Logic+Emotion

10 Good Tips For Any Business

Paula Drum who was involved with many of H&R Block's social business initiatives recently announced her pursuit of a new opportunity. I've met Paula a few times and she's both smart and approachable—I wish her the best of luck in her new venture. She's also left us with a bit of wisdom called "10 Tips For Social Media Marketers" that I highly recommend reading and contemplating over.  Stop what you are doing and just go read the entire write up. Below are a just a few of my favorite points.  Good luck Paula!

• Media $ versus human capital – I mentioned human capital earlier.  Companies can spend a lot of money trying to launch a social media program.  For the most part, I would really classify those efforts as an integrated marketing campaign.  Your approach and funding of an integrated marketing campaign needs to be in line with the size and scope of your overall marketing budget.  Social media programs can be a lot more cost efficient from a media budget standpoint, but, you still need human capital to run them.  In many cases you may be trading media $ for the human capital needed to run a program.  For example if you are taking the first step of listening and engaging in the conversation, there is no media buy necessary.  However, you do need to have some person dedicated to scanning and responding.  Ideally, that person is an employee of the company.  Why this should be an employee leads to the next tip.

• Your agency needs to walk the walk – I hate paying an agency to learn on my dime.  When we started three years ago, social media was so new and changing so rapidly that we were all learning together.  Today there are many different agencies that are building expertise in social media including public relations firms, interactive agencies and newly formed agencies focusing on social media.  As you select an agency partner make sure that they don’t just talk the talk but also walk the walk.  Are they active in social media?  Does the agency blog or twitter?  Judge the agency not solely on their pitch, but also on their actions.
  
• Selling the C-Suite or ROI – One of the most popular questions that I get asked is how to build support at the C-level.  Having a clearly defined objective is critically important to gain support of any initiative.  However, everyone is always focused on the ROI or return on the investment.  I have defined ROI a little differently in this new and emerging space as Risk Of Ignoring.  There is an absolute change occurring in how we communicate and seek information as a society.  The millennial generation is the first digital native generation with very different expectations of companies and marketing.  In the not so distant future the millennials will be a larger purchasing demographic than the boomers.  Not understanding this segment will be detrimental for future marketers.  Watch Shift Happens and share it with your senior leadership team.  It is a great example of how we are living in exponential times.

The Future of Advertising. WTF?

The Future of Advertising. WTF?

View more presentations from David Armano.

Tomorrow I'm meeting up with some not so old friends and giving a talk on the "Future of Advertising" hosted by the Minneapolis College of Art and Design. To be honest, I'm not sure if I'm qualified to talk about the future of anything least Advertising, especially since my background prior to all the "social" has been primarily in Web design. I've never even worked on an ad. But, what the hell, I gave it a shot. The above slideshow illustrates a few things I'm thinking of as it pertains where things could be going.

Short story? The Ad industry, like many is in the throes of significant change. Agencies and clients are shifting gears from high production value, "360 degree campaigns" and opting to explore new areas to see what works (and measuring along the way). Users on the Web have developed a taste for authentic communication, often produced by their peers who are very capable of doing this (blogs, reviews, forums etc.). Word of mouth (both positive and negative) spreads more rapidly than ever before and traditional online advertising (such as banners) are largely ignored and rarely clicked on. Many organizations haven't adapted, still working with production staff that may not have the appropriate skill sets or agility to create lightweight initiatives that can turn on a dime. Many organizations still segment groups into "creative", "copy" "strategy", etc.  The reality is that digital keeps forcing these disciplines to collide as seamlessly as technology can be mashed. Organizational disciplines are evolving as well. When a product community helps influence the development of your products is that marketing, R&D or both?

Marketers are fighting to be heard, and few are empowered to actually influence the development of products or services. Meanwhile, some organizations have figured out how to amplify the value of their products and services through their most vocal and connected consumers. Except we're not really consumers anymore are we? We've adapted as well—or at least our behavior has.

Technologies that influence our behavior (like getting us to watch videos on our phones or PCs, update our status daily and spend countless hours managing our online identities) are dictating our future right before our eyes. Whether it comes from Madison Ave, Silicon Valley or somewhere across the globe is irrelevant.

Anyway, hope the slides reflect that. Would be curios to get your thoughts. I can always make a few tweaks before tomorrow.

Re-designing #followfriday

I first called Twitter a "conversation ecosystem" back in 2007 (BusinessWeek) during my initial months of using the service. That's because it is. It's living breathing complex system with all types of dynamics, customs, nuances, etc. It truly is an environment vs. a Web software application. The people make it that, and this became clear to me after watching it evolve from something it was never really designed to be in the first place.

So when Hillel Fuld asked me to "re-tweet" (this is Twitter's version of forwarding, passing along etc.) the above message, I couldn't help but see a opportunity for a "re-design". And we're not alone, Dave Malouf and others have expressed similar thoughts.

#Followfriday is a phenomenon on Twitter where every Friday of the week, Twitter users make recommendations of who to follow by putting out there twitter names followed by the phrase #followfriday. This tells people in their network they should follow their suggestions and the hashtag "#" aggregates all of these suggestions.  Below is a typical example.

Now while the beauty of any social ecosystem is the organic and flexible nature of customs such as #followfriday, I'd like to suggest that there could be an opportunity to "re-design" how it works. As Hilz points out (originally posted by @thinkreferrals) there's a possible flaw in the delivery. Currently, most (not all) #followfriday recommendations tell you who to follow—they never tell you why. So what would that look like? Here's an example:


So, I'm going to take up Hillel's suggestion and start participating in the weekly social event as he suggests. If you're on Twitter, you don't have to. You can do whatever you want—that's part of the appeal. But I think his suggestion is better "designed". Making one recommendation and following it up with justification as to "why" that person should be followed. I just think it's a better solution to a problem that many Twitter users have "who is worth following here?". If you notice, a direct answer to that question is to tell the person "who". But in reality, the better solution could be answering "why?".

What do you think?

The Mainstream Adoption Curve

Word Of Mouth Visualized: The Winning Entry

Several weeks ago, I extended an invitation to visualize the concept of "word of mouth". The winning participant in this exercise will receive a free pass to WOMM-U happening in South Beach, Miami. (a 1,500 value for non WOMMA members). After reviewing all of the submissions (you can view them in the comments) I've selected Mario Vellandi's depiction of "word of mouth" (above).

Here's why I like it. Mario breaks it down into three potential scenarios. Promoters, passives and detractors. I think the visual shows that passives who have mediocre experiences don't talk about them and so there is no conversation around the subject (this is where most word of mouth marketing initiatives fail). Promoters have a good experience and tell people about it, while detractors who have a bad experience with something tell even more people about it. There seems to be a bit of truth to this and I like the fact that Mario captured the double edged sword of it. Word of mouth isn't always positive, it's often negative and that's where there's opportunities to engage detractors, change opinions and improve products and services. In fact, that could be another scenario displayed in the visual.

But I like what Mario did and I understood it immediately which was the main quality that made it a win for me (and let's face it, the middle finger was a nice touch). So congrats to Mario for a job well done and for taking the time to participate. I'll be reaching out to the event organizers to let them know. Congratulations and enjoy South Beach

Will Twitter See An "Oprah Effect", Or Is Influence Overrated?

Influence Ripples (2006)

Related: Oprah responsible for over a million new Twitter users?
Oprah Winfrey has not only joined Twitter, but is actively using the service. She began using the service on her show and since her first communication her amount of followers went from 54,864 at  9:30pm CST. to 215,961 followers (in a 24 hour period). The NY Times reports:

"The popularity of Twitter, which allows users to broadcast messages of 140 characters or less, has been soaring in recent months. In March, the service had more than 14 million unique visitors, compared to eight million visitors in February. Ms. Winfrey’s endorsement is only likely to draw more attention to the San Francisco start-up and propel it beyond its niche audience.“Twitter has officially hit the mainstream,” said Megan Calhoun, founder of TwitterMoms, a social networking community for Web-savvy mothers. “People who have never even heard of it will be really intrigued and join. A whole new demographic will be introduced to Twitter.”



I'm hoping to keep an eye on what I'm referring to as the "Oprah Effect" and waiting for some numbers to come out to see what, if any influence Oprah has on the service and some of the dynamics that surround it (such as re-tweets, trending topics etc.) But for now, what I'm interested in is influence itself. If you look at the influence ripples diagram I did years ago, you'll see that there are all different levels of influence in any ecosystem. For example, Twitter itself started with a fairly small number of #4's and fewer #3's and #2's. Twitter has spread almost entirely from word of mouth, leading to press coverage but it's only been recently that we've seen true #1's (the Oprahs of the word) begin to adopt the service furthering it's exposure.

This is when influence could potentially create a perfect storm. Great numbers of "lower level" influencers can of course create a movement, and when combined with even just a few "higher level" influencers who have access to communication platforms—a critical mass of awareness and influence can be reached. This is where Twitter finds itself at the moment. It has millions of "everyday people" who love it and evangelize on behalf of the service. It also has thousands of highly connected people doing the same. And it's now entering a phase where hundreds of incredibly visible and internationally known personalities are joining the ranks.

While only time will tell if this perfect storm further accelerates Twitter's already rapid growth, there are some other interesting clues to chew on as we think about how people like Oprah will affect Twitter's ecosystem. For example, Evan Williams who founded Twitter saw an increase in his own influence by 18% since Oprah's show where she featured the service (see below)

source: @ericpeterson

I asked a few of my own Twitter followers if they thought their could be an "Oprah Effect" and created #opraheffect to see what they had to say:

While the responses are varied and there's no shortage of opinions, I'm curious to see if this latest burst of awareness with individuals such as Oprah Winfrey (@oprah) and Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) has on the size and influence of the network itself. Ashton who now has well over one million followers thanks to a highly publized competition with CNN is currently the most followed individual on the network. It's worth pointing out that at the end of the day, it's not just about someone like Oprah jumping on, but how they use the service. If Oprah chose to "tweet" from her show, live—on a daily basis you could be sure that her fans would jump on the bandwagon one at a time. If she doesn't do anything from this point out, the "oprah effect" if there was one diminishes over time.

So does any of this matter? Well, maybe not on a personal level unless the service is impared as a result. And lots of people don't like the fact that Twitter is being used as a broadcast tool (it can be used to both broadcast and engage). But from a business and relevance perspective, it does matter. As Twitter continues it's rapid growth, it ventures further away from an obscure internet service to something that could potentially enjoy Facebook like numbers. In short, a perfect storm of all levels of influencers matters, because like Facebook—if all your friends are on it, you'll want to be on it too.

After The Jump

Before you decide you're going to jump, you stand there, looking down. You realize that at any point you can turn around and that you don't have to do it. No one is forcing you—you can turn around at any moment and climb back down to the safety of solid ground. Thousands of thoughts and images flash through the synapses of your mind as you think about what you are going to do. This of course all happens in nanoseconds.

And in what seems as just as brief a time, you actually decide that you're going to jump. Even if you've stood at the precipice for hours, days, weeks, months. You realize the moment you do it right before your brain even has a chance to fire off the signals to neurons that require your body to make the first move.

Then, you jump.

And what happens next? You're in free fall. Even if you're heading toward a safe landing, water perhaps—you're at the mercy of an element that you don't have a lot of control in. All you can do is go with it until your body makes contact. That's what happens after the jump. Sometimes you just have to go with it.

Use The Gifts You're Given

Yesterday was a big day. I made a huge step, probably the biggest of my life so far. When you're visible as I am and you do something like this, you get a lot of feedback. Much of it is supportive, and there's also criticism. Criticism, isn't a bad thing—I see it as a chance to reflect and an opportunity to challenge yourself and grow. After going through a few opinions, I started doubting that I've actually done anything tangible, anything worth doing. There was a perspective shared that it's more important to build things than just think about them. That person made a good point—and so I chewed it over for a while.

I started thinking about my own abilities. What do I do best? Well, I visualize thoughts and ideas (above)—that's the gift I've been given. And immediately I began feeling like I had the wrong gift, and it brought all kinds of memories back, realizing that I was never really good at "making" things. I learned this early on in woodworking shops. It's never been my thing.

And the thoughts continued, you begin to wish you had different abilities and you doubt yourself. It's only natural. But then it hit me.

You have to work with the gifts you're given.

This is something I have to remind myself. You're given a select set of abilities in this world which you can either nurture or ignore. You have to work with what you have, this is a moment of clarity that can make all the difference. And what about the things you wish you could do? That's where you surround yourself with the people who complement you. You seek those who do things you can't. You look for people who will challenge and inspire you. If you can't put your thoughts into words, you find people who can write. If you can't build something with your hands, you work with those who can. If you're not good at business but have ideas that are, you partner with someone that's your complement. It's moments like these in life where you immediately ask yourself, "do I have what it takes"? I'm hoping the answer for me is using whatever gifts I've been given to build something meaningful, knowing all along that I can't do it alone.

And Now For Something Completely Different

I've decided that it's time to shake up some things in more than a few ways. As of today, I will no longer be employed with Critical Mass and I'm starting a new job with Dachis Corporation, where I will be working with Jeff Dachis, Peter Kim, and Kate Niederhoffer, on something we are calling "social business design" (more on that later). On top of that, I'm in the process of moving the family to Austin where the main office will be located. We're ready for warmer weather and a different style of living that only a town like Austin can offer. These are both huge changes and I can't believe I'm writing this. It feels a bit surreal.

Before I go into anything about the new opportunity and new life I hope to build in Austin, I wanted to reflect on my time with Critical Mass and the opportunities I've had here. I've been working in interactive since 1997,and in the digital marketing space since 1999. I came from the Web design side spending nearly six years at Agency.com and then two at Digitas. I was nearly done with the interactive agency scene but decided that there was something different about Critical Mass. And there was. I've been able to work alongside some of the best, brightest and above all, nicest people in the industry. "CMers" as we call ourselves are special and I feel like I've been given opportunities here that I would have never had elsewhere. I was fortunate enough to join the company when we started our own blogging efforts on Experience Matters and helped run that for nearly 2 years. The leadership team at CM was supportive when I asked them to start a Twitter account nearly two years ago (now being maintained by CMer Len Kendall) and I had loads of fun turning on the "beta cam" and a variety of events leveraging our "Always In Beta" site that we practically built overnight.

I've been able to work with a variety of clients ranging from P&G to Citi to Valvoline and Hyatt and got to participate in one of coolest experiences of my life, pitching and winning adidas business out of Amsterdam. I've had an amazing 2 years at this company supported by people who had enough faith in me to do give me the freedom to do the things I'm best at. And I'm grateful for all of it.

Now, back to the opportunity at hand. As I mentioned, I'm off to do something we're calling "social business design" with a few smart folks who are looking to change the way business gets done. While I can't provide intimate details on what this means, I can tell you that it's much bigger than marketing, advertising or design—and it will get to the core of how we will work differently in an age where collaboration and co-creation can drive product and service innovations. It's a big concept, and Jeff Dachis who is the original founder of Razorfish is one of the few people around who saw the potential of the 1st Web revolution before most anyone knew what the Web was. Dachis Corporation (this is interim name of the company) is positioned as follows:

"Dachis Corporation was established to create a company delivering social technology platforms and professional service programs with the stated goal of helping companies become “Social Enterprises”.This involves both deploying technology to connect people and provide them with tools to enable specific business intent, and professional services to help transform the way business processes work and the way people communicate."

And while this is the official positioning of the venture, what I can tell you from first hand experience working with several large organizations and brands is that there is a much bigger need that goes beyond "viral campaigns" and levering "social technologies" to generate word of mouth (translation, get people saying good things about your product, service or brand). There needs to be cultural changes that take place within organizations in order for them to tap the emerging ways to both develop and market their products and services in a rapidly changing business environment. There has to be a systematic bottoms up and tops down transformation starting with strategy and supported by the right types of technology which can enable more effective human and system interactions. This is the place we hope to play in.

I'm jumping into the new role right away, in fact I start on Monday and am flying out this Sunday night. We have a lot to do. I am adjusting my speaking schedule and have recently turned down a few opportunities over the next few months, so I can focus on the new challenges but will be able to dial those up again when the timing is right depending on relevancy, so please keep that in mind. I will also continue blogging here with a continued focus on quality and relevance of content with the same type of discretion and respect I use for all of my employers. And I will continue occasionally writing for Ad Age should I require a marketing fix and of course BusinessWeek. All this means you can still expect the thinking, insights and visuals you've come to expect.

There might be a bit of a shift to solving different types of problems as I've hinted around to with the positioning of the company. This is not about marketing—it's something that goes deeper into the root of how business will need to evolve. I am also very excited at the prospect of joining this venture while it's young. As a senior partner—I'll get an opportunity to steer the ship as it sets sail.

If you are curious to find out more about the people I am working with, you can check out their blogs or Twitter pages:

Jeff Dachis
Peter Kim
Kate Nieferhoffer

If you work for an organization, brand and think we could do business together, please send a note here.
For press inquiries about Dachis Corporation, please drop a line here.
If you want to join our growing team in the near future, let us know here.
I'm also officially on G-mail, so direct you can reach me directly here.

We'd love to here from you. Thanks again for all your support these past years and being a part of my life. I look forward to continued growth alongside you.

Marketing In A Post-Consumer Era

This write-up has been a long time coming and recent article in The Economist finally motivated me to kicking it out. But before I get into referencing that article, let me tell you about my dad. Several months ago I took a family vacation to Florida and got to talking to my dad about the economy. He agreed that it was in really bad shape. But then I got to thinking about how differently my dad's spending habits were from most people. My dad lived nearly his entire life in a "pre-consumer" mindset. Skeptical to marketing and advertising campaigns, he usually bought what he needed not what he wanted and held on to things to what seemed like forever. In fact, he only recently bought a flat screen television after nearly 30 YEARS of having the same TV play in the family room I grew up in. The house I grew up in has been paid off for just as many years because he didn't believe in debt and I watched as my parents held on to cars like they were family members, not putting them to rest until their time had come. This is how my parents lived.

Mass Consumption
Many of use live very differently than this. Credit lines have ensured that we can purchase beyond our means and advertising has had years to perfect it's craft making us believe that we don't want the latest and greatest product—but that we actually NEED it. In fact, if we can't have it our lives will be empty—we will be missing out we won't be living life as it was meant to be lived.

This of course is a lie.

But it's worked for years. Bigger, better, faster, newer. Get it and get it now before your neighbor does. It's a myth that's stood the test of time and fueled a global economy because it could. When it's old, throw it out or give it away. Then one day, the housing market collapsed, the stock market collapsed and we woke up scratching our heads as to why. And some of us are re-thinking the economics of mass consumption. From The Economist:

"The trend towards thrift will not disappear when the economy picks up. For one thing, those banks left standing after the bust will be far more parsimonious with consumer credit. For another, many people will still be intent on rebuilding their nest-eggs, which is reflected in sharply rising rates of saving. Sociologists also detect a distinct change in people’s behaviour. Until the downturn, folk had come to assume that “affluence” was the norm, even if they had to go deeply into debt to pay for gadgets and baubles. Now many people no longer seem consumed by the desire to consume; instead, they are planning to live within their means, and there has been a backlash against bling."



Marketing In An Era of Post-Consumerism
If the "backlash against bling" is real, then we really have to ask ourselves, what on earth is marketing going to look like to millions of people who don't want to buy like they used to—who are marketing weary? People just like my dad, only more digitally savvy. Not only that, but beyond marketing, what's the effect on companies who make their profits by continually producing new products? Bigger, better faster—guaranteed to make your life meaningful. Business and brands have a problem. 

On the business side, corporations are going to have to figure out how to incorporate more services as part of their core offerings. Think about this, while new auto sales have taken a nose dive—repair shops have been profiting due to consumers opting to keep their cars longer vs. upgrading. What if Detroit could figure out a way to benefit from this? How about new car dealers? Most of them aren't known for the level of service they offer at the dealerships. The exceptions often get great word of mouth.

On the marketing front, there needs to be some recalibration. The holy grail of measuring a marketing initiative is being able to prove that more products have sold. But what if no one's buying? What if no one's listening for that matter? Do you stop marketing? Of course not. Marketing just needs to be more meaningful and relevant to a "consumer" who is looking for more relevance and meaning in their lives. They'll repay you with loyalty and positive word of mouth if you can offer them this—but here lies the rub.

Marketing Was Designed To Take, Not Give
Marketers are faced with a design problem. Marketing was invented to take, not give. It's meant to generate awareness and sell products not provide value. There's nothing wrong with selling products and the best marketing does this well. But bear with me—if the sociologists mentioned in The Economist are correct, than marketing may have to change it's stripes in order to be relevant to a consumer who is highly empowered, connected and asking themselves "do I really need more"? As far as I can tell, the most successful social initiatives look less like marketing and more like some type of service or value add. From Comcast providing customer service on Twitter, to Whole Foods engaging customers on Facebook to Hope Depot providing information during natural disasters, to Lego enlisting enthusiasts to help them develop products—"marketing" as we know it could already be evolving into something that it was not originally designed to be. Which would be a good thing becase as The Economist reports, the current economic climate may help fuel it's evolution:

"The downturn will also accelerate the use of social media, such as blogs and social-networking sites, by consumers looking for intelligence on firms and their products. As trust in brands is eroded, people will place more value on recommendations from friends. Social media make it harder for brands to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes, but they also offer canny companies a powerful new channel through which to promote their wares and test new products and pricing strategies."

Recommendations From Trusted Sources
As my diagram illustrates, marketing can not longer be a 360 degree "blitz" that assaults consumers with reasons to buy. The future of business will be simple. Providing better products, better experiences and providing indisputable value through things like services will get the right people saying the right things about you. This means there's going to be a Dawrinism effect at play here. Inferior brands, services and marketing strategies are going to fall on deaf ears and wither away while superior brands with more relevant and meaningful ways of connecting with their customers will prevail. We must remember that the social web DOES NOT create recommendations (or criticisms), it only amplifies them and accelerates the speed at which they spread.

These are a few thoughts I've had running around in my mind about what business might look like in a post-consumer era, and I'm fairly certain that we're already seeing the face of marketing gradually change in real time. As the Economist article suggests, I feel like the shift in consumer behavior may be more long term vs. a temporary blip, People really do seem to be re-thinking there lifestyles and asking themselves "do I really need more?". If that's the case, the way business works will need to adapt along with the new attitudes. What do you think?

Highlights From Marketing 2.0, Paris

(Ford's Scott Monty surrounded by Edelman Execs on the Red Carpet)

I recently wrapped up a week in Paris mixing a bit of both business and pleasure. The first two days of my week were spent at the third annual Marketing 2.0 conference held in Paris for the second time in a row. While the structure of the conference was a bit loose and the wifi nearly non-existent, the event itself was excellent and one of the better events I've been to in a while. I credit the planning that went into hand picking a very interesting and diverse set of speakers and case studies ranging from companies such as Nike, Lego, Southwest Airlines, Jagermeister, Virgin, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, and Facebook and Ebay just to name a few. I spoke on a panel with Steven Erich from Crispin on the second day of the event. The event was intimate, with just about 200 attendees from all over the world. This also added to the strength of it. Coming off the heels of SXSW, it was nice to be a part of something smaller, the content was very digestible because of it. Here's a few highlights that stood out to me.

Embracing Your Brand's "Freaks"
Konnie Kalcher from Lego (Lego means play well in Danish if you put the words together) talked about how the company has from a culture that believed it understood it's product the best, to one that works less in silos and has begun embracing their most fervant brand fans, and engaging them through programs such as the Lugnut enthusiast community. This was probably the one aspect of the talk that stood out to me and it apparently struck a chord with others as well. As Konnie's talk turned to questions, the word "freak" was being bantered around to describe some of the hard core Lego enthusiasts. In fact, there are some people who do spend nearly their entire days obsessing about nothing but Legos. But Konnie's story was one of a brand that realized that there is more value in harnessing the energy of "Lego freaks" vs. ignoring them. Their input is now included in product development—something that Lego hasn't done in the past. Now think about this—Lego is one of the few brands out there that is actively engaging their fans in the creation of their products. This goes well beyond the marketing of the product and directly in the the design of it, if not influencing the culture of their business. This is something that trancends marketing as most people tend to think of it.

Richard Owen from Satmetrix spoke right after Konnie and focused on "word of mouth" as "promoters" willing to advocate for your brand. What stuck out most about his talk was the fact that it's possible to amplify this aspect around products even if they aren't as "sexy" as a brand like Lego. His example of the Intuit community demonstrated that people can be passionate about nearly any topic. Even taxes. I really liked what Richard had to say about advocating for a brand:

"people are becoming more prone to actually advocating—not just having the capacity"

Richard cited some studies with numbers to back this up, and while the talk didn't get into it specifically—the opposite must also be true, that people have the capacity and are prone to criticizing your brand. It's this type of criticism that have ignited efforts from companies such as Dell in the past. Bottom line, the Web is a niche medium, fueled by passionate people. They might seem like "freaks"—but they can be your brand's best friend if you can figure out how to make their passion work for your business.

The ROI of Putting Your Pants On 
(from left to right, Schick, Monty, Berg)

One of the best panels of the entire event consisted of Paula Berg from Southwest Airlines, Scott Monty from Ford and Charlie Schick of Nokia. Each participant on the panel gave a very insightful insiders perspective on the social initiatives within their organizations including case studies and challenges. Scott Monty recalled a story of a series of interactions that he had with a woman on Twitter who lost her son in a car accident (he was driving a Ford).

"there was no way way that anyone was going to change how she felt about the brand despite our safety record"

After spending some considerable time talking with the woman in a personal fashion, Scott described how her perception began to change—she had even Tweeted publicly that she was willing to give the brand a second look. This is the type of story that makes the Web social, hearts and minds that are influenced one at a time, The opposite of mass media—and a great illustration of what I like to refer to as "micro-interactions". Scott also stressed his role within Ford and his current state as a department of one at the moment, which is most certainly soon to change as the company scales their initiatives. One of the more memorable quotes from Monty came during Q&A when asked about how Scott deals with the ROI and measurement question that inevitably comes with any investment in social initiatives to which Scott answered:

"What's the ROI of your e-mail account? What's the ROI of putting your pants on in the morning"?

Don't Control The Conversation, Lead It
Paula Berg from Southwest Airlines (above) also shared some great case stories ranging from the the airline's efforts to engage customers via blogs, Twitter. Facebook etc. The key word here is engage Southwest Airlines has been on Twitter since 2007 (I've referenced them repeatedly as I am a customer) and Paula pointed out that although the company wasn't sure how to leverage the channel initially, they've since dedicated one person out of their now six person emerging media staff who is dedicated full time to responding to customers on via Twitter. Paula and I grabbed lunch together on day two and we talked about the challenges all organizations face when wading into the waters of the social web. Since the medium requires actual people to be responsive and talk back, it doesn't look like tradition marketing, PR or other forms of communications but virtually cuts across all these disciplines incuding customer service. But during Paula's talk she reiterated that Southwest doesn't try to control the conversations that inevitably arise around them—but citing recent incidents, they have learned that they can indeed lead them by engaging critics and telling their side of the story.

From One Big Idea To Many Little Ones
On day two I split a panel with Steven Eric of Crispen Porter & Bogusky where I felt both our talks dovetailed nicely. While mine focused on interactions, Steven stressed that Crispin strives to test out lots of "little ideas" to see what works as opposed to focusing on "big ideas that in theory, drive brand communications. This view is a bit revolutionary in a field where the "big idea" is treated somewhat like a sacred cow and sought after like the holy grail. My favorite example from Steven's talk may have been one you've never heard of. "Flame"—a fragrence thet created for burger king which smells distinctly like grilled burger and smoke. Evidently, they sold out of the limited supply rather quickly.

There were many other worthwhile talks during the event, but these are a few highlights that stood out for me. If you can make it to Europe next year, I'd recommend checking this event out. The setting and speakers make for quite an experience.