this Typepad account open for as long as possible to serve as an archive etc.

Again, thank you for everything.  The conversation will still go on—just not here.  I've done one last visual, for you to download.

Thanks again for everything.

-David.