Logic+Emotion

It's Not The Size of SXSW, It's How You Use It

Before SXSW Interactive had even gotten a chance to take its first breath, media outlets like Mashable were already asking if it had jumped the Shark? The sentiment is understandable. After all these years, SXSW is still kind of enigma. Some call it a conference and others say its more of a festival. Some say this year's SXSW felt "somber" while others asserted that fresh break through technology such as MeerKat, reasserted its relevance as a place where new startups can get their footing and enchant early adopters in the process. Other's still question its value for marketers and agencies (tell that to senior ad execs like Tony Weisman and Bob Greenberg who mingled amongst the geeks).

The truth is, SXSW is what you make of it. If you want to go there and party all day and all night, you can do that. If you want to spend your time going from session to session to find golden nuggets of insights, you can do that too. If you want to network and explore business opportunities—you can also do that. It's not the size of SXSW that matters, it's how you make it work for you. In that vein, here are some of the ways I made SXSW work for me this year. 

Finding Opportunities To Collaborate
SXSW has no shortage of tech companies, platforms or niche players that can make for interesting collaborators. This year I had great meetings with Hootsuite and Spredfast and MeerKat to plant seeds in some cases and in others explore specific opportunities. The face time you can get at SXSW is high quality and the casual setting makes relationship building easy. 

Hosting An Intimate Business Function
Because SXSW can be so overwhelming—it's a great opportunity to create an intimate business environment where professionals can share thoughts and ideas in a salon like setting. This year, we teamed up with Jeremiah Owyang and Crowd Companies and hosted a combination of his council members and some of our clients for an insightful panel featuring executives from Whole Foods, Hallmark and Verizon. Business can be done at SXSW—you just have to plan for it. 

Connecting With Colleagues, Clients & Friends
I'm cognizant that we have all three groups present at SXSW and I make it a point to distribute my time wisely during my few days. Several of our Edelman clients had activations this year and it was great to see how they were doing in real time, while building new client relationships in some cases and reinforcing existing ones. Likewise, many of our colleagues go, and it's a great way to bond with them outside of a formal session. And lastly, there are industry friends I get to see their once a year—a great way to catch up and compare notes. 

Attending Panels
For me personally, it's difficult to squeeze in panels with everything else but I usually manage to get a couple in. This year's highlight for me was Google's offsite "Fire Starters" panel which featured several speakers from the UX, creative and planning sides of the house. I finally got to see Russell Davies speak which was a treat, and in a setting where "new ideas" are prized, his take on "no new ideas" was a good reminder that brands need to work harder at getting the basics right. 

Blowing Off Some Steam
I'm not going to lie—there are some great parties and activities at SXSW. This year I found myself on a dance floor listening to NAZ and in a stadium watching the Flaming Lips do what they do. I also went Spinning with a friend (first time I've ever done that). But the reality is that SXSW is not the only show in town when it comes to parties and entertainment—it goes with the territory and can be fun if you don't overdo it. 

Related articles

MeerKat Will Be The Next Big Thing. But For How Long?

A Look at SXSW Interactive

The Sharing Economy's New Middlemen - HBR

Update.Me - Collaboration, Innovation, and Engagement

The New York Times Innovation Report is Both a Manifesto and Warning For Entrenched Organizations

"To improve is to change; to perfect is to change often"
~Winston Churchill

There are few documents, articles or any media for that matter that capture and illustrate the complex yet efficient nature of disruption than the New York Times 2014 Innovation Report. Recently leaked, presumably in some connection with the dismissal of executive editor Jill Abramson the 91 page report has been somewhat eclipsed by the debate around Abramson. But while that story has been garnering the most attention in the media—it is the innovation report which needs to be read cover to cover by anyone whose work includes a digital media component. 

Scratch that—anyone who works should read it. And you have no excuse—I'll make it easy for you. You can download the PDF from here. Print it out or save it to your iPad/tablet but just READ IT. After spending a few hours with it myself over an evening, my conclusion was that the document, while not earth shattering in the recognition of disruption nor the recommendations to combat it—it paints an eerily detailed portrait of an entrenched organization struggling with itself to adapt, change and succeed in a world that no longer recognizes the New York Times as king of the hill. If you read between the lines as you digest the information, it is astonishingly insightful. 

I don't think I can do the entire document justice, but I'm going to try to capture a few reoccurring themes that stood out for me. I'll also include quotes from the report—but again, please do yourself a favor and make the time to read it yourself. 

Agility
Page 32: "Launch efforts quickly, then iterate. We often hold back stories for publication, as we should, because they're "not quite there yet"...we can adopt a more basic form so that we start getting feedback from users and improve it over time"

Agility in some form or another is a constant theme in the report surfacing as a response to the reason it was being championed; disruption. In fact the entire report is essentially a response to the disruption from competitors who move quickly and seem to have an intuitive understanding of customer media behaviors from mobile to social and beyond. The notion of agility highlights initiatives such as Snow Fall but also promotes a systematic approach to both experimentation and innovation highlighting setting goals and tracking progress. 

Culture
Page 38: "At The Times, we generally like to let our wok speak for itself. We're not ones to brag. Our competitors have no such qualms, and many are doing a better job of getting their journalism in front of new readers through aggressive story promotion".

I could not help but feel the tension in culture in nearly every page of the report. Old vs. new, editorial standards vs. attention grabbing techniques, silos vs. open collaboration—you could almost feel the palpable struggle of an established organization grappling with itself. One of the areas where you could feel culture at play was in the section where the report discusses "connection" and puts forth the idea that journalists like Nick Kristof, David Carr and Charles Duhigg—all journalists who promote their own work are doing it right and these skills can be taught. it remains to be seen if the organization can stomach a small army of staff who have built personal brands at scale and leverage them for mutual benefit. Ultimately the document evangelizes a "digital first" movement to be embraced in all corners of the organization, de-emphasizing the front page, print and other hold outs from a previous era. Some would question if it's too late—but that's where the report is rooted. 

Customer Centricity
Page 60: "The many business-side development and roles which we refer to as "Reader Experience" throughout this report —need to work more closely with the newsroom instead of being kept at arm's length."

I debated on elevating this, but I think it's a macro theme in the report and it's not unusual for any organization, especially a large one that has enjoyed dominance in market for a time to lose sight of how their customers think, act and behave as it relates to the world you have in common. There are numerous areas in the report that reference how the NYT's competition have seemingly mastered timeliness, relevance or features which media consumers can't get enough of. The report also goes into some detail about the silos the organization needs to work through as an impediment to serving the modern needs of customers. it seems elementary, but there's enough evidence to support a concerted effort to make "Reader Experience" a top priority. 

Talent 
Page 88: "I looked around the organization and saw the plum jobs—even the ones with explicitly digital mandates—going to people with little experience in digital. Meanwhile, journalists with excellent digital credentials were stuck moving stories around on section fronts"

There were numerous references to the type of talent The Times had at their disposal from analysts to design to technology, product, R&D and more but it wasn't toward the end that you got the sense that there was a struggle to ensure that the right talent was retained. Digital talent by definition can be fickle, impatient and drawn to emerging trends (as digital media typically is always evolving)—but you got a sense from the report that there was a concern for today's departures becoming tomorrow's competitors. 

Summary: Disruption Happens
The NYT Innovation Report provides a glimpse into an industry under tremendous pressure and illustrates what it looks and feels like for a large, established organization with a rich heritage to come to terms with a world that looks very different than it did when tried and true formulas worked. It should be required reading for any executive or professional whose job it is to make sure their business is resilient enough to thrive in spite of change. In short, being an entrenched organization or a business resistant to change is no longer a viable strategy. 

Also: See Scott Monty's excellent take on the same subject. 

Related articles

Change is coming

Watch Simply Business's Manifesto for Change

Agile in the enterprise: To succeed, avoid the fundamentalists

Agile Marketing

30 Content Marketing Lessons From The New York Times Innovation Report

The leaked New York Times innovation report is one of the key documents of this media age

The challenges and complexities of 'muddling through' the disruption

Why The Agency of Tomorrow Looks Blurry

Recently had the opportunity to share some thoughts about the "Agency of tomorrow" with the ever resourceful Chuck Kent as part of an interview on Branding Magazine. Excerpt below. Oh, and I have a new job at Edelman. More at PR Week. Happy Friday! 

BM: Do you see the opportunity, the need for you to be able to – or any part of Edelman – to be able to initiate a core idea?

DA: I think that’s what’s in play. Not in this example, but in another example we – my team working with some other partners – are working on  specific assignments where we’re doing just that role.  And I will say that we have a few stakeholders on the client side that believe in it, they believe in, “Ideas are going to come from, well, it doesn’t really matter.”

We work in what I call a more responsive model. We’re not working in linear broadcast, we’re working in these content cycles. You might have a campaign that takes from inception to spreading out six months. We’ll work sometimes in a one month or two month cycle…. What I’ve seen in that situation is that the person who’s acting as CMO in this case believes in that model and is empowering us to do it. But yes… the preconceived notions are still there.

Right now there are conversations being had to say “Look,  this other model is at play and nobody really owns it so we’re just going to give the business to people who work in that way. And all that means, just to expand on that, is that I all think that means is that pie gets dispersed a little bit more. At the end of the day, it’s got to be about where the client needs to be relevant.

Related articles

Edelman Digital Announces Two Leadership Changes

Trust: From Fortress To Wedge

Thoughts on the Future of Social-Digital Agency Services

It's Time to Re-Invent Advertising

Several weeks ago I drafted a post articulating the need for the Public Relations industry to re-invent itself. That still needs to happen—and there's a lot of work to do. What I didn't communicate in that post is the fact that it's becoming increasingly meaningless to distinguish yourself as a practitioner of "advertising" or "public relations" because increasingly to the end consumer, user or stakeholder—it's all just becoming content. And as I've stated many times before:

Content is today's currency in marketing and communications. And context dictates how that currency gets spent. 

And the reality is—nobody has perfected the content model yet—it's still an open playing field. The advertising industry has it's own problems. It may have, in some cases strong chops in creative and in other cases it's perfected the slicing and dicing of data especially tied to demographics. But when you break down most advertising at the core—you begin to uncover this dirty little secret.

It's all about the campaign—and traditional tactics (television & print) still rule the campaign and media spend.

Are their exceptions? Yes, of course. But if you work in the industry, you know the truth. For every Old Spice Twitter tactic there are scores of traditional led campaigns where the lion share of the budget goes into broadcast. Then there are the traditional-digital budgets. These have exploded over the years. Companies invest in banner advertising on Websites and Websites themselves—but are they producing valuable, sharable content through these tactics? If content is today's currency (think memes) then, budgets share should reflect that. 

They don't.

So the ad industry with a few exceptions has their own problems. It now needs to create content designed for instigating second and third screen behaviors (like sharing). It needs to apply "journalism" sensibilities to the advertising machine so that a regular drumbeat of content and engagement can act as a foundation which supports the burst of campaign activities. With all the hype around "creative newsrooms" permeating the industry, the table stakes outlined by the below framework are being overlooked. This does not look like traditional or even "tradigital" advertising. It's something entirely unique:

At this point, it's anyone's game to pioneer the future of marketing. Doesn't matter if it's a PR firm, a digital led agency, a large traditional led agency or on the client side, an organization who works with a number of partners in order to be able to execute at scale. 

Advertising is being re-invented before our eyes. And not everyone is ready for it. 

I am really loving the below deck, led by my colleague Monte Lutz because it outlines several key trends in a more articulate way than I've seen elsewhere. It's a shot across the bow—to marketing professionals who come from any background, that we're smack dab in the middle of a sea change. But it' still early on. It's not that traditional marketing strategies and tactics are no longer relevant. I'm not saying this. But if you're an advertising executive or CMO—you should really ponder about the trends in this deck and think about how your budgets are allocated. And you should ask yourself if you are ready for the next ten years. 

Edelman Digital 2013 Social Media Trends from Edelman Digital

Related articles

2013: The Year Everything Converged

It's Time to Reinvent Public Relations

The massive advertising shift that Twitter is trying to capitalize on with its API

Advertisers Should Act More Like Newsrooms

The Future of Advertising. WTF?

Change Happens

Immediately after I wrote my last post about the need to re-invent public relations—I began getting questions/reactions in real time (starting on Twitter). The nature tone of the questions came with a raised brow as if to say "are you on something?" albeit uttered more politely. Immediately I asked myself the same question. "is change really possible—and can it come from the inside out"? Was I being realistic in thinking that the desire I had to see re-invention through was doable?

I'm writing this post several days later from Los Angeles where I am attending an offsite for our US senior leadership. It's 3:20 AM PST. I can't sleep—but I am inspired. Mark Hass our US president and CEO delivered his vision for where he feels the organization needs to go and all I can say is that it dovetails perfectly with what I wrote recently—if I had to choose a word it would be kindred. It wasn't only the content of Mark's vision and the philosophical alignment that got me all fired up, but also the style as well. Mark pulled a clip from the film Lincoln and used the former president and his leadership style to illustrate what "operational vision" is all about. Lincoln didn't simply have a vision for the nation—he was laser focused on operationalizing it and ensuring that action applied to the vision resulted in impact. 

Then the lightbulb went off for me. Change is possible when it comes from both the bottom up and the top down all at once. It's possible when you have a leadership team with a shared vision and the chops to operationalize. Not easy, or even immediate—but possible.

And on that note, I want to end this post with content from a release regarding a recent hire. It's not something I do often— leveraging this space to get the word out on these types of things—however this is important for me as my team and I represent the "bottoms" up change in Edelman and I can directly influence our Chicago digital operation (there are eighty of us now). We've made a few key hires/moves and the most recent is Steve Slivka—a talented creative director who has put in a decade of digital work at Leo Burnett and departed Mullen to become a part of our re-invention. Steve's only one person but his arrival is symbolic, at least in terms of how I view it.

Change happens—especially when it's put in motion at both ends. 

Edelman Digital Appoints Steve Slivka, Senior Vice President, Group Creative Director, Chicago

Slivka to Lead Chicago’s Digital Creative Efforts

Edelman has named Steve Slivka senior vice president, group creative director, Edelman Digital, in its Chicago office. In his new role, Slivka will lead the charge in elevating the digital creative for both content development and digital builds. He will report to David Armano, managing director, Edelman Digital, Chicago.

“Steve will be instrumental in driving our digital strategies as we define and refine our client offerings in converged media, merging social platforms with paid and earned tactics,” said Armano. “The future of digital creative content lies at the root of this overlap, and his leadership is critical to the firm as we evolve to align our clients’ strategies and tactics and craft unified creative campaigns.”

Slivka will work closely with Elizabeth Pigg, senior vice president, director of converged media services, Edelman Digital, a 12-year veteran of the firm who recently returned to the Chicago office for her newly created role. They will work to raise the creative output in digital content generation and innovation for the firm.

“Digital creative today requires a reevaluation of how content is created and delivered,” said Slivka. “Edelman holds such a respected place in PR and social that it seemed a natural fit to bring next-generation creative to life here, and by tapping into Edelman’s strong capabilities in analytics, converged media and strategy, my team will be well-positioned to deliver creative that meets the constant innovation required to exceed clients’ goals.”

Slivka joins Edelman from Mullen, a Boston-based full service integrated advertising agency, where he built the creative social-digital team at the agency’s North Carolina outpost and was responsible for creating content for clients such as Tresemmé, CSX and Honda Jet. Prior to working at Mullen, Slivka spent a decade at Leo Burnett in Chicago and also launched his own boutique agency, Colossal Squid Industries. He attended Columbia College Chicago for music composition and interactive media as well as The American Conservatory of Music.

Related articles

My Kind of Town: New Job, Same Company

Edelman Digital Appoints Steve Slivka, Senior Vice President, Group Creative Director, Chicago

NY public relations pioneer Edelman dies in Ill.

I'm Joining Edelman

It's Time to Re-Invent Public Relations

Social Business: Where It's Been & Where It's Going

"Chasing the past, I stumbled into the future". - T A Sachs

I've always been a firm believer that in order to look to the future, we must look back to and fully grasp the past (and the present). Having had several recent engaging conversations with smart people who I respect, I've picked up a hint of exhaustion around usage of the word "social". Could it be that some who saw the "change" coming years ago are weary of having carried that torch for so many years as we move into the heavy lifting? It's natural to want to move to the next thing—but I'm convinced that today we are largely still talking about the "social media" era. The best of "social business" is yet to come in my opinion and we have a lot of work to do in between. Let's take a look back before we begin to look forward. 

Digital: The Interactive Revolution
When I entered the workplace—the world was already in the process of going digital. E-mail was just being introduced and I had gotten a job immediately largely because I entered the business world with a valuable skill—I was taught desktop publishing (ie computer aided design) in addition to design fundamentals. The digital revolution initially begun by replacing the analogue world. Things like music converted into digital formats and computers offered an interactive medium to produce upon. Digital began seeping into personal and professional lives and organizations, businesses and industries had to evolve along with it. Most did and the ones that didn't were outperformed. 

Digital Media: Information Goes Online
The second wave of the digital revolution began to gain steam as the internet became move pervasive. The "Web" became first accessible through browsers and then it became the search engines which organized what we then called "the information highway". A new digital economy was born as companies rushed to stake their claim online. The "corporate" Website was born—essentially a glorified brochure for your organization however the business world began to wake up to the fact that not being on the Web was perhaps risking being irrelevant. This sentiment is important to take into account as we currently wrestle with the current state of social media. Looking back to the "Digital Media" era provides some insights as we look at how social media has evolved. 

Digital Business: The Transactional Era
As the Internet, fueled by digital media and a wealth of information became more pervasive, the Internet evolved yet again creating new ecosystems resulting in new companies (Amazon, *eBay etc.) and creating opportunities for existing companies to extend their business models. Banks introduced online banking. Insurance companies supported online quotes. Cars could be customized and even purchased online. Large organizations grappled with back end integration as infrastructure was re-engineered. Digital had become not only interactive and informational, but it became transactional—offering organizations new ways to connect with customers or even employees (intranets). In short, digital became business and the flurry of activity in the form of mergers, acquisitions and the growth of system integrators reflected this.  

Social: The Human Web
With digital now established as transformational business tool—the Internet and the world began to evolve again. Early incarnations of a "social Web" such as message boards and forums gave rise to early social networks and the "blogosphere". Networks such as My Space or Friendster introduced the concept of managing a social profile on the Web while blogs began to disrupt the media landscape by empowering anyone to act like a journalist or publisher. The 'Digital Media" era was largely powered by technological connections—computers being connected to a global network. The Social era was powered by people connecting to each other forming a "human web". The word social becomes key during this era, because we begin to shift behavior during this phase. No longer are we just interfacing with digital systems (human to computer) but we begin to interface directly with each other (human to human). 

Social Media: Global, Local, Mobile Connectivity At Scale
Today, we live and interact with a digital world which is not only about finding information but is about being "connected". These connections are no longer limited to the personal computer, the primary vehicle which allowed for the original digital revolution to take hold years before. Mobile technology and an "always on" mindset for many individuals now blurs the line between the real world and digital—we no longer "log in" at our desks from nine to five but we are part of a digital and human "power grid". For many organizations, local Facebook pages show high levels of activity vs. global corporate Websites and organizations find their employees asking why internal tools can't be social and mobile. Networks now drive much of the Web's traffic as billions of people share links and opinions about the world around them. As a result of all of this activity—huge amounts of data or "social data" is currently flooding the current global digital ecosystem. This sets the stage for an era that's already begun, but is still in it's infancy (social business). 

Social Business: Connected, Adaptive & Intelligent
Despite much of the chatter around "social business", the reality is that most organizations are currently dealing with the realities of social media and only a few truly recognize the potential of social business. Not unlike how digital media evolved into digital business—social business takes the foundation of social media and begins to build new economic models on top of it. Proof points include models such as Kickstarter which disrupts old economic models by empowering any venture to become a funded venture. Existing business models however, are also presented with new opportunities (and threats). Business models where new connections are formed to the benefit of both the business, customer and even employee and shareholders are a core tenet of "social business". One could make the argument that Apple, while infamous for it's secret culture acted as a social business when they chose to connect to would be developers instead of trying (in vain) to design apps themselves. It is this kind of connected ecosystem which is linked to the idea of social business as well as the ability to adapt to conditions based on the intelligence a business can interpret. In the immediate years to come, the amount of data available to the average business will be infinite, however the data will be meaningless without the ability to interpret and act upon it. 

Winners & Losers: Navigating Today And Tomorrow's World
Having lived and worked during the "Digital Media" and "Digital Business" era, I think we're scratching the surface as we straddle the worlds between social media and social business today. While there are many similarities to the past, there are also several key differences. Today, digital has become embedded into the lives of millions of people and a generation who has never known life before it pours into our workforce and gradually rises in the ranks. Also, it's worth noting that the above chart doesn't suggest that any of the eras replace each other—rather they build upon one another. We are now in a social-digital environment where things increasingly move in real time. Tomorrow's business models must not only be able to adapt to change, they must help drive that change. These are a few thoughts I've had percolating for some time. As a follow up to this post, I'm going to do a review of a very promising book by former colleague Peter Kim and co-author Dion Hinchcliffe (Social Business by Design). From what I've seen of it so far—it shows a lot of promise in terms of how a business should be thinking about these kinds of things. (below graphic pulled from the book). Would love to hear your thoughts as well.  


*eBay is an Edelman client

Own The Data, Own The Future

Now that some of the dust is settling around Facebook's massive acquisition of Instagram this past week, we can all take a step back and think about the bigger picture. Yes, Facebook understands the critical role mobile will play in how billions of people interact and communicate but they also understand that interactions, engagement, consumption or whatever you want to call it generates one thing.

Data.

Facebook wants it. Google wants it. And all businesses will want to understand it. There is huge, big business to be built around all kinds of data. Targeted marketing is the first salvo and it's a pretty big one. But that's likely the tip of a gargantuan iceburg. I had some fun recently chatting with Richard Quest from CNN on some of these issues. It's only a few minutes, but you get the idea. The Web is going social, mobile and local. All of this will generate a lot of data, and that's going to be valuable in a lot of ways. What do you think? Where is all of this going?

Thoughts on the Future of Social-Digital Agency Services

*The above does not reflect actual or estimated market share

Now is as good a time as any to be thinking about the future of digital (and social) as defined by those of us who provide services or even products around these. If you work for any agency or consultancy—this article is relevant for you. If you're on the "client side" consider it relevant as well as ultimately it is your business model and needs which dictate the market conditions that affect your partners, vendors and professional service providers. I'm writing this piece from the perspective of having worked at several digital agencies—some of which are still taking market share and others which have slowly faded away or been digested into other formations.

Today, I work for a large privately held company (Edelman) with a "practice" consisting of roughly 600 individuals globally who offer services in the "social-digital" space (Edelman Digital). Given that the word "innovation" is in my title, I am always thinking about how we service the market today vs. how will will need to service it tomorrow. I obsess a little about things like comoditization and have seen it happen in other places I've worked at during my career. Below are some things which have been keeping me up at night, with a few ideas around how to address them. They are specific to the "digital-social" space largely, but can be more broadly applied as well.

Talent Importing & Exporting
The ground war starts here. If you work for an agency or professional services firm which operates deeply on the digital and social side of things, you are competing with everyone for talent. From start-ups to brands to the big three (Facebook, Google & Twitter)—it is essential to "import" the best talent while they are still emerging and "export" them into different opportunities across your firm to ensure retention. I am convinced that the Darwinism which happens regularly in this business is connected to acquisition and retention of talent who not only possess the right skills but deeply understand "the culture of service"—an art in and of itself which is critical for any client relationship. In addition to service culture, talent must be able to speak "the language of business", especially when it comes to understanding how our clients build theirs.  

Adaptation of Skillsets
Our world is changing daily. One of my recent tasks was to co-write a detailed point of view on how Facebook's latest changes affects the skillsets of the people who provide the services we make money from. For example, featured posts essentially converts brand page administrators into media buyers and real time analytics means community managers must become junior analytics consultants as well. There's no training course in the world designed to prepare your firm for the pace which our space runs at—you must have passionate, adaptable teams who are constantly challenging themselves to grow supported by leadership infrastructure which demands and rewards this. Simply put, we adapt or die.

Supply & Demand: The Keys To The Castle
As I mentioned earlier I think a lot about the services needed (as well as the ones which will be needed). For agencies specifically looking to gain market share in "social"—the "keys to the castle" so to speak are linked to how deeply we can embed ourselves in the platforms both internally and externally of our client partners. Translation—if you don't have direct access to a client's social properties and/or work closely with their teams, you are in trouble. The digital shops who both survived and are still thriving learned this lesson and are still here as a result. It's difficult to replace a partner who has helped create and maintain your infrastructure. The services we provide today must match market demand and be conducted flawlessly—for example if market demand suggests a need to run global social properties at scale, then you should be better at that than anyone else. Meet today's market demand and execute flawlessly while working on tomorrow's services today.

Ecosystem Development: Establish Your Alliances
Today's digital ecosystem is even more complex than yesterday's with new players emerging who attach themselves to the dominant platforms. From social CMS providers like Buddy Media, to data and analytic platforms such as Crimson Hexigon, Sysomos or Radian Six. Relationships with key partners (emphasis on plural) is critical to leveraging each other's strengths relationships and complimentary services. Should a digital or social agency develop their own ecosystems? The answer depends on the objective as well as the execution. Many "back end" platforms can be customized leveraging the API's of third parties. Today, build vs. assemble is a significant decision. Either way, I am convinced that for social and digital firms or those who wish to grow market share here—relationships built now will lead to success or failure later.

Integration: Multiple Roads
I could probably write more and perhaps I will at a later time, but this is a good start. While I haven't dwelled much on "integration"—It's also key, however there is more than one road which leads to that particular Rome. Ultimately integration of services (and agency partners) is linked to client business structure. Some are more hands-on, managing integration tightly and look for multiple partners while others seek to consolidate and empower certain partners to lead integration. But, while integration is complex and messy—I believe it's less critical than results. Websites that don't work, apps which aren't used and social execution which ends up in the media (in a bad way) are more significant indicators of success or the lack of, than having an agency structure which looks neat and tidy. In the end, it always has and will come down to execution and results.

Weaving The Social Layer Across Your Organization

Next week I am joining thousands of innovators, digital pioneers and social strategists for the interactive portion of SXSW. A highlight of the trip will be joining my former colleagues from social business consultancy Dachis Group who are organizing their third installment of the Social Business Summit—a global series of events which kicks off in Austin. I'll be speaking along side folks like Clarah Shih author of the Facebook Era and who now serves on *Starbuck's board dedicating to navigating social. Other notable speakers include Sandy Carter who has taken the lead on IBM's push for social business integration, Bonin Bough who recently departed *PepsiCo to lead social efforts at Kraft and of course Jeremiah Owyang who has helped define this space.

We Are Here: The Novelty Is Over
I'm starting my premise with the fact that many organizations (especially those who have led in social initiatives) are now past the "experimentation" phase of social disruption. Some are even beginning to take a step back to evaluate what they've done in the past—what worked and didn't and how things need to more forward at scale. For many organizations who have gotten past the unrealistic expectations first experienced when social got traction in their organization, they now understand that the changes needed to take place will be long term, gradual and not exactly glamorous. That said, we have a long way to go, and my take is that social business is really only getting started.

From Silos To Layer: Weaving Social Into Your Organization's DNA
Despite the progress that many organizations, businesses and brands have made over the past few years—the reality is that for many, social integration isn't integrated. It's happening, but typically within silos and some are moving faster than others. Take for example the most recent changes announced by Facebook last week which affect business pages. Some companies responded to the changes immediately while others are still grappling with what they need to do and how they need to do it. Even in the cases where an organization has high proficiency using social in one silo (like marketing and communications) they are grappling with how to apply it to others. There are few examples emerging however which illustrate some convergence—Dominos Pizza for example has recently integrated product development with social marketing in their "Think Oven" initiative which invites customers to submit ideas or predefined participate in projects all via a Facebook app which is built into their business page. What Dominos is doing may be the tip of the iceberg, but getting your customers to work with you for mutual gain is a core value of what social business is supposed to be about.

Weaving The Social Layer Will Take Time
Still, the Dominos example isn't a success story as much as it is a mere signpost on the very long and winding road that is social business. Even with the ability to mine ideas from enthusiastic customers via social networks which are part of their lives, there are still operational challenges which include coordinating activities between the marketing department, agency partners, product development, and even legal. Right now, most organizations are making progress in pockets vs. the whole and it's going to take significant time for social to be woven into the fabric, culture and operations of any company. And, it's likely to not happen to all, but will definitely happen to some. The next ten years will be critical for a business in how it handles these disruptions and opportunities. We've now entered the threshold where the "weaving" of social into the fabric of an organization will take vision, time, resource, money, dedication and most importantly—patience.

*Starbucks and PepsiCo are Edelman clients

The Year of the Change Agent

We've always lived and worked in a state of flux but one can make the argument that recent developments in technology, society and business seem to have accelerated the pace of change we have to contend with. Our mobile devices would have been considered fairly high powered computers not that long ago. We live in a hyper-connected state of existence, constantly sending out signals to friends, family, work associates, peers , etc. If this year belongs to anyone, it is the change agent. 

You may be thinking—"that's exactly what I am," but chances are, if you aren't frustrated or feeling like you are constantly hitting wall after wall, you may not be the change agent you think you are. It's a thankless job, but a necessary one, now more than ever. Change agents aren't sprinters, they run marathons—and this will be their year whether they know it or not. But in order to do the job (and really, it's everyone's job if you're interested in innovation) there are a few key areas where the seeds of change will need to take root.

Thoughts 
Change cannot happen without first influencing the thought process—the way we think about ourselves, our jobs our business and most importantly our missions. Change starts with the core of how we think about everything before we ever take action. It is thoughts which drives strategy and strategy which drives execution (when done right). Change can begin with a whisper—often times as a thought formed in our minds. 

Behaviors
If thought is the seed then the living organism which springs from it is the behaviors which take root upon them. Without action, thoughts and ideas serve little purpose other than to inspire—which can ignite change, but not sustain it. A change in behavior can range from a shift in daily ritual, to the adoption of new technologies to reacting to environments in new and unexpected ways. When what we do is aligned with what we think, anything is possible. 

Perception
When we realize that we are more in control of the way we are perceived than we think—change is possible. Sometimes altering the perception of ourselves whether we be individual or organization acts as a catalyst to influence thoughts and behaviors and other times it is a result—but either way we change when they way we are perceived is altered. 

Outcome
Without a meaningful outcome which indicates the measure of change that has either occurred (or not) there cannot be change. An outcome can be an attitude—or it can be financial, but it's tangible. Not so long ago, the world thought Apple computer was dead. Having owned my share of overpriced and underperforming beige machines—I lived through that sentiment. Then change took root—thoughts, behaviors and perception of the company shifted and one of the indisputable outcomes is reflected in valuation of the company. Ask Apple's shareholders what they think of change. 

2012 belongs to the change agents. But real change takes a complex formula of vision, perseverance and stubbornness to pull off.

Here's to all of the above.  

"Share-ability" By Design

Can you design things to be shared? Of course you can. While "sharing" is ultimately up to the end participant, it's up to the "designer" of the "thing" (this could be content, a platform, a product) to build the option and ability for sharing to occur. The media industry had no choice but to innovate in this space as my colleague Steve Rubel likes to refer to as "the war for page views". As, I've written recently—there are still untapped opportunities to enable and even kick-start social sharing behaviors.

How To Innovate In Spite of Innovation

I recently gave a talk, or more like a "therapy" session with Mullen's Chief Innovation Officer Edward Boches at the MIMA Summit in Minneapolis. A fantastic event populated by some of the most innovative companies in the world including Target, 3M and Best Buy. I have a bias when it comes to "innovation" that people tend to hyperfocus on what Google's Avinash Kaushik called "transformational" innovation. Ironically, a great example of transformational innovation would be Facebook which is transforming the Web from information to social interactions. But I focused my portion of the conversation on where I spend most of my time which is "incremental innovation" or smaller innovations which are not designed to dramatically transform, but can be effective ways of moving an organization in the right direction. Here are a few tips on how to innovate in spite of innovation.

Think Small: Fireflies vs. Lightbulb
Innovation doesn't always occur as the result of a single big idea (lightbulb) but can often times be the result of many little ideas. If we think about ideas, concepts or thoughts as fireflies vs. a giant lightbulb, you realize that fireflies need to be "caught" and placed in a jar. When collected, lots of fireflies can generate just as much light as a light bulb, but the trick is pulling out the right firefly or idea at the right time. Many good ideas were ahead of their time. 

Prototype
Coming from a design background, I stress the value of prototypes and define them broadly. Prototypes don't always need to be built out of code or material. A prototype needs to go beyond spoken or written word. It can be a visual, or process design or even a concept video. But it should be tangible, and it should communicate the value of the innovation.  

Culture Matters More Than Technology
Edward busted my chops a bit because I was using index cards to gather my thoughts vs. an iPad. I took that opportunity to stress that culture is more important than technology when it comes to innovation. I've seen companies with state of the art working spaces and those with just the basics in place and innovation happening at the latter. When it comes to pushing things even just a little, you don't need the latest and greatest tech but you do need a fire in the belly which is shared by your peers.

Create A Coalition of the Willing
Related to the last point I referenced specific examples where I had seen better ideas come out of hallway conversations vs. "brainstorming sessions" where the most "creative" people are invited to the table. When trying to innovate, as a manager the most effective thing you can do is find, harness, and conspire with those who are willing to take up the cause with you. Innovation is a cause. It makes people uncomfortable and challenges them to stretch their own abilities.

Speak The Language of Business
During our session, several individuals expressed the frustration of not being able to get "innovation funded". There are creative ways around the obstacle. On the professional services side, one way is to make a business case to a client which funds the initiative for you and gives them first dibs on an idea. On the corporate side, it can entail working up a business case and showing how much can be made or saved. Or there can be business cases built around things like visibility, marketing, press etc. Speaking the language of business means speaking in terms of business outcomes and not just the brilliance of the potential innovation. Do this and you'll be one step closer to finding a sponsor.

Meet A Need
One of the things that I like about Kickstarter is that it meets a need that has previously been unmet. There are lots of people with projects in need of funding, and as it turns out there are also a great deal of people who feel good about supporting a project they believe in. The results is a marketplace where "buyer" and "seller" both benefit and exchange value. But prior to the platform, neither group likely knew that needed to work this way.

These are a few personal "values" that I try my best to consider when I work and hopefully push things forward. What are yours?

Poking vs. Poking Holes

Watch live streaming video from digiday at livestream.com

You should watch this video from Wallgreen's Adam Kmiec because he makes a lot of great points about the hype of social and the reality check which is needed in the industry. I applaud him for stressing this. I also think he might be forgetting something I feel is really important. Poking is just as important as poking holes. Perhaps even more so.

I've watched Adam through the years and it was his "poking around" that led to his proficiency in social media. Same for Shiv Singh who leads social at Pepsi beverages. Before then he was sort of a lone voice at digital agency Razorfish trying to move that firm into the social era. Both Shiv and Adam (like myself) benefited from curiosity, digging and poking. We all made huge attempts to understand social in the context of business.

When I started blogging in 2006, at Digitas—my co-workers thought I was a little nuts. When I tried to convince them that Twitter would alter how we communicate (in 2007), they looked at me with puzzled expressions. Adam goes on to poke holes in one of social media's more innovative examples—Dell and their social media command center. But clearly expresses his interest in doing something similar for Walgreens. I would estimate that if Dell invited him to Austin, that he'd jump at the opportunity and within the year you'd see a headline citing Walgreen's roving social command center (inspired by Dell).

Here's my point: There's value to poking holes in any inflated industry. There's also value to simply poking. Adam did it and it served him well. Poking holes can serve a purpose—it can expose flaws in any area. But not at the expense of poking, digging, experimenting, and trying. Several years ago there was a market for teachers in this area and in principal, I'd agree with Adam that there are indeed myths in need of busting—some teachers have overreached. But today, the market demand is for myth busting. It makes for a good story.

In either scenario, I believe in one fundamental truth which I learned in design school. "Be true to your work and your work will be true to you". For me, this transcends all things social and has instilled my appreciation of those who "poke".

Facebook Can Thank Google For Timeline

I'm in the middle of customizing my new Facebook page featuring the new Timeline layout. In the process, I kept thinking that something felt familiar about it. Then, I remembered this Superbowl ad from Google.

It's a great ad because it's about life and it's about being human. It's about our connections and experiences. Ironically, with Timeline, Facebook succeeded on the promise that Google made in that ad. It's still a great ad and it still applies to Google, but I have to wonder of the developers and designers at Facebook had it in mind as they worked on Timeline in their effort to beat Google on Web domination. It's Possible. Meanwhile, Timeline is pretty powerful. Your life in digital.

Is Your Social Business Prepared? Readiness Levels Vary Amongst Organizations.

For further proof that "social business" is coming of age, Altimeter recently conducted some research (both quantitative and qualitative) of enterprise grade organizations (1000 or more employees). The report focuses on readiness for crisis scenarios, but includes several best practices and findings which illustrate how organizations need to structure themselves for social business. Below is a breakdown of a few findings which stood out to me (noted in italics), along with some thoughts as to what this could potentially mean for you and your organization:

Finding: Baseline governance and reinforcement enables employees to professionally participate.
"Of the 144 companies we surveyed, all 18 Advanced companies allow rank-and-file employees to use social media professionally (Figure 1.2). However, Advanced companies also educate and provide guardrails so that employees know how to participate in a safe and consistent manner."

Implications
If you consider your organization to be advanced in leveraging social media for business but have not provided education, guidelines or rules of engagement for your employees, then you may not be as advanced as you think. Guidance for a broader employee base can come in the form of training, or establishing recommended rules of engagement and of course a policy. These are only some of the basics and serve different purposes. For example, the rules of engagement scenario map (below) outlines recommended actions against specific scenarios and is not the same thing as an enterprise wide policy. Organizations with less experience in scaling social are likely following a more ad hoc approach.

Example: Scenario map outlining rules of engagement for community management

Finding: Enterprise-wide response processes provide rapid customer engagement.
"Companies are struggling to keep up with a growing volume of conversations – we found that enterprise-class corporations already average 178 corporate-owned social media accounts. As workflow across the enterprise becomes more complicated, consistency and efficiency decrease, while risks increase."

Implications
For large organizations who wish to increase their proficiency in leveraging social media for business, this translates to having not only actionable response plans in place but also the listening structure and workflow. Implications here include putting some sort of "social business intelligence" system in place which allows the right people in your organization to detect and distribute intelligence to the right people so it can be acted upon. (see below)

Finding: A dedicated and shared central hub, often named the “Center of Excellence,” provides leadership.
"Increased consumer adoption and low technological barriers encourage corporate stakeholders to deploy social media on their own, with or without formal approval. In our survey, we found that as many as 13 different business units across the enterprise engage in customer-facing social media efforts"

Implications
Increasingly, large organizations are adopting a coordinated approach to managing social efforts (Altimeter's report cites Adobe as an example, *Edelman client) however, COE's must be assembled with care. Personal experience working with organizations that implement a Center of Excellence highlights the tension between regional autonomy and corporate desire for more consistency. A "COE" must be carefully planned and attached to the right committees and regional representatives in order for them to reach their full potential. 

Altimeter's report does an excellent job of highlighting a more macro trend—that social media is increasingly integrating into organizations and in the process presents numerous challenges and opportunities. It also highlights the fact that large organizations display a spectrum when it comes to levels of readiness The report goes on to highlight some of those specific challenges and opportunities in the area of crisis management. I highly recommend reviewing it in detail. (Note: Edelman Digital colleague Michael Brito was sourced in the study).

Social Readiness: How Advanced Companies Prepare

View more documents from Jeremiah Owyang

The ROI of Your Mother

From Chris Brogan's blog

"Gary was talking about a person in the board room who was hounding him, “What’s the ROI of social media? What’s the ROI? What’s the ROI?” Gary’s answer, when he’d finally had enough? “What’s the ROI of your mother?”

Cue the laughter and give Gary Vaynerchuck a high five. Saying something like "what's the ROI of your mother?" is bold, human and funny. Several years ago I watched as Ford's Scott Monty delivered a talk in Paris and he also asked "what's the ROI of putting your pants on in the morning?". Also a great way to work a crowd and get you thinking. But keynotes and meetings in boardrooms with executives are two different things. I bet Scott digs into things like metrics a bit deeper as he plans multiple marketing campaigns which integrate social strategy and implementation. So to be clear, Gary is great, Scott is great—now let's talk metrics, behaviors and financials. In fact, let's get specific on an example for illustration. Many of you who know me, may remember that we raised nearly 17k for a family in need (12k in less than 24 hours) a few years ago. We used nothing but social networks to do this. Let's break this case down to see if the above model holds:

Metrics: Things you can measure
There were so many metrics that I was able to look at during that initiative and they meant different things. Here were a few that I noticed:

-Re-tweets: The number of re-tweets from my Twitter updates was something I kept track of for a while. It Was one of the main indicators that the messages I was sending out was indeed getting amplification.

-Page views/traffic: Traffic to my blog was over 10x normal traffic. This gave me an indicator that the message was not only being amplified but that it was driving traffic the the right destination at a rapid rate.

-Clicks, Diggs, Referrals: Back in 2009, Digg was still kind of a big deal in terms of routing traffic to a destination. Today, shares, likes, and any type of measurement which tracks sharing across networks mean your content is being routed.

-Google Page Rank: The word "Daniela" ended up being the 8th most popular result out of 42 million. In this case, not hugely relevant. However, to go back to Scott Monty for example, I'm confident his teams are tracking Google page ranks of words such as "Focus" and what they can do to improve Ford's ranking.

Behaviors: Targeted actions and desirable outcomes
There are lots of actions which lead to micro metrics, for example influencing the behavior to share a link or click on something. These are hard metrics. Then There are soft metrics. During our experience with the Daniela effort—I was caught off guard at the fact that it drew criticism. This was due to fact that it got amplified so quickly and drew so much attention. There were certain things that I did intentionally to help influence a certain behavior; Advocacy. As some of the criticism was documented, a small percentage of "nodes" in the network became activated and advocated on our behalf. Advocacy was the desired behavior. The desired outcome included things like Twitter being pressured to shut down an account which was impersonating me. That was a favorable outcome. Behaviors lead to outcomes—don't forget that.

Financials: Cost savings or earnings
Typepad costs me under two hundred dollars a year. Twitter costs nothing. However I spent hundreds of hours of my personal time in putting effort into informing the stakeholders of this initiative, blogging, setting up the payment infrastructure etc. In addition to that, there was the thousands of hours spent actually building up the network. But, ultimately there was a number reached which we could point to: $16, 880.60 to be exact. There was also a percentage we could point to—we had exceeded a targeted goal by 337%.

The bottom line: Business likes tangible results
There were a lot of intangible results I could go which relate to this example. It was the catalyst for many interactions which have benefitted others as well as myself. All soft "ROI" indicators but valid nevertheless. This side of the equation speaks to the "what's the ROI of your mother" part. Or you could just say we did the right thing, and it paid off for all parties. However, for most CEOs, CMO's and business execs—doing the right thing isn't often enough. And it's why we need to measure and analyze and report. The ROI of my mother is common sense—I would not be here today without her. I just don't expect the CMO of a global organization value that as much as I do. We're in the "doing" stage now of all of this and like it or not—we need to move business conversations beyond putting our pants on and invoking our moms.

Can There Be Innovation Without Competition?

On my flight to Paris I finally got to watch the documentary "Waiting for Superman". The film documents the plight of education in the United States and underscores the dysfunctions within an educational system which risks being able to compete globally. A complex problem no doubt, but it got me thinking about the notion of competition.

Competition makes us better. It drives us to innovate, even when we don't particularly feel like it. The design school I graduated from (Pratt) was particularly competitive. Primarily, the students were in competition with other students. The school was in competition with other schools (attempting to attract the best raw talent) and the instructors were in competition with other instructors leveraging the work of their students to demonstrate that they were doing the best work in the school.

When I entered a studio and put my work up on the wall, often after an all night session of working on it, I was in direct competition with everyone else on that wall. And we respected each other for it. Those who didn't put in the effort stood out like sore thumbs. The unspoken code was that they didn't deserve a place on the wall next to those who obviously put in the effort. But those scenarios were rare, because most of us brought our A game every time. Competition was universally understood. It was like breathing oxygen.

Can there be innovation without competition? I seriously doubt it's possible. If there's no incentive to do what you do better--if we remove all risk and rewards and substitute them for complete and total security, then the potential to innovate dies, along with our own dreams for making something better.

Humans Are The Killer App

Some may have scratched their heads a bit when I announced a little over a year ago that I was joining a "PR firm", especially since I've never worked formally in the field. But I think the recent news of Edelman making the Advertising Age "A-List" and specifically some of Richard Edelman's comments both in the video and article do a nice job of articulating why I moved into the direction I did.

"Marketing is more about the conversation now,...These other types of agencies will eventually set up units to do the things we do, but the question is, can they morph their mentality? We come at it differently and push the consumer experience and two-way discussion,..."

And of course, for me it's much more than marketing but it's the idea of business being prepared to operate in a world where human to human interaction in communications, HR, customer service, research & development and pretty much any business function you can think of, re-calibrates itself as human beings leverage our new connectivity for the mutual gain of customer, business and any group which has a stake in the conversation or dialogue and the outcomes that emerge from it. Turns out that with all the talk about digital, it's really humans that are the killer app.

11 Actionable Trends For 2011

Eleven Digital Trends to Watch in 2011

View more presentations from Edelman Digital.

One of the most interesting parts of my job is working wirth each January to curate what the firm sees as the key trends that we think our clients and teams need to think about in the year ahead. This is the second time Steve and I collaborated on this effort. What I really like about our 2011 effort is that we don't just gaze into the crystal ball but we provide actionable insights along with recommendations on what you should be doing.

For this year’s installment, we identified eleven trends. The first five are Steve's  and the remaining six are mine. If there’s a common theme that runs through it all it’s that there will increasingly be a lot of information coming at us, yet the same amount of time to digest it all. This, as Auggie Ray from Forrester notes, will make standing out more challenging.

In the deck above you will find the same recommendations we are sharing with our clients and helping them bake into their strategies. Client examples in this deck include eBay, HP and Qualcomm. The others are best practices from around the industry.

The 11 curated trends are summarized below:

 

• Attentionomics - Marketers begin to realize the value of attention and not just reach in driving conversion

 

• Digital Curation – The plethora of content will give rise to digital curators who can separate art from junk

 

• Developer Engagement – Marketers typically don’t try to court developers, but that’s all about to change

 

• Transmedia Storytelling – If there’s one constant it’s that humans crave stories. Technology creates new expectations

 

• Thought Leadership – Companies recognize they must activate credible individual expert voices who can create content

 

• The Integration Economy – Social media efforts can no longer exist in fragmented, non-formal initiatives. They begin to integrate

 

• Ubiquitous Social Computing – As competition heats up mobile devices, consumers closer to being socially connected anywhere

 

• Location, Location, Facebook – If 2010 belonged to solely Foursquare, it’s likely that Facebook will rain on their parade in 2011

 

• Social Media Schizophrenia – Social overload is no longer a problem for tech mavens, but a broader population

 

• Google Strikes Back – Google proves that the best way to beat Facebook & Twitter is to do what they do best: index them to pieces

 

• Viva La Social Web Site – Businesses realize that integrating social functionality into their existing web sites is what users now expect

Six Social Media Trends For 2011

Originally published at Harvard Business Review

It was a banner year for social media growth and adoption. We witnessed Facebook overtake Google in most weekly site traffic, while some surveys reported nearly 95% of companies using LinkedIn to help in recruiting efforts. In my outlook for last year, I cited that mobile would become a lifeline to those looking for their social media fixes, and indeed the use of social media through mobile devices increased in the triple digits.

I also outlined how "social media would look less social" or more accurately exclusive, and indeed, we've seen the re-launch of Facebook groups, which focus on niche interactivity, and more recently, the emergence of Path, billed as "the social network for intimate friends" which limits your network to only 50 people. The past year also saw some brands go full throttle on Foursquare's game-like geo-location platform, attempting to reward mayors and creating custom badges for the network's power users.

In other areas, such as social media policy, I was less accurate. Conversations around the topic did begin to take place, But a global survey indicated that only 29 percent of companies even have a social media policy. That's not as high as I expected.

So what could we see happening in 2011? I'll take a stab at six trends again. In no particular order:

It's The Integration Economy, Stupid. From Ford, to Dell, to Starbucks (client), to Jet Blue, and a host of other companies who have pioneered early uses of social media for business, 2011 will be the year these companies take a serious look at integrating social media, not only regionally but globally. Don't be surprised if the same companies that piloted programs such as Ford's "Fiesta Movement" and Starbuck's Foursquare programs also become the first companies to take on the huge challenge of integrating social media into all facets of business from global marketing to crisis management and beyond.

Tablet & Mobile Wars Create Ubiquitous Social Computing. As competition heats up in the form of cheaper, smarter phones and an assortment of tablets that may hit the market (a $35 Tablet in India?), technology consumers will come one step closer to being connected 24/7, and in more powerful ways than previously possible. Social networking will be on the go, out of the house, and out of the office. More competition, variety, power, and affordability in devices will fuel the increase of ubiquitous social computing.

Facebook Interrupts Location-Based Networking. If 2010 belonged to Foursquare and its playful, competitive and sometimes addicting ecosystem of badges, mayorships and specials, it's likely that Facebook will rain on Foursquare's parade in 2011. With tons of data and the architecture behind Facebook's response to Foursquare about to be rolled out globally, Facebook is well positioned to actually make location based services useful to business.

Average Participants Experience Social Media Schizophrenia. While social media schizophrenia (the overload of multiple social profiles) is nothing new to tech mavens, it will become something that more and more "average" users experience as they tweet, Facebook, G-mail, chat, Skype, BBM, SMS, and Tumble their way across the social web. While many mavens have adopted ways to manage and cope, average users may find themselves at the beginning of the curve in need of a 12-step social identity program. This may lead to increased demand from typical participants to have a more integrated and simplified social graph and an opportunity for platforms and companies alike to meet this demand.

Google Doesn't Beat Them, They Join Them. In 2010, Wired told us that Facebook could beat Google to win the net. But even at the end of 2010 after failed attempts to create their own networks such as Buzz, Google could prove that the best way to beat Facebook, Twitter, and the rest is to do what Google does best: Index them to pieces. Indeed, I've already noticed Google's algorithm has become smarter about Twitter data. I only have to type in a few words to locate old tweets. It's possible that by sticking to what Google does best, they may be able to take advantage of the social web by indexing any and all social data they can get their hands on. Expect the Googleplex to "strike back" in 2011, and perhaps demonstrate that they may figure out their role and relevancy on the social Web.

Social Functionality Makes Websites Fashionable Again. After several years of being told to "fish where the fish are," businesses realize that users expect social integration to existing Websites. Sites such as AMEX Open forum serve as a model for how networks such as Twitter can integrate with the Web experience. Websites will increasingly serve as "digital hubs" that integrate social activity from many platforms. For example, Apple's music social network, named Ping, recently integrated Twitter. While the integration has kinks, it demonstrates that even the most iconic of brands realizes that they do not exist in their own walled garden. They must integrate to be relevant in a socially connected world.

These are a few emerging trends that come to my mind. I'm interested to hear what you think as well, so please weigh in with your own thoughts. Where do you see social media going in 2011?

Image Credit: Valentine Westphal

Being First Isn't Enough

If you go by the numbers, I've had a pretty good run using Typepad, the pioneers of Movable Type and the personal publishing movement we've come to know as "blogging". History teaches us that technologies have a pattern of being replaced while the broader behaviors they encourage live on. Nature runs it's course and only a few platforms can become the dominant players worth using.

Lessons in innovation (and business). Being first isn't enough.

I like the engine that fuels this site because it's simple and I do it all myself and haven't had a compelling reason to make a change. But new management of the engine is likely to mean less care for the engine not more. So at some point, eventually the engine will need to be replaced. People will always need to get from point A to point B. The vehicles we choose to get us there are another story.

Preparing A Social Readiness Gameplan In Seven Steps

 

Photo Credit: Avanash Kunnath | Originally posted on Jive Talks

Two industry articles recently surfaced which caught my attention. The first on Media Post indicated that more than half of the companies polled for the article go at social media initiatives without a strategy. The second, from eMarketer included some statistics behind common social initiatives but indicated that there was a gap between tactical implementation such as reserving URLs and properties which most organizations were already doing, to planning for relevant protocols which many had not. Both pieces left me wondering—are organizations really preparing themselves for a day where engaging in public will become more mainstream, ubiquitous and even expected? In other words, will the organization truly be “social” when they need it most? To help answer this question, I’m going to list a few core “plays” that your organization should be incorporating into their gameplan if they truly want to move toward making their business more “social”.

Play 1: Active Listening & Analysis
It’s often repeated, but common sense dictates that this is where you begin. Your organization should be aware of what’s being said about it and where it’s being said. There are a variety of social media monitoring tools which make listening possible ranging from the free to the more expensive. Other articles exist to point you to those tools—this one is designed to stress that it needs to be in your gameplan and more importantly integrated into your business model. For example, The Gatorade brand took listening and analysis so seriously that they actually had a physical “social media command center” built into their Chicago headquarters. But whether your listening is digital, physical or a combination of the two, what’s most important are the insights you derive from doing it.

Play 2: Influencer Mapping & Network Dynamics
Call them influencers, mavens or connectors—these individuals exist in both an organization’s internal and external networks which are relevant to your organization and it’s your job to find out who they are and what motivates them. But it’s not just the influencers that matter, it’s the overall way the networked ecosystem works and how it responds to things such as perceived threats or hot conversational topics. Before your organization enters any social ecosystem, it should have spent some time studying the network dynamics around it. Services such as Networked Insights, Skyttle, and others like them exist to provide select intelligence which can arm an organization with the knowledge it needs before ever stepping foot into a community.

Play 3: Technology Assessment, Integration & Adoption
Technology is key in developing a social readiness gameplan because it’s what accelerates anything from collaboration to communication. Internally, the right technology may not be in place in order for your organization to move as quickly, intelligently or as socially as you would like. This is where solutions such as Jive and others come into play. Externally, the plumbing is complex but also open in many cases (API’s). In both cases there needs to be an assessment of what can or can’t be done. How it integrates with what’s already in place and who is likely to use it.  For external integration examples, think Facebook connect—for internal, think of your legacy intranet and what might replace it. In both cases, perform audits to determine what technology will best serve your purpose, goals and business culture.

Play 4: Organizational Planning (People & Process)
Technology alone never solved anything—it is the human capitol part of the equation that completes the picture. Change requires existing processes to be re-designed. Rules of engagement should be put in place that act as guidelines for how to engage for the mutual gain of the organization and it’s stakeholders. Training should be implemented. Policies need updating and every business unit within the organization that plays a role in the gameplan should know the rules even when they change.

Play 5: Strategy
No game plan is a plan without a strategy in place which outlines what needs to be done before you actually do it. What’s most important is that you think before you act. What’s the competition doing? Who is succeeding? Who is failing? What does success and failure actually look like for your initiative—and HOW will both be measured? These questions should and can be answered before any substantial initiative begins and that in a nutshell is what strategy is.

Play 6: Pilots, Programs & Transformation
If strategy is the plan inside the gameplan, then consider pilots (small, bite sized initiatives) the scrimmage. Pilot initiatives allow you to test theories on the field taking calculated risks. They should be small by design. Successful pilot initiatives often inform and sometimes evolve into more ambitious undertakings. A pilot could be platform specific, such as testing a collaboration tool with a department vs. the entire organization. Or externally, establishing an embassy on Slideshare vs. ramping up dramatically on Facebook. Pilot projects when done with success and shared around the broader organization can occasionally lead to a larger business transformation.  

Play 7: Measurement, Metrics & Success
Every organization will determine and measure success differently. For some it may be sales. For others it’s adoption of a platform. For some it’s measuring the levels of participation or specific actions such as a sign up, donation, or even saying a positive word in a public space (sentiment). Whether it’s increasing visibility, driving sales, or generating a cost savings, your game plan should include what you intend to measure and how you will measure it. 

Consider the above a high level checklist for your organization in the quest to evolve it into a more connected brand and ultimately a social business. Perhaps you are doing many of the things listed in here. Perhaps you are just starting. What’s most important is that you have a game plan in place which is strategic enough to get you started and adaptable enough to change as fast as conditions in the game do—because change as we all know, happens.

Facebook's True Story Is Agility Not Privacy

Originally posted at Harvard Business Review

Privacy. It's the key word in most Facebook-related headlines these days. But it's not the key idea. I believe that what's really being tested here is not the limits of privacy but the notion of agility — the ability of an organization to implement rapid iterations in their products and services for better and/or worse.

Since its inception, Facebook has been a poster child of agility, demonstrating practices often associated with the agile software design movement. Agile software isn't new, but the idea of a business as hugely influential as Facebook applying agile principles to its platform (and maybe to its business model) is new.

Facebook's pattern has become nearly cyclical. This recent privacy kerfuffle is in some ways just a repeat of Facebook Beacon which was introduced then quickly killed due to privacy concerns. Nevertheless, the platform grows. Facebook has produced a highly addictive and constantly evolving social platform that keeps users coming back for more despite regular complaints about not just privacy, but the user experience itself. If Facebook were a city, it might be my hometown of Chicago, where they say "if you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes." If you don't like the latest Facebook feature, wait 5 minutes, or days or weeks but not much more than that, for some type of significant tweak or new feature rollout.

The product itself (the platform) evolves nearly in real time. It changes so fast it feels as if everything is "beta." One day you'll log-in and notice a different layout, a new button, a new feature or some entirely new integration. The next day the company changes the entire social ecosystem by opening up its social graph to third parties.

The company's becoming an agility case study worth watching. As Facebook tends to push aggressively, then scale back based on user feedback the larger question is do we as human beings want this type of non-stop cyclical change? The answer usually lies in the experience itself. How many versions of software and hardware has Apple pushed out? Why is a BlackBerry product (disclaimer, Edelman client) endearingly referred to as a CrackBerry?

If Facebook can keep the experience addictive, we as users are likely to happily follow their rapid iteration. Facebook's agility is directly tied to our addiction. Where platforms such as MySpace evolved more slowly, Facebook evolves in real time and we've rewarded them for this by signing up by the millions. Is working this way sustainable in the long term? We're about to find out.

Getting Social With eBay

Originally posted on Edelman Digital

Last week Edelman hosted a strategy session with our clients and partners at eBay and I had the opportunity to pull two of eBay’s social media leads aside for a quick chat. Richard Brewer-Hay has been with the company just over two years and has already brought a face to many of eBay’s social initiatives through his eBay Ink blog as well as his consistent engagement with eBay users in forums and nearly every community imaginable. Julie Haddon, a former Twitter employee who recently returned to eBay after working there from 2003-2006, has moved back to the iconic brand in a global social media strategy role.

While eBay already has a presence on social touchpoints such as Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, the day was focused on looking at how the brand can dial up engagement with buyers, sellers and employees in a meaningful and scalable way. We’re very excited to be a part of this as eBay boasts some of the most engaged users on the planet and this makes for fertile ground. Have a listen to what Julie and Richard have to say and think about how it applies to your own organization.

Fantasy Social Media

 
Flickr photo by Kodiak

We're treating social media like Fantasy Football, Baseball etc. Except even those feel more like the real thing. Here are some social media fantasies vs. what I believe are the realities.

Fantasy: Social media shouldn't live in a silo, so we are adding these responsibilities to your existing job.
Reality: Day jobs will always win and moonlighting only makes you tired.

Fantasy: Let's use latest social platform X
Reality: They don't actually use latest social platform X, but they've read about it on a blog.

Fantasy: People love coupons!
Reality: People do love coupons! And they love you only as long as you give them freebies.

Fantasy: It's all just media.
Reality: It's actually about interactions—and media needs to work in tandem with those.

Fantasy: People need to be educated.
Reality: Online, people educate themselves.

Fantasy: It's another place where we can tell our story.
Reality: Participants care more about their story than they do yours. Stop deleting their comments.

Fantasy: They will tell friends!
Reality: Getting someone to tell a friend about you requires being remarkable. Are you?

My reality check for the day. But I'm not giving up—sorry.

Edelman Digital: When Is Your Website A Community?

 

One of the pet projects I've taken on since joining Edelman has been assuming the responsibilities of the "website", an initiative that as many professional services firms can relate to began to head down the path of the "cobblers children". One of the first things I was empowered to do was to hire a resource, fully dedicated to this property—this was probably one of the more innovative moves on the initiative since the property isn't a content destination nor a product platform. It does however allows us to be content publishers, facilitators and provides us with the flexibility to integrate 3rd party platforms (for example, a Foursquare widget will tell you who has checked into a local office).

   

Having found the perfect community manager (Suzanne Marlatt), who acts as part curator, editor, blogger, and developer, we began to streamline efforts on the property to move it forward along our vision. Suzanne (below) and I both half jokingly describe this vision as a "Mashable for marketing", but that underscores our determination to not only create but maintain a valuable experience to the users who will subscribe and participate here.

 

The site is in its infancy but built on Wordpress, it allows us to throw as much content and interactivity as that platform can withstand. But we all know this is not a technology play—this is a value play. This property needs to provide value to our clients, employees, peers, and potential job seekers. As long as we put these users first, and maintain the resources we've committed to it, I'm confident we could indeed provide the value we aspire to. Wish us luck—communities don't form overnight.

Nussbaum on Design, Disruption and Innovation

Originally posted on the Dachis Group Collaboratory

Sharing ideas and insights with Bruce Nussbaum, contributing editor at BusinessWeek, is always a pleasure, so it's fitting that he's one of my first round table interviews. Previously assistant managing editor in charge of BusinessWeek's innovation and design coverage, he was named one of the 40 most powerful people in design by I.D. Magazine in 2005. Nussbaum wrote The World After Oil: The Shifting Axis of Power and Wealth, and Good Intentions, an inside look at medical research on AIDS. He has received awards from the Sigma Delta Chi Journalism Society, the Overseas Press Club, and the Industrial Designers Society of America. Nussbaum is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. For more of his thinking and writing, you can read Nussbaum on Design or follow him on Twitter. Photo credit to Alex_Cheek.

David: You've been a huge advocate for the field of design and a believer in what's commonly known as "design thinking." Movements in how people collaborate in an open fashion or trends such as crowdsourcing are positioned to influence how designers think and work. What do you think are the challenges and opportunities for designers as these shifts take place?

Bruce: Crowdsourcing and client participation in design are huge new opportunities that are really exciting.  We now have the technology to engage consumers, learners, drivers, patients - everyone - and make them part of a process that generates new options, services and experiences. Of course, that means "experts" have to give up some control and that includes managers, designers, branders (is that a term?). Yeah, this is especially true in branding where social media empowers consumers to demand control of the brand, brand strategy and, increasingly, the products/services that make up the brand.

David: Business models are being disrupted in real time. You recently shared an opinion on how this affected BusinessWeek. In your opinion, what should a business be doing right now to ensure that they are positioned to thrive?

Bruce: The same forces decentralizing power and participation in media are sweeping business organizations. So we have social business models arising in the same way that we have social media models. I think you guys are pioneering in this area, David. You know, there is a health practice in Brooklyn called Hello Health where young doctors organize their practice around a Facebook platform--maybe it is Facebook itself. I think that's the model of the future for many business organizations. It's beyond flat. It's networked. Changing big corporations to do that will be a huge task. AG Lafley, before he left as CEO of P&G, said his job of just opening the silos there was only 10% done after nearly 8 years. So moving from hierarchical to horizontal to networked is an immense task--but it has to be done to compete in the global economy. I'd guess that one out of 10 big companies will be able to make the switch. Maybe 1 in 20.

You have to be in the culture of your consumers and clients and certainly with Gen Y, that's how they live, that's where they live. It's not just the future, it's like tomorrow.

David: You've written on the topic of innovation for some time providing alternative perspectives on processes such as Six Sigma etc. Has your view on innovation itself changed or is it the same? How do you personally define innovation?

Bruce: Innovation, for me, is invention that generates value for people.  Often that value is monetary and commercial and produces profits, jobs, taxes and economic growth. Increasingly innovation is happening in non-market civic arenas--health, education, transportation, warfare (yes warfare), where the increased value is not necessarily monetary alone but hugely beneficial to the people it effects. The fastest growing field in innovation and design consulting is health care. Yet, there is a lot of money to be saved and earned in that space, but the biggest beneficiaries are patients, doctors and nurses.

David You've recently joined the ranks with many of us on networks such as Twitter. Why did you do it? What have you learned and what in your opinion is the opportunities and or risks that networks provide to the business world.

Bruce: I touched on the importance of networks earlier. They are the crucial building blocks of organization for the future. And hey, they were in the past. Church groups, unions, political parties, block associations--all networks. Just without the technology that binds these days.

I use Twitter to create a human search engine that screens information and links it to me quickly. It is so much better than a mathematical algorithm that doesn't know me. This posse is my information curator.  Increasingly, I wake up in the morning and use Twitter to get my information, not the NY Times or the WS Journal. I rely on my Twitter-mates (don't go there) to put me onto trends way before they show up on data bases. And yes, I also am entertained by them. I hope I give them giggles from time to time as well. And I hope I serve them as well as a curator of information.

David: You've written a good deal about the current economic climate, how we got here and what we could be doing to get out. If you were a CEO of a large business today, what would you do to fuel economic growth? Do you think business leaders can help turn this around?

Bruce: CEOs should have been innovating throughout the recession and need to innovate even faster as we exit it and move toward growth. Every serious study shows that when companies innovate in an economic downturn, they pick up market share vis-à-vis their competitors once growth accelerates. Apple does this so well.

But most executives just cut costs and then find themselves with nothing new to offer consumers when the game changes. I think we'll have a new normal consumer culture  in the next business cycle and companies that figure out the needs and wants of people in that culture will do exceedingly well. Also, Gen Y is beginning to move into the workforce. It has a very distinct culture that very few companies understand. I'm talking different values, behaviors and platforms of interaction and delivery. Those who "get" Gen Y will do well.

David: "Social media" for the lack of a better phrase seems to be on everyone's mind. What's your take on the current state of matters related to this? Where specifically do you see opportunities and what should we as both citizens and members of the workforce be mindful of?

Bruce: "Social media" has evolved to the point where we should drop the word "social." Most media is now networked, engaged, participatory, looped. It's the norm. Social media is where Gen Y live and social media is where aging Baby Boomers are gravitating toward. We are still sorting out the technologies and rules of the game for social media. There are different cultures for different platforms. You have to study these cultures as if they were different villages in different continents.

I see virtually all corporate consumer business, retail, media, education and health moving onto the social media platform. Think Mint vs. Intuit (which just bought Mint). I believe hybrid social media models will develop that integrate the personal with the network. I think one of the next big things will be in cheap, portable video conference systems that link to social media systems that make them much more personal. Let's face it, Skype sucks, especially compared to HP's Halo system but Skype is free and Halo is expensive. So far. A disruptive technology in video conference could make a huge difference in both social media and social business platforms.

I'm hoping that all this will change our political system which has become hugely corrupt. Unlike Asia, where corruption is rampant and fought, we in the US have simply legalized it and call it "lobbying." Social media has the promise of taking power away from the few in Washington and giving it to the people. Yeah, yeah, I know. Be careful of what you wish for. But, hey, this is all good and fun and, yes, important too.

Building A Culture of Innovation Part II

"When building a culture of innovation for any office—it’s best to keep this mantra in mind. Pretend that you are a playground designer, and when you create something for the “children” to play on, don’t create rules. Let them create their own rules of engagement. Your role then becomes an observer. Sit on the “bench” and watch them play. Learn from it, and apply what you learn to your next initiative."

Read the full post at Experience Matters

Bruce Nussbaum's Innovation Gym

I recently had a chance to catch up with BusinessWeek's Bruce Nussbaum who was a good enough sport to go ahead and share a his "innovation gym" story with us on video.   What I like about  Bruce is that he's not afraid to stir up the pot.  Apparently, he caused a bit a scene at BusinessWeek by taking down photos of CEO's in order to put up imagery that would stimulate his staff as they worked on the inaugural issue of INside Innovation.

The video clip is only two minutes long and I suggest you watch it.  Bruce obviously peppers in a bit of humor as he reflects upon his experience trying to create his own version of innovation INside the historic walls of the McGraw Hill building—but I'll bet you one thing.  I bet you have a story just like this.  Maybe even a couple.  If that's the case—you're doing something right.

Specialist or Generalist?

CM colleague Matthew Milan pointed me to this visual from Xplane's Dave Gray.  It's a thought starter, that's for sure.  The visual defines Generalists as being best at defining the problem or goal.  Specialists are best at solving the problem or "executing the plan".  There's probably a lot of truth to the stake that this visual puts in the ground.  It certainly simplifies the differences between Specialist and Generalists.

One problem.

My view on creativity is that it's problem solving at the core.  Innovation, design, communications, invention, all disciplines that depend on both the Generalist and Specialist mindsets working in concert to solve the problem.  On the flip side—Specialists can also be quite good at defining the problem, especially if it falls within their area of expertise.  Do you consider yourself to be a social media expert?  Maybe your knowledge is more specialized than you think.

I think the reality lies somewhere in this:  Generalists can excel at both defining and solving problems but may require the assistance of specialists as they go deeper into execution.  Specialists can excel in defining the problem especially when it falls within their area of expertise.  Are we saying the same thing?  I think the difference is stressing that both can actually function in the other's "role" depending on the individual and context.  And I definitely would expand effectiveness of Generalists in solving problems as opposed to just the definition of them.

Maybe it's the title if the visual.  Change the "or" to "and" and you can look at this from another perspective.

Micro Innovations

Sometimes innovation isn't the main course, it's the dessert.  Harley-Davidson just came out with two new models, one of which is a unique soft tail design called the "Rocker".  The big innovation on the bike went into the rear fender, which appears to "hover" over the over-sized rear wheel.  It was a feat of engineering to accomplish this and the bike looks great.  This particular model evokes a true "lone wolf" feel to it part of which is due to the appearance of the full rear fender which doesn't include a second seat.  My guess is that part of the rationale behind the design was the influence of the custom-chopper craze (most choppers are one seaters) and like choppers, the Rocker is meant to be customized.

But Harley did a smart thing in the design process.  The Rocker sports a "convertible seat design" which means this one seater rebel ride can be converted into a two seater in seconds.  If I had to speculate, this design was possibly influenced by an insight into the modern Harley rider who's either a weekend warrior and needs an occasional spot for their significant other, or the rider who occasionally meets someone worthy enough to share a ride.  I call this a "micro innovation" because it's not the main selling point of the bike--but as this video shows, it's one of the features that will probably get talked about, and more than likely get used.  Not to mention that it's a great example of function that doesn't get in the way of form (or vice versa).

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?

Practicing What You've Learned

Seems like forever that the blogosphere has been abuzz with Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics.  I personally never purchased the book, though I have been a comic fan in since I was a little kid.  And though I don't currently collect comics I do re-live my youth with my boys.

So when I would read about the book through blogs and user experience professionals singing it's praises—I thought, "that's great—people are picking up on visual storytelling".  But I have to be honest, I value practice even more than I do a synopsis of a good book.

Guy Kawasaki scores huge points for me by simply PRACTICING some of these principals in his recent post.  Rather than show pictures with written commentary, Guy told the story of his trip to Phoenix via a "graphic novel" format.  And it's quite effective (and entertaining).

See for yourself.

Update: Amateur Gourmet was the direct inspiration (l was so taken by the comics I blew past the intro in Guy's post!)

Want Fries With That Shake-Up?

I'm lovin' it.  According to Adweek, McDonald's has tapped AQKA as it's lead global digital agency.

Here's my take on how this potentially translates.  AKQA is a relatively small shop who puts creativity and innovation at the forefront of how they engage with clients.  Their work on the XBOX interface as well as simple innovative solutions such as the GPS Bus advertising has taken the agency where others have not gone before.

And now big clients are starting to notice.  Think about it—AKQA is being given the keys to come up with a worldwide interactive strategy for the supersized McDonald's brand.  Other agencies, tied to much bigger global names (like DDB) will have to execute against the strategies that AKQA helps architect.

Today it doesn't matter how big you are—it only matters how big your thinking is.

Quack...Quack... Whack!

Roger von Oech, author and creator of the Innovative/Creative “Whack Packs” wants to give you a whack up side your head.  Well at least figuratively speaking.  Roger recently phoned me and we had a pleasant conversation about creativity, innovation and blogging.  The conversation has lead to two very cool things:

1. Roger has started blogging
2. I now have 2 complimentary “Ball of Whacks” (the boys love them)

Let’s start with the Ball of Whacks (that’s the punky hairdo on top of the rubber duckie’s head).  I played around with it for a bit—as did my boys.  It’s pretty cool.  For one thing, the 3-D triangular shapes force you out of linear thinking.  You really can’t stack them as you would with building blocks.  So in a way, you have to build things in a fluid , organic fashion.  It's pretty relaxing too.  The magnetic shapes make a soothing “click” sound when they snap into place.  But because they are magnets—there isn’t anything to connect like Legos.  I think the product is ideal for either ideation sessions with a larger group (some people like to use their hands while they think).  It also seems well-designed to sit by your desk as a diversion from the computer.

Thanks for sending me the freebies Roger!

Now, let’s talk about Roger’s new blog—which is less than a week old.  You should keep an eye on this as it’s rare to witness a blog develop in it’s early stages. Roger set up his blog shortly after our conversation.  And the cool thing is that he’s already got tons of content and images at his disposal from his writings like this one:

Don't Fall in Love With Ideas
"If you fall in love with an idea, you won't see the merits of alternative approaches -- and will probably miss an opportunity or two. One of life's great pleasures is letting go of a previously cherished idea. Then you're free to look for new ones. What part of your idea are you in love with? What would happen if you kissed it goodbye?"

I was familiar with Roger’s Creative Whack Pack even before hearing from him in person.  I’ve used it in meetings with clients such as HP. And I’ve also used it as a complimentary deck to the IDEO method cards.  Both offer a nice take at creative/design thinking.  So I’m personally encouraged to see that Roger has started blogging and I’m curious as hell to see where the adventure leads him.  More proof that it’s never too late to start a blog. 

Anyway, if you have time—check Roger out at CreativeThink, and don’t be afraid of Whacking yourself in the head every now and then.

Visual Thesaurus

Every once in a while, you come across an app, and think to yourself—"sweet fancy Moses...this thing was made for me".  Well maybe not in those words, but you know what I'm getting at.  I recently noticed that there was a site linking back to me called Visual Thesaurus.  But before I even noticed this, Uber writer Ann Handley included this tool in her 8 Writing Tools post over at Marketing profs.  So forgive me Ann—I just got around to messing with it today (hey, give me a break—you see how much I blog).  :)

Here's what I'm loving about this little gift to writers.

The Visual Part
OK, you all know that I'm visual as hell.  So this little gem of a Thesaurus lets you type in a word and then visualizes related words in an organically mapped out way (see brand example above).  It's a great way to digest all of your options at a glance.

I Need a Digital Thesaurus
I'm at the point where I really need to start using a Thesaurus.  some people actually think I am a writer.  This frightens me because I have no training in writing and really don't even know the basics.  It's pretty much all done from instinct and the gut.  Which is fine, but will only get you so far.  I also need the digital part—I don't care for paper as much as I used to.  I like the convenience of digital along with options to e-mail and print if I feel the need to have something in my hand.

I like Good Design
This thing was just designed well—that's all there is to it.  It's packs a lot of functionality in a small space and it didn't take me long to figure out how to master it.  I really liked the panels on the side which offered up nouns, adjectives and verbs.

Verdict:
Yeah, I'll subscribe.  At under 20 bucks a year, this thing is a bargain.  So  in a few months if you feel like the writing here got just a little better—you'll know why.

(Not) Staying in the Lines

"Daddy, daddy!  Look what I did!"

That's awesome Max!  ...I replied as any parent would.  We were looking at one of Max's assignments in kindergarten.  It was matching and coloring shapes.  Typical stuff, I thought as my five-year-old skipped away.  But I looked at the paper a little longer.  I couldn't help but notice the teacher's comment.

"Try staying in the lines."

Now, I understand that kids need to learn how to color in the lines.  It teaches them basic coordination and concentration.  But what does it teach them about themselves?  What does it teach them about skills that might serve them well one day in the real world?

Couldn't there be an assignment in addition to coloring shapes that maybe included handing them blank sheets of paper and asking them to invent and name a shape that no one has ever heard of before?  Maybe some kid would come up with a Sqoval, or a Tri-square, or even an Octocircle.  Who knows?  The point is that we do need to be taught to do things like coloring shapes at a young age, but shouldn't we also be taught how to invent, create and look at problems from a totally different perspective?

The Picasso Tree

One morning on my way to work, I hurried to my car while balancing the usual assortment of my laptop bag, coffee and a granola bar.  Just as I was about to pull out, I noticed the tree in our side yard.  Max and I had put one of these "tree faces" on it—a set of eyes, nose and mouth that makes your tree look like something out of Lord of the Rings.

But what caught my eye, was that all the features were mixed up.  The tree looked like Picasso had come by during the night and did some of his best work on it.  I knew immediately what had happened.  So I went back in to ask Max what the story was and he simply replied:

"it looks better that way".

And of course he was right.  It does look better this way.  So needless to say, we kept it as is and are the only house on the block to have a "Picasso Tree"—and an original one no less.  In fact, I think the company who makes these should consider marketing a special line like this.  You can "create your own Picasso Tree", with it's own unique placement of facial features.  YOU can be the artist.

That's what coloring outside the lines will do.  It can take a good idea, and build upon it.  Make into something better, unique, or as someone once said—a “purple cow”  :).  Of course this is something that school can’t always teach us.  But look at the world around us.  What if someone told Steve Jobs to “stay in the lines”, or what if Thomas Edison never tried coloring outside of a line, just to see what would happen?  What about that person at Motorola who thought the world was ready for a unusually thin and stylish phone?  What if that individual just “stayed in the lines”?

Coloring outside of your own personal lines doesn’t mean taking a trip on the bohemian express—but it does mean looking at something differently.  I can imagine little Max taking a step back and looking at his creation.  Sure, the Tree face was cool before, in that Lord of the Rings kind of way.  But now, it’s both cool AND differentiated.  And how many brands can say that about themselves?

Logic + Emotion INside BusinessWeek

(click to enlarge)

Update: Just picked up the print version (L+E is on page 24, not 16).  The spread is pretty cool.  I would write more about it, but my wife is telling me that if I don't come to bed now—I'm sleeping on the couch.

The latest edition of BusinessWeek hits the stands tomorrow with their highly anticipated follow-up to IN (inside innovation).  Logic + Emotion is featured on page 16 24.  I don't have a print version in my hands yet so here is a link to the write-up:

Four Sources For Trends And Ideas

"Logic + Emotion
darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/
 
Digitas(DTAS ) creative director David Armano develops graphics to illustrate new concepts for marketing, brands, and experience design. Here he traces bloggers' spheres of influence with overlapping community clusters illustrating social networks and their interactions."

I am being featured in the IN BLOGS section along with the following:

Jim Carroll
jimcarroll.com/weblog
Carroll is a futurist and trend-spotter. His blog traces his travels about the country as he talks to innovators. Here's a look at what building a sand castle teaches us about innovation.

Ted Blog
tedblog.typepad.com
It sees itself as host to the ideas that matter in technology, entertainment, and design (TED), and is tied to the annual TED conference. One of the blog's best features is the TEDTalks videocasts.

Innovation Tools
innovationtools.com/weblog/innovation-weblog.asp
This site covers innovation research, best practices, strategies, management, and how businesses use blogs for idea creation and collaboration.

Looks like they may have included the Influence Ripples visual, but can't tell until I see the printed piece.   Other topics covered in this edition of Business Week include the following:

• Crowdsourcing
• An interview with Apple's Jonathan Ive
• A Mind Map from IDEO's David Kelly
• The Truth About Brainstorming

...Among other stuff.  Can't wait to get my hands on it...(like I didn't just make this obvious).

                

Creativity + Genius

Wow.  Just came across an excellent piece relating to how the mind of a genius works and also the relationship between creativity and genius.  It’s worth taking a look at, as it covers the topic at a very high-level but also explores it from different angles including biological, and psychological factors.  Not all creative people are geniuses just as not all geniuses are creative.  Or are they? 

Is being a genius at something the ultimate form of creativity even in areas like mathematics?

The piece also goes on to suggest that genius cannot be determined by IQ alone.  On a personal note, my three-year-old can read simple sentences.  I mean really read—and he wasn’t taught this.  At 2 years old he was reading words and now he’s sounding them out and trying to read big words he doesn’t know.  It’s kind of scary actually—to see his little brain working a bit differently.  I don’t know what the future has in store for him—but I do think the common sense notion that a genius thinks differently (quirks and all) is fairly understood. 

Great read.  Here are some choice bits:

"There's a big difference between being really smart and being a genius. While geniuses tend to be exceptionally intelligent, they also use imagination and creativity to invent, discover or create something new within their field of interest. They break new ground rather than simply remembering or reciting existing information.

Geniuses do not usually operate in isolation, either -- nearly all of them analyze the work of other great minds and use that information to make new discoveries. Self-taught geniuses, on the other hand, often explore information in unexpected or inventive ways, due in part to their lack of formal training. In either case, the ability to imagine new possibilities is as important as general intelligence.

Like intelligence, creativity and imagination can be difficult to isolate, quantify or explain. Some researchers believe that creative people have less latent inhibition than other people. Latent inhibition is the unconscious ability to ignore unimportant stimuli. Researchers theorize that creative people either receive more stimuli from the world around them or ignore less of it. This may also explain why creative people seem to be more prone to mental illness. People who are both unable to filter stimuli and emotionally unstable are more prone to psychosis.

Creativity also seems to have some traits in common with bipolar disorder. During an episode of mania, a person with bipolar disorder experiences increases in energy, the ability to focus and motivation. Bipolar disorder is more common among writers and artists than in the general population, but scientists have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

The creativity of genuises also relates to productivity and hard work. Sometimes, the most dramatic examples of genius involve people who produce their best work at a very young age. However, not every genius produces exceptional work early in life the way Einstein and Mozart did. Some, like Ludwig von Beethoven, do their best work later in life.

Researcher David Galenson theorizes that the reason for this is that creative people come in two main types:

• Conceptual innovators think in bold, dramatic leaps and do their best work when young
• Experimental innovators learn through trial and error and do their best work after lengthy experimentation

Critics say Galenson's theories overlook people who produce exceptional work throughout their lives. His latest research suggests that creativity can be expressed as a continuum.

...We may never know precisely where creativity comes from, why some people use their creativity more than others or why some people are most creative during specific times in their lives. We may not learn how one person ends up with the right balance of brainpower, intelligence and creativity to become a genius. But it's clear that geniuses are central to advancements in science, technology and understanding. Without geniuses, our understanding of mathematics, literature and music would be completely different. Concepts that we now take for granted, like gravity, planetary orbits and black holes, might still be undiscovered."

Change Agent

Tom Asacker is a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is change agent.  His recent article contains quite a few metaphors used to make a point about the intense need for change in marketing.  My favorite part of the article:

The Masses Have Left the Tree

"The marketplace of old resembled a mass of caterpillars hanging around the tree of traditional media,venturing down the branches of mass distribution, and consuming the offshoots of brand advertisers. No more. The masses have escaped their pupae, spread their distinctive wings, and are fluttering around fields blossoming with an abundance of colorful and succulent offerings. A fleeting glimpse is all one usually gets of them. So what’s a marketer to do in this chaotic environment of abundant products andservices, fast-flying consumers, and a rapidly changing landscape?

Will Rogers once remarked, “Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction.” Orderly inaction describes today’s ineffectual, status quo marketing. Chaotic action is the new marketing imperative; to wit:

1. Be wherever and whenever your audience is most receptive to your message (verifiable metrics be damned). Like butterflies (okay, enough with the metaphors), consumers are best observed when they are “feeding.” With some experience, you’ll quickly learn to find "hot-spots" of butterfly activity;

2. Get their attention by being unique, relevant, and authentic. Bright, plastic flowers may attract butterflies from a distance. But once they get close enough, if it’s the wrong species or devoid of aromaand taste, they’ll quickly flit away to something worth engaging with;

3. Deliver value in exchange for their time, since the key to long-term marketing success (read: ROI) is toget them to come back for more, and to bring all of their friends; and

4. Keep notes on what you observe regarding the habitat, the offering, the way the butterfly moves and communicates, and other matters of interest. And you can leave your nets at home. You’re not trying to capture anything."

Blogsourcing

I recently Googled the word “Blogsourcing” to see what would come up.  I found this:

“The practice of news gatherers outsourcing to blogs the quotes they would usually get from interviews with qualified sources. It’s easier to find online a quote from a blogger than to wait for a conversation with someone in a position of authority.”

What I have in mind is actually blending the idea of crowdsourcing with using blogs to refine an idea.  Thus coming up with the idea of “Blogsourcing”

Wikipedia says this about Crowdsourcing:

“While not a new idea, it is becoming mainstream. Open source projects are a form of crowdsourcing that has existed for years. People who may not know one another work together online to create complex software such as the Linux kernel, MySQL database, and the Firefox browser. In recent years Web 2.0 technology has evolved to allow non-technical people to participate in online projects.”

Building upon ideas in the blogoshpere is nothing new.  Actually, it's a hallmark of how the Social Network operates.  I’ve been using this blog to help refine my own thinking.  Did this recently on the “Influence Ripples” and "Levels of Influence" posts.  I wanted to create a really simple visual to capture that process.  Essentially the "process" went something like this.

Friday: Had a e-mail conversation with Mack Collier about the “A-lister” phenomenon.
Friday Night: Posted visual to blog with idea for future presentation.
Saturday: Idea gets commented on, discussed, parts validated, parts invalidated on this blog and other blogs.
Saturday Night: Post revised idea based off of ongoing discussions of original idea.
Sunday: Revised idea gets commented on, discussed, parts validated, parts invalidated on this blog and other blogs.

In the end, I’m using my judgment to make the final call that best fits my needs—but the takeaway is that I received valuable feedback from an engaged and qualified body of people which helped me take an idea and make it better.  This is something that companies need to be thinking seriously about.  “R&D” does not have to be a huge expensive undertaking that only happens in labs.  With the use of a Social Network tool like Typepad (or for something more robust, like Basecamp) you can publish in seconds and harness the strength of virtual communities (or even your employees) to discuss, validate and improve upon ideas.  E-mail cannot do this.  Neither can surveys.  Food for thought.

Advertising: Innovate or Die. Vol. 1

I thought I had found my dream candidate.  Someone who understood the language of both design and business.  Someone who could think in pictures and express concepts with prototypes.  A creative problem solver.  An individual with a firm grasp on “Web 2.0”.  Someone who saw the potential of emerging technology as enabling us humans to make the connections we've always desired.  I brought him in for an interview.  I showed him some of our own concepts.  Our prototypes and visualizations of better, more fluid interactive experiences.  He was impressed.  He didn’t think that marketing firms did this kind of thing.  He was curious to hear more.  So I did my best to articulate the role of the digitally-integrated agency in creating brand experiences.  The kinds of experiences that people reward with their time, attention and participation.

I knew he was being sought after.  He had just graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology, but he had that aspect about him—like a lot of people were in the process of pursuing him.  I sensed that I probably would not be successful in recruiting him—but it was still worth a shot.  He possessed a blend of skills that I was looking for.  Analytical.  Expressive.  Curious.  Empathetic.  He understood technology, but more importantly he understood why people behave the way they do.

In the end, he went to go work for Google.

Why am I sharing this tale of love and loss?  I’m sharing it because I think it’s time for Advertising to get serious about innovation.  Rumor has it that the Ad Industry is in it’s death throes.  I don’t think that’s completely true—but if Advertising doesn’t start innovating for real—they will be dead as a doornail.  Max Kalehoff of Nielsen BuzzMetrics recently featured a post that made the case for how the Advertising  industry model isn’t equipped to handle R&D.  In it, he cited the following reasons:

“1. The Deliverable. Advertising agencies produce content for a living; specifically, memorable stories in print ads and broadcast spots. Moreover, these stories are to be one-of-a-kind. Storytelling does not require R&D, nor does originality in storytelling.

2. The Value Proposition. Like all professional-services firms, agencies sell expertise, which by definition reflects what has worked in the past. R&D reflects an intention to try what hasn’t been tried before.

3. The Culture. Like all vendors, ad agencies are risk-averse. Proposing the untried to results-oriented clients is a risk with long odds, an unknowable payoff and a steep downside.

And more recent contributing factors include:

4. The Ownership. The big agencies that have the requisite resources are all publicly owned these days, and Wall Street has little patience with company spending that cannot be tied to short-term results.

5. The Environment. There’s been general erosion in R&D spending by U.S. businesses recently.”

Then I thought about my dream candidate.  The one that went to work for Google.  Google does R&D.  They experiment with new products, features and services.  They certainly innovate (though the case can be made that this is overstated).

Traditional Advertising at the core is still about telling stories.  T-E-L-L-I-N-G.  Not experiencing for yourself.  Hearing about it.  Reading about it.  Passively taking it in.  Now I’m all for good storytelling, but there has to be more in order to thrive in the world of creative, empowered, individualistic, fickle consumers who spend more time engaging the social network then they do watching TV.

OK, you heard me ramble on about my dream candidate.  The one that went to Google.  So what do I think the “Dream Agency” would look like? 

Hmmmm.  Well, right off the bat, it would need to stop acting like an agency.  That would mean replacing the Dog and Pony show with things like cultivating real customer insights and utilizing Ethnography.  My vision of a dream agency would be filled with people who think with both sides of their brains and visualize different solutions to the same problem.  The agency would need to have a toolbox of methodologies, but still be nimble enough to act quickly.  Maybe the dream agency will be part IDEO.

But it also has to be really creative.  It would need to know how to both tell stories and craft experiences.  It would need to be well versed in the multitude of digital channels and be able to execute in them.  It would need to be able to present brands in ways that are consistent with the lifestyles of the people who swear by these brands.  It would need to understand how to engage people as opposed to just telling stories to them.  So maybe the agency would be part R/GA.

But none of this is enough.  Sometimes you need more than creativity, strategy, design thinking, anthropology, and a good media plan.  Sometimes you just need some plain cooky, out of the box thinking that stops people in their tracks.  Sometimes you need to be one step ahead of the curve culturally to deliver something that’s never been seen before.  Sure, some of your efforts might be better then others, but you wouldn’t be afraid of taking risks and doing things like putting people in Chicken suits for all the Web to see (and interact with).  So maybe the dream agency is part Crispen Porter + Bogusky.

Food for thought.  I’ll be writing additional volumes about advertising + innovation.  In the meantime if you have ideas about this subject matter, please share them here.  Thanks.

I'll Take That One

Years ago, I came across a poster with a picture of this hammer on it.  The poster called out some of the features of the hammer in a similar way that I am doing here.  Some of the features were both practical and inventive like rubber nodules on the top of the hammer which prevents it from making marks on the wall when removing nails.  Other parts of the design, like the orange strip were for pure style—no practical reason behind it at all.  The hammer was also both affordable and durable.

And this image stuck with me ever since.  Whenever I lead my teams in the design of a Website, I think of this simplistic example.  You don't get much more basic than a hammer.  But the designers here made improvements upon the original hammer convention.

Sites, like the hammer are often times meant to accomplish something.  To "pound" in a nail so to speak.  But they are also experiences which help differentiate you from the competition.  The Internet is the great equalizer, so if your hammer looks, feels, and works better than someone else's, then you have a good chance of stealing  that customer away from their brand to yours.

I showed this hammer to my brother-in-law who is a residential contractor and he practically drooled over it.  He talked about how he wanted to go out to the store and hold one in his hand so he could feel the weight and grip.  He liked what he saw and wanted to experience it in an even more tactile fashion.  And whenever I design a site, I always remember this example.  Will my site design entice the user to go out and do something—to take action?  To experience the brand first hand?  To engage on a deeper level?  Will it make the user drool?

How often do we do this?  How often do we design things which both gets the job done and rises above the sea of sameness?

Buzz Marketing Won't Help Starbucks

Scott over at Experience Planner has a great write up on the reason Starbucks' stock price has taken a serious nose-dive.  Is it because they aren't doing enough marketing?  Not enough viral?  Or "WOM"?

The Starbucks stock plunge is a symptom of the other kind of "Word of Mouth".  You know, when people have a crappy experience and they tell others about it.  Or when they go to your competitor because you have let them down.  From Scott's post:

"Here’s what CEO, Jim Donald has to say about it (c/o Guardian):

“We have recognised the opportunity to refine and improve our cold beverage station to make drink preparation more efficient and improve service over time but, in retrospect, we did not move aggressively enough.”

In a completely unrelated entry, Bruce Nussbaum explains why Starbucks is losing him:"

Now in contrast, take a look at Motorola's stock performance in the past 5years.  The upward trend nearly aligns with the release of the wildly popoular RAZR:



It's all a reminder that we need to focus on BOTH innovation + execution (and customer service).  We need to concentrate on our "products".  The things that we produce, even if they are considered a service.  In other words, provide a good experience so people will say good things about us.  After all, the average customer is your most effective marketer.

Innovation + Execution = Profit

P&G recently announced a profit increase of 36% with sales being 25% higher.  If you read Businessweek or F@st Company, you know that P&G has undertaken both serious business and cultural changes to embrace innovation over corporate tradition.

But I especially like how A.G. Lafley, P&G's Chairman and chief executive explains the reason for the growth:

"Demand for P&G's brands is strong," said A.G. Lafley, chairman and chief executive, in a news release. "We're continuing to drive P&G's business with breakthrough innovations and excellent in-market execution. This, combined with the great progress on integrating Gillette, positions P&G to deliver its growth objectives in fiscal year 2007 and beyond."

Two words stick out for me here.  "Innovations" and "Execution".    If you want measurable success and growth, you need both.

Creative Engineers

A recent article in BusinessWeek talks creativity and says this:

“much of the hoopla over creativity is a crock. Why? Because we are already up to our eyeballs in it. Make no mistake: Innovation matters. Nothing is more essential for long-term economic growth. But to get more innovation we may want less, not more, creativity.”

And this:

“Innovation is no more about releasing your inner bohemian than it is about holding hands, singing Kumbaya, and believing in innovation.”

The article actually makes some good points about doing more and talking less which I’m a huge fan of—but here is the bone I have to pick with it.  I think the author is stereotyping creativity as whacky, artistic, “bohemian” thinking.  And I think this is dead wrong.  Creativity is not limited to “artists” or even people who “think different”.  Sure, creative people often see the world from a different perspective—but it’s not limited to this.  Especially if you consider creative problem solving.

Here’s an anecdotal to illustrate the point.  Can an engineer be creative?  Yes.  But traditionally engineers are not considered to be creative.  They are the ones who make things work.  They make sure that an architect's design won’t crumble to the ground.  Or digitally—they develop the designs we create through code and QA.

But they can still be creative.  Check out these engineers: (Tip of the Hat to Core77)

"Manufacturing Engineering students at Cambridge University held their 2006 Design Show, displaying a range of new products that they have developed as part of their course.

Shown above:

Axi-Shield is a versatile mobile accident screen capable of fast and safe deployment on major roads, to reduce the likelihood of secondary accidents caused by 'rubbernecking'. The students behind it say it could be deployed from a standard transit van in under five minutes to provide rapid protection around an accident scene.

The Snowshell arm guard has been designed from first principles, based around a thorough understanding of how the arm behaves during a fall. ess all of these concerns, providing a carefully engineered solution that prevents the arm 'locking-out' during a fall, as well as providing wrist support and impact protection."

The Axi Shield is a pretty creative idea, and even looks pretty cool.  That’s because It’s been designed—by a bunch of “engineers”.  Creativity, like Design is one of these words that evokes different responses from different people.  I just want to throw out there—for the record, that creativity isn’t exclusive.  In fact, it’s more inclusive than you think.

Delightful Things

Businessweek has a great slideshow of some of the winners of the 2006 Product Design Awards.  A wonderful selection of products that are both usable + delightful.  I could go on, but the products speak for themselves.  Here are a few:

ResQTec hydraulic rescue tools


Pocket Imager (SP-P300MK)

KODAK EASYSHARE V570 Dual Lens Digital Camera

Wall Mounted Digital Projector (AN110)

Washing and Drying Machine NA-VR1000

Eva Solo Tea-maker

L'Amour collection

Shure E4 Sound Isolation Earphones

K2 Moxie Snow Helmet

Timberland PreciseFit™ System

Sushi Time Sushi Plate

Is Creativity the New Innovation?

Here’s a little experiment.  Search for the word “Innovation” on Businessweek.  You’ll get 4,708 results.  Now Search for the word “Creativity”.  You’ll get back 1,173 results.  Innovation has had a good run in the past few years.  But it’s looking like creativity is becoming a hot topic in both creative and non creative forums.

If you have 20 minutes to spare, I highly recommend watching this video of Sir Ken Robinson:

“Sir Ken Robinson is senior advisor to the J. Paul Getty Trust in Los Angeles, and an influential advocate for the importance of creativity in education. He makes an entertaining (and profoundly moving) case for overhauling our education system. (Recorded February, 2006 in Monterey, CA.)”

What I find most compelling about this little gem is how halfway into his monologue, he taps into some extremely profound thoughts that all of us can relate to—not just us creative types.

He describes us when we were children. Our vivid imaginations and curiosity.  Our inclination to take risk and not fear mistakes.  Then he makes the case for how education has the tendency to domesticate our creative urges (my interpretation here).  He uses the example of the individual with “ADD” who can’t sit still.  Maybe that person was designed to be a dancer?  He makes some very colorful jokes about academics “living in their heads” while seeing their bodies as merely vehicles to “transport their heads”.

It’s a really interesting and thought provoking talk.  I think Sir Ken Robinson is asking a bigger question here: 

Are we in danger of educating ourselves out of creativity? 

Sure, places of academia are also places of great thought exchange and ideas—but what if everyone has the same thoughts and ideas?  Or more importantly, do existing educational programs foster creative thinking? 

I’ll make this personal.  Growing up and going through the public school system—I was always a little different.  Maybe not on the outside—but within.  I had teachers who thought I was “lazy” and I can even remember my Grandmother trying to make me use my right hand instead of my left.  I’ve always had a vivid imagination and saw things a little differently.   And I can remember  feeling pressure to  do what everyone else did.

Though I received a decent education, what most of my teachers prized was good behavior and following rules.  What does this do for creativity?

It wasn’t until D-school that I “found myself”.  An environment that encouraged and challenged creativity and the fruits of it.  Pratt’s mantra still rings true in my soul:

“Be True To Your Work and Your Work Will Be True To You”.

Back to Sir Ken.  At the end of his monologue he leaves us with several key thoughts: 

That we have an obligation to use the “gift of human imagination” wisely, and a responsibility to the “education of the whole being” for our children.  Not just their heads.

In my estimation—creativity is being re-defined, re-evaluated and re-prioritized as a critical component of the human condition.  And I think that’s a good thing for all of us.

Bruce Talks Advertising + Innovation

Bruce Nussbaum from Businessweek has become synonymous with the words business, design and innovation.  But advertising?  I’ve noticed an increase in the past  regarding Bruce’s coverage of marketing and advertising related issues specific to the mash ups we are seeing between advertising and design firms. But lately Bruce has been venturing even further into what I like to call Advermarketing.

If this is the case, I say bring it on!  Advermarketing needs an influx of some new perspectives outside of Adweek, Advertising Age etc.  In related news, a recent post from Nussbaum on Design included some nice references to Advertising innovation including the Social Media Network.

Some choice excerpts:

"Two of the biggest marketers in the world showed up at the Supernova conference in San Francisco today and sounded more like Web 2.0 zealots than brand giants. Michael Wiley, director of new media, GM Communications, at General Motors, who's responsible for GM blogs, sounded the most radical:

"The existing advertising paradigm sucks," he said. "It's woefully inefficient. We give consumers virtually no information."

Likewise, Stan Joosten, Procter & Gamble's innovation manager for holistic customer communication (how's that for a title?), said P&G needs to experiment more with social media--carefully. "We have to stay out of some places" where people don't want to see ads, he noted. But he says P&G wants to engage with customers wherever they are online. "People want to talk about things they care about and you give them a platform to do that."

“Putting up a video clip or a photo is an expression of self creativity and is another form of media that contributes to the splintering of the mass market... But having a service where you can aggregate those mini pieces of media together and that helps you share them even more broadly, to syndicate them in fact, turbocharges that new media.”

Read the full post here

Good stuff Bruce.  I think IDEO, Ziba, and Design Continuum have had enough help from you.  Time to look at R/GA, AQKA , Digitas and a few others...  ;)

Small Is Beautiful

So here’s a video of Jason Fried from 37 Signals (go Chicago!)  I’ve always been a fan of these guys and this is why.

Listen to what Jason talks about here:

Simplicity.  Small Teams.  Less Control.  Clear Communications.  Less Noise.

“Collaboration is about communication.  It’s not about control”

“Interruption is the biggest enemy of collaboration—people need to be left alone to do their work.”

“We work in separate corners in the office and it actually allows us to get stuff done.”

“We think meetings are toxic.”

“The more meetings you’re having, the more problems you’re having”

“Meetings are about words, documents and things that create the illusion of agreement.”

“If you’re going to have a meeting—point to something real.”

“When someone wants to go for the best, they go with a small team.”

Jason brings up some good food for thought.  So are we all going to ditch meetings in our corporate environments?  Not likely—but if we are the ones calling the meetings, we can do a lot more to make them productive. 

A meeting is not collaboration.  It's a meeting.

I’m with Jason on bringing real things to meetings—making them more tangible.  Having a laptop handy with a projector ready is a good way to pull up an artifact or something you’ve seen on the Web to help make an abstract point more concrete.  Small considerations like this help make meetings more effective.

BTW, if you are curious about their name, it comes from a scientific fact that out of all the signals recorded from outer space, 37 of them cannot be explained.

37 Signals.