who cares: social media and the 'assumed' audience.

So, I started using twitter. This is only notable because it started an interesting conversation, one I have had before, in various permutations. It was kicked off by this Penny Arcade comic, and went from a question of 'does anyone really care to read what you are doing at any given moment via twitter' to 'why do you use social media?'

I explained, pretty clearly, that for me, social media is about interaction, but not really about the potential or intended audience.

Some people using services like tumblr, or twitter, or pownce, etc, are doing so as a promotional extension of their dominant destination, whether or not they are thinking of it as such. When someone has the power to break websites by linking to them, yeah, they have to consider their intended audience. But these are not the people that make social media work, really.

It's become cliche that most blogs only have one reader - the person who writes them. And yet, blogs continue to be created in a non-professional capacity, and facebooks and twitters and tumblrs follow suit.

For me, social media is about building my context. It's about building an archive, a data shadow, and something to point people at when something I thought or wrote or experienced has new relevance. This became clear a little while ago, when I shuttered my livejournal account. I backed up the whole 5 year ordeal as a PDF, and it's sitting in my laptop, and on my backup, as a giant pile of information that could be best labelled 'Jon Crowley, 2002-2007'

It's a wonderful side effect that people who care what I have to say, however few, can dig through the trail I'm generating, and possibly find something that interests them. But I'm not, and in all probability will never be, one of those people who can ask the legion of fans to help me with a technical issue, or to surge to the defence of something I have a personal interest in. And while that's cool, it's not what I was after when I started playing around on the internet.

I was, and am, in love with the utility of a recorded history of minutiae. I'm addicted to information, no matter how miniscule, and how it all fits together. I like the idea of that information, that minutiae, being parts of a person, thoughts, ideas, random snippets. I'm willing to (with a clear understanding that nothing is private), put selected thing out there.

So, I understand the appeal of twitter, at least for me. It's another way to record my minutiae, and another solid point I can direct people to if they want more context, more snippets. That's what this blog is for, the utility of recorded ideas, not some imagined readership that (frankly) I know I'm a little too unknown, and a little too inconsistent, to have.

time and space bias, dead and dying

chartreuse examines time bias, or more bluntly, declares time dead.

I agree, but was kinda hoping this much was obvious by now. Then again, watching most media outlets makes it clear that obvious doesn't really mean a change in operations. I'm more interested in space bias - and the idea that most content owners have, that owning something in one form, shouldn't justify ownership in several formats, each suited to a location (meaning, a device, a file format, and a set of permissions and interactions tooled to that medium).

Time bias is more or less dead, and all it took was storage, compression and bandwidth. Space bias falling apart will be more of a cultural shift, and an eventual understanding that consumers are only willing to pay for something useful. Useful, very soon, is going to be defined as unilaterally useful. In other words, people might be willing to spent 15 bucks for an album again if it means they can get a physical copy, get a digital copy, and get enough context with it that the experience is tailored to each tool they use to enjoy it, from ipod to computer to car.

the newspaper i want to read.

I was talking with a friend who is just finishing her education in journalism, and about to enter the workforce. In the midst of one of those conversations that are universal among my generation, the 'I don't know where my industry / career / aspirations will fit in the everchanging landscape'. I told her, and still think, that there will always be a market for trained investigative journalists, mostly because they can do a story justice in a way most bloggers often can't.

I do, however, think that the newspaper is more or less dead in the water, and the magazine (in terms of news, not niche interests) is in a similar, though less drastic, situation.

The newspaper I would operate, on a base level, like a blog network. Individual blogs, run by trained journalists, covering one specific beat. Stories could be reported in full, or as they develop, but each beat would have a distinct voice, and the overarching narrative that can be established by having the same person covering the same issues over time.

Mix this with a solid amount of professional oversight, and it could be curated into a standard daily paper, and more than that, into tailored subscription papers, online or in print, that would only include selected beats, or writers, or even tags. Obviously, this would be available online as it happened, because speed is the other major advantage that blogging has over traditional outlets.

Depressingly, the idea of a voice, or author narrative coming through for current newspapers is more likely to mean a columnist that completely ignores the concept of critical distance from the story (paging Rosie DiManno) than it is to give each beat a character.

This isn't a well defined concept. But I think the current approach taken by newspapers to maintain an online presence that mixes the failings of blogs, with incompleteness when compared to the print edition, is doomed.

If someone would print me a one section version of the Globe and Mail, written by only people I respect, and containing only stuff I care about, I'd be willing to subscribe just for convenience. This is, of course, related to my obsession with print on demand.

if people care, they matter. treat them that way.

My instinct is that this is a generational thing, but I rarely think of phones when I think of outreach, interaction, etc. Phones, to me, inherently mean sloppy, delayed, and often impersonal, when used in connection with products, services or brands. However, I just read something on Seth Godin's Blog that got me thinking:

Shouldn't every single inbound call be answered in one ring? Shouldn't there be as much spent on self-service customer support as is spent on the design of the selling part of your website? Shouldn't you be tracking in the finest detail what people have to say when they call in? Shouldn't you be rewarding call center operators by how long they keep people on the phone, not how many calls they can handle a minute? Shouldn't there be an easy, fast and happy way for an operator to instantly upgrade a call to management (not a supervisor, I hate supervisors) who can actually learn something from the caller, not just make them go away?

This more or less dovetails a lot of what I was saying when I wrote about social media relations. A phone is a tool like anything else, but my own little fishbowl skews towards the digital, I often forget that this is a simple thing that can be done better. I feel like the entire industry does, too.

One of my core tenets is that information is precious, and it should be held on to for the good of everyone, on either side of the transaction. If you leave it on the table, whether through less-than-stellar CSR service on the phone, or by ignoring online communities, I immediately wonder how seriously you take your customers.

People who care enough to pick up the phone are the same as people who care enough to contribute to an online community. They keep the lights on at your company, because people who care are people who pay. Keeping them happy isn't always cheap, but it is almost always worth it. Learning from them is priceless.

Why do we assume that interacting with the people who care is something that belongs at the bottom of the ladder, when interacting directly with corporate clients, and keeping them happy would never be outsourced, or left to the inexperienced.?

fashion / branding as transferable signifiers.

Fashion is a way of communicating. When you get your message wrong, it’s good that the people around you let you know. - Dries Van Noten.

Branding practices, in general, have a lot to learn from fashion.

Over the last several months, I've developed a more than passing interest in fashion. This has, for some people, come across as more of a vanity issue than anything else. I'll freely admit that vanity has something to do with it, as I care what I look like. But I also care what the way I look says. I care about the role clothing plays in my projected persona, and the interpretations of my identity that others make.

I recently referred to branding as a transferable signifier, something that consumers can take onto themselves as an element of a constructed, projected identity. The connection between clothing and branding is one that transcends logos. A specific cut, style or fit, is potentially as heavy with meaning as the brand of any global corporation.

A lot of my ideas about this stem from issues and questions I have related to racial identifiers and stereotypes. As a mixed-race (Jamaican / Irish) individual, I find myself asking questions about how certain clothing makes me look. I'll be the first to admit that this is a stupid thing to have to ask, but I'm in no way blind to the fact that if you put me in certain clothing, a percentage of the population will immediately make negative assumptions about me. There is a smaller-still percentage that will make negative assumptions about me regardless, but I'm still fascinated by the potential of having an immediate visual signifier that I can control - in contrast to my facial features and skin tone, an immediate visual signifier that I cannot (and have no desire to) alter.

If fashion is a method of communication, then I would argue branding with logos is the crudest form of yelling in comparison. Brands should aspire to be like clothes - something that adds to the consumer identity without usurping it. Something that takes first impressions into account, and manipulates them to the consumers advantage. Something that intends to speak louder than words.

on depressing news.

Paul Arden is dead.  He was a brilliant ad man, and hell of a thinker, but, for me, he was the author of 'It's not how good you are, it's how good you want to be', probably the only non-fiction work intended to inspire that actually inspires me.

You can buy it here, and I suggest you do.

Paul Arden died at 65.  The former Saatchi & Saatchi creative director, and titan, will be missed by anyone who appreciates good ideas, and the shameless fight to do and be better.

thoughts on viral vs brand extension.

I've in the middle of an extended thought-experiment in relation to building a brand in performing arts, in this case music.  It brought to mind an important division in building engagement and a following, that between what is marketing, and what is brand extension.

The example that first comes to mind is the one most often used here - that of the ARG for NIN's Year Zero.  It was marketing in the sense that it attracted attention, created buzz, and built anticipation.  But foremost, what made it special is it had no relation to sales in terms of content.  The Year Zero ARG was a world-expanding exercise - to the extent where understanding of the record was lessened without an understanding of the backstory.

This is what I'm interested in.  Building a backstory, a world, a datashadow, whatever you want to call it, around a creative product.  Not because it build interest, but because it builds context.  Context naturally creates points of association.  That builds discussion, without it being destroyed by too much meddling.

You aren't creating a brand, or a product, anymore.  You're creating a world, and experience, and you need to understand that products will be dragged into this space whether or not you plan on it.  You are sharing your idea with the world.  It would be nice if we were all kind enough to share instructions to go with the idea, a mindset that people can explore to give them the best view of what you are striving for with your creative product.

So, I guess I'm inherently against the idea of intentionally trying to 'go viral' with an ad, despite the vast number of excellent examples that have worked well for brands.  I'm not interested in short term asides that attract the partial attention that online advertising is settling for.  I realize it isn't plausible in every industry, but I want brand building to be inextricably tied to world building.

If what you create, whether it be art, object or solution, can't be explored on a deeper level than what it is, surrounded by intriguing content that doesn't add anything, I have trouble thinking of how you can build a community around it.

And if you can't build a community, I have trouble thinking of a situation in which you are at all secure.

muxtape (curation).

As you well know, the entire internet is a-twitter over Justin Ouellette's Muxtape, a frankly brilliant and wonderfully simple social music site, that encourages users to make mixtapes, share the url with friends, and generally learn about new bands.

I'm not going to talk about how perfect the interface is, or how great the UX is, or how much I appreciate the singular focus of the site in a world where most services are incomprehensibly complex, for no reason.

Instead, I'm going to talk about what Muxtape is really about, in my eyes.  Not to point to my own writing too often, but I think the value of the service is one of microcuration.

In the post linked above, I talk about the internet as a taste economy, and the value of curation in sites like blogs, to learn more about the creator, and in creating an audience.  I also mention the ability to curate in smaller worlds, thereby justifying smaller audiences.  Muxtape takes this to another level, because it's curation for a select group, by an individual, and nothing else.

If you check out my Muxtape, you get a pretty clear view of my taste in music.  More importantly, you get a great view of how I want my taste in music to be perceived.  Curation is a two way street in this sense, and a muxtape has the benefit (unintentionally, and as a side effect of it's glorious focus on usability) of offering no distractions.  Everything there is an element of the creator's taste, and there's no space to editorialize and obfuscate the information offered by the selections with rationalizations.

Curation is the greatest thing the social web has to offer, and it's often confused with customization or personalization.  The value isn't in creating exactly what you want.  It's in creating something that gives off the cues, and the impression, that the creator desires.

Which is why I opened with CRS' us placers (heavily sampling Thom Yorke's Eraser), and closed with Thom Yorke doing an acoustic version of 'videotape'.  Given no space to create a narrative, I still can't abandon my inner english major, and the need for literary devices.  And having to do it without words, in some way, makes it clearer.

social media relations (practice)

Social Media Relations is, first and foremost, not about you, or your brand, or what you have decided is cool, or what you offer. It’s about learning from, and fostering relationships with, communities that already have an interest in your product. It’s about connecting with communities that already have an interest in what you do, and using that interest to build a kind of partnership.

SMR reps in online communities would exist as a resource. They would offer ‘insider’ information to the interested, clear up misconceptions, and generally only speak when spoken to. They offer support when acceptable, but do not attempt to take control.

Most important, they observe, learn, and explain. Observe how each community works. Learn what they think. Explain to brands and corporations what the people they should be focusing on think, want, and how they interact with the product in question. This is mutually beneficial, and gives a utility to a role that would otherwise be too easily subverted into an attempt at control.

This isn’t about sponsorship. It’s an idea based around the idea that adding value to a community is worth more than owning the community. It’s about allowing the people who are most engaged, who matter most, to interact with an offshoot of a brand they care for. This means providing information, and content, that they can interact with and remix. I’m not talking about crowd sourcing – this isn’t an attempt to farm out content creation to generate authenticity. The only benefit that the brand should want out of this is a happy, engaged community, and the opportunity to understand the core consumer base.

Not owning or sponsoring these communities is key, because the second money enters the equation, brands start to silence criticism and dissent. That only has two outcomes; either the community is destroyed, or the brand throws away opportunities to learn and innovate. Dealing positively with criticism is proof that you ACTUALLY value your consumers, instead of just valuing the free PR, and the brand evangelism. It’s essential that it isn’t your garden, or the temptation to wall it off will be overwhelming.

Bounce ideas of your community. Run concept sketches by them. Don’t give them decision-making power (that feels, and is, gimmicky), but use the resource they provide to make better decisions yourself. Link them from the official site, but only if they want that.

This isn’t about preaching to the converted. It’s about welcoming them into the fold without trying to change them. It’s about elevating the status of the converted in terms of the brand / consumer relationship.

And it should be happening on every platform that has an engaged community that cares about what you offer. Because you shouldn’t care about anything more than understanding who you are dealing with, and who you are creating for.

This post is a continuation of Social Media Relations (Rationale)

social media relations (rationale)

I’ve mentioned recently that public relations is an industry in flux. PR is in large part based on the dominance of the current media paradigm, and the core strategies are nearly completely top-down in focus. We (the royal we) don’t have a standard for approaching social media, and online communities. It shows.

While systems like the Facebook beacon are interesting, they are also inherently invasive, and create notable discomfort within a community. This is because, at core, we don’t have a model for participation in these communities. Instead, we have systems for exploitation, and colonization.

The average participant in an online community, whether it be a message board, virtual world, chat room or social network, is able to spot the difference between a participant and an interloper. The problem is, media still have it in their head that influence is created by brute force. This is one of the first mistakes I discussed on this blog – signal as noise – the way everyone with a message thinks getting louder is the key to being heard.

Social media is built on participation by equals, and the promise of meritocracy. The standard plan thus far has been to use real-world money and influence to buy a position that a user would have to earn, or could not attain, in a virtual world. Our problem is that we either take too much of a role in these communities, and attempt to shape them, or take too little of a role, for fear of causing a revolt. There has to be a middle ground, building on the tradition of information facilitation, and building relationships.

I’ve described public relations as getting someone you trust to tell you something we’d like you to hear. This is traditionally done by building media interest, and piggybacking on that inherent trust – a newspaper has built in credibility, and built in trust – to ensure that the information you receive has been vetted by professionals. The issue is that people are increasingly aware that professionals are not all that difficult to influence.

The difference between what I see, and what I’m suggesting is the separation between colonization and diplomacy. Take second life for an example – IBM, American Apparel, etc. talked to Linden, built custom store fronts that offered little to no utility, and basically received the online version of anti-gentrification response. This was inarguably an invasion – regardless of brand messages or reputation, this was the real world saying ‘You’ve created a new market, we don’t understand it, but we want it.’

The opposite approach, in my mind, is the Second Life Sketches that Warren Ellis writes for Reuters. This was something that isn’t about Ellis, or Reuters. It was about SL, and examining what made it special, and what made it worthwhile. It creates, I’d argue, a positive relationship between SL and Reuters. It’s not a one sided attempt to capitalize on what people do in world, everyone benefits.

Diplomacy is about envoys, understanding, and (despite modern real world happenings) shouldn’t involve strong-arming anyone. Brand or Personality envoys should be clearly identified, at be at a level that doesn’t give them special benefit over regular participants in an online community. This is the one thing Facebook has done beautifully with Fan Pages – an opt in system that offers brands a place to connect that is separate, and less full featured, than a personal profile. Brands are not part of the Community. The Community is paramount.

If brands want inroads into a community, I’d suggest they approach from this angle. Have people tasked to work in online communities, clearly labeled as representatives of the brand, and clearly identified as real people. No special treatment, no arguing, no misinformation. Just offer facts, links to useful information, and when suitable, special offers, benefits, etc.

Sponsorship is all well and good, and creates positive associations. But I’d imagine better ones come together when influencers are left to their own devices, and representatives come in when they can offer something useful. (Swag, information, access to that which is normally not available)

The most important advice I can offer is that, in an online community, it’s never about the brands involved, never about the sponsor, never about the platform. It’s about the community. If you can’t provide value to that community, you are an interloper. Your actions will be deemed disruptive, and the community will associate that action with the people and things you represent.

This post is continued in Social Media Relations (Practice)